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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is the Final Office Action for application number 18/624,017 ELECTRONIC DEVICE AND CABLE CLIP THEREOF filed on 4/1/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending. This Final Office Action is in response to applicant’s reply dated 1/7/2026. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Applicant's amendment necessitated any new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 12, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by United States Patent No. 6,885,805 to Asada.
[AltContent: arrow]With regards to claim 12, Asada teaches a device having a retainer (5), the retainer being curved with a radian and formed with a curved accommodation space
PNG
media_image1.png
226
506
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]having two non-parallel openings
PNG
media_image1.png
226
506
media_image1.png
Greyscale
along the radian, and a fixing structure (20) extending from a back of the retainer.
With regards to claim 18, Asada teaches, wherein the retainer is further formed with a curved opening and the curved opening communicates with the curved accommodation space. (See Above)
With regards to claim 20, Asada teaches wherein the fixing structure has a plate (23) and a connecting portion (21), and the connecting portion connects the plate and the back of the retainer. (See Above)
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) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent No. 6,885,805 to Asada and in view of United States Patent No. 11,473,540 to Ryu et al.
With regards to claim 13, Asada shows wherein the retainer comprises a first cover (16) and a second cover (5), the covers are detachable from one another to be opened or closed and to expose or cover the curved accommodation space. Asada does not teach that the first cover is rotatably connected to the second cover.
Ryu et al. teaches a cable retainer (120) having covers (121, 122) the covers being rotatable to open or close the device and it would be obvious to have used a rotatable cover to open and close because they perform the same function as a separable cover.
With regards to claim 14, Asada teaches wherein the first cover has a first engaging portion (17a) and the second cover has a second engaging portion (12a) wherein, when the first cover is closed with respect to the second cover, the first engaging portion engages with the second engaging portion. (See Figure 1)
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s argument are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11 are allowed.
Claims 15-17 and19 are 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.
With regards to claim 1, the prior art does not teach an electronic device comprising: a chassis; a support bracket disposed in the chassis; and a cable clip comprising a retainer and a fixing structure, the retainer being curved with a radian and formed with a curved accommodation space having two non-parallel openings along the radian, the fixing structure extending from a back of the retainer, the cable clip being fixed on the support bracket by the fixing structure.
With regards to claim 15, the prior art does not teach wherein the fixing structure comprises a first plate, a second plate and a connecting portion, and the first plate and the second plate are disposed on the connecting portion in parallel.
With regards to claim 19, the prior art does not teach wherein the retainer further has two guiding portions, and the two guiding portions are located at opposite sides of the curved opening and are inclined in directions away from each other.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to Amy J. Sterling at telephone number 571-272-6823 or to Supervisor Jonathan Liu at 571-272-8227, if the examiner cannot be reached. The fax machine number for the Technology center is 571-273-8300 (formal amendments) or 571-273-6823 (informal communications only). Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application should be directed to the Technology Center receptionist at 571-272-3600.
/AMY J. STERLING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631 1/27/26