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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 14, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recitation “three vertices positioned between two sides of the three sides” (lines 2-3) should be replaced with -- three vertices, each vertex of the three vertices positioned between two sides of the three sides --. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-6, 8-13, 16 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradbury, US 4,179,774 in view of Ayala, US 2021/0293356.
Regarding claim 1, Bradbury discloses a cable restraint [for securing flexible cables during a short circuit event], the cable restraint comprising: an outer belt (10, 11, 12) comprising a front (one side face; figure 3), a back (opposite side face; figure 3), a first end (free end of 11 at the apex) and a second end (free end of 12 at the apex), wherein, in a closed position (arms secured by bolt 13 and nut 14; figure 1), the outer belt comprises three sides (10, 11, 12) configured to extend between the front and the back (figure 3); an inner liner (23) adjacent the outer belt, wherein the inner liner comprises: a first lobe (23 on 11) extending from a first side (11) of the three sides and comprising an arcuate profile (concave cable receiving grooves; figure 1); and a second lobe (23 on 12) extending from a second side (12) of the three sides and comprising the arcuate profile (figure 1).
Bradbury does not explicitly disclose a first plurality of flanges extending from the first end in a staggered pattern; a second plurality of flanges extending from the second end in the staggered pattern, wherein the first plurality of flanges and the second plurality of flanges are configured to form an intermeshing coupler when the cable restraint is in a closed position.
Ayala teaches a first plurality of flanges (knuckles on 60; figure 2) extending from the first end in a staggered pattern; a second plurality of flanges (knuckles on 70; figure 2) extending from the second end in the staggered pattern (figure 2), wherein the first plurality of flanges and the second plurality of flanges are configured to form an intermeshing coupler (see figure 1; interleaved knuckles) when the cable restraint (20) is in a closed position (figure 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the free ends of Bradbury’s outer belts (11, 12) to include staggered, interleaving knuckles, as taught by Ayala, secured by Bradbury’s bolt 13 and nut 14 passing through the aligned knuckles, in order to hold the free ends in axial alignment under load with a single fastener.
Claim language set in brackets [] set forth above and below in this office action are considered by the examiner to be intended use that fails to further limit the structure of the claimed invention. Since the claimed invention is directed solely to that of the cable restraint, the prior art must only be capable of performing the functional recitations in order to be applicable, and in the instant case, the examiner maintains that the cable clamp taught by the combination of Bradbury and Ayala, is indeed capable of the intended use statements. Note that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Bradbury and Ayala teaches the cable restraint of claim 1. Bradbury further discloses wherein, in the closed position, the outer belt (10, 11, 12) is configured to form a triangle (figure 1).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Bradbury and Ayala teaches the cable restraint of claim 1, except for wherein the intermeshing coupler is configured to extend along a third side of the three sides. In the combination, the intermeshing coupler is located at the apex where the free ends of arms 11, 12 meet (figure 1). However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the parts of the combination, to locate the intermeshing coupler along a third side of the three sides, to arrive at the claimed invention, since it has been held that rearrangement of these mentioned parts does not modify the operation of the device. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70. It is noted that relocating the joint does not modify the operation of the restraint, which is closed and secured about the cables in the same manner regardless of where along the perimeter the free ends meet.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Bradbury and Ayala teaches the cable restraint of claim 1. Bradbury further discloses wherein, in the closed position, the outer belt comprises three vertices (the apex at the free ends of 11, 12 and the two base corners at pins 21; figure 1) positioned between two sides of the three sides, and wherein the intermeshing coupler (as modified by Ayala, at the free ends of 11, 12) is configured to extend along a vertex (the apex) of the three vertices (figure 1).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Bradbury and Ayala teaches the cable restraint of claim 1 except for wherein the outer belt is made from polyurethane. However, it is known in the art to utilize plastic material as a substitute for metal in the mechanical art since the technology of plastic components have matured in the industrial market and the mechanical properties of plastic have been improved to be as strong and advantageous as metallic components. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the outer belt made from polyurethane, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known (commercially available) material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Bradbury and Ayala teaches the cable restraint of claim 1. Bradbury further discloses pads (23) formed of a slightly resilient material. Ayala further teaches a padding (54) of a polyurethane foam material that holds the clamped member in place without crushing it. The combination further teaches [wherein the inner liner (23) is configured to be compressed by the flexible cables in the closed position].
