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 1-4 and 6-12 are pending and have been examined in this application. As of the date of this application, the Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS) filed on 07/22/2024 and 09/11/2024 has/have been taken into account.
Response to Amendment
In the amendment dated 02/04/2026, the following has occurred: Claims 1, 4, 6-7, and 11-12 have been amended; Claim 5 has 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 with respect to claims 1-12 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
Claims 4, 7, and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 11, and 12 each recite “wherein the front faces have an edge and are planarly embodiment”. This should read “wherein the front faces have an edge and are planar” (emphasis added).
Claims 1, 11, and 12 each recite “so that the cable comes in contact”. This should read “so that a cable comes in contact” (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.
Claims 1-12 are 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.
Claims 1, 11, and 12 each recite “wherein the front faces have an edge and are planarly embodied, so that the cable comes in contact, firstly, with the edge, then with the front face”. – As the edge is an element of the front face, it is unclear how a cable can come in contact with the edge first.
Claims 2-4 and 6-10 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, rejected claim 1.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 6, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rapata (US 2,895,003).
In regards to Claim 1, Rapata discloses a housing (Rapata: Fig. 1-4; 42) with a cable clamp (Rapata: Fig. 1-4; 30), wherein the cable clamp has at least one longitudinal axis, a cable passageway (Rapata: Fig. 1-4; 58), a lateral, traversing opening (Rapata: Fig. 4; 80) and three claws (Rapata: Annotated Fig. 2; C1, 62, C3), wherein the cable passageway extends along the longitudinal axis, wherein the opening laterally opens the cable passageway, wherein the three claws are located at different heights along the longitudinal axis, wherein two of the three claws (Rapata: Annotated Fig. 2; C1, C3) are so arranged that they are located in a same angular range around the longitudinal axis, and wherein the three claws are so arranged that one claw (Rapata: Fig. 1-4; 62) is located in another angular range around the longitudinal axis than the two other claws and along the longitudinal axis at a height between the two other claws, wherein the claws have, in each case, an areal front face (Rapata: Annotated Fig. 2; F1-F3) and a thereon following chamfering section (Rapata: Annotated Fig. 2; S1-S3), and wherein the front faces have an edge (Rapata: Annotated Fig. 7; E1-E3) and are planarly embodiment, so that the cable comes in contact, firstly, with the edge, then with the front face and, finally, with the chamfering section of the respective claw.
Regarding Claim 2, Rapata discloses the housing as claimed in claim 1, wherein the cable clamp (Rapata: Fig. 1-4; 30) is composed of a thermoplastic plastic (Rapata: Col. 2, Ln. 25-27).
Regarding Claim 6, Rapata, as modified, teaches the housing as claimed in claim 1, wherein the chamfering sections (Pini: Annotated Fig. 4; C) of the three claws (Rapata: Annotated Fig. 2; C1, 62, C3) extend, in each case, in a common direction along the longitudinal axis.
In regards to Claim 12, Rapata discloses a cable clamp (Rapata: Fig. 1-4; 30) having a longitudinal axis, a cable passageway (Rapata: Fig. 1-4; 58), a lateral, traversing opening (Rapata: Fig. 4; 80) and three claws (Rapata: Annotated Fig. 2; C1, 62, C3), wherein the cable passageway extends along the longitudinal axis, wherein the opening laterally opens the cable passageway, wherein the three claws are located at different heights along the longitudinal axis, wherein two of the three claws (Rapata: Annotated Fig. 2; C1, C3) are so arranged that they are located in a same angular range around the longitudinal axis, and wherein the three claws are so arranged that one claw (Rapata: Fig. 1-4; 62) is located in another angular range around the longitudinal axis than the two other claws and along the longitudinal axis at a height between the two other claws, wherein the claws have, in each case, an areal front face (Rapata: Annotated Fig. 2; F1-F3) and a thereon following chamfering section (Rapata: Annotated Fig. 2; S1-S3), and wherein the front faces have an edge (Rapata: Annotated Fig. 7; E1-E3) and are planarly embodied, so that the cable comes in contact, firstly, with the edge, then with the front face and, finally, with the chamfering section of the respective claw.
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 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rapata (US 2,895,003) in view of Hultgren (US 2,563,604).
Regarding Claim 3, Rapata discloses the housing as claimed in claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the cable clamp further includes a spring element, and wherein the spring element is so embodied and arranged that the cable clamp is elastically deformable.
However, Hultgren teaches a cable clamp further including a spring element (Hultgren: Fig. 3-4; 12), and wherein the spring element is so embodied and arranged that the cable clamp is elastically deformable.
Rapata and Hultgren are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area e.g. cable clamps/strain relief. 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 hinge of the clamp in Rapata with the spring element from Hultgren, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a portion of the clamp that tends to separate its portions, thus further insuring locking engagement of the clamp (Hultgren: Col. 4, Ln. 23-30).
Regarding Claim 4, Rapata, as modified, teaches the housing as claimed in claim 3, wherein the spring element (Hultgren: Fig. 3-4; 12) and the opening (Rapata: Fig. 4; 80) are diametrically opposite from one another.
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rapata (US 2,895,003) in view of Hultgren (US 2,563,604) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Pini (US 2006/0131073).
Regarding Claim 7, Rapata, as modified, teaches the housing as claimed in claim 6, but fails to disclose the three claws have, in each case, an insert section widening in a direction of the opening.
