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 .
Priority
Examiner acknowledges no foreign priority is claimed.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 8/17/2023 and 2/5/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered if signed and initialed by the Examiner.
Examiner Initiated Interview
An interview was held with the applicant’s representative on 11/17/2025 and 11/21/2025 for election/restriction.
Election/Restrictions
During a telephone conversation with applicant’s representative on 11/17/2025 and 11/21/2025, a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of 18/451670, claims 1-10. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
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.
For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frederick et al. (US 2020/0023788 A1), and further in view of Alem et al. (US 2017/023674 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Frederick et al. (‘788) discloses “an apparatus for vehicular radar installation (paragraph 5: the mounting structure for a rear-viewing sensor of an autonomous vehicle is a bracket fit to the vehicle at an existing rear body structure of the vehicle, wherein the bracket includes mounts for sensors including at least one of a light detection and ranging sensor (lidar) and radio detection and ranging sensor (radar), and wherein the mounts place the sensors in a rear-facing direction of the vehicle), comprising:
a base plate comprising a top surface and a bottom surface, the base plate comprising one or more through-holes (paragraph 28: Figure 2B: the reinforcement plate connections 11A and 11B may also include spacers 13 for providing a smooth surface to distribute attachment pressure to a mounting plate 15 as seen in Figure 2B…the mounting plate 15 is used as a mounting location for larger sensors 5 such as a lidar or radar);
a bracket having a horizontal portion and a vertical portion that is perpendicular to the horizontal portion wherein the horizontal portion comprises one or more through-holes that align with corresponding one of more through-holes of the base plate (paragraph 27: Figure 2A shows a perspective view of the reinforcement plate connections 11A and 11B of the mounting structure 1 for attachment of the sensors 5 and 7 to the vehicle chassis…the arms of the reinforcement plate connections 11A and 11B extending out from the main body of the mounting structure 1 are used to attach the mounting structure 1 to the vehicle chassis);1
one or more fasteners extending through the one or more through-holes of the horizontal portion and the one or more through-holes of the base plates configured to rigidly couple the base plate with the bracket (paragraph 31: the attachment means between the reinforcement plate connections 11A and 11B and the vehicle chassis may include any number of mechanisms (e.g., screws, bolts, rivets, latches, interconnecting grooves, adhesive, etc.)…the attachment means between parts of the mounting structure 1, including reinforcement plate connections 11A and 11B, spacers 13, mounting plate 15, and sensor mounts 17A and 17B may include the same or different mechanisms to provide stable and secure attachments throughout the mounting structure 1); and
one or more washers having base portions having base portion openings (paragraph 28: the reinforcement plate connections 11A and 11B may also include spacers 13 for providing a smooth surface to distribute attachment pressure to a mounting plate 15 as seen in FIG. 2B),” and
“further allow insertion of the one or more fasteners through the cylindrical portions and the one or more openings of the base plate such that the base portions of the one or more washers provide a separation between the bottom surface of the base plate and a top surface of the horizontal portion of the bracket (paragraph 31: the attachment means between the reinforcement plate connections 11A and 11B and the vehicle chassis may include any number of mechanisms (e.g., screws, bolts, rivets, latches, interconnecting grooves, adhesive, etc.)…the attachment means between parts of the mounting structure 1, including reinforcement plate connections 11A and 11B, spacers 13, mounting plate 15, and sensor mounts 17A and 17B may include the same or different mechanisms to provide stable and secure attachments throughout the mounting structure 1).”
Frederick et al. (‘788) does not explicitly disclose “cylindrical portions surrounding the base portion openings and extending in a vertical direction, wherein cross-sections of the cylindrical portions allow the cylindrical portions to be inserted into the one or more through-holes of the horizontal portion of the bracket.”
