DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action for US Application 19/98,627 for Bracket Assemblies for Communication Cables.
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 3 and 20 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 3 and 20 recite the limitation “and/or” which is indefinite because it is not clear what is or is not covered by the claim limitation.
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) 10, 15-19, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 8,464,9984 to Laursen. Regarding claim 10, Laursen discloses a bracket assembly (see figure 1) for providing electrical connection with communication cables. The bracket assembly comprises a connection plate (106) shaped to be mounted on a stud of a building. There is a cable bracket (110, 104, 124) extending from the connection plate and configured to provide electrical connections with communication cables. The cable bracket comprises a frame (104) and a cable holder (124) extending from the frame and comprising one or more fingers (126, 128) configured to hold one or more communication cables in a tool-free manner.
Regarding claim 15, the frame (104) comprises a plurality of sides (118, 120), the cable holder comprising one or more arms (122) extending from at least one of the plurality of sides, the one or more fingers (126, 128) extending from the one or more arms. Regarding claim 16, the one or more fingers extending from distal ends of the one or more arms. Regarding claim 17, the one or more fingers comprises at least one long finger (126) and at least one short finger (128) having a length shorter than at least one long finger.
Regarding claim 18, the frame (104) comprises a plurality of sides (118, 120), the one or more fingers extending from at least one of the plurality of sides, at least one of the one or more fingers configured to wrap around the one or more communication cables (via 132, 134). Regarding claim 19, the connection plate defines an aperture (108) sized to receive a fastener therethrough, the connection plate comprising an aperture ridge (the area surrounding the aperture) at least partially surrounding the plate aperture. Regarding claim 22, two neighboring sides of the frame form into a rounded corner (see the rounded edges formed at the junctures of 122, 118 and 120).
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 7, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laursen. Regarding claim 1, Laursen discloses a bracket assembly (see figure 1) for providing electrical connections with communication cables. The bracket assembly comprises a connection plate (106) shaped to be mounted on a stud of a building. There is a cable bracket (110, 104, 124) extending from the connection plate and configured to provide electrical connections with communication cables. The cable bracket comprises a frame (104) comprising a plurality of sides (118, 120) and a cable holder (124). The cable holder comprises an arm (122) extending from a side of the plurality of sides, and a plurality of fingers (126, 128) extending from the arm at non-zero angles with the arm, the fingers and the arm defining a plurality of finger apertures (138) sized to receive one or more communication cables therethrough.
Laursen does not disclose the cable holder as being in a shape resembling the letter E. However, Laursen discloses 2 support fingers extending from the support arm. Providing an additional arm is a duplication of parts, which is a design preference that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention. The resultant structure would have 3 support fingers and have a shape that resembles the letter E.
Regarding claim 2, at least one of the plurality of fingers is perpendicular with the arm. Regarding claim 3, the cable holder further comprises a protuberance (132, 134) positioned at an end of the at least one of the plurality of fingers. Regarding claim 4 and 6, the cable holder is in an unfolded position.
Regarding claim 7, Laursen does not disclose the bracket assembly as fabricated from plastic. However, the specific material used for the bracket is a design preference that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention based on material cost and strength considerations. One of ordinary skill in the art would know to use a known material like plastic as a cheap, durable option.
Regarding claim 8, at least one of the plurality of fingers comprises a stepped finger (formed by 126, 132 and 128, 134) bordering at least one of the plurality of apertures (138).
Regarding claim 9, the plurality of fingers do not comprise a sloped edge bordering at least one of the finger apertures. However, although the angle between the fingers (126, 128) and the protuberances (132, 134) is roughly 90 degrees, changing the angle is a design preference that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 5, 11, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laursen in view of Official Notice provided by the Examiner. Laursen does not disclose the bracket as comprising ridges. However, the Examiner is providing official notice that providing ribs/ridges on a bracket to strengthen the bracket is well known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided ribs/ridges in the bracket of Laursen, to strength the bracket as is well known in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-14 and 21 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: With respect to claims 12 and 13, the prior art does not disclose the features of claim 10 with a bracket edge positioned between the cable bracket and the connection plate, wherein the assembly has bracket ridges positioned along the bracket edge at non-zero angles with the bracket edge.
With respect to claim 14, the prior art does not disclose the features of claim 10 with the frame defining a pocket between the cable holder and the frame that has a depth greater than a thickness of a dry wall. With respect to claim 21, the prior art does not disclose the features of claim 10 with a connection surface connected to and perpendicular with the connection plate, the connection surface having one or more legs, and at least one of the legs having an aperture sized to receive a fastener.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2003/0222185 to Rubenstein
US 2026/0074499 to Cook
US 6706969 to Young
US 2024/0055846 to Curry
US 2025/0297695 to Klos
US 5765786 to Gretz
US D644054 to O’Dell US 10627015 to Joshi
US 4852832 to Delaney
US 8950538 to Kurauchi
US 11938070 to Cagle
The above prior art discloses various conduit supporting bracket assemblies.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN M MARSH whose telephone number is (571)272-6819. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9 am-7:30 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, 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.
STEVEN M. MARSH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3632
/STEVEN M MARSH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632
Prosecution Insights