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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-16 and 18-20 are pending and have been examined in this application. As of the date of this application, the Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS) filed on 10/02/2024 has/have been taken into account.
Response to Amendment
In the amendment dated 09/25/2025, the following has occurred: Claims 1, 3, and 8-9 have been amended; Claims 17 have been canceled; No claims have been added. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that: “As shown in FIG. 2, the connecting parts 200, 200a, 300, 300a, 400, and 400b do not form a tongue and groove interlocking system that extends an entire length of the corresponding edges.”. – The examiner respectfully disagrees. Elements 200, 200a, 300, 300a, 400, 400a, 500, and 500a of the top wall and sidewalls form grooves and tongues that extend along the entire lengths of their respective edges and are configured to mate with each other, as such they read on the newly added limitation.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 11 recites “the top wall configured to and extend between the plurality of sidewalls”. This should read “the top wall configured to extend between the plurality of sidewalls” (emphasis added). Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 9 is 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 recites “wherein the cable management system comprises a first cable management system”. – However, as the claims are directed towards a cable transition system, it is unclear if the cable management system is being positively claimed. For purposes of examination, it has been interpreted as not being positively claimed.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 2006-0057686) in view of Baek (KR 2015-0102277).
Regarding Claim 1, Lee discloses a cable transition system comprising: a plurality of sidewalls (Lee: Annotated Fig. 1; S1, S2) and a top wall (Lee: Fig. 1; 110) configured to couple to and extend between the plurality of sidewalls to: at least partially define a first volume (Lee: Annotated Fig. 1; volume formed by P1 and P3) extending along a first plane and the first volume is configured to route a part of a cable along the first plane; at least partially define a second volume (Lee: Annotated Fig. 1; volume formed by P2 and P4) extending along a second plane that is non-parallel to the first plane and the second volume is configured to route a part of the cable along the second plane; and at least partially define a transition volume (Lee: Annotated Fig. 1; volume formed by B1 and B2) connected to the first volume and the second volume and the transition volume is configured to route a part of the cable between the first volume and the second volume to permit the cable to extend along the first plane and the second plane.
Lee fails to disclose the plurality of sidewalls defining a slot configured to receive a ground stud of a cable management system to electrically couple the plurality of the sidewalls to the cable management system. However, Baek teaches a plurality of sidewalls (Baek: Fig. 5a-5b; 111, 121) defining a slot (Baek: Fig. 5a-5b; 112, 122) configured to receive a ground stud of a cable management system to electrically couple the plurality of the sidewalls to the cable management system.
Lee and Baek are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area e.g. cable supports. 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 sidewalls in Lee with the slots from Baek, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a means for firmly connecting ends of the sidewalls to separate cable tray extension such that it maintains grounding continuity without requiring a jumper (Baek: [0023], [0040]), thereby increasing the safety of the assembly.
Regarding Claim 2, Lee as modified, teaches the cable transition system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of sidewalls (Lee: Annotated Fig. 1; S1, S2) are configured to engage with a first surface extending along the first plane and to engage with a second surface extending along the second plane.
Regarding Claim 3, Lee as modified, teaches the cable transition system of claim 1, wherein the slot (Baek: Fig. 5a-5b; 112, 122) extends parallel to the first plane; and is configured to receive the ground stud of the cable management system to position the cable transition system relative to the cable management system to connect an internal volume of the cable management system and the first volume.
Regarding Claim 4, Lee as modified, teaches the cable transition system of claim 1, wherein: the plurality of sidewalls (Lee: Annotated Fig. 1; S1, S2) and the top wall (Lee: Fig. 1; 110) at least partially define a first opening (Lee: Annotated Fig. 1; end opening formed by P1 and P3) configured to receive the cable on the first plane; and the plurality of sidewalls and the top wall at least partially define a second opening (Lee: Annotated Fig. 1; end opening formed by P2 and P4) configured to receive the cable on the7 second plane.
Regarding Claim 5, Lee as modified, teaches the cable transition system of claim 1, wherein the top wall (Lee: Fig. 1; 110) comprises: a first portion (Lee: Annotated Fig. 1; P1) extending generally parallel to the first plane; a body portion (Lee: Annotated Fig. 1; B1) connected to the first portion; and a second portion (Lee: Annotated Fig. 1; P2) connected to the body portion and extending generally parallel to the second plane.
