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 § 102
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, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2004/0118984).
Regarding claim 1 Kim discloses:
A bracket suitable to be connected to an audio or an audio and video installation, wherein the bracket comprises:
a main load carrying profile (e.g. 30 FIG.2), the main load carrying profile having a first longitudinal extent (e.g. up/down FIG2), from which main load carrying profile one or more mounting studs (e.g. 37nFIG.2) extend, wherein the mounting studs are fastened to the main load carrying profile and further are provided with resilient sleeves (e.g. formed in 12 FIG.2), wherein the one or more mounting studs are arranged perpendicular to and extending away from the first longitudinal extent of the main load carrying profile (e.g. shown FIG.2), wherein the main load carrying profile in a distal end is provided with an engagement member (e.g. 42 FIG.3) fastened to the main load carrying profile (e.g. extending downward FIG.3), and wherein the engagement member has coupling means suitable to engage and fix the bracket to a floor, wall, or table stand (e.g. via 11 shown FIG.3).
Regarding claim 2 Kim discloses:
two or more mounting rods (e.g. 21, 22 FIG.2) are provided on the main load carrying profile, and the mounting rods extend from the main load carrying profile in a direction opposite to the mounting studs (e.g. inward).
Regarding claim 3 Kim discloses:
each mounting rod has a second longitudinal extent substantially perpendicular to the first longitudinal extent (e.g. left/right) of the main load carrying profile, and wherein two or more grooves (e.g. shown on sides of 21/22 FIG.2) are provided in each mounting rod perpendicular (e.g. up/down) to the second longitudinal extent of the mounting rods.
Regarding claim 5 Kim discloses:
the cross section of the mounting rods in a direction perpendicular to the second longitudinal extend is circular (e.g. circular section shown FIG.2), and wherein the grooves encircle the mounting rods (e.g. grooves of 21 encircles 22 shown FIG.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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2004/0118984) in view of Bunting (US 2022/0034086).
Regarding claim 4 Kim discloses:
a mutual distance between adjacent grooves of the two or more grooves in the second longitudinal extent is a fixed distance (e.g. fixed as shown FIG.2)
Kim does not explicitly discuss:
wherein the distance is selected between 5 mm and 20 mm
Bunting teaches:
wherein the distance is selected between 5 mm and 20 mm (1/4 inch paragraph [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teachings of Bunting, as pointed out above, in Kim, as one having ordinary skill in the art would have would have recognized the teaching, suggestion, and motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings (as pointed out above) to arrive at the claimed invention, and would have been motivated to do this with a reasonable expectation of success because such a combination and/or modification would have allowed for: ideal fitting of the components within the body such as interference fit and press fit to account for changing load profile tolerances (paragraph [0031]).
Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2004/0118984) in view of Kim et al. (US 2022/0232188).
Regarding claim 12 Kim discloses:
an arrangement of the installation, wherein the floor, wall, or table stand is fastened to the bracket by connecting the coupling means provided in the engagement member with corresponding coupling means provided in the floor, wall, or table stand configured for engagement with the coupling means in the engagement member (e.g. shown via dotted lines FIG.2), and inserting the mounting studs, with the resilient sleeves into apertures provided in a rear side of the installation, such that the weight of the installation is transferred to the mounting studs, and via the main load carrying profile and the engagement member to the floor, wall, or table stand (e.g. shown via dotted lines FIG.2)
Kim does not explicitly discuss:
audio installation
Kim(88) teaches:
audio installation (e.g. 80 FIG.2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teachings of Kim(88), as pointed out above, in Kim, as one having ordinary skill in the art would have would have recognized the teaching, suggestion, and motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings (as pointed out above) to arrive at the claimed invention, and would have been motivated to do this with a reasonable expectation of success because such a combination and/or modification would have allowed for: the provision of audio to provide an audio-visual system (paragraph [0040]).
Regarding claim 13 Kim as modified discloses:
wherein a video screen (e.g. described paragraph [0028]) is provided wherein the video screen is attached to the screen bracket (e.g. 6 FIG.1) and wherein the screen bracket is provided with rows of holes (e.g. shown Fig.1), wherein the rows of holes are arranged according to a standard (e.g. shown Fig.1), wherein the video screen may be fastened to the screen bracket by superposing a number of the holes arranged according to the standard in the screen bracket over corresponding holes provided in a rear surface of the video screen (e.g. shown Fig.1), and threading a bolt or screw through at least some or all of the overlapping holes, thereby fastening the video screen to the screen bracket (e.g. described paragraph [0028] and understood from the structure of 6 FIG.1)
Kim does not explicitly discuss:
defined by the Video Electronics Standards Association
Kim(88) teaches:
defined by the Video Electronics Standards Association (e.g. described paragraph [0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teachings of Kim(88), as pointed out above, in Kim, as one having ordinary skill in the art would have would have recognized the teaching, suggestion, and motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings (as pointed out above) to arrive at the claimed invention, and would have been motivated to do this with a reasonable expectation of success because such a combination and/or modification would have allowed for: the provision of audio to provide an audio-visual system (paragraph [0040]) (e.g. improved interchangeability).
Regarding claim 14 Kim as modified discloses:
The apparatus(method) of claim 13
Kim does not explicitly discuss:
the audio installation is a soundbar, the soundbar having a longitudinal extent, a depth and height, wherein at least one linear guide is provided, and wherein the video screen has a lower edge extending in the width direction of the video screen, and wherein after having attached the video screen to the video screen mounting system, apertures in the legs are inserted over mounting rods and accommodated in grooves, such that an upper rim of each aperture is inserted in a groove, wherein the groove is selected such that the linear guide is parallel with a lower edge of the video screen, and wherein the linear guide and the lower edge of the video screen are proximate, whereafter the adjustment means between a structural bracket and a screen bracket, comprising two or more adjustment studs projecting from either the structural bracket or the screen bracket are manipulated such that by rotating threaded bolts threaded in horizontal and vertical holes of the adjustment studs, the structural bracket or the screen bracket is moved relative to the other bracket, such that the linear guide may be adjusted to be precisely aligned with the lower edge of the video screen, and that a desired distance is provided between the lower edge of the video screen and the linear guide
Kim(88) teaches:
the audio installation is a soundbar (e.g. 80 FIG.2), the soundbar having a longitudinal extent, a depth and height, wherein at least one linear guide is provided (e.g. top of 80 FIG.2), and wherein the video screen (e.g. 20 FIG.2) has a lower edge extending in the width direction of the video screen (e.g. shown FIG.2), and wherein after having attached the video screen to the video screen mounting system, apertures in the legs (e.g. 95 FIG.6) are inserted over mounting rods (e.g. 215 FIG.14) and accommodated in grooves (e.g. 214 FIG.14), such that an upper rim of each aperture is inserted in a groove (e.g. groove in 202 shown FIG.14), wherein the groove is selected such that the linear guide is parallel with a lower edge of the video screen (e.g. indicated FIG.2), and wherein the linear guide and the lower edge of the video screen are proximate (e.g. indicated FIG.2), whereafter the adjustment means between a structural bracket and a screen bracket, comprising two or more adjustment studs projecting from either the structural bracket or the screen bracket (e.g. at least two shown FIG.6) are manipulated such that by rotating threaded bolts threaded in horizontal and vertical holes of the adjustment studs, the structural bracket or the screen bracket is moved relative to the other bracket (e.g. between 95s FIG.6), such that the linear guide may be adjusted to be precisely aligned with the lower edge of the video screen, and that a desired distance is provided between the lower edge of the video screen and the linear guide (e.g. indicated FIG.2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teachings of Kim(88), as pointed out above, in Kim, as one having ordinary skill in the art would have would have recognized the teaching, suggestion, and motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings (as pointed out above) to arrive at the claimed invention, and would have been motivated to do this with a reasonable expectation of success because such a combination and/or modification would have allowed for: the provision of audio to provide an audio-visual system (paragraph [0040]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-11 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:
Regarding claim 6 Kim discloses:
wherein a video screen mounting system is provided, the video screen mounting system comprises two parts:
a structural bracket and a screen bracket (e.g. shown FIG.1); wherein
the structural bracket has two or more parallel legs (e.g. two extending from 7 shown Fig.1) extending from a main plate section (e.g. 7 FIG.1), wherein at least two apertures are provided in each leg (e.g. two shown FIG.1), such that each leg may be connected to a bracket (e.g. shown FIG.1), and wherein the screen bracket is adjustably connected by adjustment means to the structural bracket (e.g. shown/indicated FIG.1/FIG.3).
However Kim fails to explicitly disclose:
by inserting and having the mounting rods extend through the apertures in the legs, wherein the thickness of the material of the legs may be accommodated in one of the grooves provided in the mounting rods.
Further, none of the references cited, either alone or in combination(s), is believed to disclose the above limitation(s) as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2026-07-13 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments beginning on page 10 and extending to page 12 of the remarks make many assertions with respect to “features and functions” not being disclosed. Applicant, however, provides no citation of relevant regulation or case law to support their assertions, and so it is unclear what applicant is arguing with respect to “features and functions”.
MPEP 2131 notes, in part, of rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 that: “A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987).”
It is unclear from the arguments whether applicant’s argued “features and functions” are the same as the “every element” noted in MPEP2131.
If applicant’s “features and functions” are the same as the “every element” noted in MPEP2131, then applicant, beyond pointing to the whole of claim 1, does not point out any particular element that the prior art of record does not disclose, and is directed to the rejection above and in the prior office action as to where the prior art discloses all the elements of the claimed device.
If applicant’s “features and functions” are not the same as the “every element” noted in MPEP2131, then applicant is directed to MPEP 2114(II):
II. MANNER OF OPERATING THE DEVICE DOES NOT DIFFERENTIATE APPARATUS CLAIM FROM THE PRIOR ART
“[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing 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” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
That the prior art has some intended use that applicant asserts is different from the intended use of the present disclosed device is not a controlling factor in whether or not the prior art discloses the elements recited in the claims, the question before the office is whether the prior art discloses all the elements of the claim(s).
Alternatively if applicant’s “features and functions” is reference back to applicant’s device as disclosed in their present application:
Claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification without importing limitations from the specification into the claims (MPEP 2111).
The rejection above points out where the prior art of record discloses the limitation(s) “the engagement member has coupling means suitable to engage and fix the bracket to a floor, wall, or table stand” and it is unclear how claim 1, which recites “or table stand” is not concerned with at least a stand, and as e.g. 11 connects the rest of the structure with stand 3 then the prior art is eminently proper for disclosing the recited element(s)/limitations.
It must be noted that neither 6 nor 7 are ever utilized in the rejection of claim 1, and so it is unclear how arguments with respect to elements 6 and 7 of the prior art relate to the rejection of record.
In addition please note: there is no analogous art requirement for a reference being applied in an anticipation rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997).(MPEP 2141.01(a)(I))
Regarding applicants asserted purpose of the present claimed device: Claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification without importing limitations from the specification into the claims (MPEP 2111). That applicant has in their specification some certain description of their present disclosed device does little to alter the interpretation of the claimed device where such limitations from the specification are absent in the claims.
As Kim discloses all the elements of claim 1, whether or not Bunting discloses the limitations of claim 1 is not relevant to demonstrating error in the rejection of record.
In response to applicant's argument that Bunting is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
When determining whether the “relevant field of endeavor” test is met, the examiner should consider “explanations of the invention’s subject matter in the patent application, including the embodiments, function, and structure of the claimed invention.” Airbus S.A.S. v. Firepass Corp., 941 F.3d 1374, 1380, 2019 USPQ2d 430083 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212)(MPEP 2141.01(a).
As applicant states in their “FIELD OF TECHNOLOGY” section: “The following is related to a bracket for mounting and arranging” This places Bunting in the same field of endeavor as the present application. Even if Bunting does not relate specifically to mounting of video or audio equipment. (“The field of endeavor is ‘not limited to the specific point of novelty, the narrowest possible conception of the field, or the particular focus within a given field.’”) (quoting Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google Inc., 841 F.3d 995, 1001, 120 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). (MPEP 2141.01(a)(I))
As noted above neither 6 nor 7 are utilized in the rejection of record, and arguments that 6 or 7 do or do not disclose some features of the present application do not demonstrate error in the current office action of record.
As Bunting is not relied upon for the argued limitations, arguments that it does not disclosed the argued features do not demonstrate error in the current office action of record.
As already noted above: there is no analogous art requirement for a reference being applied in an anticipation rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 (MPEP 2141.01(a)(I).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 THERON S MILLISER whose telephone number is (571)270-1800. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6.
Limited examiner interviews are available.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Imani N. Hayman can be reached at (571) 270-5528. 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.
/THERON S MILLISER/Examiner, Art Unit 2841
/IMANI N HAYMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2841
