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 .
This correspondence is in response to applicant’s reply filed on 06/29/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 2-3 and 7-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/29/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species II. (Figs. 3-6) in the reply filed on 06/29/2026 is acknowledged.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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, 4-6, and 17-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,913,575 (see table below). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they disclose the same structure of the cable hanger, as disclosed in the claims.
Regarding the limitations drawn to the material for the hanger and size of the mounting hole in claims 5-6 and 19-20, the Examiner submits the following. Providing a polymeric material would have been obvious because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations (see MPEP 2141, III. (C)). Further, changing the size of the mounting hole would have been obvious, because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense” (see MPEP 2141, III. (E)).
Conflicting claims
Application 18873456
U.S. Pat. 11913575
1,17
1
4,18
7
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) 1 and 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Varale (U.S. Pat. 10927980).
Regarding claim 1, Varale discloses a cable hanger 1, comprising: a generally flat base 2 with a mounting opening 3; first and second arms 4 extending in a first direction from opposite edges of the base 2 (as seen in Fig. 1); first and second locking members 5 extending in the first direction from, respectively, ends of the first and second arms 4, each of the locking members 5 comprising a respective hook 5b-c; first and second gripping members 7, each of the first and second gripping members 7 extending from the base 2 or one of the arms 4 and forming a pocket 6 configured to receive and grasp a cable C; and a support member 8 extending from the base 2 or one of the arms 4, the support member 8 sized and positioned to engage the first gripping member 7 when the first gripping member 7 deflects to grasp a cable C (as seen in Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 4, Varale discloses the cable hanger 1, where the opening 3 in the base 2 is configured to receive the hooks 5b-c of an identical second cable hanger 1 (as shown in Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 5, Varale discloses the cable hanger 1, formed of a polymeric material (as disclosed in col. 3, lines 48-50).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Varale.
Regarding claim 6, Varale teaches the cable hanger 1 above, having a mounting opening 3. However, Varale fails to teach where the mounting opening 3 has a nominal diameter of 3/4 inch.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the size of the mounting hole, because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense” (see MPEP 2141, III. (E)).
Claim(s) 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Varale in view of Schmidt (U.S. Pat. 7097142).
Regarding claim 17, Varale teaches a cable hanger 1, comprising: a generally flat base 2 with a mounting opening 3; first and second arms 4 extending in a first direction from opposite edges of the base 2 (as seen in Fig. 1); first and second locking members 5 extending in the first direction from, respectively, ends of the first and second arms 4, each of the locking members 5 comprising a respective hook 5b-c; first and second gripping members 7, each of the first and second gripping members 7 extending from the base 2 or one of the arms 4 and forming a pocket 6 configured to receive and grasp a cable C; and a support member 8 extending from the base 2 or one of the arms 4, the support member 8 sized and positioned to engage the first gripping member 7 when the first gripping member 7 deflects to grasp a cable C (as seen in Fig. 12). However, Varale fails to teach where the cable hanger 1 comprises first and second stabilizing members. Schmidt teaches a cable hanger 12 comprising a base 60 having a mounting hole 40, arms 16,18, and locking members 34,36, and first and second stabilizing members 46,48, each of the first and second stabilizing members 46,48 extending from a respective arm 16,18 adjacent one of the first or second locking members 34,36.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the stabilizing members of Schmidt with the arms of Varale, in order to provide a means for engaging a flat surface surrounding an aperture into which the locking members are inserted, as taught to be desirable by Schmidt (see discussion in col. 4, lines 48-50).
Regarding claim 18, Varale discloses the cable hanger 1, where the opening 3 in the base 2 is configured to receive the hooks 5b-c of an identical second cable hanger 1 (as shown in Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 19, Varale discloses the cable hanger 1, formed of a polymeric material (as disclosed in col. 3, lines 48-50).
Regarding claim 20, Varale teaches the cable hanger 1 above, having a mounting opening 3. However, Varale fails to teach where the mounting opening 3 has a nominal diameter of 3/4 inch.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the size of the mounting hole, because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense” (see MPEP 2141, III. (E)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In addition to the reference to Varale and Schmidt above, the Examiner submits the Notice of References Cited (PTO-892). U.S. Pats. 9853434 to Vaccaro, 10941883 to Bell et al., and 8439316 to Feige teach cable hangers having the ability to stack and secure to each other.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL D MCDUFFIE whose telephone number is (571)272-3832. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8AM-4:30PM.
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.
/Michael McDuffie/Examiner, Art Unit 3632 8-Jul-26
/TERRELL L MCKINNON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3632
Prosecution Insights