DETAILED ACTION
This is the fourth office action for US Application 18/103,320 for a Locking Cable Hanger and Method of Using.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-6, 14-16, and 19-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9,518,683 to Heppler. Regarding claim 1, Heppler discloses a conduit hanger (see figure 7… 300) that can be used for supporting a plurality of DC power cables. The hanger comprises a top portion (305), and a plurality of cable carrying surfaces (325-1, 325-2, 325-3, 325-4). Each cable carrying surface is positioned and configured to receive and to support at least one corresponding cable of the plurality of DC power cables, and to extend completely under the at least one corresponding cable from at least a first side of the at least one corresponding cable to an opposite second side of the at least one corresponding cable, when disposed thereon.
The embodiment of figure 7 does not specifically disclose the hanger as having a top portion structure to engage a messenger wire. However, Heppler discloses another embodiment (see figure 13) where the top surface has a hook (565, 570, 575, or 580) extending from the top surface for connection to an overhead conduit. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided a hook from the top portion of the embodiment shown in figure 7, to suspend the hanger from a conduit as taught by the embodiment in figure 13. Heppler does not specifically disclose the hanger as supported from a messenger wire. However, the specific conduit is a matter of design preference and one of ordinary skill in the art would know that the hanger could be used with a different, known conduit, such as messenger wire.
Regarding claim 2, the top portion comprises a hook (see figure 13… 565, 570, 575, or 580) structured to at least partially encircle the messenger wire.
Regarding claim 3, Heppler does not disclose each cable carrying surface as having a different width. However, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention would have known to change the size of the cable carrying surfaces to accommodate cables of different sizes, and a device with different widths wouldn’t perform any differently from the device of Heppler.
Regarding claim 4, the plurality of cable carrying surfaces comprises at least three cable carrying surfaces disposed in vertical arrangement (see figure 7 showing 4 cable carrying surfaces). Regarding claim 5, the plurality of cable carrying surfaces comprises at least four cable carrying surfaces disposed in vertical arrangement (see figure 7 showing 4 cable carrying surfaces).
Regarding claim 6, Heppler does not specifically disclose the plurality of cable carrying surfaces as comprising at least five cable carrying surfaces disposed in the vertical arrangement. However, the plurality of cable carrying surfaces comprises at least four cable carrying surfaces disposed in vertical arrangement. However, duplication of parts is an obvious design choice, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention would know to add an additional cable carrying surfaces to the device of Heppler, to support an additional cable.
Regarding claim 14, Heppler discloses a method that can be used for organizing a plurality of DC power cables from an overhead support with a plurality of conduit hangers (see figure 7). Each hanger comprises a top portion (305) and a plurality of cable carrying surfaces (325-1, 325-2, 325-3, and 325-4). Each cable carrying surface is positioned and configured to receive and to support at least one corresponding cable of the plurality of DC power cables and to extend completely under the at least one corresponding cable from at least a first side of the at least one corresponding cable to an opposite second side of the at least one corresponding cable when disposed thereon.
The method comprises: placing a first conduit of the plurality on a first cable carrying surface of the plurality of cable carrying surfaces of each hanger (see figure 7); and placing a second conduit of the plurality on a second cable carrying surface of the plurality of cable carrying surfaces of each cable hanger, wherein the first and second conduits are positioned in vertical arrangement by each hanger (see figure 7).
Heppler does not disclose the hanger as having a top portion structure to engage a messenger wire. However, Heppler discloses another embodiment (see figure 13) where the top surface has a hook (565, 570, 575, or 580) extending from the top surface for connection to an overhead conduit. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided a hook from the top portion of the embodiment shown in figure 7, to suspend the hanger from a conduit as taught by the embodiment in figure 13.
Heppler does not specifically disclose the hanger as supported from a messenger wire or as supporting cables. However, the specific conduit is a matter of design preference and one of ordinary skill in the art would know that the hanger could be used with a different, known conduit, such as messenger wire, to support a different, known conduit, such as a cable. The combination would include the method of engaging the top portion of each hanger with the messenger wire such that each cable hanger hangs below the messenger wire, and the plurality of cable carrying surfaces of each cable hanger are disposed in vertical arrangement.
