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 .
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(s) 1-3, 5-6, and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blum (Patent No. 8,100,600) in view of DeZaio (Patent No. 9,739,055), Moradians et al. (Patent No. 8,585,334), and Thorlabs (NPL1 - thorlabs.com/thorproduct.cfm?partnumber=AP45).
Re: claim 1, Blum teaches an attachment fastener (Fig. 9) for removably connecting a container (Fig. 9 – 114), said container including a mount (Fig. 9 – 130), said fastener comprising: a second lug (Fig. 2 – 22), each lug having distal (Annotated Fig. 2 – Distal Face) and proximal (Annotated Fig. 2 – Proximal Face) faces along a longitudinal flange (Annotated Fig. 2 – Flange Portion); said proximal face including a tapering tongue (Fig. 2 – 50) that extends outward and along said flange; and a block (Fig. 4 – 10) having first, second and third lobes (Fig. 4 – 46 (Four channels are present within element 10 of Fig. 4), each lobe having a tapering groove (Fig. 4 – 94) for receiving and wedging said tongue (See Fig. 9), said distal face (Annotated Fig. 2 – Distal Face) of said second lug engages the mount (Fig. 9 – 130), and said second lobe (Fig. 9 – 46) of said block (Fig. 9 – 10) engaging said tongue (Fig. 2 – 50 – See Fig. 9 for mating with element 46) on said second lug (Fig. 9 – 18). Blum fails to teach a platform, said container including a diagonal mount, said fastener comprising: a track disposed on the platform, said track having a longitudinal direction; wherein said distal face of said first lug engages said track, and said first lobe of said block engaging said tongue on said first lug. Blum fails to explicitly teach a first lug within the embodiment of Fig. 9.
PNG
media_image1.png
375
475
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, DeZaio teaches a platform (Fig. 6 – 20), and a first lug (Fig. 6 – 26); wherein said distal face of said first lug (Fig. 6 – on the side of 32a) engages said platform (Fig. 6 – 20), and said first lobe (Fig. 6 – the channel 54 of which element 34 is within) of said block (Fig. 6 – 12) engaging said tongue (Fig. 6 – 34) on said first lug (Fig. 6 – 26). DeZaio fails to teach said container including a diagonal mount, said fastener comprising: a track disposed on the platform, said track having a longitudinal direction; wherein said distal face of said first lug engages said track.
Blum and DeZaio are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of connectors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Blum’s apparatus with those of DeZaio’s first lug and platform in order to provide for a more diverse and structurally stable system (i.e., connecting a container to the mount structure then to a platform would allow for the container to have more stability and prevent movement or shifting due to the environment. This additional point of contact would also allow for less stable objects/containers to be mounted and remain stable).
However, Moradians et al. teaches said fastener comprising: a track (Annotated Fig. 9 – Track) disposed on the platform (Col. 4 – lines 24-26 – “as the floor mounting hardware”), said track having a longitudinal direction (Annotated Fig. 9 – Longitudinal Direction); wherein said distal face (Annotated Fig. 9 – Distal Face) of said the first lug (Fig. 5) engages said track (See Annotated Fig. 9). Moradians et al. fails to teach said container including a diagonal mount.
PNG
media_image2.png
524
539
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Blum, DeZaio and Moradians et al. are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because all are in the same field of retaining devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Blum’s apparatus and DeZaio’s first lug and platform with those of Moradians et al.’s track and engagement of the first lug in order to provide for a more stable, durable, and efficient system (i.e., the addition of a track would allow for the system to be moved around the platform without disrupting the connection between the lug and the block, increasing productivity within the area. The additional point of contact would also increase the stability in the mounting device.). However, Thorlabs teaches a diagonal mount (Fig. 2 – Diagonal mount).
Blum, DeZaio, Moradians et al., and Thorlabs are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because all are in the same field of connectors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Blum’s mount with those of Thorlabs’ angled mount in order to provide for a system that allows for non-conventionally shaped containers to be able to be mounted.
Re: claim 2, Blum teaches further including: a clamp (Fig. 2 – 34 & Fig. 9 - 102) for inhibiting release of said block (See Col. 7 – Lines 51-56) from one of said first and second (Fig. 9 – 18) lugs.
Re: claim 3, Blum further teaches wherein said clamp includes a bolt (Fig. 9 – 102) for threading (Fig. 2 – 38) into said block (See Fig. 5 – Alternate embodiment, but element 102 functions the same as in the embodiment of Fig. 9).
It is noted that the screwing in of element 102 when slotted into element 10 meets the limitation of the bolt threading into the block.
Re: claim 5, Moradians et al. teaches wherein said track (Annotated Fig. 9 – Track) includes an exposed corrugation channel (Annotated Fig. 9 – channel) and an internal uniform slot (Annotated Fig. 9 – slot) in parallel, and said lug includes a protrusion (Annotated Fig. 5 – protrusion) that wedges into said channel and a detachable strip that slides within said slot (See Fig. 9 for attachment).
PNG
media_image3.png
545
690
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Re: claim 6, Moradians et al. teaches wherein said lug and said strip further include first (Annotated Fig. 9 – first hole / screw) and second holes (Annotated Fig. 9 – second hole / screw) in mutual alignment to pass respective first (Annotated Fig. 9 – first hole / screw) and second screws (Annotated Fig. 9 – second hole / screw) that pass through said holes to said track (Annotated Fig. 9 – track).
Re: claim 9, Blum teaches further including: a clamp (Fig. 2 – 34 & Fig. 9 - 102) for inhibiting release of said block (See Col. 7 – Lines 51-56) from one of said first and second (Fig. 9 – 18) lugs.
Re: claim 10, Blum further teaches wherein said clamp includes a bolt (Fig. 9 – 102) for threading (Fig. 2 – 38) into said block (See Fig. 5 – Alternate embodiment, but element 102 functions the same as in the embodiment of Fig. 9).
It is noted that the screwing in of element 102 when slotted into element 10 meets the limitation of the bolt threading into the block.
Re: claim 11, Blum teaches wherein said second and third lobes (Fig. 4 – 46) are angled diagonally from the platform (See note below).
It is noted by the examiner that the block (element 10) of cited prior art Blum can be rotated 45 degrees as to meet the limitation set by claim 11.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blum (Patent No. 8,100,600) in view of DeZaio (Patent No. 9,739,055), Moradians et al. (Patent No. 8,585,334), and Thorlabs (NPL1 - thorlabs.com/thorproduct.cfm?partnumber=AP45) in further view of Bollman (Patent No. 11,236,774).
Re: claim 4, Blum, DeZaio, Moradians et al., and Thorlabs fail to teach wherein said second and third lobes are angled diagonally from said first lobe that faces said track.
However, Bollman teaches wherein said second (Annotated Fig. 22 – Second connection point) and third (Annotated Fig. 22 – Third connection point) lobes are angled diagonally from said first lobe (Annotated Fig. 22 – First connection point).
Blum, DeZaio, Moradians et al., Thorlabs, and Bollman are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because all are in the same field of connectors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Blum’s block with Bollman’s shape in order to provide for a system that allows for alternate shaped objects to be mounted and for those objects to be mounted with greater stability.
PNG
media_image4.png
332
489
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 7 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blum (Patent No. 8,100,600) in view of DeZaio (Patent No. 9,739,055), Moradians et al. (Patent No. 8,585,334), and Thorlabs (NPL1 - thorlabs.com/thorproduct.cfm?partnumber=AP45) in further view of Schmeichel (Patent No. 8,985,669).
Re: claim 7, Blum teaches said block (Fig. 9 – 10). Blum, DeZaio, and Moradians et al. fail to teach wherein said block includes a zerk for receiving grease and a corridor for directing said grease to said groove.
However, Schmeichel teaches wherein the apparatus (Fig. 6A – 46) includes a zerk (Fig. 6A – 36) for receiving grease and a corridor (Fig. 6A - 35) for directing said grease to said groove (Fig. 6A – 51).
Blum, DeZaio, Moradians et al., Thorlabs, and Schmeichel are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because all are in the same field of connectors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Blum’s apparatus with those of Schmeichel’s zerk in order to provide for a more reliable and cost saving system (i.e., lubricating a system that requires movement to function is known to improve the life of the materials sliding together, reducing the costs associated with replacing parts).
Re: claim 12, Blum teaches said block (Fig. 9 – 10). Blum, DeZaio, and Moradians et al. fail to teach wherein said block includes a zerk for receiving grease and a corridor for directing said grease to said groove.
However, Schmeichel teaches wherein the apparatus (Fig. 6A – 46) includes a zerk (Fig. 6A – 36) for receiving grease and a corridor (Fig. 6A - 35) for directing said grease to said groove (Fig. 6A – 51).
