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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/16/26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1 and 14 are amended. Claims 12 and 19 are cancelled.
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) 1-4, 6-7, 9-10, 13-14, 16-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0223860 to Jones et al. in view of US 2019/0383099 to Yeh.
Regarding claim 1, Jones '860 discloses a cable carrier comprising: a frame 104; a first leg extending from a first end of the frame 104 (as annotated); a second leg extending from a second end of the frame 104 opposite the first end (as annotated); a first bracket 102-1 mounted on a first flange of the first leg (end portion of leg that accepts bolt 106-1), wherein the first bracket 102-1 includes a pivot first hole and the first flange includes a second pivot hole that coincides with the first pivot hole to receive a fastening means 106-1 (as annotated); and a second bracket 102-2 mounted on a second flange of the second leg (as annotated), wherein a first surface of the frame 104 is configured to guide at least one cable (para 0010), wherein the second bracket 102-2 includes a third pivot hole and the second flange includes a fourth pivot hole that coincides with the third pivot hole to receive a fastening means 106-2 (as annotated) and wherein the frame 104 is configured to pivot about a common axis of the first bracket 102-1 and the second bracket 102-2 defined by the fastening means.
PNG
media_image1.png
360
822
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Jones '860 does not teach that brackets 102-1/102-2 each include a plurality of holes where one hole is selectively aligned with one hole of a plurality of holes of the flanges of each leg to receive a locking pin and lock the frame at a desired angle.
However, Yeh '099 teaches at least one bracket 2 includes a plurality of holes 231-236 and the flange 11 includes a plurality of holes 111-112 such that one of the first plurality of holes is selectively aligned with one of the second plurality of holes. Yeh ‘099 further teaches lock pins 433 and 434 received through the selectively aligned holes to lock the relatively pivotable members at a desired angle (paras 0037 and 0040-0041)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventio to modify Jones '860 with the selectively alignable hole arrangement taught by Yeh '099 in order to permit the frame to be secured at a plurality of angular positions relative to the bracket while providing a simple, reliable and repeatable locating mechanism, such that one of the first plurality of holes is selectively aligned with one of the second plurality of holes and one of the third plurality of holes is selectively aligned with one of the fourth plurality of holes to receive a locking pin and lock the frame at a desired angle.
Regarding claim 2, Jones '860, as modified, discloses, wherein the first leg extends in a first direction from the first end (as annotated above).
Regarding claim 3, Jones '860, as modified, discloses, wherein the second leg extends in the first direction from the second end (as annotated above).
Regarding claim 4, Jones '860, as modified, discloses, wherein the first leg, the second leg, and the frame 104 define a u-shaped configuration (as annotated above).
Regarding claim 6, Jones '860, as modified, discloses, wherein a first surface of the first leg includes at least one channel (note the corner formed by the leg and frame) configured to guide at least one of the at least one cable or at least one other cable.
PNG
media_image2.png
214
601
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Jones '860, as modified, discloses, wherein the first surface of the first leg is adjacent to the first surface of the frame (as annotated above).
Regarding claim 9, Jones '860, as modified, discloses, wherein a first surface of the second leg includes at least one channel (note the corner formed by the leg and frame) configured to guide at least one of the at least one cable or at least one other cable.
PNG
media_image2.png
214
601
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Jones '860, as modified, discloses, wherein the first surface of the second leg is adjacent to the first surface of the frame 104 and faces the first surface of the first leg (as annotated above).
Regarding claim 14, Jones '860 discloses an apparatus comprising: a frame 104; at least one leg extending from an end of the frame 104 (annotated below); and at least one bracket 102 mounted on a flange of the at least one leg 104 (end portion of leg that holds the bolt - as annotated below), wherein a first surface of the frame 104 is configured to guide at least one cable (para 0010), wherein the at least one bracket 102 includes a first pivot hole and the flange includes a second pivot hole that coincides with the first pivot hole to receive a fastening means 106-2, and wherein the frame 104 is configured to pivot about a common axis of the at least one bracket 102 defined by the fastening means 106-2.
PNG
media_image3.png
325
620
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Jones '860 does not teach that bracket 102 includes a first plurality of holes where one hole is selectively aligned with one hole of a second plurality of holes of the flange to receive a locking pin and lock the frame at a desired angle.
However, Yeh '099 teaches at least one bracket 2 includes a first plurality of holes 231-236 and the flange 11 includes a second plurality of holes 111-112 such that one of the first plurality of holes is selectively aligned with one of the second plurality of holes. Yeh ’99 further teaches loc pins 433/434 received through the selectively aligned holes to lock relatively pivotable members at a desired angle (paras. 0037 and 0040-0041)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventio to modify Jones '860 with the selectively alignable hole arrangement taught by Yeh '099 in order to permit the frame to be secured at a plurality of angular positions relative to the bracket while providing a simple, reliable and repeatable locating mechanism such that one of the first plurality of holes is selectively aligned with one of the second plurality of holes to receive a locking pin in order to lock the frame at a desired angle.
Regarding claim 16, Jones '860, as modified, discloses, wherein a first surface of the at least one leg includes at least one channel (corner between the frame and leg) configured to guide at least one of the at least one cable or at least one other cable.
PNG
media_image2.png
214
601
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, Jones '860, as modified, discloses, wherein the first surface of the at least one leg is adjacent to the first surface of the frame 104 (as annotated).
Regarding claims 13 and 20, Jones '860, as modified, discloses, wherein the frame 104 is configured to lock at an angle relative to the at least one bracket 102 (see rationale of claims 1 and 14)
Claim(s) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0223860 to Jones et al. in view of US 2019/0383099 to Yeh as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of US 8,464,984 to Laursen.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Jones '860, as modified, discloses a frame 104 having a surface configured to support at least one cable.
However, Jones '860 is silent as to the first surface of the frame 104 includes a plurality of clips disposed thereon, the plurality of clips being configured to retain at least the at least one cable.
Laursen '984 discloses a first surface of the frame 118 includes a plurality of clips 124 disposed thereon, the plurality of clips 124 being configured to retain at least the at least one 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 Jones '860 with the clip equivalents taught in Laursen '984 in order to further retain the cables to the frame.
Claim(s) 8, 11 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0223860 to Jones et al. in view of US 2019/0383099 to Yeh as applied to claims 6, 9 and 16 above, and further in view of US 10,952,345 to Gupta et al.
Regarding claims 8, 11 and 18, Jones '860, as modified discloses a frame 104 having legs configured to support at least one cable.
However, Jones '860 does not disclose wherein the first surface of the legs include a plurality of clips disposed thereon, the plurality of clips being configured to retain at least one of the at least one cable and the at least one other cable.
Gupta '345 discloses legs 26 including a plurality of clips 28 disposed thereon, the plurality of clips 28 being configured to retain at least one of the at least one cable and the at least one other cable (col. 6, line 25-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventio to modify Jones '860 with the clip equivalents taught in Gupta '345 in order to further retain the cables to the frame.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/16/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Jones alone does not disclose selective alignable holes and a locking pin. Applicant also argues that Yeh alone does not manage cables.
In response to the Applicant’s piecemeal analysis of the references, it has been held that one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Applicant argues that a skilled artisan would not replace Jones’ use of friction and stops with Yeh’s locking pin system.
The examiner submits that the modification does not require removing Jones’ friction or stops. Yeh’s selectively alignable holes and locking pins would supplement Jones by positively securing the frame at a selected angle. The frame would remain pivotable when the locking pins are disengaged.
Applicant argues that Yeh concerns a ladder hinge rather than cable management, so a skilled artisan working on Jones would not have looked to Yeh.
It has been held that the determination that a reference is from a non-analogous art is twofold. First, we decide if the reference is within the field of the inventor’s endeavor. If it is not, we proceed to determine whether the reference is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was involved. In re Wood, 202 USPQ 171, 174.
In this case, Yeh is reasonably relevant to the mechanical problem of selectively positioning and locking two pivotable members at a desired angle. Both Jones and Yeh concern members that pivot with respect to one another. Yeh teaches a known arrangement for positively securing such members at selected angular positions.
Applicant argues that incorporating Yeh’s selectively alignable holes and locking pins would materially change Jones’ structure or manner of operation.
The examiner submits that the modification would not change Jones’ principle of operation or render Jones unsuitable for its intended purpose. Jones’ frame would continue to guide cables and pivot relative to the brackets. Yeh’s arrangement would merely provide positive retention of the frame at the selected angle.
Applicant argues that the reference should not be combined merely because both contain pivotable or movable parts.
The examiner submits that the references are not combined merely because they contain movable parts. Yeh is relied on because it teaches selectively alignable holes and locking pins for securing pivotably connected members at selected angular positions. Modifying Jones with this known arrangement would predictably allow Jones ‘s pivotable frame to be secured at a desired angle.
Further, the Examiner recognizes that references cannot be arbitrarily combined and that there must be some reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make the proposed combination of primary and secondary references. In re Nomiya, 184 USPQ 607 (CCPA 1975). However, there is no requirement that a motivation, to make the modification be expressly articulated. The test for combining references is what the combination of disclosures taken as a whole would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re McLaughlin, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). References are evaluated by what they suggest to one versed in the art, rather than by their specific disclosure. In re Bozek, 163 USPQ 545 (CCPA 1969).
The rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONICA E MILLNER whose telephone number is (571)270-7507. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4:00pm.
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.
/MONICA E MILLNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632
