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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 28, 2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6, 8, 11-14 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Raymond et al., US 2016/0061356.
Regarding claim 1, Raymond discloses a cable binder (111) [for vehicles], the cable binder comprising: a body (117) [for attachment to the vehicle]; and a strip (113) [for binding cables] which is fixed to the body (117), wherein the binder further comprises a securing mechanism (115, 129) for closing a part of the binder (111) into a loop [around the cables], wherein the body (117) comprises a mounting protrusion (159) [for insertion into an opening in a wall of a component of the vehicle], wherein the mounting protrusion (159) comprises a poka-yoke element (161; prevents mistake of disengaging the body 117) [for engaging with a complementary poka-yoke element in the vehicle's opening], wherein the poka-yoke element (161) of the mounting protrusion (159) comprises a poka-yoke protrusion (169) and/or a recess [such that the mounting protrusion (159) is mountable into the opening in only one direction of the body with respect to the opening], wherein the mounting protrusion (159) has a fixed end (at its base proximal to a rear surface 155), which is attached to the body (117), a free end (opposite of the fixed end and distal to the surface 155) [for insertion into the opening], and a tapered section (165) adjacent to the free end (see figure 11), wherein the tapered section (165) gets narrower towards the free end (see figure 15B) and is delimited by a back surface (167) [for bracing against the wall of the component when the mounting protrusion (159) is inserted through the opening (203)], wherein the back surface (167) is offset from the free end (see figures 7 and 11), wherein a section (163-1 or 163-2) of the mounting protrusion (159) extending from the back surface (167) towards the fixed end (near 155) is narrower (since 163 and 167 are combined to define a length dimension of 165; figure 7) than the tapered section (165) at its end adjacent to the back surface (167), and wherein the mounting protrusion (159) further comprises a slit (between ends 173-1 and 173-2; see figure 7) dividing the mounting protrusion (159) into at least two mounting protrusion parts (171-1, 171-2) along the mounting protrusion's length (see figure 7 and figure 11), the slit extending from a leading portion (see an annotated figure 11 below) of the tapered section (165) to a point of attachment (see the annotated figure 11) of the mounting protrusion (159) to the body (117), such that the at least two mounting protrusion parts (171-1, 171-2) are spaced apart from each other by the slit (see figure 7 and figure 11), the at least two mounting protrusion parts (171-1, 171-2) being flexible such that they can be moved closer together across the slit (see figure 11) [during insertion into the opening by bending toward each other about their respective point of attachment to the body].
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 binder, 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 cable tie fastener disclosed by Raymond (US 2016/0061356), Laporte, US 2007/0028426 or Dyer, US 8,726,468, 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
645
960
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Raymond discloses the cable binder according to claim 1, wherein the securing mechanism (115) is a zip tie mechanism (comprising the pawl 115 with ratchet teeth 129 of the strip so that the zip tie mechanism is provided).
Regarding claim 6, Raymond discloses the cable binder according to claim 1, wherein when viewed in a direction parallel to the length of the mounting protrusion (159), an outer perimeter of the tapered section (165) forms at least a part (having a contribution to forming) of a circle (see figure 5).
Regarding claim 8, Raymond discloses the cable binder according to claim 1, wherein the back surface (167) is perpendicular to the insertion direction of the mounting protrusion (159) into the opening (203).
Regarding claim 11, Raymond discloses the cable binder according to claim 1, wherein the strip comprises an anti-slip structure (127-1, 127-2) placed on the side of the strip (113) [meant for contacting the cables].
Regarding claim 12, Raymond discloses the cable binder according to claim 1, wherein each mounting protrusion part (161-1, 161-2) has a cross section when sectioned by a plane parallel to the insertion direction of the mounting protrusion (159) [into the opening], the cross section having a first arm (see 167-1 and 167-2), which is parallel with the insertion direction (figure 12), and a second arm (169-1 or 169-2), which is angled by an acute angle relative to the first arm (167).
Regarding claim 13, Raymond discloses a cable-binding assembly for vehicles comprising: a component (201) for a vehicle, wherein the component (201) comprises a wall with an opening (203); and the cable binder (111) according to claim 1, wherein the opening (203) comprises a poka-yoke element (edges of the opening 203) for engaging with the poka-yoke element (161) of the binder (111) when the body (117) of the binder (111) is mounted by the mounting protrusion (159) into the opening (203).
Regarding claim 14, Raymond discloses the cable-binding assembly according to claim 13, wherein the back surface (a step on 167) is parallel with a surface (a tip end on 175) of the body (117) to which the mounting protrusion (159) is attached (see figure 6), wherein a distance between the back surface (of 167) and the surface of the body (117) to which the mounting protrusion (159) is attached is equal to a thickness (see figure 13) of the wall (201) containing the opening (203).
Regarding claim 16, Raymond discloses the cable binder according to claim 1, wherein each of the at least two mounting protrusion parts (171-1, 171-2) includes a first arm (161-1) and a second arm (161-2), the first arm (161-1) extending parallel to an insertion direction (figure 12) of the mounting protrusion (159), the second arm (161-2) being bendable relative to the first arm (161-1).
Regarding claim 17, Raymond discloses the cable binder according to claim 16, wherein the poka-yoke protrusion (169) and/or recess comprises, for each of the least two mounting protrusion parts (171-1, 171-2), an asymmetrical tab (a step; 169-1) extending from the first arm (161-1) of the mounting protrusion part (171-1).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raymond et al., US 2016/0061356.
Regarding claim 3, Raymond discloses the cable binder according to claim 1, wherein the binder is made of an inexpensive plastic material or a wide variety of alternative materials. Raymond does not explicitly disclose the plastic material containing a glass filler. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider the plastic material having glass filler, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 15, Raymond discloses the assembly according to claim 13 for an automotive (vehicle) panel to retain a group of electrical wires. Raymond does not explicitly disclose the automotive (vehicle) panel is specifically a vehicle lamp. However, the examiner takes Official Notice that it is known in the art for a vehicle lamp to comprise an automotive panel for its electrical wirings. It would have been obvious to a person in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider the assembly of claim 13 for a vehicle lamp since the automotive panel would be present for mounting electrical wiring for the lamp.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raymond et al., US 2016/0061356 in view of Laporte, US 2007/0028426.
Regarding claim 9, Raymond discloses the cable binder according to claim 1 except for wherein the strip (113) comprises at least one groove [for fitting at least part of a perimeter of a cable], wherein the groove extends across the whole width of the strip (113) and is placed on the side of the strip (113) [meant for contacting the cables].
Laporte teaches a cable tie wherein the strip (12) comprises at least one groove (28, 18) [for fitting at least part of a perimeter of a cable], wherein the groove (28, 18) extends across the whole width (see figure 1) of the strip (12) and is placed on the side of the strip (12) [meant for contacting the cables]. 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 strip of Raymond to include at least one groove as taught by Laporte so that the cable can be aligned with said groove when bundled within the loop of the cable binder.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raymond et al., US 2016/0061356 in view of Dyer, US 8,726,468.
Regarding claim 10, Raymond discloses the cable binder according to claim 1 except for wherein the body (117) comprises two ribs [for squeezing cables], wherein the ribs are inside of the loop [when the binder (111) is closed into a loop around the cables] and both ribs extend along the inner perimeter of the loop perpendicularly [to the direction of cables bound by the loop].
Dyer teaches a cable binder (100) wherein the body (150) comprises two ribs (160, 162) [for squeezing cables], wherein the ribs (160, 162) are inside of the loop (see figure 1C) [when the binder (100) is closed into a loop around the cables (see figure 1C)] and both ribs (160, 162) extend along the inner perimeter of the loop perpendicularly (see figures 1B and 1C) [to the direction of cables bound by the loop]. 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 (117) of Raymond to include ribs as taught by Dyer in order to provide an enhanced grip for the cables and a dampening feature on said cables.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 26, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has argued that the first and second wings (161-1, 161-2) are equated with the claimed mounting protrusions parts of claim 1. The argument is found not persuasive in view of the rejection set forth in the last Office action mailed on January 28, 2026 (page 3, line 16) wherein said protrusion parts were identified as elements 171-1, 171-2 of Raymond (US 2016/0061356). It is the Examiner’s position that the “parts” (171-1, 171-2) meet the claimed requirements such that the slit (the spacing between ends 173-1 and 173-2) divides the mounting protrusion (165) into the two parts (171-1, 171-2) along the protrusion’s length (of 165) as rejected above.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights