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 .
This is the final Office Action for the serial number 18/353,412, ADJUSTABLE ANGLE BRACKET , filed on 7/17/23.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by US Patent # 6,926,241 to Garrett.
Garrett teaches an adjustable angle bracket comprising a base (2) having a rectangular shape, a first lug having a top edge and a bottom edge, wherein the bottom edge of the first lug is coupled to the base, and wherein the first lug defines a first set of slots. The bracket includes a second lug having a top edge and a bottom edge, wherein the bottom edge of the second lug is coupled to the base, and wherein the second lug defines a second set of slots. Wherein the first set of slots define a plurality of angles relative to a direction D orthogonal to the base. Wherein the second slots define the plurality of angles relative to the direction D and wherein the first set of slots are distinct and spaced apart from one other along a direction orthogonal to the direction D, and wherein the second set of slots are distinct and spaced apart from one other along the direction orthogonal to the direction D. Wherein each of the first set of slots and the second set of slots comprises three slots. The base defines plurality of apertures. The adjustable angle bracket comprises a lug connector (4a) coupled to the top edge of the first lug and the top edge of the second lug.
PNG
media_image1.png
683
995
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
590
702
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 4-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garrett.
Garrett teaches the first set of slots and the second set of slots but fails to teach the slots are at angled 0, 9 and 18 and the slot angled at 9 degrees from the direction D is longer than the slot angled at 0 degrees from the direction D and wherein the slot angled at 18 degrees from direction D is longer than the slot angled at 9 degrees from the direction D. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first set of slots and the second set of slots to angled 0, 9 and 18 and wherein the 9 degrees having the direction D longer than the slot angled at 0 degrees from the direction D and wherein the slot angled at 18 degrees from direction D is longer than the slot angled at 9 degrees from the direction D to provide designer’s preference for the angle and distance for the first set of slots and the second set of slots.
Regarding claims 7-8, Garrett teaches the plurality of apertures but fails to teach the plurality of apertures comprises four apertures, however in figure 23, which is a different embodiment shows plurality of apertures (522) comprising four apertures. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added four apertures to provide additional security with plurality of fasteners on the base.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 ALFRED J WUJCIAK whose telephone number is (571)272-6827. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3:30pm.
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, David Dunn can be reached at 571-272-6670. 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.
ALFRED J. WUJCIAK III
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3632
/ALFRED J WUJCIAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636 3/19/26