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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recitation “an nut” (line 1) should be replaced with -- a nut --. 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 and 15 - 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ayala, US 2021/0293356 in view of Zhang et al., US 2020/0232581.
Regarding claim 1, Ayala discloses a cable restraint (20) [for securing flexible cables during a short circuit event], the cable restraint comprising: an outer belt (exterior of 60, 70) comprising a first end (on 60 for a pin 90 to connect) and a second end (on 70 for the pin 90 to connect the outer belt); an inner liner (54) adjacent the outer belt (see figure 2); a first plurality of flanges (hinge leaves on the ends of the outer belt 60, 70; see figure 2) extending from the first end in a staggered pattern; a second plurality of flanges extending from the second end in the staggered pattern (figure 2), wherein the first plurality of flanges (hinge leaves) and the second plurality of flanges are configured to form an intermeshing coupler (see figure 1) when the cable restraint (20) is in a closed position (figure 1).
Ayala does not explicitly disclose a lobe extending from the inner liner and comprising an arcuate profile. Zhang teaches a restraint comprising a lobe (132) extending from the inner liner (129) and comprising an arcuate profile (see figures 3A and 3B). 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 restraint of Ayala to include a lobe extending as taught by Zhang in order to improve grip with less compression on the cables.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Ayala and Zhang teaches the cable restraint of claim 1. Ayala further discloses wherein, in the closed position (figure 3), the cable restraint (20) is triangular (see figure 3) and comprises three sides (surrounding the triangular restraint) and three vertices (two of which are for engaging the supports 140, 150), wherein each side of the three sides is configured to extend between the first end and the second end (seen in figure 1).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Ayala and Zhang teaches the cable restraint of claim 2. Ayala further discloses wherein the intermeshing coupler is configured to extend along a side of the three sides (figure 1).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Ayala and Zhang teaches the cable restraint of claim 2. Ayala further discloses wherein the intermeshing coupler is configured to extend along a vertex of the three vertices (extending along the length of the coupler).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Ayala and Zhang 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 Ayala and Zhang teaches the cable restraint of claim 1. Ayala further discloses [wherein the inner liner (54) is configured to be compressed by the flexible cables in the closed position].
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 clamp taught by the combination of Ayala and Zhang, 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 8, the combination of Ayala and Zhang teaches the cable restraint of claim 1. Ayala further discloses wherein a gap 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 (see figure 2).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Ayala and Zhang teaches the cable restraint of claim 1. Ayala further discloses wherein a flat edge 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 Ayala and Zhang teaches the cable restraint of claim 1. Ayala further discloses wherein each flange of the first plurality of flanges and each flange of the second plurality of flanges comprises a center hole (see figure 2), [wherein, in the closed position, align (figure 1) a fastener (90) is configured to couple to each center hole to secure the cable restraint].
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Ayala and Zhang teaches the cable restraint of claim 1. Ayala further discloses wherein each flange of the first plurality of flanges and each flange of the second plurality of flanges comprises a straight bottom configured to extend from either the first end or the second end; a body configured to extend from the straight bottom; and a flat distal edge configured to extend from the body (see figure 2).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Ayala and Zhang teaches the cable restraint of claim 11. Ayala further discloses wherein the body (hinge leaf) comprises a central hole (figure 2) [configured to receive a fastener (90)].
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Ayala and Zhang teaches the cable restraint of claim 12, wherein the body (of each hinge leaf) comprises a curved bottom 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 15, the combination of Ayala and Zhang teaches the cable restraint of claim 9, wherein the flat distal edge of each flange of the second plurality of flanges is configured to couple to the first end in the closed position (figure 1).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Ayala and Zhang teaches the cable restraint of claim 12, 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 17, the combination of Ayala and Zhang teaches the cable restraint of claim 10 except for wherein the fastener (90) comprises a clevis bolt and a pin, wherein the clevis bolt is configured to extend through each hole of each flange of the first plurality of flanges and each hole of each flange of the second plurality of flanges in the closed position, and wherein the clevis bolt is configured to couple to the first end in the closed position. The Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the mechanical arts to secure aligned apertures in hinged or pivoting members using removable fasteners, including a clevis bolt and a pin (to retain the bolt) and spring-loaded release pins (such as the bolt fastener 90 and spring loaded release 94 of Ayala). Such fasteners are commonly used to permit quick assembly and disassembly of the hinged components. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select an appropriate removable fastener for securing the flanges based on known design considerations such as retention capability, manufacturing and cost.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Ayala and Zhang teaches the cable restraint of claim 10 except for wherein the fastener (90) comprises a bolt and a nut, wherein the bolt is configured to extend through each hole of each flange of the first plurality of flanges and each hole of each flange of the second plurality of flanges in the closed position, and wherein the bolt is configured to couple to the first end in the closed position. The Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the mechanical arts to secure aligned apertures in hinged or pivoting members using removable fasteners, including a bolt and a nut (to retain the bolt) and spring-loaded release pins (such as the bolt fastener 90 and spring loaded release 94 of Ayala). Such fasteners are commonly used to permit quick assembly and disassembly of the hinged components. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select an appropriate removable fastener for securing the flanges based on known design considerations such as retention capability, manufacturing and cost.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 12, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has amended the claims to introduce new limitations that were not previously addressed in the prior art rejections. Therefore, a new ground of rejection has been set forth above to address the amended limitations. Specifically, claim 1 has been amended to recite “a lobe extending from the inner liner and comprising an arcuate profile”. This limitation was not previously considered and has necessitated the new ground of rejection under 35 USC § 103 as set forth above.
Conclusion
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 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