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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1)(a2) as being unpatentable over Dissel (DE 10325936).
Regarding claim 1: Dissel (Figures 1-2) teaches a wall plate for DIN rail style devices comprising: a rail (i.e. 18) extending along a longitudinal axis and configured for receiving DIN rail style devices mounted thereto; a surface mount section (i.e. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) extending along the longitudinal axis from a first lateral end of the surface mount section to a second lateral end of the surface mount section, wherein the rail is connected integrally to the surface mount section, wherein the surface mount section is configured to be mounted to a surface to support the rail and DIN rail style devices from the surface; and a cable support (i.e. 20) connected integrally to the surface mount section, wherein the cable support includes cable anchors (i.e. ends of 20) extending laterally away from the rail configured to support cables and/or wires extending from the DIN rail style devices tied to the cable anchors securing the cables and/or wires to the cable anchors, wherein the rail, the surface mount section, and the cable support are monolithic with one another.
Regarding claim 2: Dissel (Figures 1-2) teaches the wall plate as recited in claim 1, wherein the rail includes: a mounting plate (i.e. top plates of 18) extending along the longitudinal axis; an opposed pair of rail risers (i.e. 12, 13) extending from lateral edges of the mounting plate, wherein the rail risers extend longitudinally parallel to the longitudinal axis, and extend out of plane from the mounting plate; and a respective mounting flange (i.e. top faces of 12, 13) connected to each of the respective rail risers, wherein the mounting flanges are defined in a plane parallel to the mounting plate, extend away from one another, and are configured to receive the DIN rail style devices mounted thereto.
Regarding claim 3: Dissel (Figures 1-2) teaches the wall plate as recited in claim 2, wherein the surface mount section is coplanar with the mounting plate, and wherein the surface mount section and mounting plate define a plurality of fastener apertures (i.e. apertures of 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and between plates of 18) therethrough in an array for flexibility in mounting the wall plate to a planar surface.
Regarding claim 4: Dissel (Figures 1-2) teaches the wall plate as recited in claim 2, wherein the cable support is connected to the surface mount section by a support riser (i.e. base of 20) that extends laterally from the surface mount section in a direction in common with a first one of the rail risers.
Regarding claim 5: Dissel (Figures 1-2) teaches the wall plate as recited in claim 4, wherein the cable support is a first cable support (i.e. 20 to the right in figure 1), wherein the support riser is a first support riser and further comprising: a second support riser (i.e. base of 20 on the left) extending from the wall mount section on a side of the wall mount section opposite from the first support riser with the rail between the first and second support risers; and a second cable support (i.e. 20 on the left) extending from the second support riser in a direction away from the rail.
Regarding claim 6: Dissel (Figure 2) teaches the wall plate as recited in claim 5, wherein the first and second cable supports define a first plane that is further from the surface mount section than is a second plane defined by the mounting flanges of the rail.
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.
Claims 7-8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dissel and Mangelberger (DE 102016103516 A1).
Regarding claim 7: Dissel (Figure 1) teaches the wall plate as recited in claim 5, wherein each of the first and second cable supports has cable anchors, including: a linear series of cable tie apertures (i.e. inner corners of each T-bar at end of 20) extending in a direction parallel to the longitudinal axis, with a respective cable tie pillar (i.e. supporting the T-bar at end of 20) between each adjacent pair of the cable tie apertures configured to support cables tied thereto;
but does not specifically teach a comb including linear series of cable tie comb teeth extending to an edge of the wall plate with a respective comb tooth gap defined between each adjacent pair of the cable tie comb teeth, wherein the cable tie comb teeth are configured to support cables tied thereto, wherein the cable tie apertures are more proximate to the rail than are the cable tie comb teeth.
however, Mangelberger (Figure 1) teaches a comb (i.e. 6, 7, 8, 9) including linear series of cable tie comb teeth (i.e. 6) extending to an edge of the wall plate with a respective comb tooth gap (i.e. 9) defined between each adjacent pair of the cable tie comb teeth, wherein the cable tie comb teeth are configured to support cables tied thereto, wherein the cable tie apertures are more proximate to the rail than are the cable tie comb teeth.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the wall plate taught by Dissel to have the comb as taught by Mangelberger so as to provide cable tie apertures to the desired areas of the wall plate.
Regarding claim 8: Dissel and Mangelberger teach the wall plate as recited in claim 7, Mangelberger further teaches wherein each of the cable tie comb teeth terminates with a t-cross bar (i.e. 7).
