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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “retaining feature” in claims 3 and 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kao (US Pat. No. 7,717,278 B2).
PNG
media_image1.png
326
396
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 1, Kao teaches a cable management apparatus, comprising: an anchor bracket (31 or 32); and a multi-cable clip (21 or 22) mounted to the anchor bracket, wherein the multi-cable clip has a plurality of tabs (T; see annotation above) defining a plurality of slots (213 or 223), wherein each of the plurality of slots is capable of holding a cable (e.g.; by placing the cable within the slot).
In regards to claim 2, Kao teaches a mounting pin (33, 331), the mounting pin being configured to be inserted through a first aperture (321) within the anchor bracket and a second aperture (224) within the multi-cable clip.
In regards to claim 3, Kao teaches the mounting pin comprises: a key handle (331) disposed at a first end; and a retaining feature (33) disposed at a second end.
In regards to claim 9, Kao teaches a cable management apparatus, comprising: a multi-clip frame (10) having a plurality of anchor brackets (31, 32); and a plurality of multi-cable clips (21, 22), wherein each of the multi-cable clips is mounted to a corresponding anchor bracket.
In regards to claim 10, Kao teaches a mounting pin (33, 331) mechanically coupling a corresponding multi-cable clip (21, 22) to a corresponding anchor bracket (31, 32), wherein the mounting pin is configured to be inserted through a first aperture (321) within the corresponding anchor bracket and a second aperture (224) within the corresponding multi-cable clip.
In regards to claim 11, Kao teaches the mounting pin comprises: a key handle (331) disposed at a first end; and a retaining feature (33) disposed at a second end.
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.
Claims 4, 5, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kao (US Pat. No. 7,717,278 B2) in view of Mensah (US Pat. No. 6,991,414 B1).
In regards to claims 4 and 12, Kao teaches the mounting pin comprises: a first section having a key handle (331) disposed at a first end.
Kao does not teach the pin comprising a second section having an aperture disposed at a second end, wherein the first section and the second section are configured to be mechanically coupled by a fastener.
Mensah teaches a mounting pin comprising a first section having a key handle (20) disposed at a first end; and a second section (13) having an aperture (17) disposed at a second end, wherein the first section and the second section are configured to be mechanically coupled by a fastener (26).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to modify Kao’s mounting pin to comprise a second section having an aperture disposed at a second end, wherein the first section and the second section are configured to be mechanically coupled by a fastener. The motivation would be for the purpose of using a fastener assembly that is easier to tighten and loosen in confined spaces as taught by Mensah (Col 1, Lines 6-9).
In regards to claims 5 and 13, in modifying Kao, Mensah teaches the fastener comprises a screw (Mensah: 26)
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kao (US Pat. No. 7,717,278 B2) in view of Mensah (US Pat. No. 6,991,414 B1) and Ramsey et al. (US Pat. No. 6,488,151 B2).
In regards to claim 6 and 14, in modifying Kao, Mensah’s does not particularly teach using and Allen fastener. Ramsey teaches using an Allen fastener (60) to secure a component (Col 4, Lines 48-55).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to further modify Kao’s mounting pin to use a Allen screw as taught by Ramsey. The motivation would be for the purpose of choosing from a variety of available conventional fastener types.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kao (US Pat. No. 7,717,278 B2) in view of Stephen (US Pat. No. 6,880,788 B2)
In regards to claim 7 and 8, Kao does not teach the multi-cable clip and the mounting pin are formed of the same material (claim 7); and the multi-cable clip is formed of a first material having a first thermal expansion coefficient and the mounting pin is formed of a second material having a second thermal expansion coefficient, wherein the first thermal expansion coefficient and the second thermal expansion coefficient are substantially equal (claim 8).
Stephen teaches teach a multi-cable clip (1) and the mounting pin (11) are formed of the same material (claim 7); and the multi-cable clip is formed of a first material having a first thermal expansion coefficient and the mounting pin is formed of a second material having a second thermal expansion coefficient, wherein the first thermal expansion coefficient and the second thermal expansion coefficient are substantially equal (claim 8) (i.e.; each can be made of Nylon; Col 5, Lines 39-50).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to modify Kao’s apparatus such that the multi-cable clip and the mounting pin are formed of the same material (claim 7); and the multi-cable clip is formed of a first material having a first thermal expansion coefficient and the mounting pin is formed of a second material having a second thermal expansion coefficient, wherein the first thermal expansion coefficient and the second thermal expansion coefficient are substantially equal (claim 8). The motivation would be for the purpose of using a preferred material as taught by Stephen (Col 5, Lines 49-50).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the PTO-892 for additional prior art related to the Applicant’s disclosed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STANTON L KRYCINSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-5381. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10:00AM-5:00PM ET.
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 (571)272-8227. 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.
/Stanton L Krycinski/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Prosecution Insights