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
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arjomand, US 8,978,210 in view of Stanek, US 3,959,052.
Regarding claim 1, Arjomand discloses a cable tie device comprising: a body (2) comprised of a first surface with a first protrusion (see figure 9B); a connector (1) comprised of a first opening (4); a second protrusion (3) positioned within the first opening (4); and wherein the body (2) is a molded plastic body, and wherein the second protrusion (3) is a channel (see figure 4B; the channel is defined by the protrusion and the walls of the connector 1) configured to engage the first protrusion (of the body 2 in figure 9B); wherein the first protrusion is a plurality of teeth (see an annotated figure 9B below) extending upward from the first surface (see the annotated figure 9B); wherein the second protrusion (3) is a tooth extending downward from a top wall of the first opening (4).
Arjomand does not explicitly disclose the body (2) is a polyvinylchloride (PVC) body [configured to mold to a shape of a plurality of objects when secured around the plurality of objects and then heated]; and further wherein the body is rectangular in shape in a pre-heated state and is in a contoured shape in a post-heated state.
Stanek teaches a body (1) is a polyvinyl plastic (column 3, line 2) body and is configured to mold to a shape of a plurality of objects when secured around the plurality of objects when heated (to shrink the body) and further wherein the body (1) is rectangular in shape (figure 1) in a pre-heated state (stretched) and is in a contoured shape (figure 3) in a post-heated state (has been heated to a temperature in the range of about 250° to 375°). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the body (2) of Arjomand to be heat shrinkable as taught by Stanek to provide more uniform clamping pressure on the objects.
The combination of Arjomand and Stanek does not expressly teach the body is a polyvinylchloride (PVC) body. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further consider polyvinylchloride (PVC) as the polyvinyl plastic material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known (commercially available) material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim language set in brackets [] set forth above and below in this office action are considered by the examiner to be intended use that fails to further limit the structure of the claimed invention. Since the claimed invention is directed solely to that of the cable tie device, the prior art must only be capable of performing the functional recitations in order to be applicable, and in the instant case, the examiner maintains that the tie-wrap cable tie taught by the combination of Arjomand (US 8,978,210) and Stanek (US 3,959,052), is indeed capable of the intended use statements. Note that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations.
PNG
media_image1.png
280
584
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Arjomand and Stanek teaches the cable tie of claim 1. Arjomand further discloses wherein a second surface of the body (2) is comprised of a smooth surface (see figure 9B).
Regarding claim 5, Arjomand discloses a cable tie device comprising: a body (2) comprised of a first surface with a first protrusion (figure 9B); a connector (1) comprised of a first opening (4) and a second opening (4); a second protrusion (3) positioned within the first opening (4); and a third protrusion (3) positioned within the second opening (4; see figures 3A and 3B); wherein the second protrusion (3) is a channel (see figure 4B; the top channel is defined by the protrusion and the walls of the connector 1) positioned on a top wall of the first opening (see figure 4B) and is configured to engage the first protrusion (of the body 2 in figure 9B); and wherein the third protrusion (3) is a channel (see figure 4B; the bottom channel is defined by the protrusion and the walls of the connector 1) positioned on a top wall (either the wall to separate the openings 4 of the connector 1 or the bottom wall of the connector 1 shown in figure 4B) of the second opening (4) and is configured to engage the first protrusion (of the body in figure 9B); wherein the first protrusion is a plurality of teeth (see the annotated figure 9B) extending upward from the first surface (see the annotated figure 9B); wherein the second protrusion (3) is a second plurality of teeth extending downward from a top wall of the first opening (4); and further wherein the third protrusion (3) is a third plurality of teeth (see figure 3A) extending downward (from its wall) from a top wall (relative to the middle wall section of the connector) of the second opening (see figure 3A).
Arjomand does not explicitly disclose and wherein the body (2) is a polyethylene body [configured to mold to a shape of a plurality of cables when secured around the plurality of cables and then heated]. Stanek teaches a tie (band) body (1) wherein the body is a low/high density polyethylene body (see column 3, line 45) [configured to mold to a shape (to provide adequate closure) of a plurality of objects when secured around the plurality of objects and then heated (when heated to a temperature in the range of about 250° to 375°)]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the body (2) of Arjomand to be made of the polyethylene material as taught by Stanek in order to provide a heat-shrinkable feature so that the body can be heated to shrink and further securing the objects intended for fastening by the cable tie.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Arjomand and Stanek teaches the cable tie device of claim 5. Arjomand further discloses wherein a second surface of the body (2) is comprised of a smooth surface (figure 9B).
Claims 13, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arjomand, US 8,978,210 in view of Stanek, US 3,959,052 and further in view of Vorhis, US 2018/0201421.
Concerning claims 13, 19 and 20, given the structure of a cable tie, the structural elements of Arjomand (US 8,978,210) in view of Stanek, US 3,959,052 and further in view of Vorhis, US 2018/0201421 would render the claimed method steps obvious since such would be a logical manner of using the combination.
Regarding claim 13, Arjomand discloses a method of using a cable tie device, the method comprising the following steps: providing a cable tie device comprised of a body (2 ) comprised of a first surface comprised of a first protrusion (see figure 9B) comprising a plurality of teeth (see the annotated figure 9B), and a connector (1) comprised of a first opening (4) comprised of a second protrusion (3) and a second opening (4) comprised of a third protrusion (3); inserting a first end of the body (2) into the second opening (4); wrapping the body (2) around an object (see figure 12); inserting a second end of the body (2) into the first opening (4); and wherein the body (2) is a plastic body; wherein the second protrusion (3) is a tooth (figure 3A) positioned on a top wall (of the connector 1) of the first opening (4) and is configured to engage the first protrusion (of the body 2 of figure 9B); and wherein the third protrusion (3) is a channel (see figure 4B; the bottom channel is defined by the protrusion and the walls of the connector 1) positioned on a top wall (relative to the middle wall section of the connector 1) of the second opening (4) and is configured to engage the first protrusion (of the body 2 of figure 9B).
Arjomand does not explicitly disclose the method step of and applying heat to the body to heat-shrink the body around the object so that the body contacts every exterior surface of the object. Stanek teaches a tie device wherein heat is applied (column 3, line 43) to the body (1) to heat-shrink the body (1) around the object so that the body (1) contacts every exterior surface of the object. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of using the cable tie by Arjomand to include a heat application step with a heat-shrinkable body (made of polyvinyl plastic or polyethylene) as taught by Stanek in order to provide adequate closure around the object(s) and withstand storage and transportation conditions.
The combination of Arjomand and Stanek does not expressly teach wherein the body is a polyolefin body. Vorhis teaches a cable tie wherein the body is manufactured from a suitable material such as polyethylene, polyvinyl chloride (PVC), or polyolefin (see paragraph [0042]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the body of the combination of Arjomand and Stanek to consider polyolefin as further taught by Vorhis in order to provide a more environmentally friendly material than polyvinyl plastic or polyethylene.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Arjomand, Stanek and Vorhis teaches the method of using a cable tie device of claim 13. Arjomand further discloses wherein the first opening (4) is positioned above (figure 3A or 3B) the second opening (4) on the connector (1).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Arjomand, Stanek and Vorhis teaches the method of using a cable tie device of claim 13. The combination further teaches wherein the body can be cut (obvious method step in discarding excess cable length after the tie is fastened to the connector head).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 7, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The amended claims have included new issues not previously considered and therefore have necessitated a new ground of rejection as set forth above. In particular, the requirements of the shape of the body in a pre-heated state (claim 1) and the first protrusion having a plurality of teeth (claims 5 and 13) have been addressed above. Applicant has argued that serrations are notches and therefore cannot be considered “teeth” as claimed. The argument is found not persuasive in view of the rejection of the claims above wherein the teeth limitations are met by Arjomand as further illustrated in the annotated figure 9B. It is the examiner’s position that a tooth structure requires a projecting part for the purpose of engagement and the projections (in between the serrations) provide teethlike feature in figure 9B of Arjomand. Further, applicant has argued that the pawl (3) of Arjomand cannot be considered the claimed “tooth” because the pawl is a movable lever in contrast to a geometrically shaped passive protrusion. The argument is found not persuasive since the broadest reasonable interpretation allows any projecting engagement feature to read on the claimed “tooth” extending from a wall feature.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 for similar art cited.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ROWLAND DO whose telephone number is (571)270-5737. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30 - 7:00 PT.
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, Jason San can be reached at (571) 272-6531. 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.
/R.D./ Examiner, Art Unit 3677
/JASON W SAN/ SPE, Art Unit 3677