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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on January 26, 2026, is acknowledged. Claims 16-20 are withdrawn and Claims 1-15 are pending.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that all the claims are sufficiently related and that examination without election would not present an undue search burden. This is not persuasive.
The issue here is whether the claimed group inventions are distinct and whether examining both of them would cause a search burden. The Office Action mailed November 26, 2025, indicates that the MPEP provides guidance as to when a claimed product invention is distinct from a claimed process of use and a search burden.1
First, Applicant argues that “the limitations of group II aim to implement the method of clamping a cable of the clamp for a cable Group I.”2 However, the claimed process of use does not claim all the particulars of the claimed product and therefore the claimed process can be used with a materially different product. Second, the Office contended that there was a serious search burden because the inventions require different fields of search, employing different searching strategies and the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention.3
Applicant has not provided persuasive arguments as to how the claimed method of Group II recites all the limitations of the claimed clamp of Group I. As a result, the response is not persuasive and the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 15 recites “a second clamp portions moveable relative to the first clamp portion clamp a cable a cable--.” This appears to be an error. It is suggested to amend the claim to recite: “a second clamp portions moveable relative to the first clamp portion to clamp a cable Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 11, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent No. 8,500,073 to Quesnel (Quesnel).
PNG
media_image1.png
621
423
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
576
564
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
404
303
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1: Quesnel discloses a clamp for a cable comprising: a first clamp portion (See Annotated Fig. A) having a first cable groove (See Annotated Fig. A) for receiving a cable, the first cable groove extending transversely across the first clamp portion from a first clamp end to a second clamp end; a first pair of inserts (See Annotated Fig. A) disposed in the first and second ends of the first clamp portion; a second clamp portion (See Annotated Fig. B) having a second cable groove (See Annotated Fig. B) cooperating with the first cable groove to receive the cable, the second cable groove having a corresponding first clamp end and a corresponding second clamp end; a second pair of inserts (See Figure 11) disposed in the first and second ends of the second clamp portion; and a keeper clamp portion (See Annotated Fig. B) having a third cable groove (See Annotated Fig. B) cooperating with the first clamp portion along an intermediate segment (See Annotated Fig. A) of the first cable groove.
Regarding Claim 2: Quesnel discloses a clamp of claim 1, wherein the second clamp portion is pivotally connected (See Annotated Fig. C) to the first clamp portion along a hinge (See Annotated Fig. C), wherein the second clamp portion pivots between an open clamp position and a closed clamp position, wherein in the closed clamp position, the first and second cable grooves define a cable channel between the first and second pairs of inserts.
Regarding Claim 3: Quesnel discloses a clamp of claim 2, wherein the hinge (See Annotated Fig. C) is positioned below the first and second cable grooves. (Depends on the orientation of the device)
Regarding Claim 11: Quesnel discloses a clamp of claim 1, further comprising a second fastener (See Annotated Fig. C) extending through the second clamp portion and engaging the first clamp portion to secure the second clamp portion to the first clamp portion, wherein the second fastener is positioned above the first and second cable grooves.
Regarding Claim 12: Quesnel discloses a clamp of claim 1, wherein the keeper clamp portion (See Annotated Fig. B) has a width dimension extending in transversely, wherein the width dimension is greater than an end segment width of the first clamp portion including the first pair of inserts (See Annotated Fig. A).
Regarding Claim 14: Quesnel discloses a clamp of claim 1, wherein at least one of the first and second clamp portions (See Annotated Fig. A) include a stop-pin (See Annotated Fig. C) to provide a limit to the closed position.
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) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quesnel.
Regarding Claim 13: Quesnel does not disclose wherein the width dimension of the keeper clamp portion is at least 1.5 times greater than the end segment width of the first clamp portion. Nonetheless, the specifically claimed width of the keeper clamp portion is not patentably distinct over the prior art and is an obvious matter of design choice. Here’s why.
First, Courts have held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.”4 Here, Quesnel discloses a clamp that includes a keeper clamp portion that has some undefined width greater than the unspecified width of the end segment. Applicant has not disclosed that having a keeper clamp portion width that is 1.5 times greater than the end segment width would perform differently than other keeper widths.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Quesnel by using a keeper clamp portion that is 1.5 times greater than the end segment width to securely clamp the cable. Such modifications would not cause any unexpected results. Moreover, doing so would enable a user to ensure the cable was securely clamped.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-10 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.
Claim 15 is allowable but for the object discussed above.
Reasons for Allowable Subject Matter
None of the cited prior art, considered alone or in combination, discloses or teaches:
the clamp of claim 2, wherein the keeper clamp portion is pivotally connected to the first clamp portion along the hinge, wherein the keeper clamp portion pivots between an open keeper position and a closed keeper position independent of the second clamp portion such that the keeper clamp portion and the first clamp portion hold the cable without the second clamp portion being in the closed position; or
a clamp for a cable comprising: a first clamp portion; a second clamp portions moveable relative to the first clamp portion to clamp a cable; a pair of inserts positioned between the first and second clamp portions for cushioning the cable and dampening vibrations; a keeper clamp portion moveable relative to the first clamp portion and the second to provide sequential clamping of the cable, wherein the keeper clamp portion is moved from an installation position to a first clamp position to clamp the cable between the keeper clamp portion and the first clamp portion, wherein the second clamp portion is moved to a second clamp position to clamp the cable between the inserts positioned between the first and second clamp portions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In addition to the references used in this rejection and those cited in the PTO-892, the following references are very relevant to the claimed invention: US 8020812.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERET C MCNICHOLS whose telephone number is (571)270-7363. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00 - 5:00 (Eastern).
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.
ERET C. MCNICHOLS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3632
/ERET C MCNICHOLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632
1 See Office Action, p. 2, Section 4.
2 See Reply, p. 1, lines 12-13.
3 See Office Action, p. 2-3, Section 5.
4 See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).