Regarding claim 15, the method would comprise placing a 3rd conductive cable in engagement with a third cable carrying surface of the plurality cable carrying surfaces of each cable hanger, wherein the first, second, and third conductive cables are positioned in a vertical arrangement by each cable hanger (see figure 7 showing 4 cable carrying surfaces).
Regarding claim 16, the method would comprise placing a 3rd conductive cable in engagement with a fourth cable carrying surface of the plurality cable carrying surfaces of each cable hanger, wherein the first, second, third, and fourth conductive cables are positioned in a vertical arrangement by each cable hanger (see figure 7 showing 4 cable carrying surfaces).
Regarding claim 19, Heppler discloses a conduit hanger (see figure 7) that can be used for supporting a plurality of DC power cables. The hanger comprises a top portion (305) and a plurality of cable carrying surfaces (325-1, 325-2, 325-3, and 325-4). Each cable carrying surface is positioned and configured to receive at least one corresponding DC power cable of the plurality thereon, and the plurality of cable carrying surfaces are disposed in a vertical arrangement (see figure 7).
The embodiment of figure 7 does not specifically disclose the hanger as having a top portion structure to engage a messenger wire. However, Heppler discloses another embodiment (see figure 13) where the top surface has a hook (565, 570, 575, or 580) extending from the top surface for connection to an overhead conduit. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided a hook from the top portion of the embodiment shown in figure 7, to suspend the hanger from a conduit as taught by the embodiment in figure 13. Heppler does not specifically disclose the hanger as supported from a messenger wire. However, the specific conduit is a matter of design preference and one of ordinary skill in the art would know that the hanger could be used with a different, known conduit, such as messenger wire.
Regarding claim 20, the top portion comprises a hook (see figure 13… 565, 570, 575, and 580) structured to at least partially encircle the messenger wire.
Regarding claim 21, Heppler does not disclose each cable carrying surface as having a different width. However, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention would have known to change the size of the cable carrying surfaces to accommodate cables of different sizes, and a device with different widths wouldn’t perform any differently from the device of Heppler.
Regarding claim 22, the plurality of cable carrying surfaces comprises at least three cable carrying surfaces disposed in vertical arrangement (see figure 7 showing 4 cable carrying surfaces). Regarding claim 23, the plurality of cable carrying surfaces comprises at least four cable carrying surfaces disposed in vertical arrangement (see figure 7 showing 4 cable carrying surfaces).
Regarding claim 24, Heppler does not specifically disclose the plurality of cable carrying surfaces as comprising at least five cable carrying surfaces disposed in the vertical arrangement. However, the plurality of cable carrying surfaces comprises at least four cable carrying surfaces disposed in vertical arrangement. However, duplication of parts is an obvious design choice, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention would know to add an additional cable carrying surfaces to the device of Heppler, to support an additional cable.
Regarding claim 25, each cable carrying surface is structured to extend completely under, and to support, the at least one corresponding DC power cable from at least a first side of the at least one corresponding DC power cable to an opposite second side of the at least one corresponding DC power cable when disposed thereon
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 30 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that Heppler discloses a hanger arrangement for supporting pipes and carries no disclosure of any other application, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Also, Applicant argues that pipe and conduit are not interchangeable. However, the definition of conduit is “a pipe, tube or the like, for conveying water or other fluid.” -dictionary.com.
Applicant argues that Heppler identify any part as a hook, but figure 13 clearly shows hooks at the top of the cable hangers suspended on rod 560.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). One of ordinary skill in the art would known that a hanger utilized to suspend a hanger from a rod or other conduit, could be utilized to suspend the cable hanger from a wire.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN M MARSH whose telephone number is (571)272-6819. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9 am-7:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Terrell McKinnon can be reached on 571-272-4797. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197
(toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
STEVEN M. MARSH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3632
/STEVEN M MARSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632
Prosecution Insights