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 Amendment
The following office action is in response to the amendment filed on April 29, 2026. Claims 1-4, 7-25, and 42-45 are pending. Claims 1, 3, 4, 16-18, 20, 21, and 25 are rejected, claims 7, 19, and 22-24 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, and claims 42-45 are allowed.
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, 3, 16-18, 20-21, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kreider (3118480).
In regard to claim 1, Kreider discloses a lift nut mounting bracket capable of being used for hoisting a building wall panel, the lift nut mounting bracket comprising: a side plate 15; a top plate 14 connected to the side plate at a first joint (bend between 14 and 15), the top plate including a first opening 21 therein; wherein the side plate 15 is generally perpendicular to the top plate 14 (figs. 1, 2); a receiving plate 9 adjacent to the top plate, wherein the receiving plate is spaced from and overlaps the top plate such that a gap (gap receives member 6) is formed between the receiving plate and the top plate; a receiver (formed by elements 10 and aperture 25) formed in the receiving plate, the receiver being aligned with the first opening 21 in the top plate; and a nut 7 received and retained in the receiver.
In regard to claim 3, Kreider discloses the claimed invention, wherein the receiver is an opening having a shaped that corresponds to the cross-sectional shape of the nut. The examiner would like to point out that the nut 7 has a round shape and at least the hole 25 of the receiver has a round shape.
In regard to claim 16, Kreider discloses the claimed invention, wherein the nut includes a flange 8 that retains the nut in the receiver (figs. 4-5).
In regard to claim 17, Kreider discloses the claimed invention, wherein the receiver plate is separate from the side plate and top plate (figs. 3-4).
In regard to claim 18, Kreider discloses the claimed invention, wherein the side plate and the top plate are monolithic in construction, and the receiving plate is formed separate from the side plate and the top plate (figs. 1, 3).
In regard to claim 20, Kreider discloses the claimed invention, further comprising a plug 26 inserted into the nut.
In regard to claim 21, Kreider discloses the claimed invention, wherein the plug includes a longitudinally extending shaft co-operable with threads of an internal threaded bore of the nut (fig. 3).
In regard to claim 25, Kreider discloses the claimed invention, wherein the shaft includes an outwardly extending annular flange (horizontal portion between the head 26 and member 5, figs. 1, 2).
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kreider (3118480) in view of Tinnerman (2394729).
In regard to claim 4, Kreider discloses the claimed invention, but does not specifically disclose that the opening has a hexagonal shape. Tinnerman teaches that it is known to provide a receiver plate with a hexagonal shape hole 20 (figs. 1-3). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the receiver hole of Kreider hexagonal shape, so that the nut will not be able to spin in the receiver. Further, the change in shape of an element is an obvious modification and would be within the level or ordinary skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 42-45 are allowed.
Claims 7, 19, and 22-24 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claims 22-24 and 42-45 are allowable for the reasons set forth in the previous office action.
In regard to claim 7, the examiner contends that it would not be obvious to place a plurality of apertures on the side plate for attaching the mounting bracket on a frame member of a wall panel because the side plate already has an aperture therein to receive the receiving plate. Therefore, there is no room for more apertures. Also, it would not be obvious to place more apertures in the side plate, because they would not be accessible in order to pass fasteners therethrough to penetrate into a frame member of a wall panel. One would not be able to engage the head of a fastener in order to drive it into the frame member of the wall panel.
In regard to claim 19, the examiner contends that there is no reason or motivation to place a plurality of raised circular surfaces on the receiving plate. If raised surfaces were placed on the receiving plate, they would serve no function. They may even interfere with the nut. Thus, the examiner can find no proper motivation to incorporate raised circular surfaces on the receiver plate without relying on hindsight.
Response to Amendment
In regard to the applicant’s arguments pertaining to the rejection in view of Kreider in the previous office action, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant only argued that since Kreider was not used to reject claims 5 and 6, that it was an indication that Kreider did not read on those claims. That is an assumption on the applicant’s part and is not correct. Just because a claim is not rejected in view of a prior art reference, it is not understood to mean that the claim is allowable over that piece of art. Unless the examiner specifically states that the claim is allowable over a specific prior art reference, one cannot make the assumption that the lack of a rejection makes the claim allowable in view of that reference. Examiners often make the “best” rejections available and not “all” rejections available. Therefore, in view of the applicant’s amendment, the prior art was looked at again in view of the combination of claims 1, 5, and 6 because that combination of claims was never previously present. After looking at the art and comparing it to the new combination of limitations, it is believed that Kreider does read on the combination of limitations as set forth in applicant’s amended claim 1.
In regard to the applicant’s other arguments, they are moot in view of the new ground of rejection presented above.
In conclusion, due to the fact that the previous office action did not use Kreider to reject claims 5 and 6, which led the applicant to believe those claims were allowable over Kreider, the examiner is not going final in this office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brian E Glessner whose telephone number is (571)272-6754. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:00 to 4:00.
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, Namrata Boveja can be reached at 571-272-8105. 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.
/BRIAN E GLESSNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights