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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species I in the reply filed on 1/28/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Species I-III are not mutually exclusive in any way and all species encompass the same apparatus. This is not found persuasive because the sensor is not required by all Species and the Applicant’s Specification states that it is present only in some embodiments.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/31/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the examiner has considered the information disclosure statement.
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.
(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 1-7 & 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Felcman et al. (US Patent Application Publication # 2012/0061536).
Regarding Claim 1, Felcman discloses an apparatus (i.e. mounting assembly 10) comprising:
a planar bracket (i.e. mounting bracket 16) extending along a longitudinal axis, wherein the planar bracket is configured to couple to a rack (i.e. rack 14) configured to house at least one electronic device, and wherein the planar bracket comprises at least one slot (i.e. part of hinge assembly 26 attached to first end 18 of mounting bracket 16) extending parallel to the longitudinal axis;
a mounting mechanism configured to engage the planar bracket, the mounting mechanism comprising:
a hinge element (i.e. hinge assembly 26) comprising a rod (i.e. part of hinge assembly 26 attached to mounting plate 24) configured to engage the slot; and
a support element (i.e. mounting plate 24) coupled to the hinge element and configured to support a power distribution unit (i.e. equipment 12 which can be a power distribution unit), the support element configured to rotate (i.e. rotates 180 degrees) relative to the rod (Fig. 1-6; Abstract; Paragraphs 0011-0020).
Regarding Claim 2, Felcman discloses that the planar bracket further comprises at least one channel (i.e. first opening 40) extending in a direction transverse to the longitudinal axis, wherein the at least one channel intersects the at least one slot (Fig. 3, 4; Paragraph 0013).
Regarding Claim 3, Felcman discloses that the rod further comprises a securing bar (i.e. attachment mechanism 28) extending in a transverse direction relative thereto, wherein the securing bar is configured to selectively engage the at least one channel (Fig. 1-6; Paragraph 0013).
Regarding Claim 4, Felcman discloses that the rod is movable along the slot to adjust a position of the mounting mechanism with respect to the planar bracket (Fig. 5; Paragraphs 0018-0020).
Regarding Claim 5, Felcman discloses that the support element (i.e. mounting plate 24) is configured to support the power distribution unit (i.e. equipment 12 which can be a power distribution unit) such that the power distribution unit is disposed parallel to the longitudinal axis (Fig. 1, 5-6; Paragraphs 0011, 0018-0019).
Regarding Claim 6, Felcman discloses that the support element (i.e. mounting plate 24) is configured to couple to an end of the power distribution unit (i.e. equipment 12 which can be a power distribution unit) (Fig. 1, 5-6; Paragraphs 0011, 0018-0019).
Regarding Claim 7, Felcman discloses that the support element (i.e. mounting plate 24) comprises at least one securing element (i.e. space within mounting plate 24 where equipment 12 is placed) configured to couple at least a portion of the power distribution unit (i.e. equipment 12 which can be a power distribution unit) to the support element (Fig. 1-2, 5-6; Paragraphs 0016-0019).
Regarding Claim 9, Felcman discloses the power distribution unit (i.e. equipment 12 which can be a power distribution unit), wherein the rack (i.e. rack 14) comprises at least one aperture and wherein the planar bracket (i.e. mounting bracket 16) comprises an attachment element (i.e. mounting screw 25) configured to engage the at least one aperture such that the planar bracket is coupled to the rack (Fig. 6; Paragraph 0018).
Regarding Claim 10, Felcman discloses at least one fastener (i.e. attachment mechanism 28) configured to fix a position of the mounting mechanism relative to the slot (Fig. 5-6; Paragraph 0011, 0013, 0015, 0018-0020).
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Felcman et al. (US Patent Application Publication # 2012/0061536) in view of Blumenthal et al. (US Patent # 12,127,365) in further view of REFERENCE3 (REFERENCE3 #)>.
Regarding Claim 8, Felcman does not explicitly disclose that the at least one securing element comprises at least one of an aperture and a retaining bar configured to receive a strap therethrough.
Blumenthal teaches that the at least one securing element comprises at least one of an aperture and a retaining bar (i.e. set pin 128) configured to receive a strap (i.e. lanyard 112) therethrough (Fig. 3-6C; Abstract; Column 3, line 23-41).
Blumenthal teaches that it is well known in the art of hinged mounting brackets for mounting PDUs to a rack to use a securing element comprising a retaining bar or set pin and a strap/lanyard in order to fix the bracket to prevent movement when placed in a certain configuration such as when retracted for shipping. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use such a securing element in the bracket of Felcman, as taught by Blumenthal, in order to prevent movement of the hinged bracket when the rack is being shipped.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is 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.
Relevant Cited Art
The cited art in PTO-892 was found during the examiner's search, but was not relied upon for this office action. However, it is still considered pertinent to the applicant's disclosure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RHADAMES J ALONZO MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-7829. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10am-6pm PST.
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, Timothy Thompson can be reached at (571) 272-2342. 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.
/RJA/ Examiner, Art Unit 2847
/TIMOTHY J THOMPSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights