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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/19/26 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
Independent Claim 1 recites “one or more straps each including a first end section secured to the flexible section”. Applicant’s disclosure does not appear to support a direct connection between a first end section of the strap and the flexible section, so this connection will be interpreted to be met by indirect connections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nelson, U.S. Patent 4,869,683.
Regarding Claim 1, Nelson teaches:
a body (21) including opposite open ends (Fig. 2), a cavity (see 12 which occupies
cavity) defined through a longitudinal length of the body, a first edge (23), a second edge (22), and a slit (see below) defined through the body along the longitudinal length between the first edge and the second edge, the slit being in communication with the cavity, the cavity being configured to receive one or more cords therein; and
a flexible section (17) extendable across the slit and securable around a portion of
the body, the flexible section includes a first side (see below) and an opposite second side (see below), the first side being secured to the second edge of the body, and the second side extending out past the second edge of the body and over the first edge of the body and
one or more straps (24) each including a first end section (26) secured to the flexible
section that secures the second side of the flexible section over the first edge of the body.
PNG
media_image1.png
286
428
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, Nelson teaches:
One or more strap each including a second free end section configured to wrap around an exterior of the body (see elements 24, 28 on second free end section).
Regarding Claim 5, Nelson teaches:
The second free end section includes a second end fastener (28) configured to secure the second free end section to the body or the one or more straps.
Regarding Claim 7, Nelson teaches:
The one or more straps are configured to pull the second side of the flexible section across the slit and over the second edge of the body that in part defines the slit to place the cord retainer in a closed configuration with the flexible section extending across the slit defined between the first and second edges of the body (see drawing selection above, see Figs. 3-4).
Regarding Claim 8, Nelson teaches:
The body has at least one width or diameter in a closed configuration that is less than at least one width or diameter of the body in an open configuration (see Figs. 1-4).
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.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson ‘683 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Franklin, U.S. Patent 10,627,019.
Regarding Claim 2, Nelson is silent with regard to the limitations of this claim.
Franklin ‘019 teaches:
A flexible section made of an expandable and retractable material (see 20, see Col 5, Lns 30-54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Goodrich with a flexible section made form the material taught by Franklin (such that the body and flexible section would be of different materials) because this would permit the flexible section to expand to accommodate bulging of cables which would absorb the stress and strain placed on the zipper.
Regarding Claim 3, see rejection above in the instant combination where Franklin teaches the expandable material.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson ‘683 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Walker, U.S. Patent 8,528,171.
Regarding Claim 9, Nelson is silent with regard to the cavity including one or more detents extending into the cavity for contact with at least one of the one or more cords.
Walker clearly teaches a cord retainer with:
an internal surface of the body that defines the cavity includes one or more detents extending into the cavity for contact with at least one of the one or more cords (see Figs. 3a, b, see elements 28, 30, 32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Nelson with the teachings of Walker such that the limitations would be satisfied because the detents would provide additional fastening for the cords to prevent dislodging of the cords.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson ‘683 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Van Osten, U.S. Patent 4,285,486.
Regarding Claim 10, Nelson is silent with regarding a mount member extending form the body and configured to mount the body to a surface.
Van Osten clearly teaches a cord retainer (Fig. 2) which:
Further comprises a mount member (29) extending form the body (15) and configured to mount the body to a surface
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed to provide Nelson ‘683 with a mount member as taught by Van Osten because that would permit wall storage of cords as shown by Van Osten (Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson ‘683 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of De Barbieri, U.S. Patent 4,947,568.
Nelson is silent with regard to the limitations of this claim
De Barbieri teaches:
A display window (13, Col 3, Lns 24-25) associated with a body (1), the display window having a frame (13) with a slot (13) configured to receive an advertisement, and the frame being configured to display the advertisement when received in the slot.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Nelson with the teachings of De Barbieri because that would permit easily understood labeling and identification of the cables which are bundled.
**Examiner's Note: Examiner notes that the above claim contains the claim language “configured to display…in the slot”, which does not constitute a recitation of positively claimed structural elements, but a recitation of function which the claimed device must be capable. The prior art of Nelson-De Barbieri, is interpreted as capable of these functions. See MPEP 2111.04 [R-3], see Ex Parte Marsham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Claim(s) 6, 12, 14-16 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson ‘683 as applied to claims 1 and 4-5 above, and further in view of Rodrigues, U.S. Patent 8,367,182.
Regarding Claim 6, Nelson does not teach:
An exterior surface of the one or more straps each includes a fastener configured to be engageable with the second end fastener.
Rodrigues teaches a cord retainer similar to that of Nelson comprising:
An exterior surface of one or more straps (122) each includes a fastener (128’) configured to be engageable with a second end fastener (130’).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Nelson with the teachings of Rodrigues because that the straps of Rodrigues would allow for greater indexing of the strap tightness for different sizes and numbers of cables being managed in the cavity.
