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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-21 are pending and have been examined in this application.
Claims 1, 11, 13 and 19 are currently amended; claims 3-9 and 12, 14-18 and 19 are original; claims 2 and 10 were previously presented; claim 21 is new;
Claims 1-14 are rejected herein.
Information Disclosure Statement
As of the date of this action, an information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed on 03/18/2024 and reviewed by the Examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-14 and 21 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the current rejection/interpretation of Johnson, LaPalomento and Flick.
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 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 1 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Johnson (U.S. Pat. No. 7,271,350 B2) in view of Flick (U.S. Pat. No. 2895313).
Regarding claim 1 Johnson teaches an electrical device support assembly for securement to a surface, comprising:
a support bracket (21) having an outer rim (32-35), a main region (J1 see annotated figure below), an inner region (J2 see annotated figure below), and a plurality of first apertures (27-28, 94-95) spaced from one another so as to be configured to secure the support bracket to a pair of structural supports (14, 16) of the surface,
the outer rim surrounding the main region,
the main region surrounding the inner region, and
the inner region including one or more second apertures (24) that are configured for mechanical connection of an electrical device to the support bracket.
However, Johnson is silent to disclose the inner region being configured as an x-shaped structure having legs, and the one or more second aperture being disposed on one or more of the legs.
Flick teaches the inner region (Flick; 24) being configured as an x-shaped structure having legs (Flick; Col. 2; line 4), and the one or more second aperture (Flick; apertures for receiving 25) being disposed on one or more of the legs.
Johnson and Flick are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area e.g. providing a structure for supporting an object. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the inner region of Johnson having the x-shaped configuration. The motivation would have been to provide appropriate strength during the retention while making the product cost effective.
PNG
media_image1.png
308
718
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 21, Jonson as modified teaches the outer rim (32-35) is offset from the main region (J1) by a first distance along an axis, and wherein the legs (Flicks; legs of 24) are offset from the main region by a second distance along the axis.
Alternatively, claims 1-7, 10-14 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaPalomento (U.S. Pat. No. 5,183,233) in view of Flick (U.S. Pat. No. 2895313).
Regarding claim 1, LaPalomento teaches an electrical device support assembly for securement to a surface, comprising: a support bracket (LaPalomento; 10) having a main region (LaPalomento; surface area including 11) a plurality of first apertures (LaPalomento; 11) spaced from one another so as to be configured to secure the support bracket to a pair of structural supports (LaPalomento; 42) of the surface; an inner region (LaPalomento; region defined between 14 comprising 17A); the inner region includes one or more second apertures (17A) that are configured for mechanical connection of an electrical device to the support bracket.
However, LaPalomento is silent to disclose a rim and the x shaped configuration of the inner region.
Flick teaches a support bracket (Flick; 14) having an outer rim (Flick; Rim surrounding 24), a main region (Flick; region accommodating 15), the outer rim surrounding the main region, and an inner region (Flick; 24)
the main region surrounding the inner region, and
the inner region includes one or more second apertures (Flick; aperture for receiving 25) that are configured for mechanical connection of an electrical device to the support bracket [capable/intended use].
LaPalomento and Flick are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem-solving area e.g. providing a structure for supporting an object. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the invention of LaPalomento having a rim surrounding the main region and the main region surrounding the inner region as disclosed by Lowe. The motivation would have been to facilitate the installation and as well as to make the product cost effective. Additionally, it would have been the obvious matter of design choice.
Regarding claim 2, LaPalomento as modified teaches the plurality of first apertures (LaPalomento; 11) are in the outer rim or the main region.
Regarding claim 3, LaPalomento teaches the inner region has a first window (LaPalomento; 12) through which electrical leads of an electrical device can pass [intended use/capable].
Regarding claim 4, LaPalomento as modified teaches the main region comprises a plurality of first windows (Lowe; L4 see annotated figures above) through which electrical leads of an electrical device can pass.
Regarding claim 5, LaPalomento as modified teaches the plurality of first windows comprises. However, Lowe is silent to disclose a plurality of knockouts. The Examiner takes the official notice that providing the plurality of knockouts are old and well known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the first windows of Lowe having knockouts. The motivation would have been to utilize the desired windows while keeping the other windows sealed.
Regarding claim 6, LaPalomento as modified teaches the outer rim (Lowe; L1) is offset from the main region by a first distance (vertical distance) along an axis (vertical axis) and the main region (Lowe; L2) is offset from the inner region (Lowe; 105) by a second distance along the axis.
Regarding claim 7, LaPalomento as modified teaches the first distance provides a space (vertical space) through which the electrical leads can pass (via window).
Regarding claim 10, LaPalomento teaches the plurality of first apertures (LaPalomento; 11) have a center-to-center distance (distance between each 121) equal to a center-to-center distance (D) of the pair of structural supports (LaPalomento; 42) [capable/intended use].
Regarding claim 11, LaPalomento as modified teaches the support bracket is configured such that the outer rim (Lowe; L1) extends into the main area to define ears on opposite sides of a portion of the outer rim having the at least one first apertures.
Regarding claim 12, LaPalomento as modified teaches the support bracket. However, LaPalomento is silent to disclose the bracket is formed as a single piece of galvanized steel. The Examiner takes the official notice that bracket made of galvanized steel are old and well known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the bracket of LaPalomento formed as a single piece of galvanized steel. The motivation would have been to make the inventio durable and as well as to provide appropriate strength during the retention.
Regarding claim 13, LaPalomento teaches a decorative cover (LaPalomento; 20), wherein the decorative cover is sized to conceal the support bracket and has second window (21) sized and positioned to be in alignment with the inner region of the support bracket when the cover is removably connected to the support bracket.
Regarding claim 14, LaPalomento teaches the decorative cover. However, LaPalomento is silent to disclose an integrally formed connector that is removably connectable with the support bracket. Lowe teaches the integrally formed connector (Lowe; 310) that is removably connectable with the support bracket. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the cover of LaPalomento having integrally formed connector as disclosed by Lowe. The motivation would have been to facilitate the installation of the of cover.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaPalomento (U.S. Pat. No. 5,183,233) in view of Flick (U.S. Pat. No. 2895313).and further in view of Johnson (U.S. Pat. No. 7271350 B2).
Regarding claim 8, LaPalomento a cover plate (LaPalomento; 20). However, LaPalomento is silent to disclose the cover plate is positioned on the outer rim so that an enclosed space is defined in the support bracket. Johnson teaches the cover plate (Johnson; 41) is positioned on the outer rim so that an enclosed space is defined in the support bracket (see Fig. 2 for configuration).
LaPalomento and Johnson are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem-solving area e.g. providing a structure for supporting an object. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the cover plate of LaPalomento as disclosed by Johnson. The motivation would have been the motivation would have been to provide space/gap for electrical cables.
Regarding claim 9, LaPalomento as modified teaches the cover is between the surface and the support bracket or the bracket (LaPalomento; 10) is between the surface (Fig. 4; surface in contact with 10) and the cover (Johnson; 41).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
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 MUHAMMAD IJAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6280. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00 am-10:00 pm.
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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at 5712728227. 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.
MUHAMMAD IJAZ
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3631
/Muhammad Ijaz/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Prosecution Insights