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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/7/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-13 and 15-20 remain pending in the present application.
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 1-3, 6-7, 10, 13 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geissinger US 3454249 (hereinafter Geissinger) in view of Wang US 2017/0210087 (hereinafter Wang) in view of McSherry US 3913876 (hereinafter McSherry).
PNG
media_image1.png
516
664
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re. Cl. 1, Geissinger discloses: An adhesive based cable tie mount (Fig. 5) for attaching on a mounting surface and thereby mount cable ties to tie a plurality of cable wires (see Fig. 8), wherein said cable tie mount comprising: a top surface (48, Fig. 3, 5) comprising a first end, a second end and a central portion for placing said cable wires (see Fig. 8); a bottom surface (see Fig. 5, spaces between the serrations with on 46; shown in annotated figure 5) configured to be attached with said mounting surface (see Fig. 5 and 7), said bottom surface comprises a plurality of nubs (see Fig. 5, formed by the serrations on 46) of predefined dimensions disposed in a spaced apart manner whereby said nubs define a bond-line thickness between said bottom surface and said mounting surface to receive adhesive (see Fig. 5 and 7); said nubs protrude downward from said bottom surface to hold said bottom surface at an elevated height above said mounting device (see Fig. 5 and 7, the serrations hold the bottom surface, between the serrations, away from the surface 60); and a receiving cut-out portion (see space under 48, Fig. 5 and annotated in annotated figure 5 where cable ties pass through as shown in Fig. 8 and discussed in Col. 3, Lines 25-40 as the “raceway”) formed between and partially enclosed by said top surface and the bottom surface to accommodate said cable ties therein (see Fig. 8-9).
Re. Cl. 2, Geissinger discloses: said plurality of nubs of predefined dimension are placed in a symmetrical manner on the said bottom surface (see Fig. 5-6, the serrations are symmetrical).
Re. Cls. 3 and 7, Geissinger discloses: said cable tie mount comprises at least one groove formed on said bottom surface (50, 52, Fig. 5-6).
Re. Cls. 6, 10, 13 and 16 Geissinger discloses: said top surface and said bottom surface being molded together as a single piece while maintaining said receiving cut-out portion (see Fig. 5, the device is a single piece construction; Re. the term “molded,” in accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation patentably distinguish over Geissinger. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e cable tie mount, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. molding. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
Re. Cl. 17, Geissinger discloses: said nubs are spaced apart from an outer perimeter of said bottom surface (see Fig. 5, the middle two serrations for example are spaced from an outer perimeter of the bottom surface closest to 50/52).
Re. Cls. 1 and 18-19, Geissinger uses serrations and channels (50, 52) to enable adhesive to penetrate into and secure to a surface (Col. 3, Lines 49-55) but does not disclose the bottom surface defines a greater percentage of a surface area of the bottom of the cable tie mount than the nubs to receive the adhesive or wherein said top surface is provided with a predefined slanting towards said central portion of said top surface extending between said first end and said second end (Cl. 1), said bottom surface extends to an outer perimeter of the cable tie mount, said nubs being spaced apart from the outer perimeter of the cable tie mount (Cl. 18) or each of said nubs are surrounded by the adhesive applied to the bottom surface (Cl. 19). Wang discloses an alternate adhesive attachment system (see Fig. 1, 4, 7) which includes a plurality of nubs (212, Fig. 4 and 7) to define a bond line thickness between a bottom surface and a mounting surface (see Fig. 4 for instance), wherein the bottom surface (see Fig. 4, portion without nubs 212) defines a greater percentage of a surface area of the bottom of the cable tie mount than the nubs to receive the adhesive (see Fig. 7, the nubs 212 define less of a percentage of the surface area of surface 710 than the areas where 212 are not; further Paragraph 0124 discussed using less than two distributions of 712, 714 which would take up even less of a percentage of the surface area), the nubs being placed in a symmetrical manner on the bottom surface (see Fig. 4 and 7) and said nubs are spaced apart from an outer perimeter of said bottom surface (see Fig. 4 and 7). Re. Cl. 18, Wang discloses said bottom surface extends to an outer perimeter of the cable tie mount, said nubs being spaced apart from the outer perimeter of the cable tie mount (see Fig. 7). Re. Cl. 19, Wang discloses each of said nubs are surrounded by the adhesive applied to the bottom surface (see 430, Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the serrations and channels (50, 52) of Geissinger with the nub configuration of Wang with reasonable expectation of success since it has been held obvious to replace one known means with another to achieve a predictable result. KSR Int’l Co. V. Teleflex Inc. 550 U.S. ___, 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007) (KSR). Further, Wang disclose such an adhesive configuration could be used in similar materials or dissimilar materials (Paragraph 0001, Lines 5-9), thus providing an added advantage.
Re. Cl. 1, Geissinger in view of Wang does not disclose wherein said top surface is provided with a predefined slanting towards said central portion of said top surface extending between said first end and said second end. McSherry discloses a cable tie mount (Fig. 1) which includes a top surfaces (16, Fig. 2) that is provided with a predefined slanting towards said central portion of said top surface extending between said first and end and said second end (see 31, Fig. 4-6).
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 Geissinger device to include the predetermined slant of McSherry with reasonable expectation of success since McSherry states that such a modification facilitates compact positioning of the wires/conductors (Col. 3, Lines 60-65).
Claims 4-5, 8-9, 11-12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geissinger in view of Wang in view of McSherry as applied above, and in further view of Mangone US 9939086 (hereinafter Mangone).
Re. Cls. 4-5, 8-9 and 11-12, Geissinger does not disclose said cable tie mount comprises at least one notch formed at a peripheral end of said cable tie mount to guide said cable wires (Cls. 4, 8 and 11) or said at least one notch is formed in-line with said central portion (Cl. 5, 9 and 12). Mangone discloses a cable affixing clip (Fig. 1) which includes a base (16, Fig. 1) which includes at least one notch (20, Fig. 1) formed at a peripheral end of said cable tie mount to guide said cable wires (see Fig. 1) and said at least one notch is formed in-line with said central portion (see Fig. 1-3, the notch is in-line with the central portion between 78 and 46 as seen in Fig. 3, or the central axis of 110 as shown in Fig. 9a).
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 Geissinger device to include the notch of Mangone with reasonable expectation of success since Mangone states that such a modification enables for receiving penetrating fastening devices like screws or nails that may be used in lieu of or in conjunction with the adhesive layer to attach the base to a desired location on a support surface (Col. 3, Lines 1-7).
Re. Cl. 15 Geissinger discloses: said top surface and said bottom surface being molded together as a single piece while maintaining said receiving cut-out portion (see Fig. 5, the device is a single piece construction; Re. the term “molded,” in accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation patentably distinguish over Geissinger. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e cable tie mount, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. molding. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/7/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Re. Applicant’s argument that Geissinger fails to disclose a receiving cut out portion formed between and partially enclosed by said top surface and said bottom surface to accommodate the cable ties therein, the Examiner disagrees. Applicant appears to misunderstand the rejection set forth by the Examiner since they assert that the receiving cut out portion was identified as top surface 48. As set forth above, annotated in annotated figure 5 and clearly illustrated in Figs. 5 and 8-9, there is a receiving cut out or open space (referred to as raceway in Col. 3, Lines 25-40) which enables the cable tie to pass through and surround the cables (66), thus supporting the cables on the top surface of the device as shown in Fig. 8-9. This raceway, is disposed between the top and bottom surfaces and partially enclosed by these surfaces, thus meeting Applicant’s claim language. Applicant argues that the “cables 66 are in no way accommodated therein,” but the Examiner wishes to point out that the receiving cut out is not required to support the cables therein but the cable ties therein. Geissinger clearly discloses the raceway is an open channel created bounded by (48) and the annotated bottom surface which enables the cable tie to pass through and surround cables (66) as shown in Figs. 5 and 8-9. Applicant’s argument has been considered but is not persuasive since Geissinger clearly discloses a cut-out portion which receives the cable tie as required by claim 1.
Re. Applicant’s argument that McSherry does not disclose that the at least one notch aligned with the central portion, the Examiner wishes to point out McSherry is not relied upon for this disclosure. As set forth above in reference to claims 5, 9 and 12, Mangone discloses this feature since a notch (20) is disclosed which is in-line with the central portion between 78 and 46 as seen in Fig. 3, or the central axis of 110 as shown in Fig. 9a. Therefore, while McSherry may not disclose this feature, the limitation was addressed by Mangone and Applicant’s remarks do not address the rejection at hand. 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. Lyon US 4397436 discloses a V-shaped supporting surface for supporting cables thereon in a similar manner to what Applicant illustrates in Fig. 1.
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
Prosecution Insights