DETAILED ACTION
This is the second office action for US Application 18/784,025 for Cable Hangers.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species XX in the reply filed on 29 December 2025 is acknowledged.
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 31 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 31 recites the limitation “the hook extends from the support member at an angle less than 90 degrees”. However, the elected species shown in figures 17A-18B shows the first section of the hook as extending from the support member at an angle of more than 90 degrees. The claim will be examined to the best extent possible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 19-22, 28, and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 6,565,048 to Meyer. Regarding claim 19, Meyer discloses a cable hanger comprising a support member (104…see figures 15 and 16) that includes a proximal end and a distal end. There is a saddle (108, 110) attached to and extending from the support member, the saddle configured to support at least one cable on a cable supporting surface. There is a hanging mechanism (90) arranged at the proximal end of the support member, wherein the hanging mechanism is a hook (at 92) configured to at least partially surround a support wire (the hook 92 “snaps” onto the support 219 and is configured to do the same on a wire), and is offset on the support member.
The hook comprises a first section connected to the support member and a second section connected to the first section (there is an offset portion of 90 that extends towards 92 that is the first section, and around the hook to form the second portion). The second section is deformable such that at least a portion of the second section is configured to move closer to the support member as the second section is deformed about the support wire (see column 7, lines 2-5… the clip 90 “snaps” over the edge of 219, meaning the clip 90 is resilient and would snap over a support wire, resulting in the second section moving closer to the support member as the clip engages the wire).
Regarding claim 20, the saddle (108, 110) is arranged on the distal end of the support member (104). Regarding claim 21, the saddle includes a first portion (110) perpendicular to the support member (104). Regarding claim 22, the saddle includes a second portion (108) extending vertically upward from the first portion. Regarding claim 28, an opening of the hook is vertically offset relative to the support member. Regarding claim 29, the hanging mechanism is a positive locking mechanism configured to secure the cable hanger to the wire (see column 7, lines 2-5… the hook (92) of the clip (90) includes barbs that would bite into the wire locking the clip into place).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 23 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer in view of Gardner. Meyer does not disclose the second portion as including a curved end that extends toward the second member. Gardner discloses a cable hanger as disclosing a support member (20) with a saddle (32, 42) extending from the support member, and a curved end (42, 42c, 44) extending towards the support member for securing the cable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided the second portion with a curved end extending toward the support member to secure the cable within the saddle.
Claim(s) 27, 30-33, 35, and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer. Regarding claim 27, Myer does not disclose an opening of the hook vertically aligned with the cable support surface. However, the specific orientation of the hook relative to the cable support surface is a matter of design preference that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention depending on the object to which the hook is to be suspended from. One of ordinary skill in the art would know to align the opening of the hook with the cable support surface if the hook was intended to be supported on a vertical surface.
Regarding claims 30, Meyer discloses a cable hanger comprising a support member (104…see figures 15 and 16) that includes a proximal end and a distal end. There is a saddle (108, 110) attached to and extending from the support member, the saddle configured to support at least one cable on a cable supporting surface. There is a hanging mechanism (90) arranged at the proximal end of the support member, wherein the hanging mechanism is a hook (at 92) configured to at least partially surround a support wire (the hook 92 “snaps” onto the support 219 and is configured to do the same on a wire), and is offset on the support member.
The hook comprises a first section connected to the support member and a second section connected to the first section (there is an offset portion of 90 that extends towards 92 that is the first section, and around the hook to form the second portion). The second section is deformable such that at least a portion of the second section is configured to move closer to the support member as the second section is deformed about the support wire (see column 7, lines 2-5… the clip 90 “snaps” over the edge of 219, meaning the clip 90 is resilient and would snap over a support wire, resulting in the second section moving closer to the support member as the clip engages the wire).
Meyer does not specifically disclose the cable hanger as including a support wire from which the hanger is suspended from. However, suspending the cable hanger of Meyer from a wire instead of a flange is a matter of design preference that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have known that a wire could be substituted as the supporting means in place of the flange for the support hook.
Regarding claim 31, the first section of the hook extends from the support member at an angle of more than 90 degrees (as noted above under section 112, Applicant’s first section extends from the support member at an angle of more than 90 degrees). Regarding claim 32, the saddle is arranged on the distal end of the support member. Regarding claim 33, the saddle includes a first portion (110) perpendicular to the support member (104), and a second portion (110) extending vertically upward from the first portion.
Claim(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer in view of Gardner. Meyer does not disclose the second portion as including a curved end. Gardner discloses a cable hanger as disclosing a support member (20) with a saddle (32, 42) extending from the support member, and a curved end (42, 42c, 44) extending towards the support member for securing the cable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided the second portion with a curved end extending toward the support member to secure the cable within the saddle.
Regarding claim 35, Myer does not disclose an opening of the hook vertically aligned with the cable support surface. However, the specific orientation of the hook relative to the cable support surface is a matter of design preference that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention depending on the object to which the hook is to be suspended from. One of ordinary skill in the art would know to align the opening of the hook with the cable support surface if the hook was intended to be supported on a vertical surface.
Regarding claim 36, an opening of the hook is vertically offset relative to the support member.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 25, 26, 37 and 38 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art does not disclose the features of claim 25 or 30, in addition to the first section and the second section of the hook including an aperture passing therethrough.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 5961081 to Rinderer
US 7407138 to Gretz
US 0992301 to Walsh
US 2417261 to Morehouse
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN M MARSH whose telephone number is (571)272-6819. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9 am-7:30 pm.
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached on 571-272-4797. 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.
STEVEN M. MARSH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3632
/STEVEN M MARSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632