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Bradbury and Ayala teaches the cable restraint of claim 1. Ayala further teaches wherein a gap (space between adjacent hinge leaves on 60; figure 2) defined by a first flange of the first plurality of flanges and second flange of the first plurality of flanges is configured to receive a first flange of the second plurality of flanges (hinge leaf of 70; figure 2).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Bradbury and Ayala teaches the cable restraint of claim 1. Ayala further teaches wherein a flat edge (end face of each hinge leaf) of each flange of the first plurality of flanges is configured to couple to the second end in the closed position (see figure 2).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Bradbury and Ayala teaches the cable restraint of claim 1. Ayala further teaches wherein each flange of the first plurality of flanges and each flange of the second plurality of flanges comprises a center hole (bore of each hinge leaf; see figure 2), [wherein, in the closed position, align (figure 1) a fastener (90; in the combination, Bradbury’s bolt 13) is configured to couple to each center hole to secure the cable restraint].
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Bradbury and Ayala teaches the cable restraint of claim 1. Ayala further teaches wherein each flange of the first plurality of flanges and each flange of the second plurality of flanges comprises a straight bottom (root of the hinge leaf) configured to extend from either the first end or the second end; a body (hinge leaf) configured to extend from the straight bottom; and a flat distal edge (end face of the hinge leaf) configured to extend from the body (see figure 2).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Bradbury and Ayala teaches the cable restraint of claim 11. Ayala further teaches wherein the body (hinge leaf) comprises a central hole (figure 2) [configured to receive a fastener (90)].
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Bradbury and Ayala teaches the cable restraint of claim 12. Ayala further teaches wherein the body (of each hinge leaf) comprises a curved bottom (lower rounded surface) positioned below the central hole (see figure 2) and a curved top (opposite to said curved bottom) positioned above the central hole (see figure 2).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Bradbury and Ayala teaches the cable restraint of claim 12. Ayala further teaches wherein the body (of each hinge leaf) comprises a flat bottom (surface) positioned below the central hole (figure 2) and a curved top (on the outside of the hole) positioned above (away from the position that is below) the central hole (see figure 2).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Bradbury and Ayala teaches the cable restraint of claim 10. Bradbury further discloses wherein the fastener comprises a bolt (13) and a nut (14). In the combination, the bolt (13) is configured to extend through each center hole of each flange of the first plurality of flanges and each center hole of each flange of the second plurality of flanges in the closed position (aligned hinge leaves). The bolt (13) is further configured to extend between the front and the back (along the axis of the aligned hinge leaves, which Ayala orients along the clamp axis in figure 2), and the nut (14) is configured to be positioned at the front (on the free end of bolt 13).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Bradbury and Ayala teaches the cable restraint of claim 4. Bradbury further discloses wherein the inner liner comprises a third lob (pad 23 on 10, having an arcuate central hump between its cable receiving grooves; figure 1) extending from a third side (10) of the three sides.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Bradbury and Ayala teaches the cable restraint of claim 9. Ayala further teaches wherein the flat distal edge (end face) of each flange of the second plurality of flanges is configured to couple to the first end in the closed position (figures 1 and 2).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradbury, US 4,179,774 in view of Ayala, US 2021/0293356 as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Edwards et al., US 5,599,150.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Bradbury and Ayala teaches the cable restraint of claim 10, including a fastener (13, 14) extending through each center hole of the aligned flanges between the front and the back in the closed position. The combination does not expressly teach wherein the fastener comprises a clevis bolt and a pin, wherein the clevis bolt is configured to extend through each center hole of each flange of the first plurality of flanges and each center hole of each flange of the second plurality of flanges in the closed position, and wherein the clevis bolt is configured to extend between the front and the back and the pin is configured to be positioned at the front.
Edwards teaches a fastener comprising a clevis bolt (clevis pin 16) and a pin (hitch pin 8) installed in a bore of the clevis pin at its free end to retain the clevis pin within a bore. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a clevis pin retained by a hitch pin, as taught by Edwards for the bolt (13) and nut (14) of the combination, such that the clevis bolt extends through each center hole between the front and the back and the pin is positioned at the front, in order to permit installation and removal of the fastener without tools. It is noted that Ayala likewise secures its interleaved flanges with a removable pin (90).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 14, 2026 have been fully considered but they are considered moot in view of the new ground of rejection set forth above. Zhang is no longer relied upon. The argument that Ayala’s clamp presents a single continuous surface does not apply to the present rejection, in which Bradbury is relied upon for the three sides of the outer belt and for the lobes of the inner liner.
Further, it is noted that documentary evidence is now provided in response to the traversal of Official Notice for claims 17 and 18. Bradbury has provided support for claim 18 and Edwards for claim 17.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROWLAND DO whose telephone number is (571)270-5737. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30 - 7:00 PT.
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.
/R.D./ Examiner, Art Unit 3677
/JASON W SAN/ SPE, Art Unit 3677
Prosecution Insights