However, Pini teaches claws (Pini: Fig. 6-7; 43) having, in each case, an insert section (Pini: Annotated Fig. 7; W) widening in a direction of the opening. [Note: See the rejection of claim 5 for motivation.]
Rapata and Pini are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area, e.g. cable clamps/strain relief. 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 claws in Rapata with the widening portion from Pini, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide claws having a shape which allows a cable to be inserted laterally while providing the desired clamping force when in operation (Pini: [0023]-[0026]), thereby making removal and insertion of the cable easier without affecting performance.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rapata (US 2,895,003) in view of Hultgren (US 2,563,604) and Pini (US 2006/0131073) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Sachs (US 3,056,352).
Regarding Claim 8, Rapata, as modified, teaches the housing as claimed in claim 7, but fails to disclose the cable clamp further includes an outside, and wherein the outside is essentially conically tapered.
However, Sachs teaches a cable clamp (Sachs: Fig. 1-3; 17) further includes an outside (Sachs: Fig. 1-3, 9; 19-22), and wherein the outside is essentially conically tapered.
Rapata and Sachs are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area e.g. cable clamps/strain relief. 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 housing and clamp in Rapata with the seat and conical tapering connection from Sachs, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a means on the housing and a exterior structure of the cable clamp that resists unwanted axial withdrawal of a cable (Sachs: Col. 5, Ln. 9-29).
Regarding Claim 9, Rapata, as modified, teaches the housing as claimed in claim 8, wherein the housing further includes a seat (Sachs: Fig. 1-3; 18) for the cable clamp (Rapata: Fig. 1-4; 30), and wherein the seat has a conically tapered contour (Sachs: Fig. 3; 54).
Regarding Claim 10, Rapata, as modified, teaches the housing as claimed in claim 9, wherein the cable clamp (Rapata: Fig. 1-4; 30) further includes a bearing collar (Rapata: Fig. 1-2; 38, 40) and a securement collar (Sachs: Fig. 1-3; 38), wherein the bearing collar and the securement collar extend out from the longitudinal axis, and wherein the seat (Sachs: Fig. 1-3; 18) and the cable clamp are so embodied and adapted to one another that the bearing collar and the securement collar lie in a mounted state of the cable clamp on ends of the seat.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wegemann (US 2013/0057366) in view of Rapata (US 2,895,003).
Regarding Claim 11, Wegemann discloses a device for determining and/or monitoring a process variable of a medium; wherein the device comprises a housing (Wegemann: Fig. 1; 5) and wherein the housing includes a cable strain relief structure (Wegemann: Fig. 1; 8).
Wegemann fails to explicitly disclose a cable clamp, wherein the cable clamp has at least one longitudinal axis, a cable passageway, a lateral, traversing opening and three claws, wherein the cable passageway extends along the longitudinal axis, wherein the opening laterally opens the cable passageway, wherein the three claws are located at different heights along the longitudinal axis, wherein two of the three claws are so arranged that they are located in a same angular range around the longitudinal axis, and wherein the three claws are so arranged that one claw is located in another angular range around the longitudinal axis than the two other claws and along the longitudinal axis at a height between the two other claws. However, Rapata teaches a housing (Rapata: Fig. 1-4; 42) with a cable clamp (Rapata: Fig. 1-4; 30), wherein the cable clamp has at least one longitudinal axis, a cable passageway (Rapata: Fig. 1-4; 58), a lateral, traversing opening (Rapata: Fig. 4; 80) and three claws (Rapata: Annotated Fig. 2; C1, 62, C3), wherein the cable passageway extends along the longitudinal axis, wherein the opening laterally opens the cable passageway, wherein the three claws are located at different heights along the longitudinal axis, wherein two of the three claws (Rapata: Annotated Fig. 2; C1, C3) are so arranged that they are located in a same angular range around the longitudinal axis, and wherein the three claws are so arranged that one claw (Rapata: Fig. 1-4; 62) is located in another angular range around the longitudinal axis than the two other claws and along the longitudinal axis at a height between the two other claws, wherein the claws have, in each case, an areal front face (Rapata: Annotated Fig. 2; F1-F3) and a thereon following chamfering section (Rapata: Annotated Fig. 2; S1-S3), and wherein the front faces have an edge (Rapata: Annotated Fig. 7; E1-E3) and are planarly embodied, so that the cable comes in contact, firstly, with the edge, then with the front face and, finally, with the chamfering section of the respective claw.
Wegemann and Rapata are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area, e.g. cable clamps/strain relief. 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 housing in Wegemann with the cable clamp and seat from Rapata, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a specific structure for taking in mechanical stress on the cable from the outside that effectively prevents the cord from movement and effects this when being inserted into the housing, thereby simplifying assembly (Rapata: Col. 1, Ln. 21-44; Wegemann: [0025]).
Annotated Figures
PNG
media_image1.png
560
648
media_image1.png
Greyscale
I: Rapata; Fig. 2
PNG
media_image2.png
467
828
media_image2.png
Greyscale
II: Rapata; Fig. 7
PNG
media_image3.png
445
728
media_image3.png
Greyscale
III: Hultgren; Fig. 1-2
PNG
media_image4.png
633
631
media_image4.png
Greyscale
IV: Pini; Fig. 4
PNG
media_image5.png
356
624
media_image5.png
Greyscale
V: Pini; Fig. 7
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
Prosecution Insights