Blum, DeZaio, Moradians et al., Thorlabs, and Schmeichel are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because all are in the same field of connectors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Blum’s apparatus with those of Schmeichel’s zerk in order to provide for a more reliable and cost saving system (i.e., lubricating a system that requires movement to function is known to improve the life of the materials sliding together, reducing the costs associated with replacing parts).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blum (Patent No. 8,100,600) in view of Thorlabs (NPL1 - thorlabs.com/thorproduct.cfm?partnumber=AP45).
Re: claim 8, Blum teaches an attachment fastener (Fig. 9) for removably connecting a first container (Fig. 9 – 114), said container having a corresponding mount (Fig. 9 - 130), said fastener comprising: a first lug (Fig. 2 – 22), said lug having distal (Annotated Fig. 9 – Distal Face) and proximal (Annotated Fig. 9 – Proximal Face) faces along a longitudinal flange (Annotated Fig. 2 – Flange Portion); said proximal face including a tapering tongue (Fig. 2 – 50) that extends outward and along said flange; and a block (Fig. 4 – 10) having first, second, third and fourth lobes (Fig. 4 – 46 (Four channels are present within element 10 of Fig. 4), each lobe having a tapering groove (Fig. 9 – 94) for receiving and wedging said tongue (See Fig. 9), wherein said distal faces of said first lug (Fig. 9 - 22) engages the corresponding mount (Fig. 9 - 130) on the respective first container (Fig. 9 - 114), said first lobe (Fig. 9 – 46) of said block (Fig. 9 - 10) engaging said tongue (Fig. 2 – 50 – See Fig. 9 for mating with element 46) on said first lug. Blum fails to teach a second container, a diagonal mount, a second lug, and said second lobe of said block engaging said tongue on said second lug.
The mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
However, Thorlabs teaches a diagonal mount (Fig. 2 – Diagonal mount).
Blum and Thorlabs are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of connectors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Blum’s mount with those of Thorlabs’ angled mount in order to provide for a system that allows for non-conventionally shaped containers to be able to be mounted.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/05/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Re: claim 1 & 8, the applicant argues that Blum and/or Thorlabs fails to teach or suggest multiple limitations of the claims as stated on pages 3 & 4 of the arguments. Specifically, the applicant argues that Blum does not secure a canister to a pallet or adjacent canisters to each other by incorporating a block that engages a lug secured to the pallet or canister anchor and furthermore fails to inhibit lateral or outward linear movement. The examiner agrees that Blum does not secure a canister to a pallet, but the examiner disagrees in that Blum does secure a container to a platform and/or to other containers as cited in the rejection of claims 1 and 8. The examiner also disagrees in that the device of Blum does not inhibit lateral movement or outward linear movement along the channel of the first member and the structure/purpose of Blum would not be destroyed in the way the applicant has recited claims.
The applicant further argues that DeZaio, Moradians, and Thorlabs does not make up for the deficiencies that Blum supposedly lacked. The examiner directs the applicant to the above arguments in that Blum does teach these supposed deficiencies. The examiner also notes that Thorlabs was viewed for the diagonal mounting such that it be combined with Blum for the advantage of attaching to non-conventionally shaped containers.
The applicant argues that there is insufficient motivation to combine the pivot connector of Blum with the angled interface of Thorlabs, the wall frame of DeZaio, or the cargo restraint of Moradians. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In the case of Thorlabs, the motivation to connect Blum to non-conventionally shaped containers is present. In the case of DeZaio, connecting to a secure structure, such as a platform would allow for the container being attached to the mount of Blum to be more stable. In the case of Moradians, the motivation to combine with Blum and DeZaio is that L-tracks are known for providing a moveable connection point and the ability to shift a load while remaining secure to a platform is a clear advantage.
Re: claim 4, the applicant argues that Bollman fails to teach or suggest the diagonal and track-facing lobe features and is not associated with the other applied references. The examiner disagrees, as Bollman shows a mounting device similar to that of Blum. The reference is being applied in that the configuration for the limitation of claim 4 is shown within Bollman. The examiner would also like to point to Figure 20 for additional figures that show a single mount structure having diagonal connections (1014 to 1010).
Re: claim 7 and 12, the applicant argues that Schmeichel lacks motivation to combine with Blum or the other applied references. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, lubrication of moving components has known advantages of increasing the life of materials in that friction is reduced and the amount of time between replacing parts is increased.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PHILIP C ADAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-3421. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30 - 4:00 CT.
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, Amy R Weisberg can be reached at 5712705500. 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.
/PHILIP CHARLES ADAMS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/AMY R WEISBERG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612