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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/13/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 5/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Issue raised by the Applicant:
“Claim 1 recites, inter alia, "one or more openings extending through the base surface" and "wherein: one or more sections of the plurality of sections comprises a respective opening of the one or more openings, the respective opening defined by a portion of a respective side of a respective section." As shown in FIG. 2 of the present application, the claimed opening (e.g., opening 310) extends through the base surface (e.g., base surface 316) and is defined by a portion of a respective side (e.g, first edge 332) of a respective section (e.g., section 306).
In contrast, Fransen does not teach or suggest an opening extending through base 61 (the contended base surface) that is defined by a portion of a respective flange 63 (the contended side) of a respective section. As shown in each of the Examiner's annotated FIG. 2 of Fransen, reproduced below, the alleged openings constitute an entirety of each alleged section. The openings of Fransen do not extend through the alleged base surface and are not defined by a portion of a respective side of a section as claimed. As shown in each of the Examiner's annotated FIG. 2 of Fransen, the flange 63 (the contended respective side) is distinct from the base 61 (the contended base surface). The alleged openings of Fransen, which are identified solely via annotation and without any description in Fransen, are positioned above the base 61 (the contended base surface) between the flanges 63 (the contended respective sides), such that the alleged openings extend across the base 61 rather than through.”
The Examiner’s position:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant. To better explain the Examiner’s position, the annotated drawing of the current application showing the claimed limitations and the annotated drawing of the applied reference (Fransen) are shown below:
It appears there are some structural distinctions between the two structures. However, the Applicant seems to read the drawing into the claims.
From the below annotated drawings: the Examiner maintains that Fransen does teach: “one or more sections of the plurality of sections comprises a respective opening of the one or more openings, the respective opening defined by a portion of a respective side of a respective section” and “an opening extending through base 61 …and defined by a portion of a respective side of a section” as claimed
PNG
media_image1.png
387
692
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
480
608
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fransen et al. U.S. Pub. 2016/0248197 (hereinafter D1).
PNG
media_image3.png
577
792
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
480
608
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, D1 teaches a cable manifold (30; figure 1), comprising:
a base surface (see above annotated figure 2);
a plurality of sections (see above annotated figure 2), wherein each of the plurality of sections comprises a respective plurality of sides (see above annotated figure 2) extending transverse (see above annotated figure 2) from the base surface (see above annotated figure 2), wherein each section shares (see above annotated figure 2) one or more sides with at least one adjacent section; and
one or more openings (see above annotated figure 2) extending through (see above annotated figure 2) the base surface, wherein one or more sections of the plurality of sections comprises a respective opening (see above annotated figure 2) of the one or more openings,
the respective opening defined by a portion (see below annotated figure 2) of respective side of a respective section (see below annotated figure 2) and extends across a portion (see below annotated figure 2) of the base surface, and
the respective opening configured to house a cable connector (54; figure 1) connected to a server tray (implicitly taught in par[0019]; “communication system 20 can further include cabinets, racks..” indicates cable manifold to be inserted into a section or a tray of a rack) removably coupled to the cable manifold (30; figure 1) such that when the cable manifold (30; figure 1) is removed (see above annotated figure 2) from the server tray each cable connector (54; figure 1) housed by the one or more openings (see above annotated figure 2) are simultaneously (self-explanatory from above annotated figure 2) removed from the server tray.
PNG
media_image4.png
432
595
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, D1 teaches the cable manifold of claim 1, further comprising a respective first flap (see above annotated figure 2) and a respective second flap (see above annotated figure 2) extending transverse from the base surface at a respective first edge (see above annotated figure 2) and a respective second edge (see above annotated figure 2) of a respective opening of each of the one or more sections.
Regarding claim 4, D1 teaches the cable manifold of claim 3, wherein the respective first edge (see above annotated figure 2) of the respective opening extends (see above annotated figure 2) from at least one respective side (see above annotated figure 2) of a respective section (see above annotated figure 2) of the plurality of sections.
Regarding claim 5, D1 teaches the cable manifold of claim 3, wherein the respective first flap (see above annotated figure 2) and the respective second flap (see above annotated figure 2) at least partially form a securing mechanism (see figure 2) configured to hold a cable connector (54; figure 1) in a fixed position (see figure 2) relative to the cable manifold.
Regarding claim 9, D1 teaches the cable manifold of claim 1, wherein the base surface (see above annotated figure 2) has a width (see above annotated figure 2) and a height (see above annotated figure 2) such that the cable manifold (30; figure 1) extends across a side (implicitly taught) of the server tray.
PNG
media_image5.png
542
726
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, D1 teaches the cable manifold of claim 1, further comprising:
a first end surface (see above annotated figure 1) extending transverse from the base surface, wherein the first end surface corresponds to a first side (see above annotated figure 1) of one of the plurality of sections; a second end surface (see above annotated figure 1) extending transverse from the base surface, wherein the second end surface corresponds to a second side (see above annotated figure 1) of the plurality of sections; a first protrusion (see above annotated figure 1) extending transverse from the first end surface; and a second protrusion (see above annotated figure 1) extending transverse from the second end surface.
Regarding claim 11, D1 teaches a system for rack cabling, comprising:
a server rack (implicitly taught in par[0019]; “communication system 20 can further include cabinets, racks..” indicates cable manifold to be inserted into a section or a tray of a rack);
a plurality of server trays (implicitly taught in par[0019]; “communication system 20 can further include cabinets, racks..” indicates cable manifold to be inserted into a section or a tray of a rack) in the server rack; and
a cable manifold (30; figure 10 removably coupled to a side (front side of rack) of at least one server tray of the plurality of server trays within the server rack (implicitly taught in par[0019]; “communication system 20 can further include cabinets, racks..” indicates cable manifold to be inserted into a section or a tray of a rack), the cable manifold including a plurality of sections (see above annotated figure 2) extending transverse (see below annotated figure 2) from a base surface (see below annotated figure 2) of the cable manifold, wherein one or more sections of the plurality of sections includes a respective opening (see above annotated figure 2) housing a respective cable connector (54; figure 1), the respective opening extending through the base surface of the cable manifold,
wherein the respective opening is defined by a portion (see below annotated figure 2) of at least one respective side (see below annotated figure 2) of the plurality of sections and extends across a portion (see below annotated figure 2) of the base surface, and
wherein the cable manifold is removably coupled to the at least one server tray (implicitly taught in par[0019]; “communication system 20 can further include cabinets, racks..” indicates cable manifold to be inserted into a section or a tray of a rack) such that when the cable manifold is removed (implicitly taught in par[0019]; “communication system 20 can further include cabinets, racks..” indicates cable manifold to be inserted into a section or a tray of a rack) from
the at least one server tray (implicitly taught in par[0019]; “communication system 20 can further include cabinets, racks..” indicates cable manifold to be inserted into a section or a tray of a rack) each cable connector housed by the respective opening is simultaneously removed (self-explanatory from above annotated figure 2) from the at least one server tray and when the cable manifold is inserted “communication system 20 can further include cabinets, racks..” indicates cable manifold to be inserted into a section or a tray of a rack) along the at least one server tray each cable connector housed by the respective opening is simultaneously inserted “communication system 20 can further include cabinets, racks..” indicates cable manifold to be inserted into a section or a tray of a rack) into the at least one server tray.
PNG
media_image6.png
440
600
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, D1 teaches the system of claim 11, wherein the respective opening of the one or more sections comprises a first flap (see above annotated figure 2) and a second flap (see above annotated figure 2) configured to hold the cable connector in a fixed position (see above annotated figure 2) relative to the cable manifold during removal and insertion “communication system 20 can further include cabinets, racks..” indicates cable manifold to be inserted into a section or a tray of a rack) of the cable manifold.
Regarding claim 13, D1 teaches the system of claim 12, wherein the first and second flap include a first (see above annotated figure 2) and a second edge (see above annotated figure 2) of the first and second flap that are configured to latch and unlatch the cable connector (54; figure 1) to the cable manifold, the first and the second edge of the first and second flap extending transversely (see above annotated figure 2) from the first and second flap.
Regarding claim 14, D1 teaches the system of claim 12, wherein the respective opening aligns with a port (62; figure 2; and par[0019]-[0020]) of a server tray of the plurality of server trays when the cable manifold is removably coupled to the side of the server tray.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 in view of Northey U.S. Patent 8,641,432 (hereinafter D2).
Regarding claim 6, as mentioned above, D1 teaches the cable manifold of claim 5.
However, D1 does not teach wherein the securing mechanism includes a first angled surface on the respective first flap and a second angled surface on the respective second flap, the first and second angled surfaces having a width that tapers from a respective first end of the first and second angled surfaces to a respective second end of the first and second angled surfaces, the respective second end of the first and second angled surfaces is configured to secure the cable connector.
D2 suggests a securing mechanism includes a first angled surface (outer surface of left 130; figure 7C) on a respective first flap (left 126; figure 7C) and a second angled surface (outer surface of right 130; figure 7C) on a respective second flap (right 126; figure 7C), the first and second angled surfaces having a width that tapers (with of 130; see figures 7C-D) from a respective first end (bottom end of 130) of the first and second angled surfaces to a respective second end (top end of 130) of the first and second angled surfaces, the respective second end of the first and second angled surfaces is configured to secure (see figure 7D a corresponding part).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the securing mechanism of D1 to include a first angled surface on the respective first flap and a second angled surface on the respective second flap, the first and second angled surfaces having a width that tapers from a respective first end of the first and second angled surfaces to a respective second end of the first and second angled surfaces, as suggested by D2, such that the respective second end of the first and second angled surfaces would be configured to secure the cable connector or other types of structurally different connector(s).
Claims 7, 8, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 in view of Smrha et al. U.S. Patent 12,111,507 (hereinafter D3).
Regarding claim 7, as mentioned above, D1 teaches the cable manifold of claim 1.
However, D1 does not further teach a cable holder extending transverse from the base surface within a section of the plurality of sections and comprising a plurality of openings extending through the cable holder.
PNG
media_image7.png
410
268
media_image7.png
Greyscale
D3 teaches a similar structure comprising a cable holder (48; figure 1) extending transverse from the base surface (front surface of one of left section 46; figure 1) within a section (46; figure 1) of the plurality of sections (46) and comprising an opening (see above annotated figure 1 of D3) extending through the cable holder.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further equip the cable manifold of D1 with a cable holder extending transverse from the base surface within a section of the plurality of sections and comprising a plurality of openings extending through the cable holder, as suggested by D3, to neatly organize cables that are plugged into said cable connectors.
Even though, D1/D3 does not specifically teach a plurality of openings, however, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to duplicate said opening, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working part of a device involves only routine skill in the art, to increase the capacity of cable management. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 8, the modification of D1/D3 would result in the cable manifold of claim 7, wherein the plurality of openings (see explanation in above rejection of claim 7) of the cable holder are configured to hold each cable of each cable connector relative to the cable manifold.
Regarding claim 15, as mentioned above, D1 teaches the system of claim 11.
However, D1 does not specifically teach wherein the server rack comprises a first column and a second column adjacent to the first column, and wherein server trays of the plurality of server trays are stacked in the first column and the second column.
D3 teaches a server rack comprises a first column (left column of 32; figure 1) and a second column (right column of 32; figure 1) adjacent to the first column, and wherein server trays of the plurality of server trays (60; figure 1) are stacked in the first column and the second column.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further equip the rack of D1 with a first column and a second column adjacent to the first column, and wherein server trays of the plurality of server trays would be stacked in the first column and the second column, as suggested by D3, to enhance the capacity of said rack.
Regarding claim 20, as mentioned above, D1 teaches the system of claim 11.
However, D1 does not specifically teach a cable holder removably coupled to a section of the plurality of sections, the cable holder including a plurality of cylindrical openings extending through the cable holder.
D3 teaches a similar structure comprising a cable holder (48; figure 1) removably coupled to a section (46; figure 1) of the plurality of sections (46), the cable holder including a plurality of cylindrical openings (see above annotated figure 1 of D3) extending through the cable holder.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further equip the cable manifold of D1 with a cable holder removably coupled to a section of the plurality of sections, the cable holder including a plurality of cylindrical openings extending through the cable holder, as suggested by D3, to neatly organize cables that are plugged into said cable connectors.
Even though, D1/D3 does not specifically teach a plurality of openings, however, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to duplicate said opening, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working part of a device involves only routine skill in the art, to increase the capacity of cable management. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Claims 2 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 in view of Durham et al. U.S. Patent 10,395,152 (hereinafter D4).
Regarding claim 2, as mentioned above, D1 teaches the cable manifold of claim 1.
However, D1 does not specifically teach said cable manifold comprises at least one fiducial mark.
Note: Fiducial marks have been commonly known and used as fixed points of reference for alignment and guidance in automated systems.
D4 suggests the idea and the use of Fiducial mark (see figure 8; column 15, lines 50-64; and column 17, lines 28-35) on rack/trays to determine locations of components.
it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further equip the cable manifold of D1 with at least one fiducial mark, as suggested by D4, for location identification/determination by an automated system.
Regarding claim 16, as mentioned above, D1 teaches the system of claim 11.
However, D1 does not specifically teach said cable manifold comprises at least one fiducial mark.
Note: Fiducial marks have been commonly known and used as fixed points of reference for alignment and guidance in automated systems.
D4 suggests the idea and the use of Fiducial mark (see figure 8; column 15, lines 50-64; and column 17, lines 28-35) on rack/trays to determine locations of components.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further equip the cable manifold of D1 with at least one fiducial mark, as suggested by D4, for location identification/determination by an automated system.
Regarding claim 17, as mentioned above, D1/D4 teaches the system of claim 16.
D4 further teaches a robot (see column 21, lines 34-36) configured to insert and remove items to and from a server rack (see figure 8 and column 21, lines 34-36).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further equip the system of D1/D4 with a robot configured to insert and remove the cable manifold to and from the server tray, as suggested by D4, to enhance efficiency.
Regarding 18, the modification of D1/D4 would result in the system of claim 17, wherein the robot is configured to scan the fiducial mark to identify a cable manifold location (see figure 8; column 15, lines 50-64; and column 17, lines 28-35 of D4) on the server tray.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 in view of Thijs et al. U.S. Pub. 2017/0023760 (hereinafter D5).
Regarding claim 19, as mentioned above, D1 teaches the system of claim 11.
However, D1 does not further teach a cable management rack, the cable management rack connecting the cable manifold to the server rack.
D5, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a cable management rack (100; figure 2), the cable management rack (100; figure 2) connecting the cable manifold (22 or 24; figure 2) to the server rack (100; figure 2).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further equip the system of D1 with a cable management rack, such that the cable management rack connects the cable manifold to the server rack, as suggested by D5, to optimize structural integrity of said system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNG Q DANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3069. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6PM..
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, Imani N Hayman can be reached at 571-270-5528. 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.
/HUNG Q DANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2841 /IMANI N HAYMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights