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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office 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, 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.
Claims 1, 4, 7-12, 16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nielsen et al. (US 9,711,958) in view of Trapassi (US 9,806,510).
PNG
media_image1.png
584
442
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 1, Nielsen teaches a cable guide, comprising: a body (guide device 10) with a first body portion and a second body portion (as shown in Examiner’s annotated Fig 8 above, anything to the left of the dotted line is the first body portion, and anything to the right of the dotted line is the second body portion); the body defining a central opening with an inlet end on a first side of the body having a first diameter larger than a second diameter of an outlet end on a second side of the body (the diameter at rear end 16 is larger than the diameter at front end 14 as illustrated for example in Fig 2), the central opening configured to receive and guide a cable having an exterior sheath defining a groove through the central opening (The specific geometry of the groove is unclaimed. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a cable having grooves includes a cable having groves of any reasonable size, including grooves that are very small. Nielson’s guide device 10 attempts to prevent wires (wire harness 32) from being caught on the burring wall 28 while pulling the wires through the panel 24. Which achieves the configuration as claimed: Col 5 lines 22-24: “The guide device 10 is intended to facilitate insertion of a wiring harness 32 through the aperture 26 in the panel.” Col 5 lines 28-31 teaches: “As noted above, the cross-sectionally large connectors are particularly prone to being caught on the burring wall 28 or on the surface 30 of the panel 24.”); a hinge arranged at a first end of the body (as shown in the orientation of Fig 8, the hinge is the top of the body.1), the hinge pivotally securing the first body portion to the second body portion (the top portion of the body connects the left and right sides of the body); and one or more magnets arranged on the second side of the body (Col 5 lines 60-63 teaches: “The hollow interiors 43 open toward the front end 14 and optionally can be fit with magnets M to permit magnetic attachment of the guide device 10 to the metal panel 24.”) configured to secure the cable guide to a face of a metallic stud (Col 5 lines 60-63: “The hollow interiors 43 open toward the front end 14 and optionally can be fit with magnets M to permit magnetic attachment of the guide device 10 to the metal panel 24.”).
PNG
media_image2.png
604
608
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Nielsen teaches: [a] surface (frustoconical portion 40) extending from the first side of the body (rear end 16) towards the central opening … circumferentially surrounding the opening (as illustrated above in Fig 10 and in Fig 2).
Nielsen does not teach the surface is arcuate and accordingly does not teach the surface form[s] a lead-in radius, the lead-in radius defining an arc length that is greater than a width of the groove in the exterior sheath of the cable.
However, providing cable guides with arcuate surfaces for the purpose of better guiding and supporting the cables intended to be drawn therethrough was known at the time the invention was effectively filed. See Trapassi which teaches a cable guide having a surface S. Surface S is illustrated in Fig 1 as arcuate. Trapassi teaches at Col 8 lines 28-33: “As such, exemplary cable guide assembly 10A (or assembly 10B—FIG. 1) includes a smooth (flange-like) surface S providing bend relief for media cables 11 (e.g., fiber or copper cables 11) to pass through a supporting structure 400 (e.g., to pass through an aperture 412 of a panel 410 of an open rack system 400).”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have swapped the frustoconical lead-in surface of Nielsen with the arcuate lead-in surface of Trapassi as a matter of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 B). The substitution is considered “simple” because the surface at issue is located on a hand-held plastic part. The predictable result is that the cables of Nielsen would have a surface against which to rest that offers the benefit of “bend relief.”
PNG
media_image3.png
353
491
media_image3.png
Greyscale
MC/AC cables are known to have grooves of varying sizes, including grooves that are very narrow. As the particular width of the groove of the exterior cable sheath is unclaimed, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim includes even the smallest possible width of groove of MC/AC cable. Considering the size of the cables and lead-in radius of surface S illustrated in Trapassi Fig 1, Examiner asserts the cable (in as much as it is claimed) would have a groove width smaller than the lead-in radius of surface S.
As to claim 4, Nielsen in view of Trapassi teaches the cable guide of claim 1, wherein the cable is metal clad (MC) or armor clad (AC) cable having an exterior sheath defining a spiral groove (These limitations add further limitations to a part of the claim which is not positively claimed. The particular kinds of cable are mere intended use of the claimed product because it further narrows the components with which the claimed product is used. The cable guide device 10 of Nielsen in view of Trapassi is capable of being used with any of these claimed cables and is further capable of preventing snags of grooves in said cable sheaths based on the size of the arc length of the lead-in radius of the device illustrated in Fig 1 of Trapassi.).
As to claim 7, Nielsen in view of Trapassi teaches the cable guide of claim 1, further comprising: a bushing extending from the second side of the body and circumferentially surrounding the opening (Nielsen’s cylindrical portion 38, which is described beginning at Col 5 lines 32.), the bushing extending beyond the second side of the body (as shown in Nielsen Figs 7 and 9).
PNG
media_image4.png
660
568
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As to claim 8, Nielsen in view of Trapassi teaches the cable guide of claim 7, wherein the bushing is configured to nest within an opening in the stud, with the bushing overlapping an edge of the opening in the stud (Nielsen Col 5 lines 37-43: “the cylindrical portion 38 has an outside diameter “b” substantially equal to the inside diameter of the aperture 26 in the panel 24 and a length “c” slightly greater than the thickness of the panel 24, as shown in FIG. 9. Thus, the cylindrical portion 38 can be inserted through the aperture 26 in the panel 24 and will be retained frictionally therein.”).
As to claim 9, Nielsen in view of Trapassi teaches the cable guide of claim 1, wherein the cable guide is moveable between a closed configuration and an open configuration via movement of the first body portion and the second body portion about the hinge (as shown in Fig 4, the slit 22 allows the left and right sides of the guide 10 to open. See Col 6 line 67-Col 7 line 3: “The sidewall 12 then is biased into an open direction indicated by the arrows in FIG. 4 to widen the slit 22 sufficiently to disengage the guide device 10 from the wiring harness 32.”).
As to claim 10, Nielsen in view of Trapassi teaches the cable guide of claim 9, wherein, in the closed configuration, a perimeter of the cable guide defined by the first body portion and the second body portion is unbroken to restrict access to the central opening via a split formed between the first body portion and the second body portion at a second end of the body (as illustrated in Nielsen Figs 1-3, when the slit 22 is closed, the cable guide circumference is unbroken.).
As to claim 11, Nielsen in view of Trapassi teaches the cable guide of claim 10, wherein, in the open configuration, the perimeter of the cable guide is broken to permit access to the central opening via the split between the first body portion and the second body portion (as discussed at Nielsen Col 6 line 67-Col 7 line 3: “The sidewall 12 then is biased into an open direction indicated by the arrows in FIG. 4 to widen the slit 22 sufficiently to disengage the guide device 10 from the wiring harness 32.”).
As to claim 12, Nielsen in view of Trapassi teaches the cable guide of claim 9 but does not teach the first body portion and the second body portion each include a magnet to secure the cable guide in the closed configuration.
Rather, the panels 52 and 54 are apparently held together by the rigidity of the material of the guide body, not by magnets. Moreover, Nielsen teaches the use of magnets, but for the purpose of holding the guide body to the panel 24, not for holding panels 52, 54 together.
Examiner previously took official notice and now treats as fact that it well known at the time the invention was effectively filed that magnets were useful for holding components together due to their attractive force. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have provided attracting magnets at panels 52, 54. Such a person would have been motivated to do so to ensure the panels 52, 54 did not spread apart at slit 22 undesirably.