Regarding Claim 6, Lee as modified, teaches the cable transition system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of sidewalls (Lee: Annotated Fig. 1; S1, S2) comprise: a first sidewall portion (Lee: Annotated Fig. 1; P3) extending along the first plane; a second sidewall portion (Lee: Annotated Fig. 1; P4) extending along the second plane; and a body sidewall portion (Lee: Annotated Fig. 1; B2) connected to the first sidewall portion and the second sidewall portion, the body sidewall portion extending along the first plane and the second plane.
Regarding Claim 7, Lee as modified, teaches the cable transition system of claim 1, wherein: the plurality of sidewalls (Lee: Annotated Fig. 1; S1, S2) comprise a first edge comprising a first interlocking portion (Lee: Fig. 1; 200, 300 400a, 500a); and the top wall (Lee: Fig. 1; 110) comprises a second edge comprising a second interlocking portion (Lee: Fig. 1; 200a, 300a, 400) configured to mate with the first interlocking portion to position the top wall relative to the plurality of sidewalls such that ends of the plurality of sidewalls are flush with ends of the top wall.
Regarding Claim 10, Lee as modified, teaches the cable transition system of claim 1, wherein the second plane is generally orthogonal to the first plane (Lee: Fig. 1; shows a generally orthogonal structure).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 2006-0057686) in view of Baek (KR 2015-0102277) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Garassino et al. (EP 1 207 604).
Regarding Claim 8, Lee as modified, teaches the cable transition system of claim 1, wherein: the cable management system comprises a first cable management system; the plurality of sidewalls comprise: a first sidewall portion that at least partially defines the first volume; a first transition portion connected to the first sidewall portion; a body sidewall portion connected to the first transition portion, the body sidewall portion at least partially defining the transition volume; a second transition portion connected to the body sidewall portion; and a second sidewall portion connected to the second transition portion, the second sidewall portion at least partially defining the second volume; the first transition portion is configured to interface with an end of the first cable management system; and the second transition portion is configured to interface with an end of a second cable management system.
However, Garassino teaches a cable management system comprises a first cable management system (Garassino: Fig. 5; 9a, 9b, 17a, 17b); a plurality of sidewalls comprise: a first sidewall portion (Garassino: Annotated Fig. 5; S) that at least partially defines the first volume; a first transition portion (Garassino: Annotated Fig. 5; T) connected to the first sidewall portion; a body sidewall portion (Garassino: Annotated Fig. 5; B) connected to the first transition portion, the body sidewall portion at least partially defining the transition volume; a second transition portion (Garassino: Annotated Fig. 5; T – equivalent section of upper end of portion 17a) connected to the body sidewall portion; and a second sidewall portion (Garassino: Annotated Fig. 5; S – equivalent section of upper end of portion 17a) connected to the second transition portion, the second sidewall portion at least partially defining the second volume; the first transition portion is configured to interface with an end of the first cable management system; and the second transition portion is configured to interface with an end of a second cable management system.
Lee and Garassino are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area e.g. cable supports. 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 ends of the sidewalls in Lee with the transition and sidewall portions as taught by Garassino, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide an end structure that allows the transition to fit within straight portions of a cable management system (Garassino: Annotated Fig. 5; shows ends within the straight portions), thereby providing a more fully enclosed environment for the cables so as to better protect them from the external environment.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 2006-0057686) in view of Baek (KR 2015-0102277) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Benito-Navazo (US 6,156,977).
Regarding Claim 9, Lee discloses the cable transition system of claim 1, but fails to disclose the cable management system comprises a first cable management system; a top wall that comprises: a first portion that at least partially defines the first volume; a first transition portion connected to the first portion; a body portion extending diagonally from the first transition portion, the body portion at least partially defining the transition volume; a second transition portion connected to the body portion; and a second portion connected to the second transition portion, the second portion at least partially defining the second volume; the first transition portion is configured to interface with an end of a first cable management system; and the second transition portion is configured to interface with an end of a second cable management system.
However, Benito-Navazo teaches a top wall (Benito-Navazo: Fig. 4; 9b) that comprises: a first cable management system (Benito-Navazo: Fig. 4; 1); a first portion (Benito-Navazo: Fig. 4; 11b) that at least partially defines the first volume; a first transition portion (Benito-Navazo: Fig. 4; 20, 12b) connected to the first portion; a body portion (Benito-Navazo: Fig. 4; 17b) extending diagonally from the first transition portion, the body portion at least partially defining the transition volume; a second transition portion (Benito-Navazo: Fig. 4; 12b, 20 – lower end) connected to the body portion; and a second portion (Benito-Navazo: Fig. 4; 11b) connected to the second transition portion, the second portion at least partially defining the second volume; the first transition portion is configured to interface with an end of a first cable management system; and the second transition portion is configured to interface with an end of a second cable management system.
