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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/17/25 has been entered.
Claims 1, 6, 10-12 and 15 are amended. Claim 16-17 are new.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 is amended to recites that the jaws are “pivotally mounted relative to one another” which is not described or shown in the original application as filed. Claim 10 is amended to recite, “… a spring-biased mechanism urging said jaws…” which is not described or shown in the original application as filed.
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 1-17 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.
Claim 1 recites, “… jaws pivotally mounted relative to one another …” which is not what is shown and described in applicants specification. The scope of the claim is unclear.
. Claim 10 is amended to recite, “… a spring-biased mechanism urging said jaws…” which is not described or shown in the original application as filed. The scope of the claim is unclear.
Claim 15 recites “…attached to said anchoring base 120 at a proximate end…” – which as written, is vague and indefinite. The term “proximate” is a relative term that means very near or close. As written, it appears to mean that the arm attaches to a very near end of the anchoring base. It would be clear if the claim simply recites the end to which the arm attaches. Otherwise the scope of the claim un clear. What end of the anchoring base is attached to the arm? The structure should be added to the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8 and 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0087715 to White in view of US 2013/0032682 to Bell and US 2014/0110544 to Chang.
Regarding claim 1, White ‘715 discloses a corner wall mount comprising: an anchoring base 120 comprising one or more base plates for attaching said anchoring base to a wall, or adjoining walls, of a room (fig. 1); an extendable arm 110 attached to said anchoring base at a proximate end of said extendable arm, said extendable arm 110 projecting outward from said anchoring base 120; and a frame cradle 105 attached to a distal end of said extendable arm 110, the frame cradle 105 being further pivotable about a pivoting point to allow angular adjustment of the held rectangular object (fig. 1).
Further, the multi-piece flexible arms taught in White ‘715 (para 0057 – “… can include flexible metal members connected together.”) are functional equivalents to applicant’s claimed scissor-type arms in that each type of arms is designed to be mounted onto a surface while supporting an object or device relative to said surface to give a user a handsfree environment. The difference between when a specific arm is used depends on the environment and purpose of the device.
For example, Bell ‘682 teaches that the links that form the linkage“…may include a variety of configurations and forms depending on the desired performance characteristics (para 0060),
Bell ‘682 also teaches said extendable arm 14 comprising a scissor-type mechanism including a plurality of pivotally connected scissor rods 18ab/20ab that expand or retract in length (fig. 2a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arms of White ‘715 with the scissor arms as taught in Bell ‘682 so that a user may adjust a supported device relative to an attached surface, as so desired. Noting that linkage type arms are known and used for weight considerations in tight spaces.
Further, White ‘715 teaches a cradle for supporting a device; while Chang ‘544 teaches both a cradle and a pivoting frame clamp 2 – denoting functional equivalence between the options.
Noting that Chang ‘544 teaches (both a cradle and) a pivoting frame clamp 2 attached to a distal end of an arm 1 at a pivoting point 20 here said frame clamp 2 comprising a pair of cooperating jaws 22/23 mounted relative to one another, said jaws configured to open and close for securely holding a flat, rectangular object for display (the clamp taught in Chang ‘544 functions and is configured as denoted in applicant’s specification and drawings – see above 112(1) rejection).
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cradle taught in White ‘715 with the clamp as taught in Chang ‘544 in order to releasable support a device relative to a supporting structure. Noting that Chang ‘544 establishes that the cradle and clamp are functional equivalents in the supports art.
Regarding claim 2, White ‘715, as modified, discloses wherein said anchoring base 120 comprises two base plates hingedly connected to one another (para 0046, - “…[t]he two-sided panel 120 can be hinged…”), said base plates pivotable around the axis of the hinge therebetween to attain angles relative to one another from approximately 180 degrees to approximately 90 degrees.
Regarding claim 3, White ‘715, as modified, discloses holes in said base plates (sides of support 120) to accept screws or similar attachment devices to anchor said base plates to one or more wall surfaces (figs 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 4, White ‘715, as modified, where Bell ‘682 discloses wherein said extendable arm 14 comprises scissoring sub-structures for allowing said extendable arm to extend or contract in length.
Regarding claim 5, White ‘715, as modified, where Bell ‘682 discloses wherein said extendable arm 14 comprises scissor rods 18ab/20ab pivotally attached to one another so that as the scissor rods pivot relative to one another the extendable arm 14 extends or retracts.
Regarding claim 6, White ‘715, as modified, where Chang ‘544 discloses, wherein the frame clamp 2 is rotatable about a horizontal axis and tiltable up or down and side to side relative to the extendable arm (tiltable as taught in White ‘715), thereby enabling multi-directional display adjustment comprising a pivoting frame clamp 2 pivotally attached to said distal end of said extendable arm 14 at a pivoting point, as modified.
Regarding claim 8, White ‘715, as modified, discloses wherein said base plates are hingedly connected to one another at each base plate hinge knuckles by a hinge pin passing through axially aligned bores in said hinge knuckles (para 0046, - “…[t]he two-sided panel 120 can be hinged…”).
Regarding claim 10, White ‘715, as modified, where Chang ‘544 discloses wherein said frame clamp 2 comprises a spring-biased mechanism 25 urging said jaws toward a closed position, said jaws 22/23 being manually operable to open for insertion of a frame cooperating jaws that selectively open or close relative to each other to reduce or enlarge the space therebetween for holding a frame (para 0053 – but note the 112 rejection).
Regarding claim 11, White ‘715, as modified, where Chang ‘544 discloses wherein said frame clamp 2 is further rotatable about a vertical axis orthogonal to the tilting axis, thereby providing compound angular adjustment of the held frame rotates about said pivoting point (also note the movement taught in White ‘715).
Regarding claim 12, White ‘715, as modified, where Chang ‘544 discloses wherein said frame clamp 2 is tiltable up or down, or side to side by virtue of a multi-axis pivot connection between the clamp and the extendable arm about said pivoting point (also note the movement taught in White ‘715).
Regarding claim 13, White ‘715, as modified, discloses comprising a resilient material such as plastic (para 0057).
Regarding claim 14, White ‘715, as modified, discloses comprising primarily a plastic material selected from the group consisting of acrylonitrile butadiene styrene, recycled composite plastic material, and high-density polyethylene (HDPE). (para 0057)
Claim(s) 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0087715 to White in view of US 2013/0032682 to Bell and US 2014/0110544 to Chang, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 4,049,225 to Chasen et al.
Regarding claim 7, White ‘715, as modified, discloses the anchoring base 120 and the extendable arm 110 for supporting an object relative to a structure.
Chasen ‘225 teaches an arm 17 that pivots around the axis of said hinge so that said extendable arm pivots to any selected position along the arc between said two base plates (fig. 13). It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arm/hinge arrangement suggested in White ‘715 with the arm/hinge mounting arrangement taught in Chasen ‘225 in order to adjustable alight the supported object relative to the support structure, per user preference and enjoyment.
Regarding claim 9, White ‘715, as modified, discloses the anchoring base 120 and the extendable arm 110 for supporting an object relative to a structure.
Chasen ‘225 teaches wherein said arm 17 is attached to and pivots around said hinge pin 12. It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arm/hinge arrangement suggested in White ‘715 with the arm/hinge mounting arrangement taught in Chasen ‘225 in order to adjustable alight the supported object relative to the support structure, per user preference and enjoyment.
Claim(s) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0087715 to White in view of US 2015/0240991 to Gallo, US 2013/0032682 to Bell and US 2014/0110544 to Chang.
Regarding claim 15, White ‘715 discloses a corner wall mount 100 comprising: an anchoring base 120 comprising base plates attached to one another at a substantially ninety-degree angle (see para 0046 – “two-sided panel 120 can be hinged …“ and para 0003 – “attaches to … the door frame...” – see below motivation/rationale); an extendable arm 110 attached to said anchoring base 120 at a proximate end, said extendable arm 110 comprising a plurality of pivotally connected rods arranged in a collapsible manner permitting extension and retraction of said arm 110 (para 0045-0047 and 0057 – see below rationale/motivation); and a pivoting frame cradle 106/106 attached to a distal end of said extendable arm 110 at a pivoting point (fig. 1 – see below rationale/motivation).
First, the examiner submits that it is obvious that the joined plates taught in White ‘715 can be rotated via the hinge in order to attach between adjoining walls. This feature is known in the art.
In fact, Gallo ‘991 teaches a hinged plate mechanism 10 that may be mounted on a wall corner or frame (just like White ‘715) and obviously between two adjoining walls (fig. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mount the anchoring base taught in White ‘715 to adjoining walls at the corner of a room as shown and taught in Gallo ‘991 so that a user can watch a show while doing other things, in the bathroom, for example.
Next, the multi-piece flexible arms taught in White ‘715 (para 0057 – “… can include flexible metal members connected together.”) are functional equivalents to applicant’s claimed scissor arms in that each type of arms is designed to be mounted onto a surface while supporting an object or device relative to said surface to give a user a handsfree environment. The difference between when a specific arm is used depends on the environment and purpose of the device.
For example, Bell ‘682 teaches that the links that form the linkage“…may include a variety of configurations and forms depending on the desired performance characteristics (para 0060),
Bell ‘682 also teaches an extendable arm 14 attached to a base 12 at a proximate end (fig. 2a), said extendable arm 14 comprising a plurality of pivotally connected scissor rods 18ab/20ab arranged in a collapsible lattice permitting extension and retraction of said arm (fig. 2a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arms of White ‘715 with the scissor arms as taught in Bell ‘682 so that a user may adjust a supported device relative to an attached surface, as so desired. Noting that linkage type arms are known and used for weight considerations in tight spaces.
Further, White ‘715 teaches a cradle for supporting a device; while Chang ‘544 teaches both a cradle and a frame clamp – thus denoting the equivalency of these types of device holders.
Further, Chang ‘544 teaches (both a cradle and) a pivoting frame clamp 2 attached to a distal end of an arm 1 at a pivoting point 20. It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cradle taught in White ‘715 with the clamp as taught in Chang ‘544 in order to releasable support a device relative to a supporting structure. Noting that Chang ‘544 establishes that the cradle and clamp are functional equivalents in the supports art.
Regarding claim 16, White ‘715, as modified, where Chang ‘544 discloses, wherein said pivoting frame clamp comprises jaws 22/23 that selectively open or close relative to each other for holding various size picture frames or other generally flat, rectangular objects therein for display, said pivoting frame clamp tiltable up or down, or side to side about said pivoting point (see pivoting point – White ‘715 – figs. 1, 3 and 4), as modified.
Regarding claim 17, White ‘715, as modified, where Chang ‘544 discloses, wherein said pivoting frame clamp comprises a pair of cooperating jaws 22/23 configured to open and close relative to each other to hold various size picture frames therein, said pivoting frame clamp 2 being rotatable about the pivoting point and tiltable in at least two orthogonal planes (see pivoting point – White ‘715 – figs. 1, 3 and 4), as modified.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
As a reminder, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the Applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392; 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Also, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Further, the Examiner recognizes that references cannot be arbitrarily combined and that there must be some reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make the proposed combination of primary and secondary references. In re Nomiya, 184 USPQ 607 (CCPA 1975). However, there is no requirement that a motivation to make the modification be expressly articulated. The test for combining references is what the combination of disclosures taken as a whole would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re McLaughlin, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). References are evaluated by what they suggest to one versed in the art, rather than by their specific disclosure. In re Bozek, 163 USPQ 545 (CCPA 1969).
Lastly, it has been held that the determination that a reference is from a non-analogous art is twofold. First, we decide if the reference is within the field of the inventor’s endeavor. If it is not, we proceed to determine whether the reference is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was involved. In re Wood, 202 USPQ 171, 174.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONICA E MILLNER whose telephone number is (571)270-7507. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4:00pm.
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.
/MONICA E MILLNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632