As to claim 16, Nielsen teaches a method of installing a cable guide within a [wall] (Col 5 lines 15-22: “The guide device 10 is intended for use with a panel 24, such as a panel that separates a passenger compartment of an automotive vehicle from an engine compartment or trunk of the vehicle. The panel 24 is formed with an aperture 26 therethrough and the aperture may have an annular burring wall or flange 28 generated during formation of the aperture 26 and extending from a first surface 30 of the panel 24, as shown in FIG. 11.”), the method comprising: providing a cable guide (guide body 10) with a body having a first body portion and a second body portion (as shown in Examiner’s annotated Fig 8 above, anything to the left of the dotted line is the first body portion, and anything to the right of the dotted line is the second body portion) together defining a central opening with an inlet end on a first side of the body having a first diameter larger than a second diameter of an outlet end on a second side of the body (the diameter at rear end 16 is larger than the diameter at front end 14 as illustrated for example in Fig 2), and a bushing (cylindrical portion 38) on the second side of the body (the cylindrical portion extends from first end 14, as shown in Fig 7, above), the bushing projecting from the second side of the body and circumferentially surrounding the opening (as shown in Figs 7 and 9).
Nielsen teaches: [a] surface (frustoconical portion 40) extending from the first side of the body (rear end 16) towards the central opening … circumferentially surrounding the opening (as illustrated in Fig 2).
Nielsen does not teach the surface is arcuate, and accordingly does not teach the surface form[s] a lead-in radius, the lead-in radius defining an arc length that is greater than a width of a groove in an exterior sheath of a cable.
However, providing cable guides with arcuate surfaces for the purpose of better guiding and supporting the cables intended to be drawn therethrough was known at the time the invention was effectively filed. See Trapassi which teaches a cable guide having a surface S. Surface S is illustrated in Fig 1 as arcuate. Trapassi teaches at Col 8 lines 28-33: “As such, exemplary cable guide assembly 10A (or assembly 10B—FIG. 1) includes a smooth (flange-like) surface S providing bend relief for media cables 11 (e.g., fiber or copper cables 11) to pass through a supporting structure 400 (e.g., to pass through an aperture 412 of a panel 410 of an open rack system 400).”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have swapped the frustoconical lead-in surface of Nielsen with the arcuate lead-in surface of Trapassi as a matter of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 B). The substitution is considered “simple” because the surface at issue is located on a hand-held plastic part. The predictable result is that the cables of Nielsen would have a surface against which to rest that offers the benefit of “bend relief.”
PNG
media_image3.png
353
491
media_image3.png
Greyscale
MC/AC cables are known to have grooves of varying sizes, including grooves that are very narrow. As the particular width of the groove of the exterior cable sheath is unclaimed, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim includes even the smallest possible width of groove of MC/AC cable. Considering the size of the cables and lead-in radius of surface S illustrated in Trapassi Fig 1, Examiner asserts the cable (in as much as it is claimed) would have a groove width smaller than the lead-in radius of surface S.
Nielsen does not teach the wall (panel 24) is a stud. Rather, the wall is a panel 24 of a vehicle through which a wire harness is passed.
However, Examiner previously took Official Notice and now treats as fact that panel 24 and metal studs have a similar configuration in that each are made of relatively thin metal having apertures therein which have burrs or flanges 28. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have used the guide 10 of Nielsen on studs, not just panels 24. See MPEP § 2143 C which describes the prima facie obviousness of the use of a well-known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. In this case, as metal panels 24 and studs are similar, the use of Nielsen is considered an obvious way to improve both in the same way.
Thus, Nielsen in view of Trapassi makes obvious: arranging the bushing through an opening in the stud so that the bushing overlaps an edge of the opening in the stud (cylindrical portion 38 is fit through the aperture in panel 24 as shown in Fig 1); securing the cable guide to the stud via a magnet arranged within the second side of the body (Col 5 lines 60-63: “The hollow interiors 43 open toward the front end 14 and optionally can be fit with magnets M to permit magnetic attachment of the guide device 10 to the metal panel 24.”), the second side of the body in contact with a face of the stud when the cable guide is in an installed configuration (Col 5 lines 63 - Col 6 line 3: “Each support 42 has a stop surface 44 facing toward the front end 14 of the tubular sidewall 12 and lying in a radial plane substantially perpendicular to an axis of the tubular sidewall 12. The stop surfaces 44 limited the amount of insertion of the cylindrical portion 38 into the aperture 26 in the panel 24 and prevent tipping or skewing of the guide device 10 relative to the panel 24.”); and guiding the cable through the central opening of the cable guide (wires 34 as shown in Fig 3), the arcuate surface providing a snag-free surface for the cable during installation of the cable (Trapassi’s surface S is arcuate and therefore provides a snag-free surface for the cable during installation of the cable).
As to claim 18, Nielsen in view of Trapassi teaches the method of claim 16, wherein cable is metal clad (MC) or armor clad (AC) cable (These limitations add further limitations to a part of the claim which is not positively claimed. The particular kinds of cable are mere intended use of the claimed product because it further narrows the components with which the claimed product is used. The cable guide device 10 of Nielsen in view of Trapassi is capable of being used with any of these claimed cables and is further capable of preventing snags of grooves in said cable sheaths based on the size of the arc length of the lead-in radius of the device illustrated in Fig 1 of Trapassi.).
As to claim 19, Nielsen in view of Trapassi teaches the method of claim 16, further comprising: if the cable is already installed through the opening in the stud prior to installation of the cable guide, moving the cable guide into an open position to permit access to the central opening via a split between the first body portion and the second body portion (this claim contains an optional limitation. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation analysis, any reasonable option may be chosen for examination, including situations in which the cable is not already installed through the opening in the stud prior to installation of the cable guide. In a different interpretation, Examiner admits that Nielsen appears to only consider the slit 22 as a way of removing the guide body 10 from the wires 34. However, a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed would have found it equally as obvious that the slit 22 may be used to install, rather than remove, the guide body 10 from the wires 34. See 2141.03 which discusses that "A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Here examiner asserts that artisans familiar with removing a body via a slit would be equally appraised of the benefits of installing such a body by such a slit.).
As to claim 20, Nielsen in view of Trapassi teaches the method of claim 19, further comprising: after moving the cable guide into the open position, positioning the cable within the central opening via the split between the first body portion and the second body portion; and moving the cable guide into a closed position, with the cable arranged within the central opening of the cable guide (this is the opposite sequence of steps as shown in Fig 4 of Nielsen. The process of installing the guide 10 via slit 22 is made obvious in the rejection of claim 19 above.).
Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nielsen in view of Trapassi as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Inoue et al. (US 2023/0253769).
As to claim 13, Nielsen in view of Trapassi teaches the cable guide of claim 12 but does not teach the first body portion includes a protrusion configured to nest within a corresponding aperture in the second body portion when the cable guide is in the closed configuration.
Rather, panels 52 and 54 are illustrated as being adjacent to one another, not with nesting configurations.
However, in the field of protecting wires from the burs of apertures in metal, it was known at the time the invention was effectively filed for guides to be provided with first and second body portions, the first body portion including a protrusion configured to nest within a corresponding aperture in the second body portion. See for example Inoue’s jig 21 having first and second body portions 31, 32. The first body portion 31 having a protrusion 27c which is configured for nesting within the body portion 32 when the jig is closed. This is illustrated in Figs 1 and 3.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have provided for the protrusion and corresponding aperture of Inoue on the panels 52, 54 of Nielsen. Such person would have been motivated to provide a protrusion on panel 54 with a corresponding aperture on panel 52, with a reasonable expectation of success, to achieve a stronger connection between panels 52 and 54, thus helping to prevent inadvertent opening of slit 22.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nielsen in view of Trapassi as applied to claims 9 or 2 above, and further in view of Smith (US 5,573,226).
As to claim 14, Nielsen in view of Trapassi teaches the cable guide of claim 9 but does not teach: a latch extending from the first body portion, the latch to engage the second body portion to secure the cable guide in the closed configuration.
Rather, panels 52 and 54 are illustrated as being adjacent to one another, relying on material properties to remain adjacent, not on a latch.
However, in the field of protecting wires from the burs of apertures in metal, it was known at the time the invention was effectively filed for guides to be provided with first and second body portions, a latch extending from the first body portion configured to engage the second body portion. See for example Smith’s frame 13 having first and second frame members 10, 12. The first body portion 10 has a latch (latch pin 30) which engages the second body portion 12 (at latch hole 24) when the frame 13 is closed. This is illustrated in Fig 1.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have provided for the latch pin 30 and latch hole 24 on the panels 52, 54 of Nielsen. Such person would have been motivated to provide a latch pin 24 on panel 54 with a latch hole 30 in panel 52, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to achieve a stronger connection between panels 52, 54, thus helping to prevent inadvertent opening of slit 22.
As to claim 15, Nielsen in view of Trapassi teaches the cable guide of claim 2 but does not teach: a mounting assembly removably secured to the second body portion, the mounting assembly including a pair of arms extending from a pedestal to form a cutout, the cutout to receive a portion of the structural component.
Rather, Nielsen teaches guide 10 is attached to the panel 24 via the cylindrical portion 38 and magnets M inside supports 42.
However, Smith teaches cable guide devices that can be attached in a variety of ways, including by an alternate mount 54. Mount 54 includes a pair of arms (indicated by the arrows in the Figure below) forming a cutout (as illustrated below)
PNG
media_image5.png
372
444
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have provided the alternate mount 54 of Smith for the guide 10 of Nielsen. Such a person would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, to be able to attach guide 10 of Nielsen to the panel other than at a perfectly sized aperture, such as by using Smith’s clamp 57.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-5, filed 5 May 2026, with respect to claims 1, 4, 7-16 and 18-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of the claims under 112(b) has been withdrawn.
The rejection of the claims under Nielsen has been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Nielsen in view of Trapassi.
On Pages 2-3, Applicant successfully argued that Neilsen does not teach the claimed arcuate surface. As evidence that cable guides were known at the time the invention was effectively filed to have arcuate surfaces, Examiner cites Trapassi, which is a cable guide having arcuate surface S having a lead-in radius as illustrated. As explained above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, according to MPEP § 2143 B, to have modified Nielsen to include the arcuate surface of Trapassi as the lead in surface to achieve the benefits of the arcuate surface such as providing “bend relief” to the cables.
On Pages 3 and 4, Applicant argues against Neilsen alone since Nielsen does not teach MC/AC cable which “presents a completely different snagging mechanism” and “without recognition of this problem, there can be no motivation to solve it.”
Examiner acknowledges that Nielsen does not teach MC/AC cable but disagrees that teaching MC/AC cable is required to meet the limitations of claim 1 (and 16). Rather, the claim requires a lead-in radius defining an arc length which is greater than a width of the groove in the exterior sheath of the cable, which does not require a cable, but instead uses the grooves of a cable as the basis on which to determine the size of the arc length. As to the cables, the grooves of MC/AC cables are not limited in the claim, and cables with very small grooves exist. If the arc length is of the lead-in radius is large, it would implicitly be greater than the width of the smallest MC/AC cable grooves. This is the case in Trapassi, which teaches a large lead-in radius.
Applicants incorrectly assert that the office-supplied motivation derived from the prior art for a particular structural limitation must align with Applicant’s inventive motivation. See MPEP § 2144 IV: “The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006)”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB JAMES CIGNA whose telephone number is (571)270-5262. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm 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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/JACOB J CIGNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726 28 August 2026
1 Examiner notes that “hinge” is the part of the device that bends when the opposite panels 52, 54 are opened along slit 22. Nielsen’s “hinge” which relies on bending material rather than on a pin, for example, is similar to Applicant’s embodiment at Fig 14. See the originally filed Specification at [0053]: “In some examples, the cable guide 1400 may include a pair of hinged arms 1405, 1410, together defining an opening 1420.”
Prosecution Insights