DETAILED ACTION
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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means,” and are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: retaining means in claim 4 and interlocking enclosure means in claim 9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Applicant defines the retaining means as ribs, protrusions and fins and defines the interlocking enclosure means as tab (18).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-7 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denner US 9441763 (hereinafter Denner) in view of Fukumoto US 8672276 (hereinafter Fukumoto) in view of Nakamura US 4681288 (hereinafter Nakamura).
Re. Cl. 1, Denner discloses: A cable fastening device (Fig. 3) comprising: an arrangement of a first clip (see 1, Fig. 3), wherein the first clip is configured to engage around a cable (see Fig. 1 and Abstract, Line 1); a fixing element (2, Fig. 2) comprising: a guide element (21, 23 Fig. 2); and a retaining element (2, Fig. 2) having a base portion (2, Fig. 2); and a mount (1, Fig. 1) which at least partially surrounds the arrangement of the first clip with respect to a casing surface (exterior surfaces of 15, 16) thereof (see Fig. 1), wherein the guide element is mechanically connected to the arrangement of the first clip (see Fig. 3, via 12), wherein the retaining element is configured to mount the fastening device in a fixed position (see Fig. 1-3, by passing the fixing element 2 into a hole or opening in a surface for instance), and wherein the guide element is mounted in the arrangement of the first clip in the mount (see Fig. 3).
Re. Cl. 2, Denner discloses: the mount comprises a first groove and a second groove (12s, Fig. 1) configured to mount the guide element (see Fig. 1-3), such that the first groove and the second groove receive an edge or side of the guide element (see Fig. 2-3), and wherein the first groove and the second groove are designed substantially along the curvature of the casing surface (see Fig. 2-3).
Re. Cl. 3, Denner discloses: the guide element comprises a panel substantially in a form of a casing surface segment of a cylinder (see Fig. 2, 21, 23) and/or designed to correspond to the curvature profile of the casing surface of the arrangement of the first clip and the second clip or is designed depending on the curvature profile (see Fig. 2-3).
Re. Cl. 4, Denner discloses: wherein the arrangement of the first clip (see Fig. 1-3) is configured to engage around a cable in a force-fitting manner and fix the cable against rotation and displacement in the arrangement of the first clip (see Fig. 1-3; Col. 1, Line 63-Col. 2, Line 1) wherein the first clip comprise a retaining means (13, Fig. 1) configured to clamp the two cables at an outer circumference thereof (see Fig. 5-6).
Re. Cl. 5, Denner discloses: the retaining means comprises retaining ribs (see 13, Fig. 1 and 5-6), retaining protrusions, or retaining fins.
Re. Cl. 6, Denner discloses: the retaining ribs are hollow and/or elastic (see Fig. 5).
Re. Cl. 7, Denner discloses: the retaining ribs have a wall thickness lower than one third to one fifth of the average width of the retaining ribs or of the height of the retaining ribs (Col. 2, Lines 31-36).
Re. Cl. 8, Denner discloses: the retaining ribs are substantially trapezoidal with respect to their cross-sectional area, and an inwardly facing side surface of the retaining ribs is rounded in the form of a recess in a top surface of the retaining ribs (Col. 2, Lines 37-42).
Re. Cl. 9, Denner discloses: the arrangement of the first clip is of integral design (see Fig. 1-3), wherein the arrangement of the first clip comprises two segments connected to one another by means of a film hinge and/or an elastic web (17, Fig. 1), and wherein an opposing side comprises an interlocking closure means (see 18, Fig. 1)
Re. Cl. 10, Denner discloses: the retaining element comprises a tap or arrowhead (Col. 3, Lines 7-9) extending from the base portion in a direction away from the guide element (see Fig. 2).
Re. Cl. 12, Denner discloses: the arrangement of the first clip is of integral design (see Fig. 1), wherein the two segments comprise a half a clip side by side (see Fig. 1).
Re. Cls. 1, 4, 9 and 11-13, Denner discloses that the device fixes at least one cable (Abstract, Lines 1-3) but does not disclose the arrangement includes as second clip, the first clip and the second clip having different internal diameters or the base portion having a cylindrical shape curving in a direction away from the guide element (Cl. 1), the arrangement includes a second clip configured to engage around a second of two cables in the force-fitting manner and fix the two cables against rotation and displacement in the arrangement of the first clip and the second clip (Cl. 4), the first clip and the second clip is of integral design, wherein the arrangement of the first clip and the second clip comprises two segments connected to one another on one side by means (Cl. 9), the first clip and the second clip are arranged side by side to form a combined double clip to each engage around the respective cables side by side (Cl. 11), the arrangement of the first clip and the second clip is of an integral design, wherein the two segments comprise half a clip side by side, and wherein the two segments are designed as combined to form two full clips configured to surround a cable (Cl. 12), each half of a clip formed side by side in each segment are each formed as a half-shell, open to a side, at which the half of a clip is jointed with a half-shall of the other segment (Cl. 13). Fukumoto discloses a cable fastening device (Fig. 1) which includes an arrangement of a first clip (74, 18 Fig. 1) and a second clip (17, 73 Fig. 1), wherein the first clip and the second clip having different internal diameters (see Fig. 1 and 9, supporting 200 and 201 respectively) wherein the first clip and the second clip are configured to engage around a cable (see 200, 201 Fig. 8); the arrangement of the first clip and the second clip is configured to engage around two cables in a force-fitting manner and fix the two cables against rotation and displacement in the arrangement of the first clip and the second clip (see Fig. 8); the first clip and the second clip is of integral design (see Fig. 1), wherein the arrangement of the first clip and the second clip comprises two segments connected to one another on one side by means of a hinge and/or an elastic web (72, Fig. 1), and wherein an opposing side comprises an interlocking closure means (21, 76 Fig. 1); the first clip and the second clip are arranged side by side to form a combined double clip to each engage around a cable side by side (see Fig. 1 and 8); the arrangement of the first clip and the second clip is of an integral design (see Fig. 1, 73 is integrally connected to 74 and 18 is integrally connected to 17), wherein the two segments comprise half a clip side by side (see Fig. 1), and wherein the two segments are designed as combined to form two full clips configured to surround a cable (see Fig. 8); each half of a clip formed side by side in each segment are each formed as a half-shell, open to a side, at which the half of a clip is jointed with a half-shall of the other segment (see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Denner device to have a first and second clip (i.e. accommodate more than one cable) as disclosed by Fukumoto with reasonable expectation of success since Denner states that the device is intended to support at least one cable (Abstract, Lines 1-3) and Fukumoto discloses a known manner to support two cables. Such a modification would provide an added advantage of spacing apart the cables which would better organize the cables, keep the cables parallel to one another and prevent vibrations in one cable from being transmitted to the other cable.
Re. Cl. 1, the combination of Denner in view of Fukumoto does not disclose the base portion having a cylindrical shape curving in a direction away from the guide element. Nakamura discloses a wire holding clamp (Fig. 1) which includes a retaining element (2, 4-6 Fig. 1) that functions as a tap or arrowhead to secure the clamp to an opening in a surface (see Fig. 2). Re. Cl. 1, Nakamura discloses the retaining element including a base portion (2, Fig. 2) having a cylindrical shape curving in a direction away from the guide element (see Fig. 1-2, curving downward towards 3/5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the retaining element of Denner to have the structure of Nakamura with reasonable expectation of success since Denner states that it is expedient for the retaining element to be in the form of a tap or arrowhead or “Christmas tree” (Col. 3, Lines 7-9) and Nakamura states that the particular tap/arrowhead retaining element ensures improvement in stability of the fixing component by resisting sideward shifting by virtue of spring forces against the side external force (Col. 2, Lines 60-65).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Re. Applicant’s argument that modifying Denner based on Fukumoto so that it has multiple clips would render Denner inoperable for its intended purpose, the Examiner disagrees. Applicant points out that Denner discusses that the fixing element is able to move relative to the clip itself and argues that modifying Denner to have multiple clips or accommodate two cables would somehow prevent that relative movement. Applicant further argues that since Fukumoto discloses that the fixing member (13) prevents relative rotational movement between the clip and fixing element. However, it appears Applicant is basing their argument solely on the Fukumoto disclosure. The rejection involves modifying the clip (1) of Denner to incorporate multiple tubes as referenced in the Abstract Lines 1-3 and illustrated by Fukumoto. Specifically, it is the Examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill would recognize how to modify the interior of the clip (1) shown in Fig. 1, so that it could accommodate more than one tube therein as taught by Fukumoto. Such a modification would not alter the configuration of the grooves (12), which would still enable for the relative movement between the clip (1) and the fixing member (2). Such a modification would not make Denner inoperable for its intended purpose as contended by the Applicant and therefore Applicant’s argument has been considered but is not persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Slaughter US 2621384, Oram US 6821055, and Cook US 7628665 disclose cable/conduit supports which are segmented to support more than one cable/conduit and are presented to the Applicant for their consideration.
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 CHRISTOPHER E GARFT whose telephone number is (571)270-1171. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m..
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 at (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.
/CHRISTOPHER GARFT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632