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 1-3, 5-10, 12, 15, 17, 19-21, 26-28, 35 and 37 are pending and have been examined in this application.
Claims 1-2, 19, 21, 26, 27 and 35 are currently amended; claim 28 is original; claims 3, 5-10, 12, 15, 17 and 20 were previously presented; claims 4, 11, 13-14, 16, 18, 22-25, 29-34 and 36 are cancelled.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12, 15, 17, 19-21, 26-28, 35 and 37 are rejected herein.
Information Disclosure Statement
As of the date of this action, an information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed on 11/18/2022, 08/01/2024 and on 11/29/2024 and reviewed by the Examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 5-10, 12, 15, 17, 19-21, 26-28, 35 and 37 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-8 12, 17 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zarecky (U.S. Pat. No. 11007951 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Zarecky teaches a bracket for supporting portable equipment, the bracket comprising:
a body (Fig. 1) having a body upper surface for supporting the portable equipment, the body comprising:
a central portion (30 and/or 40) having a substantially planar central portion upper surface,
a first wing portion (50 left) extending from a first side of the central portion, the first wing portion having a substantially planar first wing upper surface and
a second wing portion (50 right) extending from a second side of the central portion, the second wing portion having a substantially planar second wing upper surface;
at least one leg (54) extending downwardly from a lower surface of the body to space the supported portable equipment from a surface in use;
wherein the substantially planar first wing upper surface (top planer surface of 50 left) is off-set by a first angle with respect to the substantially planar central portion upper surface , and the substantially planar second wing upper surface (top planer surface of 50 right) is off-set by a second angle with respect to the substantially planar central portion upper surface.
Regarding claim 2, Zarecky teaches the substantially planar first wing upper surface, the substantially planar second wing upper surface and the substantially planar central portion upper surface define the body upper surface and the first angle is about 3 degrees to about 10 degrees.
Regarding claim 3, Zarecky teaches the second angle is about 3 degrees to about 10 degrees.
Regarding claim 5, Zarecky teaches when the at least one leg is resting on a surface [optional clause/intended use], the bracket is configured such that a distance of the central portion (30 and/or 40) from the surface is greater than a distance of the first wing portion (50 left) and the second wing portion (50 right), respectively, from the surface [capable depending on the angle of the resting surface].
Regarding claim 7, Zarecky teaches a width of the central portion (30 and/or 40) is more than a width of each of the first wing portion and the second wing portion (50 left, 50 right).
Regarding claim 8, Zarecky teaches a width of the central portion (30 and/or 40) is about twice a width of each of the first wing portion and the second wing portion (50 left, 50 right).
Regarding claim 17, Zarecky teaches each of the first wing portion (50 left) and the second wing portion (50 right) are substantially trapezoidal in shape comprising three exposed sides and a fourth side which is integrally formed with the central portion.
Regarding claim 19, Zarecky teaches the planar surfaces of each of the substantially planar first wing upper surface and the substantially planar second wing upper surface (upper surfaces of 50 left, 50 right) at the upper surface of the body are uninterrupted [at least to some extent].
Regarding claim 20, Zarecky teaches the at least one leg (54) comprises four legs, first and second legs of the four legs extending from the first wing portion (50 left) and third and fourth legs of the four legs extending from the second wing portion (50 right).
Regarding claim 21, Zarecky teaches the substantially planar central portion upper surface (30 and/or 40) at the upper surface of the body comprises a recessed portion (portion of 40 or 42) for receiving a plate for connecting the mobile equipment to the bracket, and optionally further comprising the plate sized and shaped to be received in the recessed portion [intended use].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 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 9-10, 15, 26, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zarecky (U.S. Pat. No. 11007951 B1).
Regarding claims 9-10, Zarecky teaches the body. However, Zarecky is silent to disclose the material property of the body. The Examiner takes the official notice that providing a body made of a material having a higher impact toughness than aluminum and a body made of material which can withstand a static load of 200lb is old and 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 claimed invention to make the invention of Zarecky made of a material having high impact toughness than aluminum and a body that can withstand a static load of 200 lb e.g. steel, glass-filled nylon and/or polycarbonate. The motivation would have been to provide appropriate strength during the support and as well as to make the product cost effective.
Regarding claim 15, Zarecky teaches the bracket (1) is one-piece. However, the Zarecky is silent to disclose the process used to make the product. The Examiner notes that "If the product in the product-by-process claim is that same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process see e.g. MPEP 2113. Thus, the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (see e.g. MPEP 2113).
Regarding claim 26, Zarecky teaches a total surface area of the body upper surface, comprising a sum of the substantially planar first wing upper surface, the substantially planar second wing upper surface and the substantially planar central portion upper surface. However, Zarecky is silent to disclose the total surface area is more than about 35 in2 and less than about 100 in2, preferably about 71 in. However, the Examiner notes that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide the total surface area that is more than about 35 in2 and less than about 100 in2, preferably about 71in. since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). The motivation would have been to mount the desired object within the surface area of the body.
Regarding claim 37, Zarecky teaches the body. However, Zarecky is silent to disclose the body is formed as a single monolithic piece. The Examiner notes that making known invention integral or separable is considered within the level of an ordinary skill in the art see e.g., MPEP 2144.04. 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 Zarecky integral. The motivation would have been to make the product durable.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Muirhead (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 20110017106 A1) in view of Santos (U.S. Pat. No. 9809423 B2).
Regarding claim 35, Muirhead teaches a bracket for supporting portable equipment, the bracket comprising: a body (body of 4a) having an upper surface which is arranged to support the portable equipment, and a lower surface having at least one leg (12) extending downwardly therefrom to space the supported portable equipment from a surface in use; and made of a material that can withstand a static vertical load of more than 200 lb without fracture [0083-0084]. Muirhead teaches the invention as noted above. However, assuming arguendo Muirhead is silent to disclose the load being static vertical load, the Examiner notes that such property is inherent for the pallets capable of holding at least 1000 lb distributed load.
However, Muirhead is silent to disclose the bracket is formed as a single monolithic piece. Santos teaches the bracket that is formed as a single monolithic piece (Santos; Abstract & Col. 5; lines 5-10).
Muihead and Santos 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 Muirhead as a single monolithic piece. The motivation would have been to make the product cost effective. Additionally, it is noted that making known invention integral or separable is considered within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 27-28 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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. 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