DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
The applicant was presented with the following species:
Bracket:
Group A: Figs. 2-4 & 6
Group B: Fig. 12
Target Attachment
Group I: Fig. 1 & 8
Group II: Fig. 5
Group III: Figs. 7A-7B
Target:
Group 1: Fig. 9B
Group 2: Figs 9C-9D
Group 3: Fig. 10
Group 4: Fig. 11
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group B, Group I, Group 2, via email on 10/27/25 is acknowledged.
Group A will be examined with Group B, since claim 2 attempts to incorporate the other embodiment (see 35 USC 112 rejection).
Claims 4, 6-7, 10-12, and 18-19, are withdrawn as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show any structure interconnection whatsoever between the “Ferris-wheel” (claim 2) and the L-shaped bracket (claim 1) as described in the specification (also see 35 USC 112). Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 2 is 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.
The “Ferris wheel” (claim 2) is shown with target attachments and described as “with reference now to FIG. 12, in a particular aspect, the bracket system 10 can have a target-ferris-wheel 120 including a circular frame 122, bracing members 124, a base stand 126, and L-shaped brackets 12 of the sort described above” however there is no description or Figures detailing how the L-shaped brackets, which are longitudinal and comprising an L-shape, are somehow situated along the circular frame. There is no description, explicit or implicit, which describes the structural connections between the L-shaped bracket and the circular frame of the “Ferris-wheel” to 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.
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.
Claim 2 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.
As detailed above in the 35 USC 112(a) rejection, the applicant fails to show any structural interconnection between the L-shaped brackets and the circular frame, thus it is unclear what structures are necessary to allow a connection of this sort to be formed. The incongruency between the structures, lacking any description of interconnection, leads to an indefinite and unclear claim.
The claim further recites “the support sections of a plurality of brackets” which is improper antecedent basis and/or incorrectly identifies the “at least one bracket” of the identification system. It is unclear if several brackets from claim 1 are attached, or other brackets, all indefinite and lacking description.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 13-15, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wagenheim (US 3,092,388).
In respect to claims 1 and 5, Wagenheim discloses a bracket system comprising: at least one bracket 2 having a “target section” 3 extending longitudinally and a “support section” 2 extending longitudinally and substantially perpendicular to the “target section” 3 (all elements a “single-piece member”) (Fig. 1); the “target section” 3 having an inner and an outer surface with at least one target attachment 23/24 affixed to the bracket “target section”, connected to the outer surface of the bracket via a fastener (Fig. 3); and a target 13a affixed to the target attachment 23/24 (Fig. 1).
In respect to claim 2, Wagenheim discloses the assembly of claim 1, wherein it is impossible to ascertain its connection with the structure of claim 2. Thus, since the difference between the prior art and the invention cannot be ascertained by the Examiner for several 35 USC 112 issues above, disclose the clear and definite subject matter of the claims.
In respect to claim 3, Wagenheim discloses the bracket system is attached to a stationary object 11 via at least one through hole 8 in the bracket “support section” 2, by means of a fastener 9 through the through hole (Fig. 1). It is further noted that the claim does not require any element except the through hole of the bracket support, as the rest of the claim is intended use, and not drawn to the structure of the bracket system.
In respect to claims 13-15, Wagenheim discloses the claimed invention for the reasons stated above.
Claims 1-2, 8, 13-14, and 16, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sun (US 2017/0336180).
In respect to claim 1, Sun discloses a bracket system comprising: at least one bracket 103 having a “target section”(middle section) extending longitudinally and a “support section” (legs) extending longitudinally and substantially perpendicular to the “target section”; the “target section” having an inner (bottom) and an outer (top) surface with at least one target attachment 102 affixed to the bracket “target section” (Figs. 3-4); and a target 101 affixed to the target attachment 102 (Figs. 3-4).
In respect to claim 2, Sun discloses the assembly of claim 1, wherein it is impossible to ascertain its connection with the structure of claim 2. Thus, since the difference between the prior art and the invention cannot be ascertained by the Examiner for several 35 USC 112 issues above, disclose the clear and definite subject matter of the claims.
In respect to claim 3, Sun discloses through holes in the “support section” of the bracket (Fig. 4); it is further noted that the claim does not require any element except the through hole of the bracket support, as the rest of the claim is intended use, and not drawn to the structure of the bracket system. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill will readily ascertain such holes on the “support section” (base) are for securing with a fastener.
In respect to claim 8, Sun discloses at least one slot 109 on the “target section” of the bracket outer surface; the at least one target attachment 102 having an attachment base 110 that corresponds to fit within the target section outer surface slot 109, and is fixed thereto (Figs. 3-4).
In respect to claims 13-14 and 16, Sun discloses the claimed invention for the reasons stated above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 17 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.
None of the cited prior art anticipates or renders obvious all elements of claims 9 and 17, in addition to independent claims, and all intervening claims. Specifically, utilizing a female threaded bottle port to mount a target is known in the art, such as in Hoetger (US 2016/0282090) (e.g. Figs. 1 and 8), however there is no obvious motivation to combine with the cited prior art in the office action above, or additional prior art, below. Although it may be obvious to provide a female threaded connector to a target, such as disclosed in the prior art, the claim specifies that the “female threaded bottle port extending distally from the attachment base (of the target attachment)” which is not obvious, as any portion construed as the “attachment base” in the prior art could not accommodate the taught device.
Claim 20 is allowed, for the reasons stated above, claim 20 being substantially the independent form of claims 9 and 17.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bell (US 3,413,003), Miller (US 2023/0013481), Cesternino (US 9,631,904), Suh (KR 90-0000168), Wang (CN 111076614), and Kral (DE 10-2004-014800), disclose similar inventions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE ROBERT GRABOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3518. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-6pm.
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, Daniel Troy, can be reached at 571-270-3742. 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.
/KYLE R GRABOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637