The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
DETAILED ACTION
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viklund et al (US 5,902,961) in view of Rouleau et al (US 11,384,814 B2).
Regarding claims 1, 7, and 11, Viklund discloses (e.g., Figs. 2 – 4 and 8 – 11; 2:31 – 4:25) a cable retainer 14 structurally configured to be coupled with a profile/channel 12 of a fiber distribution cabinet 40 (comprising racks for mounting telecommunication equipment, shown in Fig. 11; 4:12 – 25) so as to retain a cable in the profile 12 (“The channel retainers may be completely removed from the channel or may be pivoted to the left or the right to provide access to the cables within the channel. Cable management devices may be mounted within the channel to separate different types of cable” in the Abstract; “The user can position the channel retainers 14 at any position to provide pathways for routing cable” at 2:56 – 57; “The channel retainer 14 is generally u-shaped and when mounted to the u-shaped channel 12, forms an enclosed cable management area” at 2:61 – 63; “This allows the channel retainer 14 to be opened towards the left or the right. The is useful in situations where space is limited and the user may not have the ability to open the channel retainer 14 is both directions” at 4:3 – 6).
Viklund teaches that embodiments wherein all cable retainers 14 are implemented as brackets that are removably attached to the profile/channel 12 by hinge members 22 that are inserted into a plurality of slots 20 of the profile 12. Viklund does not teach retainers of types different from hinged connections, such as twist-lock/twist-in retainers. However, Rouleau discloses (Figs. 1 – 8; 3:31 – 6:2) a twist-lock/twist-in retainer 100 structurally configured to be coupled with a profile/channel 2, the twist-lock/twist-in retainer 100 comprising:
an inner retaining portion 20,30 (Fig. 4) structurally configured to be received in a cable receiving portion of the profile/channel 2 (as shown in Figs. 5 and 6);
a neck portion 14 (Fig. 4) extending from the inner retaining portion 20,30 and structurally configured to be received in an (upper) opening through a (top) wall portion of the profile 2 to the cable receiving portion;
an outer retaining portion 10 (Fig. 4) structurally configured to extend from the neck portion 14 in a (upward) direction away from the inner retaining portion 20,30;
a (top) receiving portion in the outer retaining portion 10 structurally configured to receive and retain (by a cable tie body 51, as shown in Fig. 1) a received element 1 (e.g. a cable; 3:31 – 44);
wherein the inner retaining portion 20,30 is structurally configured to pass through the opening when disposed in a first orientation relative to the opening (as shown in Fig. 5), and
wherein the inner retaining portion 20,30 is structurally configured to be prevented from passing through the opening when disposed in a second orientation (rotated by 90o relative to the first orientation) relative to the opening (Fig. 6; “According to a final installation step in the installation process, the compliant hanger assembly 100 is rotated 90 degrees (e.g., in the clock-wise direction) until the width face of the strut nut 30 is facing into the channel of the strut 2, as shown in FIGS. 6 and 8. As described earlier, the rounded corners 22 of the compression pad 20 and the rounded corners 32 of the strut nut 30 are positioned to aid in the rotation fit of the strut nut 30 and the compression pad 20 as they are rotated in the clock-wise direction within the channel of the strut 2” at 5:32 – 41);
wherein the outer retaining portion 10 is configured to prevent insertion of the outer retaining portion 10 into the opening (the outer retaining portion 10 is wider than the opening, as seen in Figs. 5 and 6);
wherein the neck portion 14 is structurally configured to permit the inner retaining portion 20,30 to be rotated (by 90 degrees) relative to the profile 2 from the first orientation (Fig. 5) to the second orientation (Fig. 6) when the neck portion 14 is received in the opening such that the inner retaining portion 20,30 is configured to engage an inner surface portion of the (top) wall portion and the outer retaining portion 10 is configured to engage an outer surface portion of the wall portion so as to couple the retainer 100 with the profile 2 (as seen in Fig. 2); and
wherein the inner retaining portion 20,30 is configured to extend into the cable receiving portion by a (entire) thickness of the inner retaining portion 20,30 (as seen in Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that at least some of the hinge-type retainers 14 in Viklund can be replaced by the twist-lock/twist-in retainers taught by Rouleau. The motivation is that, unlike the hinge-type retainers 14 in Viklund, the twist-lock/twist-in retainers of Rouleau do not require slots 20 (in Fig. 2 of Viklund) and, as such, can be (re)positioned at any position(s) along the profile/channel 12, rather than at only discrete positions defined by the slots 20. This furthers the goal of Viklund to increase the flexibility of (re)positioning the retainers along the profile/channel: from fixed retainers 4 of prior art (Fig. 1) to removable retainers 14 disposed at predetermined (by the slots 20) locations (Fig. 2) to the twist-lock/twist-in retainers of Rouleau which can be (re)positioned at any position(s) along the profile/channel 12. Furthermore, the twist-lock/twist-in retainers of Rouleau are inserted and removed along a direction normal to the profile/channel 12 without bumping into components adjacent to it, which furthers another goal of Viklund (4:3 – 6). Finally, the twist-lock/twist-in retainers of Rouleau can be used to both cap the profile/channel with enclosed cables and support a component(s) 1 on top of the twist-lock/twist-in retainers (as shown in Fig. 1 of Rouleau).