Lee and Benito-Navazo are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area e.g. cable supports. 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 top wall in Lee with the transition portions from Benito-Navazo, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a wall portion that can be overlapped by an adjoining system (Benito-Navazo: Col. 4, Ln. 31-47), lowering the number of exposed gaps and thereby better protecting the cables.
Claims 11, 12, 14-16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 2006-0057686) in view of Garassino et al. (EP 1 207 604).
Regarding Claim 11, Lee discloses a system comprising: a cable transition system configured to be coupled to a first cable management system and a second cable management system, the cable transition system comprising: a plurality of sidewalls (Lee: Annotated Fig. 1; S1, S2) comprising a first edge comprising a first tongue and groove interlocking portion (Lee: Fig. 1; 200, 300, 400a, 500a) that extends along an entire length of the first edge; and a top wall (Lee: Fig. 1; 110) comprising a second edge comprising a second tongue and groove interlocking portion (Lee: Fig. 1; 200a, 300a, 400, 500) that extends along an entire length of the second edge, the second tongue and groove interlocking portion is configured to mate with the first tongue and groove interlocking portion to couple the top wall to the first edge, the top wall configured to between the plurality of sidewalls to: at least partially define a third volume (Lee: Annotated Fig. 1; volume formed by P1 and P3) extending along the first plane and the third volume is configured to receive a cable from a first volume of the first cable management system and to route a part of the cable along the first plane; at least partially define a fourth volume (Lee: Annotated Fig. 1; volume formed by P2 and P4) extending along the second plane and the fourth volume is configured to provide the cable to the second volume of the second cable management system and to route a part of the cable along the second plane; and at least partially define a transition volume connected to the third volume and the fourth volume and the transition volume (Lee: Annotated Fig. 1; volume formed by B1 and B2) is configured to route a part of the cable between the third volume and the fourth volume to permit the cable to extend along the first plane and the second plane.
Lee fails to explicitly disclose a first cable management system extending along a first plane and defining a first volume; a second cable management system extending along a second plane that is non-parallel to the first plane and defining a second volume. However, Garassino teaches a first cable management system (Garassino: Fig. 5-6; 25, 27) extending along a first plane and defining a first volume; a second cable management system (Garassino: Fig. 5-6; 25, 27) extending along a second plane that is non-parallel to the first plane and defining a second volume.
Lee and Garassino are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area e.g. cable supports. 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 transition system in Lee with the first and second systems from Garassino, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a transition element that can be connected to straight portions of a duct (Garassino: [0015]), thereby enabling the transition to expand a larger system.
Claims 12, 14-16, 18, and 20 are rejected, as set forth in the rejection of claims 2, 4-6, 8, and 10, respectively.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 2006-0057686) in view of Garassino et al. (EP 1 207 604) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Baek (KR 2015-0102277).
Regarding Claim 13, Lee, as modified, teaches the system of claim 11, but fails to disclose a plurality of sidewalls define a slot extending parallel to the first plane; and the slot is configured to receive a part of the first cable management system to position the cable transition system relative to the first cable management system.
However, Baek teaches a plurality of (Baek: Fig. 5a-5b; 111, 121) defining a slot (Baek: Fig. 5a-5b; 112, 122) extending parallel to the first plane; and the slot is configured to receive a part of the first cable management system to position the cable transition system relative to the first cable management system. [Note: See the rejection of claim 1 for motivation and/or rationale.]
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 2006-0057686) in view of Garassino et al. (EP 1 207 604) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Benito-Navazo (US 6,156,977).
Claim 19 is rejected, as set forth in the rejection of claim 9.
Annotated Figures
PNG
media_image1.png
683
707
media_image1.png
Greyscale
I: Lee; Fig. 1
PNG
media_image2.png
834
597
media_image2.png
Greyscale
II: Lee; Fig. 15-16
PNG
media_image3.png
831
964
media_image3.png
Greyscale
III: Garassino; Fig. 5 (Detail)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 for cited references.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Taylor Morris whose telephone number is (571)272-6367. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10AM-6PM PST / 1PM-9PM EST.
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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at (571) 272-8227. 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.
/Taylor Morris/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631