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 without traverse of Group 1 (figs 1-6) in the reply filed on 1/6/26 is acknowledged. Applicant submits that claims 1-11 are drawn to the elected group. However, claim 8 includes specifics of the functional module which are not in the elected group. Therefore, c laim 8 is also withdrawn. Claims 1-7 and 9-11 are examined below. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim 1-7 and 9-11 is 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 the limitation "a functional module" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the support structure" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 9 recites, “ further comprising carbon fibers ” which is vague and indefinite because i t i s unclear, as written, what structure (s) further includes the carbon fibers. Thus the scope of the claim is unclear. Claim 10 recites the limitation "the support structure" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 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. Claim(s) 1- 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2,002,103 to Wheeler. Regarding claim 1, Wheeler ‘103 discloses an arrangement for supportingly accommodating a functional module 10 , comprising: a modular support structure 17 which is formed with carrier elements which are provided with a hollow cross-section and profile elements 11/12 lying opposite one another (figs 1 and 2 – see below annotation) , wherein the profile elements 11/12 each have a middle half-tube portion 13/14 and partial wing portions integrally formed thereon on both sides with profile element openings (fig. 1 – flat portions with bolt openings – fig. 2 ) , and the partial wing portions of the profile elements 11/12 are arranged flat on top of one another in such a way that the profile element openings are assigned to one another in pairs, the half-tube portions 13/14 of each of the carrier elements form a tube portion (fig. 1 – 13/14 together ) , and the partial wing portions of each of the carrier elements each form a wing portion, and a functional module 10 which is mounted on the support structure 17 . Regarding claim 2, Wheeler ‘103 discloses, wherein the wing portions each extend in the longitudinal direction of the tube portion and are substantially planar (figs 1 and 2 - annotated above) . Regarding claim 3, Wheeler ‘103 discloses, wherein the tube portion has a substantially round or oval cross-section, and the wing portions extend radially from the tube portion (figs 1 and 2 - annotated above) . Regarding claim 4, Wheeler ‘103 discloses, wherein the partial wing portions are each arranged in alignment with one another and are non-releasably connected to one another (via bolts 16 and secondarily by welds 15) . Regarding claim 5, Wheeler ‘103 discloses, wherein the half-tube portions 13/14 of each of the profile elements 11/12 are each arranged in a common plane. Regarding claim 6, Wheeler ‘103 discloses, wherein the tube portion (fig. 1 – 13/14 together) has a constant tube portion thickness, and the wing portions each have a constant wing portion thickness (figs 1-2 – annotated above) . Regarding claim 7, Wheeler ‘103 discloses, wherein the wing portions each have a wing portion width of between 25% and 100% of a tube portion width (fig 2 – annotated above) . 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) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2,002,103 to Wheeler . Regarding claim 9, Wheeler discloses an arrangement for supporting a module or conduit 10. There are various components of Wheeler’s arrangement including the profile elements , support structure, bolts and foundation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use carbon fibers in a certain component, as needed and selected, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin , 125 USPQ 416. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 10-11 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 and will be used in subsequent office action rejects, as applicable. The list of supports is as follows: US-20190063918-A1 OR US-20160353022-A1 OR US-20230065062-A1 OR US-20200207279-A1 OR US-20120138763-A1 OR US-20190154194-A1 OR US-3069189-A OR US-5358283-A OR US-4429497-A OR US-6241199-B1 OR US-5915132-A OR US-10178209-B1 OR US-6349905-B1 . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MONICA E MILLNER whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7507 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Terrell McKinnon can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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