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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 4 and 13 are amended. Claims 10-11 are cancelled. Claims 21-22 are new.
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.
Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,149,061. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 13 does not claim any limitation not already claimed in claim 1 of USP ‘061.
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, 4, 7, 9, 12-18, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2011/0303456 to Blanchard et al.
Regarding claim 1, Blanchard ‘456 discloses a support for a plurality of cables, comprising: a cable separator beam 200 having a length along a central beam axis and respective opposite beam ends; first and second half-cylindrically-shaped sleeves 136/204 connected to the cable separator beam on the respective opposite beam ends of the cable separator beam 200 (fig. 3); and a half-cylindrically-shaped end-cap 102 that is configured to align with one of the first and second half-cylindrically-shaped sleeves 136, wherein; the one of the first and second half-cylindrically-shaped sleeves 136 and the half- cylindrically-shaped end-cap 102 form a space for one or more of the plurality of cables (para 0034-0038 & 0051), and wherein the half-cylindrically-shaped end-cap 102 is separate from the cable separator beam 200 (para 0016, 0039, figs 2-3).
Regarding claim 4, Blanchard ‘456 discloses, further comprising: an elongated flexible fastener having a locking portion on one end thereof that fastens to a tail portion on another end thereof (para 0051 – cable tie), configured to surround and fasten the end cap 102 to the one of the first and second half-cylindrically-shaped sleeves 136 by drawing the tail portion of the elongated flexible fastener through the locking portion (para 0051 –cable tie) to pull the end cap 102 and the one of the first and second half-cylindrically-shaped sleeves 136 together in a mutually aligned and substantially abutting position. (para –0051).
Regarding claim 7, Blanchard ‘456 discloses, further comprising: a rib structure 128 on the half-cylindrically-shaped end-cap 102 having a fastening portion 130 for mounting the half-cylindrically-shaped end-cap on a structural support 104 (fig. 1 – para 0031).
Regarding claim 9, Blanchard ‘456 discloses, further comprising: a fastening portion 122 on the half-cylindrically-shaped end-cap 102 and a fastening structure 152 on one of the first and second half-cylindrically-shaped sleeves 136 of the cable separator beam, configured to fasten the half-cylindrically-shaped end-cap 102 to the one of the first and second half-cylindrically-shaped sleeves 136 of the cable separator beam 200.
Regarding claim 12, Blanchard ‘456 discloses, further comprising: one or more cable separator beams 200 in an assembly configured to support separated positions of two or more cables (one beam - para 0001, 0005-0007).
Regarding claim 13, Blanchard ‘456 discloses a support for a plurality of cables, comprising: a cable separator beam 200; first and second half-cylindrically-shaped sleeves 136/204 on respective opposite ends of the cable separator beam 200; and a half-cylindrically-shaped end-cap 102 that is configured to align with one of the first and second half-cylindrically-shaped sleeves 136, wherein, the one of the first and second half-cylindrically-shaped sleeves 136 and the half- cylindrically-shaped end-cap 102 form a space for one or more of the plurality of cable (fig 3 – para 0016, 0039).
Regarding claim 14, Blanchard ‘456 discloses, further comprising: a fastening portion 122 on the half-cylindrically-shaped end-cap 102 and a fastening structure 152 on one of the first and second half-cylindrically-shaped sleeves 136 of the cable separator beam, configured to fasten the half-cylindrically-shaped end-cap 102 to the one of the first and second half-cylindrically- shaped sleeves 136 of the cable separator beam 200 (fig. 2 – para 0034-0036).
Regarding claim 15, Blanchard ‘456 discloses, further comprising: a hook portion 122 (opening or portion for accepting a hook) on the half-cylindrically-shaped end-cap 102 and a latch structure 152 on one of the first and second half-cylindrically-shaped sleeves 136 of the cable separator beam, configured to fasten the half-cylindrically-shaped end-cap 102 to the one of the first and second half-cylindrically-shaped sleeves 136 of the cable separator beam 200 (fig. 2 – para 0034-0036).
Regarding claim 16, Blanchard ‘456 discloses, further comprising: a first fastening structure 120 on the half-cylindrically-shaped end-cap 102, a second fastening structure 150 on the one of the first and second half-cylindrically-shaped sleeves 136 of the cable separator beam, and a fastener 152 joining the first and second fastening structures 120/150, configured to fasten the half- cylindrically-shaped end-cap 102 to the one of the first and second half-cylindrically-shaped sleeves 136 of the cable separator beam (para 002 & 0034 – figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 17, Blanchard ‘456 discloses, further comprising: a first latch structure 120 on the half-cylindrically-shaped end-cap 102, a second latch structure 150 on the one of the first and second half-cylindrically-shaped sleeves 136 of the cable separator beam, and a fastener 152 joining the first and second latch structures 120/150, configured to fasten the half-cylindrically- shaped end-cap 102 to the one of the first and second half-cylindrically-shaped sleeves 136 of the cable separator beam.
Regarding claim 18, Blanchard ‘456 discloses, further comprising: a first fastening structure 122 on the half-cylindrically-shaped end-cap 102 and a second fastening structure 152 on the one of the first and second half-cylindrically-shaped sleeves 136 of the cable separator beam, configured to fasten together, to fasten the half-cylindrically-shaped end-cap 102 to the one of the first and second half-cylindrically-shaped sleeves 136 of the cable separator beam.
Regarding claim 22, Blanchard ‘456 discloses a support for a plurality of cables, the support comprising: a cable separator beam 200; first and second curved sleeves 136/204 on respective opposite ends of the cable separator beam 200; and a curved end-cap 102 that is configured to align with one of the first and second curved sleeves 136, wherein the one of the first and second curved sleeves 136 and the curved end-cap 1022 form a space for one or more of the plurality of cables, and wherein the one of the first and second curved sleeves 136 is configured to be fastened to the curved end-cap 102 by a flexible fastener (para 0051), a screw fastener, a pin, or a latch.
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, 8, 13 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10,935,347 to Reis Green.
Regarding claim 1, Reis Green ‘347 discloses a support, comprising: a separator beam 22 having a length along a central beam axis and respective opposite beam ends (Fig 4b); first and second half-cylindrically-shaped sleeves 32/32 connected to the separator beam 22 on the respective opposite beam ends of the separator beam 22 (fig. 5b); and a half-cylindrically-shaped end-cap 34 that is configured to align with one of the first and second half-cylindrically-shaped sleeves 32 (figs 4ab), wherein; the one of the first and second half-cylindrically-shaped sleeves 32 and the half- cylindrically-shaped end-cap 34 form a space 14, and wherein the half- cylindrically-shaped end-cap 34 is separate from the separator beam 22.
Reis Green ‘347 teaches a support for an elongated rife scope where space 14 supports the elongated rifle scope. However, a POSITA would recognize that space 14 is also suitable for supporting a conduit or a plurality of cables due to the shape and size of space 14 that is formed by the half-cylindrically-shaped sleeve 32 and end cap 34.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the support of Reis Green ‘347 to support one or more cables rather than a rifle scope, since the same formed space 14 is sized and shaped to receive and retain an elongated cylindrical member. Such use merely represents using the known structure for its predictable result of supporting an elongated member(s).
Regarding claim 8, Reis Green ‘347, as modified, discloses, further comprising: a rib structure (top raised flattened portion 34 that supports threaded holes 19 – figs 4AB – col. 3, lines 41-43) on the half-cylindrically-shaped end-cap 34, having threaded inserts (or bolts - “… threaded openings 19 configured to receive bolts for coupling accessory adaptor plates …”) for mounting the half-cylindrically-shaped end-cap 34 on a structural support 24.
Regarding claim 13, Reis Green ‘347 discloses a support, comprising: a separator beam 22; first and second half-cylindrically-shaped sleeves 32/32 on respective opposite ends of the separator beam 22; and a half-cylindrically-shaped end-cap 34 that is configured to align with one of the first and second half-cylindrically-shaped sleeves 32, wherein, the one of the first and second half-cylindrically-shaped sleeves 32 and the half- cylindrically-shaped end-cap 34 form a space 14.
Reis Green ‘347 teaches a support for an elongated rife scope where space 14 supports the elongated rifle scope. However, a POSITA would recognize that space 14 is also suitable for supporting a conduit or a plurality of cables due to the shape and size of space 14 that is formed by the half-cylindrically-shaped sleeve 32 and end cap 34.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the support of Reis Green ‘347 to support one or more cables rather than a rifle scope, since the same formed space 14 is sized and shaped to receive and retain an elongated cylindrical member. Such use merely represents using the known structure for its predictable result of supporting an elongated member(s).
Regarding claim 19, Reis Green ‘347 discloses, further comprising: a first fastening structure 18 on the half-cylindrically-shaped end-cap 34 and a second fastening structure 18 on the one of the first and second half-cylindrically-shaped sleeves 32 of the cable separator beam 22, configured to be fastened together by a screw (mechanically equivalent to a pin – see motivation below) passing through each of the first fastening structure 18 and the second fastening structure 18, to fasten the half-cylindrically-shaped end-cap 34 to the one of the first and second half-cylindrically-shaped sleeves 32 of the cable separator beam 22 (col. 3, lines 44-64 – figs 4-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a pin for the screw of Reis Green ‘347 because both are well known mechanical features used to secure two aligned structures together. Such substitution merely involves the use of one known fastening element in place of another known equivalent fastening element to achieve the predictable result of fastening the end-cap to the sleeve.
Regarding claim 20, Reis Green ‘347 discloses, further comprising: a first lock structure 18 on the half-cylindrically-shaped end-cap 34 and a second lock structure 18 on the one of the first and second half-cylindrically-shaped sleeves 32 of the cable separator beam, configured to be fastened together by a screw (mechanically equivalent to a pin – see motivation below) passing through each of the first lock structure 18 and the second lock structure 18, to fasten the half-cylindrically-shaped end-cap 34 to the one of the first and second half-cylindrically-shaped sleeves 32 of the cable separator beam 22.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a pin for the screw of Reis Green ‘347 because both are well known mechanical features used to secure two aligned structures together. Such substitution merely involves the use of one known fastening element in place of another known equivalent fastening element to achieve the predictable result of fastening the end-cap to the sleeve.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2011/0303456 to Blanchard et al.
Regarding claim 21, Blanchard ‘456 discloses the cable separator beam 200 and the half-cylindrically-shaped end-cap 102. Blanchard ‘456 does not expressly disclose that the cable separator beam 200 and the half-cylindrically-shaped end-cap 102 are electrically insulating. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the cable separator beam 200 and the half-cylindrically-shaped end-cap 102 of insulating materials, because insulating materials, such as plastics, are conventionally used in cable support and cable retention systems to avoid electrical conduction and protect supported cables (para 0002). The modification merely involves the predictable use of a known material according to its established properties.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 and 5-6 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and will be used in subsequent office action rejections.
The list of supports is as follows: US-20030025048-A1 OR US-6007029-A OR US-4099626-A OR US-20080243455-A1 OR US-5931423-A OR US-8985532-B2 OR US-5538208-A OR US-8511623-B1 OR US-6783101-B2 OR US-5730399-A OR US-4037810-A OR US-3794370-A OR US-8985531-B2 OR US-10487963-B2 OR US-5115542-A OR US-4431152-A OR US-12553541-B2 OR US-10663353-B2 OR US-8807491-B2 OR US-8702044-B2 OR US-7600723-B2 OR US-6421494-B1 OR US-4514103-A OR US-4805938-A OR US-12149061-B2 OR US-20060090806-A1 OR US-20050045786-A1 OR US-20150060612-A1 OR US-3526934-A.
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
Prosecution Insights