Alem et al. (‘674) relates to mechanism for adjusting a radar unit in a vehicle. Alem et al. (‘674) teaches “cylindrical portions surrounding the base portion openings and extending in a vertical direction, wherein cross-sections of the cylindrical portions allow the cylindrical portions to be inserted into the one or more through-holes of the horizontal portion of the bracket (paragraph 18: the adjustment screws 30 are therefore provided with rotatable, flat engagement surfaces 32 between the bracket 20 and the flange 24 of the FLR unit 12…these engagement surfaces 32 can be part of a nut, for example…additional illustration of the engagement surfaces 32 of the adjustment screw 30 is shown in FIGS. 4 and 5).”
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 apparatus of Frederick et al. (‘788) with the teaching of Alem et al. (‘674) for more reliable radar installation (Alem et al. (‘674) – paragraph 13). In addition, both of the prior art references, (Frederick et al. (‘788) and Alem et al. (‘674)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, mounting or installation of radar in a vehicle.
Regarding claim 3, which is dependent on independent claim 1, Frederick et al. (‘788)/Alem et al. (‘674) discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Frederick et al. (‘788) does not explicitly disclose “the cylindrical portions of the one or more washers completely surround the base portion openings.”
Alem et al. (‘674) relates to mechanism for adjusting a radar unit in a vehicle. Alem et al. (‘674) teaches “the cylindrical portions of the one or more washers completely surround the base portion openings (paragraph 18: the adjustment screws 30 are therefore provided with rotatable, flat engagement surfaces 32 between the bracket 20 and the flange 24 of the radar unit 12…these engagement surfaces 32 can be part of a nut, for example…additional illustration of the engagement surfaces 32 of the adjustment screw 30 is shown in Figures 4 and 5).”
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 apparatus of Frederick et al. (‘788) with the teaching of Alem et al. (‘674) for more reliable radar installation (Alem et al. (‘674) – paragraph 13). In addition, both of the prior art references, (Frederick et al. (‘788) and Alem et al. (‘674)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, mounting or installation of radar in a vehicle.
Regarding claim 4, which is dependent on independent claim 1, Frederick et al. (‘788)/Alem et al. (‘674) discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Frederick et al. (‘788) does not explicitly disclose “the vertical portion of the bracket comprises a receptacle mechanism that is configured to securely affix a radar housing to the bracket.”
Alem et al. (‘674) relates to mechanism for adjusting a radar unit in a vehicle. Alem et al. (‘674) teaches “the vertical portion of the bracket comprises a receptacle mechanism that is configured to securely affix a radar housing to the bracket (paragraph 14: the radar unit 12 is mounted to a mounting bracket, which is mounted to the front bumper and rail of an apron assembly...the specific arrangement of the radar unit 12 illustrated in FIG. 1 is merely exemplary…radar unit 12 can be a module or housing that surrounds a radar transmitting device; Figure 2).”
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 apparatus of Frederick et al. (‘788) with the teaching of Alem et al. (‘674) for more reliable radar installation (Alem et al. (‘674) – paragraph 13). In addition, both of the prior art references, (Frederick et al. (‘788) and Alem et al. (‘674)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, mounting or installation of radar in a vehicle.
Regarding claim 6, which is dependent on independent claim 1, Frederick et al. (‘788)/Alem et al. (‘674) discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Frederick et al. (‘788) does not explicitly disclose “the vertical portion of the bracket comprises a planar plate .”
Alem et al. (‘674) relates to mechanism for adjusting a radar unit in a vehicle. Alem et al. (‘674) teaches “the vertical portion of the bracket comprises a planar plate (Figure 2).”
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 apparatus of Frederick et al. (‘788) with the teaching of Alem et al. (‘674) for more reliable radar installation (Alem et al. (‘674) – paragraph 13). In addition, both of the prior art references, (Frederick et al. (‘788) and Alem et al. (‘674)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, mounting or installation of radar in a vehicle.
Claims 2, 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frederick et al. (US 2020/0023788 A1)/Alem et al. (US 2017/023674 A1), and further in view of Vora et al. (US 2017/0080861 A1).
Regarding claim 2, which is dependent on independent claim 1, Frederick et al. (‘788)/Alem et al. (‘674) discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Frederick et al. (‘788) does not explicitly disclose “the one or more washers comprise a vibration dampener material that dampens vibrations between the base plate and the bracket along the vertical direction and dampens vibrations between the base plate and the bracket along a plane of the base plate.”
Vora et al. (‘61) relates to vehicle sensor system. Vora et al. (‘61) teaches “the one or more washers comprise a vibration dampener material that dampens vibrations between the base plate and the bracket along the vertical direction and dampens vibrations between the base plate and the bracket along a plane of the base plate (paragraph 97: the vehicle sensor system 50 optionally includes a vibration reduction mechanism 400 that functions to reduce the vibration of the sensor module 100…the vibration reduction mechanism 400 can include active components (e.g., pneumatic actuators, piezoelectric motors, etc.) and/or passive components (e.g., springs, flexible dampers, tuned mass dampers, damping foam etc.)…the vibration reduction mechanism 400 can be configured to reduce vibration transmission to the sensor module 100 from the vehicle, the license plate, the backing plate 200, and/or any other suitable vibration source or transmitter. In one embodiment, dampers including a flexible material can be arranged as spacers between two or more components (e.g., vehicle, license plate, backing plate 200, sensor module 100, etc.), such that the components contact the dampers rather than contacting each other directly…in which the mounting bracket, license plate, and vehicle are attached to each other by one or more screws, damping washers can be arranged around the screws and between the components (e.g., as shown in FIG. 3)…the vibration reduction mechanism 400 can be configured in any other suitable manner).”
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 apparatus of Frederick et al. (‘788)/Alem et al. (‘674) with the teaching of Vora et al. (‘61) for improved radar mounting (Vora et al. (‘61) – paragraph 35). In addition, all of the prior art references, (Frederick et al. (‘788), Alem et al. (‘674) and Vora et al. (‘61)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, mounting or adjusting of radar in a vehicle.
Regarding claim 5, which is dependent on independent claim 1, Frederick et al. (‘788)/Alem et al. (‘674) discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Frederick et al. (‘788) discloses further discloses “the receptacle mechanism comprises one or more through holes in the bracket through which one or more fasteners are passed and secure using one or more screws (paragraph 31: the attachment means between the reinforcement plate connections 11A and 11B and the vehicle chassis may include any number of mechanisms (e.g., screws, bolts, rivets, latches, interconnecting grooves, adhesive, etc.)…the attachment means between parts of the mounting structure 1, including reinforcement plate connections 11A and 11B, spacers 13, mounting plate 15, and sensor mounts 17A and 17B may include the same or different mechanisms to provide stable and secure attachments throughout the mounting structure 1).”
Frederick et al. (‘788)/Alem et al. (‘674) does not explicitly disclose “a second vibration dampener material is inserted in a first gap between the vertical portion of the bracket and the radar housing and a second gap between the one or more screws and the bracket.”
Vora et al. (‘61) relates to vehicle sensor system. Vora et al. (‘61) teaches “a second vibration dampener material is inserted in a first gap between the vertical portion of the bracket and the radar housing and a second gap between the one or more screws and the bracket paragraph 97: the vehicle sensor system 50 optionally includes a vibration reduction mechanism 400 that functions to reduce the vibration of the sensor module 100…the vibration reduction mechanism 400 can include active components (e.g., pneumatic actuators, piezoelectric motors, etc.) and/or passive components (e.g., springs, flexible dampers, tuned mass dampers, damping foam etc.)…the vibration reduction mechanism 400 can be configured to reduce vibration transmission to the sensor module 100 from the vehicle, the license plate, the backing plate 200, and/or any other suitable vibration source or transmitter. In one embodiment, dampers including a flexible material can be arranged as spacers between two or more components (e.g., vehicle, license plate, backing plate 200, sensor module 100, etc.), such that the components contact the dampers rather than contacting each other directly…in which the mounting bracket, license plate, and vehicle are attached to each other by one or more screws, damping washers can be arranged around the screws and between the components (e.g., as shown in Figure 3)…the vibration reduction mechanism 400 can be configured in any other suitable manner).”
