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 .
Amendment filed 5/12/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-19 remain pending in the present application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 and 12 recites the limitation "said at least one notch" in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since claims 9 and 12 depend from claims 2 and 3 respectively, whereas the “at least one notch” is established in claims 4, 8 and 11.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 14 is a repeat of the limitation which has been amended into claim 1, therefore not further limiting claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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
468
586
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 (see top of 40, Fig. 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 under 48, Fig. 5) formed between 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 14-15 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. 14, it is the Examiner’s position that the claim is taught as discussed above in reference to claim 1 since claim 14 repeats the limitation amended into claim 1.
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 5/12/2026 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 said top surface and said bottom surface to accommodate the cable ties therein, the Examiner disagrees. As set forth above and clearly illustrated in Figs. 5 and 8-9, there is a receiving cut out or open space 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. 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 an open channel created by (48) which is spaced between a top and bottom of the device for the cable tie to pass through as shown in Figs. 5 and 8-9. If there were no cut out or slot where the cable tie passes, as it appears the Applicant is arguing, the device would not function since the cable tie would not be held in relation to the device, thus not supporting the cables (66) on the device. 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 the central portion having the predetermined slope, the Examiner disagrees. Applicant argues that the saddle portion (31) is not located centrally as shown in Figs. 5, 6, 7 and 9 and are positioned adjacent to an end of the structure or the right most portion as pictured in Fig. 8. However, as seen in the figure included below, the portion (31) is clearly located in the central portion of the of the device as can be seen placed in the central portion by ribs (34) which extend from the sides of the device towards a central portion where saddle (31) is located. Further, the rejection is based on a combination of Geissinger in view of McSherry which modifies the portion of Geissinger which supports the cables (see Fig. 8-9) to be concave or shaped as portion (31) in McSherry. Since Geissinger shows that the portion which supports the cables (66) is a central portion as being located in the center of (40) (see Figs. 3 and 8-9), modifying the shape to be as disclosed by McSherry would result in Applicant’s claimed invention in the Examiner’s position. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Therefore, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
PNG
media_image2.png
372
446
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.
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
Prosecution Insights