Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This is a first office action on the merits of application SN 18/825,280 and filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings include three dimensional shading (grayscale) and are not simply black line drawings, (see the cited references for examples)
2. The drawings are objected to because Black and white drawings are normally required in utility patent applications. India ink, or its equivalent that secures solid black lines, must be used for drawings. If shading is needed for explanation of the invention then it should be of one of the approved symbols/hatching. See MPEP 608.2 (VII, VII, IX).
3. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121 (d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121 (d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,133,351. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both recite a cable management system with a pair of rail assemblies and cable management apparatus.
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, 9, 11, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 6,327,139 to Champion in view of US Patent 2022/0125198 to Hancock.
Champion teaches
1. A cable management system for a server rack, comprising: an adapter bracket (inherently the structure between the server rack and the rail) coupled to the server rack; a rail assembly (101) coupled to the adapter bracket, the rail assembly including a plurality of apertures (vertically aligned openings as best seen in figure 1); a cable management apparatus (107,106) slideably coupled to the rail assembly, the cable management apparatus including: a plunger (bolts as best seen in figure 1); a plurality of tabs (one side of the 106b); and a plurality of retention devices (the other side of the 106b or 115 or 116), wherein, when the cable management apparatus is coupled to the rail assembly, the plunger extends through one of the apertures to define a position (as best seen in figure 1) of the cable management apparatus with respect to the rail assembly such that one or more cables (114) of the server rack are positioned between opposing tabs (as best seen in figure 1) of the plurality of tabs and coupled to the cable management apparatus by one or more of the retention devices.
Champion does not expressly disclose a second rail assembly with a second cable management apparatus.
Hancok teaches rail assemblies (101) with a pair of cable management arms (1a,1b) that engage a respective rail assembly. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Champion by adding a second rail assembly and second cable management arm as taught by Hancok to allow for more cable organization.
Regarding claim 9, Champion teaches
9. wherein the retention devices includes hook-and-loop members (115; Col 3, lnes 49-56).
Regarding claim 11, Hancok teaches
11. wherein the position of the cable management apparatus and the position of the additional cable management apparatus are substantially the same (as best seen in figure 1, the arms are at substantially the same elevation).
Regarding claim 12, Champion in view of Hancok teaches
12. wherein the one or more cables are hoses (the examiner considers that the cables of claim 1 are not positively claimed, therefore the rejection is required to have hoses, but must be capable. The examiner considers the system of Champion in view of Hancok would be capable of supporting hoses; US Patent 7,092,258 to Hardt supports that hoses, wires, and cables are equivalent for management arms Hardt, Col 3, lines 59 – 67).
Claim(s) 2, 3, and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 6,327,139 to Champion in view of US Patent 2022/0125198 to Hancock as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent 6,840,388 to Mayer.
Champion in view of Hancok discloses every element as claimed and discussed above except the rail assembly with a slot.
Mayer teaches
2. a rail assembly (110) includes: a first side (figure 1a) positioned opposite to a second side (figure 1b), the first side including a plurality of apertures (108); top side including an opening (figure 1); and a rail side, including a slot (space between the sides) extending a length of the rail side and defining a first segment (figure 1a) and a second segment (figure 1b) on the rail side. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Champion in view of Hancok by using bent rail as taught by Mayer as a functional equivalent rail shape.
Regarding claim 3, Mayer teaches
3. wherein the cable management apparatus further includes: a pair of flanges (1506, 112) extending from a first end () of the cable management apparatus; the plunger (102) coupled thru a first flange (1506) of the pair of flanges; and a coupling element (1502) coupled to the first end of the cable management apparatus and extending away from the first end, the coupling element including a stub (1502), wherein a gap is defined between the stub and the first end.
Regarding claim 6, Hancock and Mayer teaches
6. wherein the rail assembly further includes a coupling side (Hancock figure 1 and Mayer figure 1, left side portion with holes and slots not attached to the slide or cable arm) that is coupled to the adapter bracket, the coupling side opposite to the rail side.
Regarding claim 7, Mayer teaches
7. wherein the rail assembly includes a first member and a second member (left side and right side as seen in figure 1 of Mayer), the first member coupled to the second member, wherein the second member includes the rail side and the first member includes the coupling side.
Regarding claim 8, Mayer teaches
8. wherein both the first member and the second member include the plurality of apertures (as best seen in figure 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims, 4, 5, and 10 would be allowable if a terminal disclaimer was filed or rewritten to overcome the double patenting rejection, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY MICHAEL AYRES whose telephone number is (571)272-8299. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11:30-8.
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, Dan Troy can be reached at (571) 270-3742. 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.
/TIMOTHY M AYRES/Examiner, Art Unit 3637