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 apparatus of Frederick et al. (‘788)/Alem et al. (‘674) with the teaching of Vora et al. (‘61) for improved radar mounting (Vora et al. (‘61) – paragraph 35). In addition, all of the prior art references, (Frederick et al. (‘788), Alem et al. (‘674) and Vora et al. (‘61)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, mounting or adjusting of radar in a vehicle.
Regarding claim 9, which is dependent on claim 5, Frederick et al. (‘788) discloses the apparatus of claim 5. Frederick et al. (‘788) does not explicitly disclose “the second vibration dampener material comprises a same material as the vibration dampener material.”
Vora et al. (‘61) relates to vehicle sensor system. Vora et al. (‘61) teaches “the second vibration dampener material comprises a same material as the vibration dampener material (paragraph 97: he vehicle sensor system 50 optionally includes a vibration reduction mechanism 400 that functions to reduce the vibration of the sensor module 100. The vibration reduction mechanism 400 can include active components (e.g., pneumatic actuators, piezoelectric motors, etc.) and/or passive components (e.g., springs, flexible dampers, tuned mass dampers, damping foam, etc.). The vibration reduction mechanism 400 can be configured to reduce vibration transmission to the sensor module 100 from the vehicle, the license plate, the backing plate 200, and/or any other suitable vibration source or transmitter. In one embodiment, dampers including a flexible material can be arranged as spacers between two or more components (e.g., vehicle, license plate, backing plate 200, sensor module 100, etc.), such that the components contact the dampers rather than contacting each other directly. In a specific example of this embodiment, in which the mounting bracket, license plate, and vehicle are attached to each other by one or more screws, damping washers can be arranged around the screws and between the components (e.g., as shown in FIG. 3). However, the vibration reduction mechanism 400 can be configured in any other suitable manner).”
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 apparatus of Frederick et al. (‘788)/Alem et al. (‘674) with the teaching of Vora et al. (‘61) for improved radar mounting (Vora et al. (‘61) – paragraph 35). In addition, all of the prior art references, (Frederick et al. (‘788), Alem et al. (‘674) and Vora et al. (‘61)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, mounting or adjusting of radar in a vehicle.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frederick et al. (US 2020/0023788 A1)/Alem et al. (US 2017/023674 A1), and further in view of Cai et al. (US 11,585,893 B2).
Regarding claim 7, which is dependent on independent claim 1, Frederick et al. (‘788)/Alem et al. (‘674) discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Frederick et al. (‘788)/Alem et al. (‘674) does not explicitly disclose “the vertical portion of the bracket comprises multiple strips that are spaced apart from each other .”
Cai et al. (‘893) relates to vehicle-mounted radar. Cai et al. (‘893) teaches “the vertical portion of the bracket comprises multiple strips that are spaced apart from each other (column 2 line 66- column 3 line 7: the radar clamping module includes a radar clamping baffle 201, a radar clamping bracket 211 and a radar clamping bottom plate 202; the radar clamping bracket 211 is vertically fixed on the radar clamping bottom plate 202; the radar clamping baffle 201 is fixed to a front end of the radar clamping bracket 211; the radar clamping baffle 201 is opened with matrix distributed strip-shaped mounting holes; the test radar is fixedly mounted on the radar clamping baffle 201 through the strip-shaped mounting holes).”
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 apparatus of Frederick et al. (‘788)/Alem et al. (‘674) with the teaching of Cai et al. (‘893) for improved radar installation (Cai et al. (‘893) – column 1 lines 40-48). In addition, both of the prior art references, (Frederick et al. (‘788), Alem et al. (‘674) and Cai et al. (‘893)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, mounting or adjusting of radar in a vehicle.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frederick et al. (US 2020/0023788 A1)/Alem et al. (US 2017/023674 A1), and further in view of Talbolt et al. (US 4,181,028).
Regarding claim 8, which is dependent on independent claim 1, Frederick et al. (‘788)/Alem et al. (‘674) discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Frederick et al. (‘788)/Alem et al. (‘674) does not explicitly disclose “the vibration dampener material is configured to attenuate vibrations having a peak frequency between 1.2 KHz and 1.8 KHz and a bandwidth between 300 to 500 Hz.”
Talbolt et al. (‘028) realtes to multi-degree-of-freedom vibration test equipment for radar. Talbolt et al. (‘028) teaches “the vibration dampener material is configured to attenuate vibrations having a peak frequency between 1.2 KHz and 1.8 KHz and a bandwidth between 300 to 500 Hz (column 3 lines 33-45: the test item is secured to the space frame on the driven plate structure…the physical properties of the elastomeric materials are used to direct, filter, and attenuate the amplitude and frequency of the time-space variant displacements from the driving structure interface to the driven structure interface…the non-linear transmissive properties of these elastomers are used to control the transmissibility over a frequency range below 2 kHz and also to inhibit vibration transmission above 2 kHz. This is possible because damping and stiffness properties change with certain frequencies and with changes in pressure on the elastomer surfaces).”
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 apparatus of Frederick et al. (‘788)/Alem et al. (‘674) with the teaching of Talbolt et al. (‘028) for reliable radar equipment mounting (Talbolt et al. (‘028) – column 2 lines 44-52). In addition, all of the prior art references, (Frederick et al. (‘788), Alem et al. (‘674) and Talbolt et al. (‘028)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, mounting or adjusting of radar equipment for vibration adjustment.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frederick et al. (US 2020/0023788 A1)/Alem et al. (US 2017/023674 A1), and further in view of Bethanabhotla et al. (US 11,851,049 B1).
Regarding claim 10, which is dependent on independent claim 1, Frederick et al. (‘788)/Alem et al. (‘674) discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Frederick et al. (‘788)/Alem et al. (‘674) does not explicitly disclose “the vibration dampener material and the second vibration dampener material are configured to mitigate vibrations having a duration between 20 millisecond and 1 second.”
Bethanabhotla et al. (‘049) relates to radar system. Bethanabhotla et al. (‘049) teaches “the vibration dampener material and the second vibration dampener material are configured to mitigate vibrations having a duration between 20 millisecond and 1 second (column 2 lines 21-33: the impact detection system may determine a window of time (e.g., a period of 1.0 millisecond, 10 milliseconds, 15 milliseconds, 30 milliseconds, . . . 1.0 second, etc.) in which the bicyclist may impact the vehicle. The impact detection system may process the audio data captured by the microphones to determine if a spike or increase in activity (e.g., a noise) occurred during the window of time associated with the potential impact. For example, microphones may register an increase in activity when the exterior of the vehicle is impacted by the bicyclist, as the microphones may detect the impact via vibrations conducted through the body of the vehicle and/or sounds conducted through the air).”
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 apparatus of Frederick et al. (‘788)/Alem et al. (‘674) with the teaching of Bethanabhotla et al. (‘049) for application specific radar mounting (Bethanabhotla et al. (‘049) – column 1 line 54-column 2 line 8). In addition, all of the prior art references, (Frederick et al. (‘788), Alem et al. (‘674) and Bethanabhotla et al. (‘049)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, mounting or adjusting of radar equipment for vibration adjustment.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Charles et al. (EP 3933438 A2) describes a system a method providing truck-mounted sensors to detect trailer following vehicles and trailer conditions…a vehicle control subsystem installed in an autonomous truck, the vehicle control subsystem comprising a data processor…a truck-mooned radar sub-system installed on a rear, side, front, or top portion of a tractor of the autonomous truck to which a trailer is attachable, the truck-mounted radar subsystem being coupled to the vehicle control subsystem via a data connection, wherein the truck mounted radar subsystem is configured to emit electromagnetic waves propagating in a space under the trailer to generate object data representing objects detected by receiving a reflection of the electromagnetic waves, and to transfer the object data to the vehicle control subsystem (paragraph 5).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NUZHAT PERVIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9795. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, William J Kelleher can be reached at 571-272-7753. 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.
/NUZHAT PERVIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
1 Figure 2A discloses that said reinforcement plate connections have a horizontal and a vertical portion, thereby disclosing said bracket.