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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined in this application.
This communication is the first action on the merits.
Claims 1-20 are rejected herein.
Information Disclosure Statement
As of the date of this action an information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed on 03/10/2025 and reviewed by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The recitation of claim 9 wherein “…the brace is wider than a distance between the pair of upper interfaces such that the brace is compressed and provides an additional friction force against an edge of a modular rail…” and the recitation of claim 10 wherein “…the pair of lower interface protrusions pass over an edge of a modular rail,…” render the claims indefinite because the recitations are creating ambiguity as to whether the Applicant intends to positively claim the modular rail or whether the modular rail is functionally recited. Assuming the modular rail is functionally recited, the Examiner suggests the use of the term “configured”.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the integral cable" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Appropriate correction/explanation is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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 pre-AIA 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.
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 1-4, 6-12 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by or alternatively under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Fortsch (U.S. Design Pat. No. 280597).
Regarding claim 1, Fortsch teaches a wire management clip comprising: a body including:
an upper portion including:
a securing portion (F1; see annotated figure below) extending in a first direction, and a pair of upper interfaces (F2; see annotated figure below) protruding from opposite ends from the securing portion, respectively, and forming an H-shape with the securing portion, the pair of upper interfaces further protruding arcuately at respective distal ends of the pair of upper interfaces, a lower portion (F3; see annotated figure below) including a pair of flexible [to some extent] lower interface protrusions (F4; see annotated figure below) that extend respectively downward from an underside of the pair of upper interfaces of the upper portion, and a brace (F5; see annotated figure below) formed to connect between the pair of flexible lower interface protrusions and disposed a distance away from the securing portion of the upper portion, the distance between the securing portion and the brace providing a through passage (F6; see annotated figure below). Fortsch teaches the invention of claim 1 as noted above, assuming arguendo Fortsch does not explicitly teach the flexibility of the lower interface protrusions, the Examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that all materials carry flexibility at least to some extent.
PNG
media_image1.png
611
460
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Fortsch teaches the body is symmetrical about a first plane (one of perpendicular and horizontal plane) and a second plane (other of one of perpendicular and horizontal plane), the second plane extending perpendicular to the first plane.
Regarding claim 3, Fortsch teaches further comprising a middle interface portion (F7 see annotated figure above) that extends between the pair of upper interfaces and the pair of lower interface protrusions.
Regarding claim 4, Fortsch teaches when in use, the middle interface portion (F7) cable of contacting and enclosingly engageing an edge of a modular rail [capable].
Regarding claim 6, Fortsch teaches a securing device (F8) configured to secure wires to the body, wherein the securing device includes one of a cable tie interface, hook-and-loop fastener, twist tie, or magnetic clasps.
Regarding claim 7, Fortsch teaches the through passage (F6) is configured to accommodate the securing devices.
Regarding claim 8, Fortsch teaches the securing device (F8) is positioned with the body such that, when the wire management clip is implemented on a rail, the securing device is aligned to secure wire that extends perpendicular to a direction of extension of a length dimension of a rail [capable].
Regarding claim 9, Fortsch teaches the brace (F5) is wider than a distance between the pair of upper interfaces (F2), such that the brace is compressed and provides an additional frictional force against an edge of a modular rail and a middle interface portion [capable].
Regarding claim 10, Fortsch teaches wherein the pair of lower interface protrusions (F4) pass over an edge of a modular rail, such that the edge engages a middle interface portion between [capable].
Regarding claim 11, Fortsch teaches an integral cable tie (F8) connected to an end of the wire management clip.
Regarding claim 12, Fortsch teaches first locking surface (head portion of F8 receiving tail end of F8) that is complementarily shaped to a second locking surface (tail of F8) on the securing portion.
Regarding claim 17, Fortsch teaches a wire management clip comprising:
a body including: a securing portion (F1; see annotated figure above) extending in a first direction, a pair of upper interfaces (F2; see annotated figure above) protruding from opposite ends from the securing portion, respectively, and forming an H-shape with the securing portion, the pair of upper interfaces further protruding arcuately at respective distal ends of the pair of upper interfaces, a pair of flexible lower interface protrusions (F4; see annotated figure above) that extend respectively downward from an underside of the pair of upper interfaces, and a brace (F5; see annotated figure above) formed to connect between the pair of flexible lower interface protrusions and disposed a distance away from the securing portion, the distance between the securing portion and the brace providing a through passage (F6; see annotated figure above).
Regarding claim 18, Fortsch teaches a middle interface portion (F7) that extends between the pair of upper interfaces and the pair of lower interface protrusions.
Regarding claim 19, Fortsch teaches the securing portion (F8) is a cable tie interface, hook-and-loop fastener, twist tie, magnetic clasps, or other releasable or non-releasable securing interfaces.
Regarding claim 20, Fortsch teaches an integral cable tie (F8) connected to a first end of the wire management clip, wherein the integral cable further includes a first locking surface (head portion of F8) that is complementarily shaped to a second locking surface on the securing portion (tail portion of F8).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fortsch (U.S. Design Pat. No. 280597) in view of Bell (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 20200109800 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Fortsch teaches each of the pair of lower interface protrusions. However, Fortsch is silent to disclose the lower interface protrusions have a tapered end that tapers downwardly and inwardly toward a centerline between the pair of the lower interface protrusions. Bell teaches a tapered end (Bell; 27) that tapers downwardly and inwardly toward a centerline between the pair of the lower interface protrusions.
Fortsch and Bell are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area e.g. providing a structure for supporting an object. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the invention of Fortsch having tapered ends. The motivation would have been to provide appropriate grip during the retention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-16 are allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD IJAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6280. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00 am-10:00 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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at 5712728227. 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.
MUHAMMAD IJAZ
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3631
/Muhammad Ijaz/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Prosecution Insights