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 a final Office Action for serial number 18/366,103, Universal Accessory Surface Mount, filed on August 7, 2023.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-12, 14-18, 1-20, and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by U.S. Patent No. 10,767,684 to Meine et al. (Meine) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0298494 to Corsi.
Regarding claim 1, Meine ‘684 discloses a surface mount (Fig. 3D – see marked up below) comprising: a flange (see Fig. 3D) having two sides (front and back sides) and an outer rim (outer edge) defining an outer perimeter (furthest boundary of top surface), the flange comprising a central insert (threaded aperture) that is open and recessed on a first side of the two sides and closed (closed bottom) on a second side of the two sides, the open and recessed first side defining a first-side opening (Fig. 3D) of the central insert; wherein the first side of the flange defines a planar surface across its entirety, the planar surface with the central insert flush with the first side (Fig. 3D), and wherein the central insert is threaded (with threaded bolt) internally from the first side, and wherein the surface mount further comprises a surface of a roof of a structure like a camper to which the surface mount is attached. The prior art doesn’t exactly disclose wherein in a plan view, a continuous area bounded external by the outermost perimeter of the surface mount and bounded internally by a perimeter edge of the first side opening of the central insert except where interrupted by openings of holes through the flange with the central insert flush with the first side, and wherein the central insert in threaded internally from the first side. Nevertheless, Corsi ‘494 discloses a first side of the flange defines a planar surface and defining in plan view a continuous area bounded externally by the outermost perimeter of the surface mount and bounded internally by a perimeter edge of the first side opening of the central insert except where interrupted by openings of holes through the flange (see Fig. 6). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a surface mount of Meine with a surface mount because one would have a motivation to provide a substitute with the surface mount of Corsi ‘494 with different shapes and it appears that the invention would perform equally and would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
PNG
media_image1.png
838
787
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Meine ‘684 in view of Corsi ‘494 discloses wherein the central insert is closed and protruded on the second side (Fig. 3D – central bottom portion).
Regarding claim 4, Meine ‘684 in view of Corsi ‘494 discloses a plurality of holes (13 – fasteners go in) through the two sides, wherein the first side opening of the central insert and openings of the plurality of holes at the first side lie on the same plane.
Regarding claim 6, Meine ‘684 in view of Corsi ‘494 discloses a screw / bolt that fits at least one of the plurality of holes (Fig. 3D).
Regarding claims 7-9, Meine ‘684 in view of Corsi ‘494 discloses wherein the central insert is configured to accept any inserts or adapter (functional language).
Regarding claim 10, Meine ‘684 in view of Corsi ‘494 discloses wherein the flange (bottom) and the central insert (Fig. 3D) are circular.
Regarding claim 11, Meine ‘684 in view of Corsi ‘494 discloses a surface to which the surface mount is attached (Fig. 3D).
Regarding claim 12, Meine ‘684 in view of Corsi ‘494 discloses wherein the surface comprises a clearance hole on the surface configured to receive the central insert of the surface mount (clear insert in Fig. 3D).
Regarding claim 14, Meine ‘684 in view of Corsi ‘494 discloses a hole through the two sides for fasteners (Fig. 3D.
Regarding claim 15, Meine ‘684 in view of Corsi ‘494 discloses wherein the bolt is configured to fit the hole.
Regarding claim 16, Meine ‘684 in view of Corsi ‘494 discloses wherein the surface mount is attached to the surface by the bolt through the hole.
Regarding claim 17, Meine ‘684 in view of Corsi ‘494 discloses wherein the surface further comprises a hole on the surface.
Regarding claim 18, Meine ‘684 in view of Corsi ‘494 discloses wherein the number of holes of the surface mount is the same as the number of the holes of the surface.
Regarding claim 21, Meine ‘684 in view of Corsi ‘494 discloses wherein the surface is other surface.
Regarding claims 22-23, Meine ‘684 in view of Corsi ‘494 discloses wherein the second side is flat and is free from being threaded (see Fig. 3D).
Regarding claim 24, Meine ‘684 in view of Corsi ‘494 discloses wherein the first side and the second side is connected by a surface (inner surface between first side and second side – Fig. 3D).
Regarding claims 19-20, 25, Meine ‘684 in view of Corsi ‘494 discloses the previous invention wherein the surface mount on a roof, but doesn’t disclose wherein the surface is of a vehicle or a camper. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the roof surface of Meine ‘684 in view of Corsi ‘494 to include the roof of a vehicle or a camper since it was known in the art that the surface mount can be used on any surface including the roof of a vehicle or camper and it appears that the invention would perform equally and would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over as being anticipated by Meine ‘684 in view of Corsi ‘494, and in further view of U.S. Patent No. 4,511,183 to Spiegel et al. (Spiegel).
Regarding claim 13, Meine ‘684 in view of Corsi ‘494 fails to disclose wherein the surface mount is attached to the surface by an adhesive. Nevertheless, Spiegel ‘183 discloses an adhesive between two flanges 58, 60. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the surface mount and the surface of Meine ‘684 in view of Corsi ‘494 to include the adhesive because one would have motivation to provide a sturdy bond between the two surfaces as taught by Spiegel ‘183.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, and 25 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TODD M. EPPS whose telephone number is (571) 272-8282. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am - 5pm.
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at 571-272-4797. 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.
/TODD M EPPS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632 July 8, 2026
Prosecution Insights