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 .
Claims 1, 3-5, and 10-12 are pending.
Claim 2 is cancelled.
Claims 6-9 were previously allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 1, filed 04/08/2026, with respect to claims 2 and 6 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of claims 2 and 6 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 2-3, filed 04/08/2026, with respect to 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1, 4, 10, and 12 has been withdrawn.
Specification
The amendment filed 04/08/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: Page 6, lines 9-10 state “wherein the mount comprises a telescoping member that translates along a longitudinal axis relative to the housing”. The originally filed disclosure describes a mount tab (30) extending from device housing (2) and shows mount (8) extending from a closed position (Fig. 3) to an open position (Fig. 4) wherein the mount tab is configured to travel from the closed position to the open position along a mount track (22) via mount ribs (18). Neither the specification nor the drawings as originally filed disclose a member configured to telescope.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 10-12 are 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.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites the new limitation “wherein the mount comprises a telescoping member that translates along a longitudinal axis relative to the housing”. A telescoping member is understood in the art to comprise nested sections, one received within another, that slide relative to one another so as to extend and retract the overall length of the member. An online search for the definition of telescoping provides “to become forced together lengthwise with one part entering another as the result of collision”. The disclosed mount tab translates along a track and is not received within a corresponding member in nested relation. The originally filed disclosure accordingly does not reasonably convey to one skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of a telescoping member at the time the application was filed. Accordingly, claim 10 contains new matter. Claims 11-12 are dependent on claim 10 and are therefore rejected for depending upon a rejected base claim.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 3-5 objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claims 6-9 respectively. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Reasons for Allowance
Claims 6-9 were previously allowed.
Claims 1 and 3-5 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 1, allowability resides with the prior art of record not fairly showing, suggesting, or teaching a plug-in electrical device, comprising: an electrical device; an electrical plug; a mount, whereas the mount secures to an outlet; the mount is configured to be retractable; the mount is comprised of an aperture configured to allow the passage of a body of a wall mounting screw, and the mount is configured to be secured to the outlet by a head of the wall mounting screw; a housing of the electrical device; a mount tab; at least one mount rib; the housing of the electrical device comprised of a slot configured to accommodate the mount tab; and whereas the at least one mount rib configured to lock the mount into a full closed position, or a full open position, as recited in claim 1. These limitations are neither taught nor suggested by the prior art of record taken alone or in combination. Claims 3-5 are dependent on claim 1 and are therefore allowable for the same reasons.
Examiner’s Note: please refer to “Claim Objections” for relevant information regarding allowability of claim 1.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Grace et al. (US 20200238844) discloses a charging system for electric vehicles having a telescopic member for maintaining angular spacing.
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.
/JEFFREY MOUNTAIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights