CABLE TIE

§103 §112

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 is a final Office action responsive to the reply filed on 07/20/2026. Claims 1-5, 7 and 8 have been amended. Claims 10-20 have been canceled. Claim 21 was added. Claims 1-9 and 21 are pending. Amended abstract, and drawings were filed for entry. 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. Claims 1-9 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paradis (US Patent No. 4,473,524), in view of Sorensen et al. (US Patent No. 5,470,520), and Lidey (US Patent No. 9,624,016). Regarding claim 1, Paradis discloses a cable tie, comprising a locking head and a tie body, wherein two ends of an inner cavity of the locking head respectively form an extend-in opening and a pull-out opening, one end of the tie body is fixedly connected to an outer wall of one end of the locking head close to the extend-in opening, tie teeth are fixedly arranged on two sides of the tie body, locking teeth are mounted on inner walls of two sides of the locking head, the locking teeth are configured to engage with the tie teeth, and an extend-out head is integrally formed at one end of the tie body away from the locking head (see annotated Figs. 2 and 3); and one side of the tie body is provided with a groove, and a bending groove is formed at one end of the groove close to the locking head (see annotated Figs. 2 and 3). Paradis does not disclose tooth surfaces of the tie teeth on the two sides of the tie body at a same section partially overlap in a thickness direction of the tie body. However, Sorensen et al. teaches tooth surfaces of the tie teeth (22, 24) on the two sides of the tie body (12) at a same section partially overlap in a thickness direction of the tie body (12) (see Figs. 2 and 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tie teeth from Paradis with partially overlap tie teeth as taught by Sorensen et al. in order to have a stronger engagement with the locking teeth from the locking head. Also, Paradis does not disclose the tie teeth are V-shaped teeth, the locking teeth are also V-shaped teeth. However, Lidey teaches the tie teeth are V-shaped teeth (50), the locking teeth are also V-shaped teeth (29) (see Figs. 5 and 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tie teeth from Paradis with V-shaped teeth as taught by Lidey in order to enhance the locking strength and minimize failure of the cable tying device. Regarding claim 2, the combination of Paradis, in view of Sorensen et al. and Lidey discloses, wherein the tie teeth comprise convex teeth, a plurality of convex teeth are integrally formed on the other side of the tie body close to the pull-out opening, the groove is located at the one side of the tie body away from the convex teeth, a plurality of inner teeth are fixedly mounted on an inner wall of the groove, the convex teeth and the inner teeth are all matched with the locking teeth (see annotated Figs. 2 and 3), the convex teeth and the inner teeth are of asymmetric structures along the two sides of the tie body, and tooth surfaces of the convex teeth and the inner teeth at the same section partially overlap in the thickness direction of the tie body (see Figs. 2 and 4 from Sorensen et al.). Regarding claim 3, the combination of Paradis, in view of Sorensen et al. and Lidey discloses, wherein one surface of each of the convex teeth away from the locking head forms an outer guide surface with an inclined structure, one surface of each of the convex teeth close to the locking head forms an outer stop surface, one side of each of the convex teeth away from the tie body is provided with an outer platform, and an outer wall of the tie body between two adjacent of the convex teeth forms an outer flat groove (see annotated Figs. 2 and 3). Regarding claim 4, the combination of Paradis, in view of Sorensen et al. and Lidey discloses, wherein one surface of each of the inner teeth away from the locking head forms an inner guide surface with an inclined structure, one surface of each of the inner teeth close to the locking head forms an inner stop surface, one side of each of the inner teeth away from the tie body is provided with an inner platform, and an inner wall of the tie body between two adjacent of the inner teeth forms an inner flat groove (see annotated Figs. 2 and 3). Regarding claim 5, the combination of Paradis, in view of Sorensen et al. and Lidey discloses, wherein the convex teeth and the inner teeth are uniformly distributed in a length direction of the tie body, a length of the outer platform is the same as that of the inner flat groove, the outer platform faces the inner flat groove (see annotated Figs. 2 and 3), the outer guide surface overlaps with the inner stop surfaces on two sides of the inner platform and the tooth surface at the inner guide surface (see Figs. 2 and 4 from Sorensen et al.), and the outer flat groove overlaps with the tooth surface of the inner guide surface close to one end of the inner flat groove (see Figs. 2 and 4 from Sorensen et al.). Regarding claim 6, the combination of Paradis, in view of Sorensen et al. and Lidey discloses, wherein the locking teeth comprise fixed teeth and an elastic block, the fixed teeth are fixedly arranged on an inner wall of one side of the locking head away from the tie body (see annotated Figs. 2 and 3), the fixed teeth are engaged and matched with the convex teeth (see annotated Figs. 2 and 3), an inner wall of one side of the locking head close to the tie body is fixedly connected to one end of the elastic block (see annotated Figs. 2 and 3), one side of the elastic block close to the fixed teeth is fixedly provided with a plurality of movable teeth (32, 34) (see Figs. 2 and 4 from Sorensen et al.), and the movable teeth (32, 34) are engaged and matched with the inner teeth (see Figs. 2 and 4 from Sorensen et al.). Regarding claim 7, the combination of Paradis, in view of Sorensen et al. and Lidey discloses, wherein one end of the elastic block close to the extend-in opening is fixedly connected to the inner wall of the locking head, and the fixed teeth are close to the inner wall of the locking head at the pull-out opening (see annotated Figs. 2 and 3). Paradis does not disclose a width of the elastic block is equal to that of the groove. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have a width of the elastic block is equal to that of the groove, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955), and Gardner v. TEC 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984). It is obvious that width of an elastic block has different size and shape according to its application. Regarding claim 8, the combination of Paradis, in view of Sorensen et al. and Lidey discloses, wherein two limiting plates are fixedly mounted on the inner walls of the locking head on two sides of the elastic block, a storage cavity is formed between sides of the two limiting plates close to each other, the elastic block is clamped in the storage cavity, and the extend-in opening and the pull-out opening are formed between side walls of the limiting plates and the inner wall of the locking head at the fixed teeth (see annotated Figs. 2 and 3). Regarding claim 9, the combination of Paradis, in view of Sorensen et al. and Lidey further discloses, comprising a bending portion, wherein two ends of the bending portion in a length direction are respectively connected to the locking head and the tie body, and the bending groove extends from one end of the tie body close to the bending portion to the bending portion and the locking head sequentially (see annotated Figs. 2 and 3). Regarding claim 21, the combination of Paradis, in view of Sorensen et al. and Lidey discloses, wherein each tie tooth comprises a first tooth (left side of (50)) and a second tooth (right side of (50)), the first tooth and the second tooth are joined to form a V-shaped structure, an end of the V-shaped structure is a joint (tip of (50)), of the first tooth (left side of (50)) and the second tooth (right side of (50)), facing the extend-out head, and an other end of the V-shaped structure facing the locking head (see Fig. 5 from Lidey). PNG media_image1.png 714 723 media_image1.png Greyscale Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-11, filed 07/20/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 1 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Paradis, in view of Sorensen et al., and Lidey. Lidey broadly teaches the tie teeth are V-shaped teeth, the locking teeth are also V-shaped teeth (see Figs. 5 and 6). Examiner’s Comment In view of applicant’s amendments to the abstract, drawings and claims submitted in the reply filed on 07/20/2026, the objections to the drawings, specifications, and claims indicated in the prior Office action have been withdrawn. The claim rejections under 35 USC § 112 & 102 indicated in the prior Office action have been withdrawn. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection has been withdrawn. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOUIS A MERCADO whose telephone number is (571)270-5388. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm. 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, Jason W. San can be reached at 571-272-6531. 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. /LOUIS A. MERCADO/ Examiner Art Unit 3677 /JASON W SAN/SPE, Art Unit 3677