The Viklund – Rouleau combination considers space constrains and renders obvious that a space defined by the interior of the cable receiving portion, i.e., a space between the inner retaining portion and the bottommost wall portion, is to be maximized in order to maximize the number of cables that are retained within the cable receiving portion (according to Viklund). Hence, the Viklund – Rouleau combination renders obvious that a thickness of the inner retaining portion is to be minimized (to expand the interior of the profile/channel, as evident from Fig. 6 of Rouleau) while providing enough mechanical strength for reliably securing the attached component/cable 1. Finding a range of suitable/workable thickness values (e.g., less than 25% of a dimension/height of the cable receiving portion from the inner surface portion of the wall portion to a bottommost wall portion of the cable receiving portion) would be well within ordinary skill in the art. It is also noted that the upper range of the recited range depends on a particular application (e.g., a particular selection of materials of the inner retaining portion, a minimum acceptable mechanical strength of the inner retaining portion, etc).
Alternatively or additionally, the teachings of Viklund (removable/repositionable cable retainers) can be applied to Rouleau and suggest fiber-distribution apparatus/cabinets as a suitable/workable application area of the twist-lock/twist-in retainers of Rouleau. It is noted that a new use/application (in this case, fiber-distribution apparatus/cabinets) of a known product (the twist-lock/twist-in retainers of Rouleau) is not given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 4, the Viklund – Rouleau combination considers that the inner retaining portion 20,30 is configured with vertically extending portions (vertical sidewalls of grooves 33, as shown in Fig. 2 of Rouleau) structurally configured to engage (via 20) with the (curved) inner surface portion of the wall portion when the cable retainer 100 is inserted into the opening and rotated to lock the cable retainer 100 into the profile 2 (as shown in Fig. 6 of Rouleau).
Regarding claim 6, the Viklund – Rouleau combination considers (Figs. 1 and 6 of Rouleau) that the (top) receiving portion in the outer retaining portion 10 is configured to be disposed outside the opening when the cable retainer 100 is inserted into the cable receiving portion (of profile/channel 2).
Claims 2, 3, 5, 8 – 10 and 12 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viklund in view of Rouleau, and further in view of O'Shaughnessy et al (US 2020/0006927 A1).
Regarding claims 2, 8, and 14, the teachings of Viklund and Rouleau combine (see the arguments and motivation for combining, as provided above for claim 1) to teach expressly or render obvious all of the recited limitations (as detailed above for claim 1), except for citing suitable/workable sizes of profiles/channels for cables. However, O'Shaughnessy discloses (Figs. 1 – 4; Abstract; para. 0038 – 0054) a profile/channel 2 for cables 28, the profile/channel 2 comprising a plurality of profiles/channels 6,8,10,12 that have transverse (width and height) dimensions within 8 mm – 29 mm. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the profile/channel of the Viklund – Rouleau combination can have transverse dimensions comparable to those exemplified by O'Shaughnessy in order to provide an interior volume sufficient for accommodating/enclosing a certain number of cables. It is noted that a particular selection of the transverse dimensions depends on an intended application (a particular number of cables, their outer sizes, acceptable maximum density of installation in the profile/channel, etc).
The Viklund – Rouleau - O'Shaughnessy combination considers that the profile/channel can have a height of about 20 mm and that thickness of the inner retaining portion 20,30 (as identified in Fig. 4 of Rouleau) is configured to be significantly less (e.g., less than 25%, as detailed above for claim 1) than the height, which suggests a range of thicknesses under 5 mm, the latter overlapping with the recited range. It is also noted that (i) the upper range limit depends on a particular application (a particular number of cables, their outer sizes, acceptable density of installation in the profile/channel, a particular material of the inner retaining portion and its minimum acceptable mechanical strength, etc); that (ii) the instant application does not provide any criticality for the exact values of the recited range limits; AND that (iii) it has been held that discovering the optimum or workable ranges of prior art involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233).
Regarding claims 9 and 17, Viklund – Rouleau - O'Shaughnessy combination teaches expressly or renders obvious all of the recited limitations, as detailed above for claims 4 and 7.
Regarding claims 3, 5, 10, 12, 18, and 20, the Viklund – Rouleau - O'Shaughnessy combination teaches expressly or renders obvious all of the recited limitations, as detailed above for claim 14. The claims merely recite suitable/workable ranges of transverse dimensions of the twist-lock retainer and the Viklund – Rouleau - O'Shaughnessy combination considers ranges comparable to, and overlapping with, the recited range.
Regarding claim 16, Viklund – Rouleau - O'Shaughnessy combination teaches expressly or renders obvious all of the recited limitations, as detailed above for claim 1.
Regarding claims 13 and 19, Viklund – Rouleau - O'Shaughnessy combination teaches expressly or renders obvious all of the recited limitations, as detailed above for claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2017/0276892 A1 Figs. 13 and 14 show a cable channel with cable retainers 42 at predetermined positions.
US 2017/0214983 A1
US 8,939,779 B1
US 7,621,487 B2
US 2016/0215901 A1
US 3,761,603
US 9,790,980 B2
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT TAVLYKAEV whose telephone number is (571)270-5634. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 am - 6:00 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, William Kraig can be reached on (571)272-8660. 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.
/ROBERT TAVLYKAEV/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights