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 .
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 4-5 and 9-10 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.
Re. Cls. 4 and 9, the limitation “said cable clip has a total amount of 6 cable cavities” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear if the Applicant is only referring to the Cavities (i.e. excluding the unique tighter cavity) or if the Applicant intends to include the unique tighter cavity in this total. It appears as if the Applicant’s drawings illustrate the six cavities to include the unique tighter but as currently written it appears to exclude the tighter cavity. Appropriate clarification is requested.
Re. Cls. 5 and 10, the limitation “said unique tighter cavity is replaced by another said cavity, so that it only has said cavities” renders the claim indefinite in the Examiner’s position. Claims 5 and 10 depend from claims 1 and 6 respectively but appear to nullify a limitation in claims 1 and 6. In other words, the limitations in claims 5 and 10 do not further limit claims 1 and 6 they actually delete limitations already included in claims 1 and 6. It is unclear how these limitations can be in the same device since by nature they would be distinct devices (i.e. one with the unique tighter cavity and one without). It is suggested that Applicant amend the claims to either optionally include the unique cable tighter in claims 1 and 6 or claim a cable clip with only cavities in a separate manner. Appropriate clarification is requested.
Re. Cls. 5 and 10, the limitation “according to any claims 1 to 4/6 to 9” renders the claim indefinite in the Examiner’s position. Applicant’s preamble appears as if it might be a multiple dependent claim since the Applicant uses the phrase “any claims.” The Examiner notes that the particular phrase used by the Applicant is not listed in either of the proper or improper phrases included in MPEP § 608.01(n), it is unclear if the Applicant intends to mean any one of claims 1-4/6-9 or if the Applicant is intending to claim multiple claims from 1-4/6-9. It is suggested that the Applicant use a phrase that is from the approved list of phrases found in MPEP § 608.01(n) (e.g. the cable clip according to any one of claims 1 to 4) to overcome this issue. Appropriate clarification is requested.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that uses the word “means” and being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: means for locking and unlocking in claims 1 and 6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Applicant defines the means as surfaces which receive flexible straps (see 6 and 7) in Fig. 2 for example.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carty US 4775121 (hereinafter Carty) in view of Mori US 9022438 (hereinafter Mori).
Re. Cl. 1, Carty discloses: A cable clip (Fig. 1) that ties cables together so that each cable can be easily identified, and that allows the bound cables to be easily transported and easily placed into their designated location (see Fig. 1 and 3, as shown in phantom lines the device is capable tying cables together so they can be identified and easily transported), comprising: a) a Front Strap (12, Fig. 1), said Front Strap has multiple Cavities (24, 26, 28, 30, Fig. 1);; b) a Rear Strap (14, Fig. 1); said Rear Strap can be sufficiently separated from said Front Strap so as to allow cables to be inserted between said Rear Strap and said Front Strap (see Fig. 2); c) an End Wall (16, Fig. 1-2), which is used to join said Rear Strap and said Front Strap at one end, which is the closed-end of said cable clip (see Fig. 1-2); d) a means for locking and unlocking said Front Strap to said Rear Strap (see 38 and 36, Fig. 1-2);
Re. Cl. 5, Carty discloses: said Unique Tighter Cavity is replaced by another said Cavity, so that it only has said Cavities (see Fig. 2, there is no unique tighter cavity shown).
Re. Cl. 1, Carty does not disclose only one Unique Tighter Cavity, which cavity dimension is smaller/tighter than that of said Cavities e) a Protrusion that is shaped on said Rear Strap; said Protrusion is a raised surface on the surface of said Rear Strap that is facing said Unique Tighter Cavity; said Protrusion is thick enough and its width is limited so that when said Rear Strap is locked to said Front Strap; said Rear Strap, through said Protrusion, only applies clamping pressure on the cable inserted into said Unique Tighter Cavity. Mori discloses a cable clip (Fig. 4-5) which includes a front strap (12, Fig. 5) having a cavity (34, Fig. 5) and a unique tighter cavity (22, Fig. 5) that is smaller/tighter than that of said cavity (see Fig. 4, 22 is smaller/tighter than 34 once closed); a Protrusion (52, Fig. 5) that is shaped on said Rear Strap (14, Fig. 5); said Protrusion is a raised surface on the surface of said Rear Strap that is facing said Unique Tighter Cavity (see Fig. 4-5); said Protrusion is thick enough and its width is limited so that when said Rear Strap is locked to said Front Strap (see Fig. 4); said Rear Strap, through said Protrusion, only applies clamping pressure on the cable inserted into said Unique Tighter Cavity (see Fig. 4, due to 52 projecting into the cavity, the protrusion is thick enough apply clamping pressure on an appropriately sized cable whereas cavity 34 does not have such a protruding structure but a concave structure and therefore is capable of not having pressure applied to an appropriately sized cable).
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 Carty device to have the protrusion of Mori with reasonable expectation of success to provide an effective securement of a smaller diameter cable so that it does not rattle or vibrate while being supported.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carty in view of Mori as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Wylie US 7093807 (hereinafter Wylie).
Re. Cls. 2, Carty discloses said cable clip also has identification numbers, for identifying each cable (see 62, Fig. 1-2), marked on said rear strap and/or said front strap (see Fig. 1-2). Carty does not disclose that the numbers are sequential (Cl. 2) or said cable clip also has a tag surface, said tag surface can be used to identify each cable, with said cable clip through said sequential identification numbers (Cl. 3). Wylie discloses a cable support (Fig. 6a, 6b) which includes identification numbers (see N1, Fig. 6a or numbers 1-5 shown in Fig. 6b), wherein the numbers are sequential (see Fig. 6b); said cable clip also has a tag surface (N2, Fig. 6a), said tag surface can be used to identify each cable, with said cable clip through said sequential identification numbers (Col. 7, Lines 18-21; it is the Examiner’s position that by providing the brand at least would enable the user to further identify the cables (i.e. the brand of cable)).
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 Carty device to use sequential numbers as disclosed by Wylie with reasonable expectation of success since it has been held obvious to replace one known means (alpha numeric characters) with another (sequential numbers) to achieve a predictable result (identifying cables). KSR Int’l Co. V. Teleflex Inc. 550 U.S. ___, 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007) (KSR). Further, 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 Carty device to use a tag surface as disclosed by Wylie with reasonable expectation since Wylie states that such a modification enables other information or brand information to be displayed (Col. 7, Lines 18-21).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carty in view of Mori in view of Wylie as applied to claims 2-3 above, and further in view of Bleus 2010/0006709 (hereinafter Bleus).
Re. Cl. 4, the combination discussed above does not disclose said cable clip has a total of 6 cable cavities, which is the ideal amount of cable cavities for thermocouple cables. Bleus discloses a cable clip (Fig. 1) which includes cavities (24, Fig. 1-3) that total six in number (see Fig. 2).
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 combined Carty, Mori, Wylie device to have six total cavities as disclosed by Bleus with reasonable expectation of success to provide more supporting cavities which would enable a larger number of cables to be supported if desired.
Claims 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grelck US 2010/0163278 (hereinafter Grelck) in view of Mori US 9022438 (hereinafter Mori).
Re. Cl. 6, Grelck discloses: A cable clip (Fig. 1) that ties cables together so that each cable can be easily identified, and that allows the bound cables to be easily transported and easily placed into their designated location (see Fig. 1-2, the device is capable being used in the claimed intended use), comprising: a) a Cavity Block (12, Fig. 1) on which two oppositely positioned rows of cable cavities are shaped (14s, Fig. 1); the row shaped on the rear-side of said Cavity Block has multiple Cavities (see 14s, Fig. 1); while the row shaped on the front-side of said Cavity Block has multiple said Cavities (see 14s Fig. 1); b) a Rear Strap (20, Fig. 1) which is shaped to the rear of said Cavity Block (see Fig. 1); said Rear Strap can be sufficiently separated from said Cavity Block (see Fig. 1), so as to allow cables to be inserted between said Rear Strap and the rear-side of said Cavity Block (see Fig. 1); c) a Front Strap (30, Fig. 1) which is shaped to the front of said Cavity Block (see Fig. 1); said Front Strap can be sufficiently separated from said Cavity Block, so as to allow cables to be inserted between said Front Strap and the front-side of said Cavity Block (see Fig. 1); d) an End Wall (16, Fig. 1), which is used to join said Rear Strap and said Front Strap to said Cavity Block at one end, which is the closed-end of said cable clip (see Fig. 1); e) a means for locking and unlocking said Rear Strap and said Front Strap to said Cavity Block (28, 38, Fig. 1); f) two oppositely positioned Strap Stops (18s, Fig. 1) shaped on the open-end of said Cavity Block; one said Strap Stop prevents said Rear Strap from applying any pressure on the cables that are inserted into said Cavities that are shaped on the rear-side of said Cavity Block; and the other said Strap Stop prevents said Front Strap from applying any pressure on the cables that are inserted into said Cavities that are shaped on the front-side of said Cavity Block (see Fig. 1, by engaging with 28, 38, the stops 18 prevent further tightening of 20, 30 and thus prevent added pressure on the cables).
Re. Cl. 10, Grelck discloses: said Unique Tighter Cavity is replaced by another said Cavity, so that it only has said Cavities (see Fig. 1, there is no unique tighter cavity shown).
Re. Cl. 6, Grelck does not disclose and only one Unique Tighter Cavity, which cavity dimension is smaller/tighter than that of said Cavities; g) a Protrusion that is shaped on said Front Strap; said Protrusion is a raised surface on the surface of said Front Strap that is facing said Unique Tighter Cavity; said Protrusion is thick enough and its width is limited so that when said Front Strap is locked to said Cavity Block; said Front Strap, through said Protrusion, only applies clamping pressure on the cable inserted into said Unique Tighter Cavity. Mori discloses a cable clip (Fig. 4-5) which includes a front strap (12, Fig. 5) having a cavity (34, Fig. 5) and a unique tighter cavity (22, Fig. 5) that is smaller/tighter than that of said cavity (see Fig. 4, 22 is smaller/tighter than 34 once closed); a Protrusion (52, Fig. 5) that is shaped on said Rear Strap (14, Fig. 5); said Protrusion is a raised surface on the surface of said Rear Strap that is facing said Unique Tighter Cavity (see Fig. 4-5); said Protrusion is thick enough and its width is limited so that when said Rear Strap is locked to said Front Strap (see Fig. 4); said Rear Strap, through said Protrusion, only applies clamping pressure on the cable inserted into said Unique Tighter Cavity (see Fig. 4, due to 52 projecting into the cavity, the protrusion is thick enough apply clamping pressure on an appropriately sized cable whereas cavity 34 does not have such a protruding structure but a concave structure and therefore is capable of not having pressure applied to an appropriately sized cable).
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 Grelck device to have the protrusion of Mori with reasonable expectation of success to provide an effective securement of a smaller diameter cable so that it does not rattle or vibrate while being supported.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grelck in view of Mori as applied to claims 6 and 10 above, and further in view of Wylie.
Re. Cls. 7, Grelck discloses said cable clip also has identification for identifying each cable (see 40, Fig. 1-2), marked on said rear strap and/or said front strap (see Fig. 1-2). Grelck does not disclose that they are sequential numbers (Cl. 7) or said cable clip also has a tag surface, said tag surface can be used to identify each cable, with said cable clip through said sequential identification numbers (Cl. 8). Wylie discloses a cable support (Fig. 6a, 6b) which includes identification numbers (see N1, Fig. 6a or numbers 1-5 shown in Fig. 6b), wherein the numbers are sequential (see Fig. 6b); said cable clip also has a tag surface (N2, Fig. 6a), said tag surface can be used to identify each cable, with said cable clip through said sequential identification numbers (Col. 7, Lines 18-21; it is the Examiner’s position that by providing the brand at least would enable the user to further identify the cables (i.e. the brand of cable)).
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 Grelck device to use sequential numbers as disclosed by Wylie with reasonable expectation of success since it has been held obvious to replace one known means (labels) with another (sequential numbers) to achieve a predictable result (identifying cables). KSR Int’l Co. V. Teleflex Inc. 550 U.S. ___, 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007) (KSR). Further, 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 Grelck device to use a tag surface as disclosed by Wylie with reasonable expectation since Wylie states that such a modification enables other information or brand information to be displayed (Col. 7, Lines 18-21).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grelck in view of Mori in view of Wylie as applied to claims 7-8 above, and further in view of Bleus.
Re. Cl. 9, the combination discussed above does not disclose said cable clip has a total of 6 cable cavities, which is the ideal amount of cable cavities for thermocouple cables. Bleus discloses a cable clip (Fig. 1) which includes cavities (24, Fig. 1-3) that total six in number (see Fig. 2).
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 combined Grelck, Mori, Wylie device to have six total cavities as disclosed by Bleus with reasonable expectation of success to provide fewer supporting cavities which would enable a fewer number of cables to be supported if desired.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Costigan US 2018/0080579, Fox US 2016/0281905, Gautsche US 6458104, and Pollard US 2010/0123048 disclose other known cable clips presented to the Applicant for their consideration.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER E GARFT whose telephone number is (571)270-1171. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m..
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 at (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.
/CHRISTOPHER GARFT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632