Regarding Claim 12, Nelson teaches:
a body (21) including opposite open ends (Fig. 2), a cavity (see 12 which occupies
cavity) defined through a longitudinal length of the body, a first edge (23), a second edge (22), and a slit (see below) defined through the body along the longitudinal length between the first edge and the second edge, the slit being in communication with the cavity, the cavity being configured to receive one or more cords therein; and
a flexible section (17) extendable across the slit and securable around a portion of
the body, the flexible section includes a first side (see below) and an opposite second side (see below), the first side being secured to the second edge of the body, and the second side extending out past the second edge of the body and over the first edge of the body and
one or more straps (24) each including a first end section secured to the flexible
section…a fastener (28) associated with an interior surface of the strap adjacent a second free end for engagement with a first fastener (29)
Nelson does not teach:
one or more straps each including a first end section secured to the flexible section, a first fastener associated with an exterior surface of the straps, and a second free end section, a second fastener associated with an interior surface of the strap adjacent the second free end for engagement with the first fastener when the straps wrap around an exterior of the body.
Rodrigues teaches:
one or more straps (122) each including a first end section (136) secured to a flexible section (126), a first fastener (138) associated with an exterior surface of the straps, and a second free end section (128’), a second fastener (128’) associated with an interior surface of the strap adjacent the second free end for engagement with the first fastener when the straps wrap around an exterior of the body (see Figs. 4-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Nelson with the teachings of Rodrigues because that the straps of Rodrigues would allow for greater indexing of the strap tightness for different sizes and numbers of cables being managed in the cavity.
PNG
media_image1.png
286
428
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 14, in the instant combination, see Rodrigues elements Lp and Hp in Figs. 4-5.
Regarding Claim 15, in the instant combination, Nelson teaches:
The one or more straps are configured to pull the second side of the flexible section across the slit and over the second edge of the body that in part defines the slit to place the cord retainer in a closed configuration with the flexible section extending across the slit defined between the first and second edges of the body (see drawing selection above, see Figs. 3-4).
Regarding Claim 16, Nelson teaches:
The body has at least one width or diameter in a closed configuration that is less than at least one width or diameter of the body in an open configuration (see Figs. 1-4).
Regarding Claims 19-20, Examiner notes that these method step limitations are considered obvious over the prior art in view of rejections of the structural limitations previously set forth. Although the prior art does not explicitly set forth the method steps as claimed when the method steps essentially set forth the provision and use of an apparatus, as intended by its structure, then such method steps are considered obvious when the structure of the apparatus has been demonstrated as obvious or anticipated by the prior art.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson-Rodrigues as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of De Barbieri, U.S. Patent 4,947,568.
Nelson-Rodrigues is silent with regard to the limitations of this claim
De Barbieri teaches:
A display window (13, Col 3, Lns 24-25) associated with a body (1), the display window having a frame (13) with a slot (13) configured to receive an advertisement, and the frame being configured to display the advertisement when received in the slot.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Nelson-Rodrigues with the teachings of De Barbieri because that would permit easily understood labeling and identification of the cables which are bundled.
**Examiner's Note: Examiner notes that the above claim contains the claim language “configured to display…in the slot”, which does not constitute a recitation of positively claimed structural elements, but a recitation of function which the claimed device must be capable. The prior art of Nelson-Rodrigues-De Barbieri, is interpreted as capable of these functions. See MPEP 2111.04 [R-3], see Ex Parte Marsham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson-Rodrigues as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Walker ‘171.
Regarding Claim 17, Nelson is silent with regard to the cavity including one or more detents extending into the cavity for contact with at least one of the one or more cords.
Walker clearly teaches a cord retainer with:
an internal surface of the body that defines the cavity includes one or more detents extending into the cavity for contact with at least one of the one or more cords (see Figs. 3a, b, see elements 28, 30, 32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Nelson with the teachings of Walker such that the limitations would be satisfied because the detents would provide additional fastening for the cords to prevent dislodging of the cords.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson-Rodrigues as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Van Osten, U.S. Patent 4,285,486.
Regarding Claim 10, Nelson is silent with regarding a mount member extending form the body and configured to mount the body to a surface.
Van Osten clearly teaches a cord retainer (Fig. 2) which:
Further comprises a mount member (29) extending form the body (15) and configured to mount the body to a surface, wherein the mount member includes a fastening means selected from the group consisting of an adhesive, a magnet, a suction cup, a hook and loop, a hook and clamp.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed to provide Nelson ‘683 with a mount member (being a hook) as taught by Van Osten because that would permit wall storage of cords as shown by Van Osten (Fig. 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5218. The examiner can normally be reached IFP, Typically M-Th, 8:00-6:00, regular Fr availability.
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, Jason San can be reached at 571-272-6531. 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.
/M.J.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3677
/JASON W SAN/SPE, Art Unit 3677