DETAILED ACTION
This is a final Office action in response to the amendment filed 11/24/2025.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending;
Claims 1-3, 7, 13, 15, and 17 are currently amended; claims 4-6, 8-12, 14, 16, and 18-20 are original;
Claims 1-20 are rejected herein.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection set forth below in the current Office action. Note that the new ground(s) of rejection is necessitated by Applicant's amendments to the claims.
Drawings
The replacement drawings filed 11/24/2025 are accepted by the Examiner.
Specification
The abstract filed 03/22/2023 is objected to because of the following informality:
Line 4, "includes" appears to be --include--.
The amendment filed 11/24/2025 does not appear to include an amended abstract. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation "a device mount" in claim 1 (line 8) is indefinite. It is not clear as to whether the limitation "a device mount" in claim 1 (line 8) and the limitation "[a] device mount" in claim 1 (line 1) refer to the same device mount or different device mounts. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation "the electronic device" in claim 1 (line 9) is indefinite. It is not clear as to whether the limitation "the electronic device" in claim 1 (line 9) refers to the "electronic device" in claim 1 (lines 1 and 2) or the "first electronic device" in claim 1 (line 7). Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1, the limitations "a first mount segment having an outer collar slidably securable to the outer surface of the mount post and configured to secure a first electronic device thereto via a device mount comprising a C-bracket with a pair of armatures configured to secure the electronic device therebetween" are confusingly recited in claim 1 (lines 6-9). It is not clear as to whether or not claim 1 positively requires "a device mount comprising a C-bracket with a pair of armatures" (claim 1, line 8) as a required structure within the scope of the claim. For the purpose of examination, the instant limitations in claim 1 (lines 6-9) are interpreted as --a first mount segment having an outer collar slidably securable to the outer surface of the mount post, the first mount segment having a device mount comprising a C-bracket with a pair of armatures configured to secure a first electronic device therebetween, and the first mount segment configured to secure the first electronic device thereto via the device mount of the first mount segment--. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation "a device mount" in claim 1 (line 11) is indefinite. It is not clear as to whether the limitation "a device mount" in claim 1 (line 11), the limitation "a device mount" in claim 1 (line 8), and the limitation "[a] device mount" in claim 1 (line 1) refer to the same device mount or different device mounts. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation "the electronic device" in claim 1 (lines 12 and 13) is indefinite. It is not clear as to whether the limitation "the electronic device" in claim 1 (lines 12 and 13) refers to the "electronic device" in claim 1 (lines 1 and 2), the "first electronic device" in claim 1 (line 7), the "electronic device" in claim 1 (line 9), or the "second electronic device" in claim 1 (line 11). Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1, the limitations "a second mount segment slidably securable to the outer surface of the mount post and configured to secure a second electronic device thereto via a device mount comprising a C-bracket with a pair of armatures configured to secure the electronic device therebetween" are confusingly recited in claim 1 (lines 10-13). It is not clear as to whether or not claim 1 positively requires "a device mount comprising a C-bracket with a pair of armatures" (claim 1, lines 11 and 12) as a required structure within the scope of the claim. For the purpose of examination, the instant limitations in claim 1 (lines 10-13) are interpreted as --a second mount segment slidably securable to the outer surface of the mount post, the second mount segment having a device mount comprising a C-bracket with a pair of armatures configured to secure a second electronic device therebetween, and the second mount segment configured to secure the second electronic device thereto via the device mount of the second mount segment--. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation "the compression lock" in claim 4 (line 1) is indefinite. As currently amended, claim 3 recites "each attachment collar includes a compression lock" in lines 1 and 2. It is not clear as to whose compression lock, i.e., the compression lock of which one of the at least two attachment collars, the limitation "the compression lock" in claim 4 (line 1) refers to. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation "an outer collar" in claim 7 (line 3) is indefinite. It is not clear as to whether the limitation "an outer collar" in claim 7 (line 3) and the limitation "an outer collar" in claim 1 (line 6) refers to the same outer collar or different outer collars. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 8, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation "the mount collar" in claim 8 (line 3) in the claim. Also, it is not clear as to whether the limitation "the mount collar" in claim 8 (line 3) and the limitation "an outer collar" in claim 1 (line 6) refer to the same collar or different collars. Likewise, it is not clear as to whether the limitation "the mount collar" in claim 8 (line 3) and the limitation "an outer collar" in claim 7 (line 3) refer to the same collar or different collars. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 15, the limitations "at least one mount segment, each mount segment configured to secure an electronic device thereto via a device mount comprising a C-bracket with a pair of armatures configured to secure the electronic device therebetween and having another passage therethrough" are confusingly recited in claim 15 (lines 8-11). It is not clear as to whether or not claim 15 positively requires "a device mount comprising a C-bracket with a pair of armatures" (claim 15, lines 9 and 10) as a required structure within the scope of the claim. For the purpose of examination, the instant limitations in claim 15 (lines 8-11) are interpreted as --at least one mount segment, each mount segment having a device mount comprising a C-bracket with a pair of armatures configured to secure an electronic device therebetween, each mount segment configured to secure the electronic device thereto via the device mount of the mount segment, each mount segment having another passage therethrough--. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 15, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation "the passage" in claim 15 (line 12) in the claim. Also, it is not clear as to whether the limitation "the passage" in claim 15 (line 12) and the limitation "another passage" in claim 15 (line 11) refer to the same passage or different passages. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 9-14, and 16-20 are rejected as being dependent from a rejected claim.
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 (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 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 1-6, 15, and 16, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Migliori (US 10,337,664 B2) in view of Lin et al. (US 9,656,394 B2), hereinafter Lin, and Price et al. (US 11,021,215 B1), hereinafter Price.
Regarding claim 1, Migliori discloses a device mount (1, fig 1) configured to hold an electronic device (col 1, lines 18-28, col 2, lines 28-31), the device mount comprising: a mount post (2a, fig 1, see annotation below, the central elongated rod 2) having a first end (2a1, fig 1, see annotation below, the front end of the central elongated rod 2) and a second end (2a2, fig 1, see annotation below, the rear end of the central elongated rod 2); at least two attachment collars (3a, 3b, fig 1, see annotation below, the middle two adapters 3), each attachment collar securable to an outer surface of the mount post (see Figure 1); a first mount segment (3c, fig 1, see annotation below, the front mount segment as annotated in Figure 1) having an outer collar (3c1, fig 1, see annotation below, the front adapter 3) securable to the outer surface of the mount post (see Figure 1) and configured to secure a first electronic device thereto (see Figure 1, see col 1, lines 18-28, col 2, lines 28-31); and a second mount segment (3d, fig 1, see annotation below, the rear mount segment as annotated in Figure 1) securable to the outer surface of the mount post (see Figure 1) and configured to secure a second electronic device thereto (see Figure 1, see col 1, lines 18-28, col 2, lines 28-31).
[AltContent: textbox (2a1 – First End)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (2a – Mount Post)][AltContent: textbox (2a2 – Second End)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
520
910
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (3b – Attachment Collar)][AltContent: textbox (3a – Attachment Collar)]
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (3c1 – Outer Collar)]
PNG
media_image1.png
520
910
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (3c – First Mount Segment)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (3d – Second Mount Segment)]
Migliori does not disclose the device mount, (1) wherein each attachment collar is slidably securable to the outer surface of the mount post; the outer collar of the first mount segment is slidably securable to the outer surface of the mount post; and the second mount segment is slidably securable to the outer surface of the mount post; (2) wherein the first mount segment is configured to secure the first electronic device thereto via a device mount comprising a C-bracket with a pair of armatures configured to secure the electronic device therebetween; the second mount segment is configured to secure the second electronic device thereto via a device mount comprising a C-bracket with a pair of armatures configured to secure the electronic device therebetween.
With respect to the missing limitations (1) above, Lin teaches a device mount (10, fig 1), the device mount comprising: a mount post (23, fig 1); at least two attachment collars (40a, 40b, fig 2, see annotation below, the two middle branch locks 40), each attachment collar slidably securable to an outer surface of the mount post (see Figures 1 and 2, see col 5, lines 49-67, col 6, lines 1-3); a first mount segment (17a, fig 2, see annotation below, the front tool branch 17) having an outer collar (40c, fig 2, see annotation, the front branch lock 40) slidably securable to the outer surface of the mount post (see Figures 1 and 2, see col 5, lines 49-67, col 6, lines 1-3); and a second mount segment (17b, fig 2, see annotation below, the rear tool branch 17) slidably securable to the outer surface of the mount post (see Figures 1 and 2, see col 5, lines 49-67, col 6, lines 1-3).
[AltContent: textbox (40b – Attachment Collar)]
[AltContent: textbox (17b – Second Mount Segment)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
484
620
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (40a – Attachment Collar)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (40c – Outer Collar)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (17a – First Mount Segment)]
Migliori and Lin are analogous art because they are at least from the same field of endeavor, i.e., supports. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form each of the at least two attachment collars (Migliori: 3a, 3b, fig 1, see annotation above) to be slidably securable to the outer surface of the mount post (Migliori: 2a, fig 1, see annotation above; Lin: see Figures 1 and 2, see col 5, lines 49-67, col 6, lines 1-3), form the outer collar (Migliori: 3c1, fig 1, see annotation above) of the first mount segment (Migliori: 3c, fig 1, see annotation above) to be slidably securable to the outer surface of the mount post (Lin: see Figures 1 and 2, see col 5, lines 49-67, col 6, lines 1-3), and form the second mount segment (Migliori: 3d, fig 1, see annotation above) to be slidably securable to the outer surface of the mount post (Lin: see Figures 1 and 2, see col 5, lines 49-67, col 6, lines 1-3), as taught by Lin, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation would have been to adjustably slide each of the at least two attachment collars of Migliori, the first mount segment of Migliori, and the second segment of Migliori to the desired positions on the mount post of Migliori.
With respect to the missing limitations (2) above, Price teaches a device mount (10, fig 2) configured to hold an electronic device (14, fig 2), the device mount comprising: al least one mount segment (24, fig 2), each mount segment configured to secure the electronic device thereto via a device mount (90, 109, fig 4) comprising a C-bracket (90, fig 4) with a pair of armatures (96, 98, fig 4) configured to secure the electronic device therebetween (see Figure 4).
Price is analogous art because it is at least from the same field of endeavor, i.e., supports. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form each of the first mount segment (Migliori: 3c, fig 1, see annotation above) and the second mount segment (Migliori: 3d, fig 1, see annotation above) with a device mount (Price: 90, 109, fig 4) comprising a C-bracket (Price: 90, fig 4) with a pair of armatures (Price: 96, 98, fig 4) configured to secure an electronic device therebetween (Price: see Figure 4), such that the first mount segment is configured to secure a first electronic device thereto via the device mount of the first mount segment (Price: see Figure 4) and the second mount segment is configured to secure a second electronic device thereto via the device mount of the second mount segment (Price: see Figure 4), as taught by Price, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation would have been to allow a variety of tools, sensors, and other equipment to be mountable on the device mount of Migliori. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Migliori, Lin, and Price to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, wherein the first mount segment is slidably positioned between a first attachment collar (Migliori: 3a, fig 1, see annotation above) of the at least two attachment collars and the first end (Migliori: see Figure 1), and wherein the second mount segment is slidably positioned between a second attachment collar (Migliori: 3b, fig 1, see annotation above) of the at least two attachment collars and the second end (Migliori: see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 3, wherein each attachment collar includes a compression lock (Migliori: 19, fig 5) that in an engaged position secures a position of the mount post relative to the attachment collar (Migliori: see Figure 5, see col 6, lines 12-20).
Regarding claim 4, wherein the compression lock is engaged by rotation of a threaded element (Migliori: 22, fig 5) of the compression lock (Migliori: see Figure 5, see col 6, lines 12-20).
Regarding claim 5, wherein the first mount segment includes a gimbal component (Migliori: 5, fig 3) having a rotation post (Migliori: 2, fig 3).
Regarding claim 6, wherein the rotation post extends from the first mount segment and is perpendicular to the mount post (Migliori: see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 15, Migliori, as modified by Lin and Price (see above discussions with respect to claim 1 above), teaches a mounting system (Migliori: 1, fig 1) comprising: at least one attachment collar (Migliori: 3a, fig 1, see annotation above, the more frontward adapter of the middle two adapters 3), each attachment collar having a pair of armatures (Migliori: 23, 24, fig 5) with a passage (Migliori: 27, fig 5) extending therethrough and therebetween (Migliori: see Figure 5); a mount post (Migliori: 2a, fig 1, see annotation above, the central elongated rod 2) slidably passing through the passage (Migliori: see Figures 1-5; Lin: see Figures 1 and 2, see col 5, lines 49-67, col 6, lines 1-3), wherein the mount post is longitudinally fixedly securable via a compression element (Migliori: 22, fig 5) of each attachment collar (Migliori: see Figure 5, see col 6, lines 12-20); and at least one mount segment (3c, fig 1, see annotation above, the front mount segment as annotated in Figure 1), each mount segment configured to secure an electronic device (Price: 14, fig 4) thereto via a device mount (Price: 90, 109, fig 4) comprising a C-bracket (Price: 90, fig 4) with a pair of armatures (Price: 96, 98, fig 4) configured to secure the electronic device therebetween (Price: see Figure 4) and having another passage (Migliori: 27, fig 5) therethrough, wherein each mount segment is slidably engaged with the mount post via the passage of the mount segment and fixedly securable along the mount post via another compression element (Migliori: 22, fig 5, also see Figures 1-5; Lin: see Figures 1 and 2, see col 5, lines 49-67, col 6, lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 16, wherein each mount segment includes a gimbal component (Migliori: 5, fig 3) having a rotation post (Migliori: 2, fig 3) that extends from the mount segment and is perpendicular to the mount post (Migliori: see Figure 1).
Claims 14, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Migliori (US 10,337,664 B2) in view of Lin et al. (US 9,656,394 B2), hereinafter Lin, Price et al. (US 11,021,215 B1), hereinafter Price, and Bosnakovic (US 6,454,228 B1).
Regarding claim 14, Migliori, as modified by Lin and Price with respect to claim 1, does not explicitly teach the device mount, wherein the first end terminates with an end cap threadably engaged with an inner surface of the mount post.
Bosnakovic teaches a mount post (12, fig 8) comprising: a first end (see Figure 8, the lower end of the lower tubular section 12), wherein the first end terminates with an end cap (148, fig 8) threadably engaged with an inner surface (150, fig 8) of the mount post (see Figure 8, see col 8, lines 29-39).
Bosnakovic is analogous art because it is at least from the same field of endeavor, i.e., supports. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the mount post (Migliori: 2a, fig 1, see annotation above) with an inner surface (Bosnakovic: 150, fig 8) and have the first end (Migliori: 2a1, fig 1, see annotation above) of the mount post terminate with an end cap (Bosnakovic: 148, fig 8) threadably engaged with the inner surface of the mount post (Bosnakovic: see Figure 8, see col 8, lines 29-39), as taught by Bosnakovic, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation would have been to prevent dust or dirt from entering the interior of the mount post of Migliori with an end cap of Bosnakovic. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Migliori, Lin, Price, and Bosnakovic to obtain the invention as specified in claim 14.
Allowable Subject Matter
Under the interpretation presented under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action, claims 7-13 and 17-20 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Guang H Guan whose telephone number is (571) 272-7828. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays (10:00 AM - 6:00 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 (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.
/G. H. G./Examiner, Art Unit 3631
/JONATHAN LIU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3631