Claim 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dissel.
Regarding claim 9: Dissel (Figures 1-2) teaches the wall plate as recited in claim 5, wherein a first major aperture (i.e. between 4 and 5) is defined in the surface mount section in an area between the rail and the first support riser, and between the first and second lateral ends of the surface mount section,
but does not specifically teach wherein a second major aperture is defined in the surface mount section in an area between the rail and the second support riser, and between the first and second lateral ends of the surface mount section, wherein each of the first and second major apertures is several times larger than any of a plurality of fastener apertures defined through the surface mount section and through the mounting plate of the rail.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to duplicate the major aperture taught by Dissel so as to define a second major aperture opposite the first major aperture. This would provide additional wire routing options to a user. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
Therefore, Dissel teaches a second major aperture (i.e. the modification provides a duplicate of the first major aperture between 18 and 2) is defined in the surface mount section in an area between the rail and the second support riser, and between the first and second lateral ends of the surface mount section, wherein each of the first and second major apertures is several times larger than any of a plurality of fastener apertures defined through the surface mount section and through the mounting plate of the rail.
Claims 10-11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dissel and Sigg (EP 1443617).
Regarding claim 10: Dissel teaches the wall plate as recited in claim 5, but does not specifically teach wherein the first lateral end of the surface mount section defines a first socket more proximate to the second cable support than to the first cable support, wherein the second lateral end of the surface mount section defines a second socket more proximate to the first cable support than to the second cable support, and further comprising: a first interlock tab extending from the first lateral end of the surface mount section more proximate to the first cable support than to the second cable support, wherein the first interlock tab is equidistant from the rail with the second socket; and a second interlock tab extending from the second lateral end of the surface mount section more proximate to the second cable support than to the first cable support, wherein the second interlock tab is equidistant from the rail with the first socket, wherein the first and second interlock tabs are sized and shaped to interlock with the first and second sockets for end-to-end connection of the wall plate with one or more like wall plates for facilitating aligning multiple wall plates in a straight line along the longitudinal axis, wherein any of the multiple wall plates can be rotated 180 degrees and still fit together for flexibility in mounting and mating the multiple wall plates.
However, Sigg (See figure 4 and marked version of figure 4 below) teaches wherein the first lateral end of the surface mount section defines a first socket (i.e. see figure below) more proximate to the second cable support (i.e. 16 on the right) than to the first cable support (i.e. 16 on the left), wherein the second lateral end of the surface mount section defines a second socket (i.e. corresponding to the interlocking tab of another wall plate) more proximate to the first cable support than to the second cable support, and further comprising: a first interlock tab (i.e. see figure below) extending from the first lateral end of the surface mount section more proximate to the first cable support than to the second cable support, wherein the first interlock tab is equidistant from the rail with the second socket; and a second interlock tab (i.e. corresponding to the socket of another wall plate) extending from the second lateral end of the surface mount section more proximate to the second cable support than to the first cable support, wherein the second interlock tab is equidistant from the rail with the first socket, wherein the first and second interlock tabs are sized and shaped to interlock with the first and second sockets for end-to-end connection of the wall plate with one or more like wall plates for facilitating aligning multiple wall plates in a straight line along the longitudinal axis, wherein any of the multiple wall plates can be rotated 180 degrees and still fit together for flexibility in mounting and mating the multiple wall plates.
PNG
media_image1.png
453
540
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the wall plate taught by Dissel to have the sockets and interlock tabs as taught by Sigg so as to facilitate a modular arrangement of wall plates.
Regarding claim 11: Dissel and Sigg teach the wall plate as recited in claim 10, Dissel (Figures 1-2) teaches further comprising: a first end stop (i.e. inner face of 12) extending out of plane from the surface mount section at the first lateral end of the surface mount section, configured to stop rail mounted components sliding off the rail at the first lateral end of the surface mount section; and a second end stop (i.e. inner face of 13) extending out of plane from the surface mount section at the second lateral end of the surface mount section, configured to stop rail mounted components sliding off the rail at the second lateral end of the surface mount section.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-20 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 12, the prior art of record does not fairly teach or suggest wherein the parallel front and back surfaces are free from overhangs so the back surfaces of the wall plate can stack flush against the front surfaces of a like wall plate alone or in obvious combination with the remainder of the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Gregory Mangot whose telephone number is 703-756-5737. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm ET.
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, Christopher Koehler can be reached at 571-272-3560. 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.
/GREGORY L MANGOT/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/CHRISTOPHER M KOEHLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights