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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art documents submitted by Applicant(s) in the information Disclosure Statement(s) have all been considered and made of record (note the attached copy of form(s) PTO-1449).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the pre-connectorized-cable must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 15 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant(s) regard as their invention.
Claims 15 and 23 recites the limitation "the two cables" in the third line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. thus making the scope of the claims indefinite.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claims 10-13, 15-21 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Atsumi” et. al. US 5681181 A.
Regarding claim 10, Atsumi teaches a cable retainer (see fig. 1, item 17,11) for a port of an enclosure that is configured to permit a pre-connectorized cable to be inserted into and removed from the port with a connector attached to the cable (see figs. 1-13 and summary) comprising:
a cable retaining portion (17,11) is configured to be positioned adjacent to a sealing portion 21 having an opening that is configured to receive a first portion of the cable (see at least figs. 1,2 and summary);; wherein the cable retaining portion configured to receive a cable 14; wherein the cable retaining portion comprises a cable receiving portion (17,11); wherein the cable receiving portion comprises a cable engaging portion (i. e., ribs of item 17); wherein the cable receiving portion is configured to align with an opening in a “sealing portion” (i.e., items 21) so as to permit the cable to extend through both the cable receiving portion and the opening (see at least figs. 1,2 and abstract); and wherein the cable engaging portion is configured to grip a cable that runs through a port such that the retainer limits axial movement of the cable relative to the port so as to limit tension strain on the cable (see at least fig. 1 and col. 3, line 63-col. 4, line 16).
However, Atsumi does not explicitly state the above items 21 (holding ridges) to be “sealing portion”. Nonetheless, there is no specific definition in the specification regarding sealing portion and that the holding ridge portion would appear to perform the sealing of the cable portions entering the enclosure, would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan skilled in the art before effective date of the invention was made to modify a mechanism such as that of projections 21 Atsumi to provide sealing performance of the surrounding spaces around the cable.
Regarding claim 17, Atsumi teaches a cable retainer (see fig. 1, item 17,11) for a port of an enclosure that is configured to permit a pre-connectorized cable to be inserted into and removed from the port with a connector attached to the cable (see figs. 1-13 and summary) comprising:
a cable retaining portion (17,11) configured to receive a cable 14; wherein the cable retaining portion comprises a cable receiving portion (17,11); wherein the cable receiving portion comprises a cable engaging portion (i. e., ribs of item 17); wherein the cable receiving portion is configured to align with an opening in a “sealing portion” (i.e., items 21) so as to permit the cable to extend through both the cable receiving portion and the opening (see at least figs. 1,2 and abstract); and wherein the cable engaging portion is configured to grip a cable that runs through a port such that the retainer limits axial movement of the cable relative to the port so as to limit tension strain on the cable (see at least fig. 1 and col. 3, line 63-col. 4, line 16).
However, Atsumi does not explicitly state the above items 21 (holding ridges) to be “sealing portion”. Nonetheless, there is no specific definition in the specification regarding sealing portion and that the holding ridge portion would appear to perform the sealing of the cable portions entering the enclosure, would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan skilled in the art before effective date of the invention was made to modify a mechanism such as the projection item 21 of Atsumi to provide sealing performance of the surrounding spaces around the cable.
The statements advanced in rejection of claims 10 and 17, above, as to the applicability and disclosure of the combined references and the motivation are incorporated herein in rejection of the following claims as follows:
11. The cable retainer of claim 10, wherein the cable engaging portion is configured to engage a circumferential slot in the cable (shown in at least fig. 1-5).
12. The cable retainer of claim 10, wherein the cable engaging portion comprises a protrusion that extends from the cable receiving portion (shown in fig. 1).
13. The cable retainer of claim 10, wherein the cable receiving portion is configured to receive two cables (shown in fig. 3-5).
15. The cable retainer of claim 10, wherein the cable receiving portion comprises a first cable holding portion that is structurally configured to hold a first cable of the two cables in the cable receiving portion (shown in fig. 3-5).
16. The cable retainer of claim 10, wherein the cable receiving portion is a first cable receiving portion, and the cable retainer further comprises a second cable receiving portion.
18. The cable retainer of claim 17, wherein the cable retaining portion is configured to be positioned adjacent to the sealing portion (shown in fig. 1).
19. The cable retainer of claim 17, wherein the cable engaging portion is configured to engage a circumferential slot in the cable.
20. The cable retainer of claim 17, wherein the cable engaging portion comprises a protrusion that extends from the cable receiving portion (shown in fig. 1).
21. The cable retainer of claim 17, wherein the cable receiving portion is configured to receive two cable (see fig. 1/5 and summary)s.
23. The cable retainer of claim 17, wherein the cable receiving portion comprises a first cable holding portion that is structurally configured to hold a first cable of the two cables in the cable receiving portion (see fig. 1/5).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14 and 22 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. Claims 14 and 2 are allowable because the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious its respective limitations in combination with the rest of the limitations of the base claim.
Claims 1-9 allowed because the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a sealing portion configured to be received in a seal receiving portion of a port; a cable retaining portion configured to receive a cable; wherein the sealing portion comprises a resilient member (compressible material) that include an opening that is configured to receive a first portion of the cable in combination with the rest of the limitations of the base claim.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
Prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. In accordance with MPEP 707.05 the following references are pertinent in rejection of this application since they provide substantially the same information disclosure as this patent does. These references are:
US 5681181 A
US 20230213722 A1
US 20220061180 A1
US 20210103112 A1
US 20190278039 A1
US 20180081139 A1
US 20160077300 A1
US 20180223567 A1
US 5464428 A
US 20010015392 A1
US 20220244480 A1
US 20100306963 A1
US 20240304166 A1
US 20160226168 A1
US 8062057 B1
US 12156359 B2
US 20120230646 A1
US 20250029637 A1
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAVEH C KIANNI whose telephone number is (571)272-2417. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-19.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Hollweg can be reached on571-270-1739. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KAVEH C KIANNI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights