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 1-18 and 20-21 are pending and have been examined in this application.
Claims 1, 8 and 17 are amended; claims 2-7, 9-16 and 18 are original; claims 20-21 are new; claim 19 is cancelled.
Claims 1-18 and 20-21 are rejected herein.
Information Disclosure Statement
As of the date of this action, an information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed on 10/05/2023 and reviewed by the Examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Additionally, the arguments are moot based on the current interpretation of Fan necessitated by the amendment to the claims.
Regarding Applicant’s argument wherein “…Fan does not disclose the technical feature of two installing elements respectively protruding outward from two sides of the bracket body…” Applicants argument is unpersuasive because it improperly construes the claimed “two sides’ as requiring two installing elements protruding from two opposite side surfaces that are perpendicular to the front surface of the bracket body. The plain reading of the figure shows that the front face of element 10A defines a middle region and two sides along said middle region. Thus, installing elements 13A protrudes from the two respective sides of the bracket body as claimed. Nothing in the claim language requires the protrusion to extend from opposing sides surfaces that are orthogonal to the front face of the bracket body.
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 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 pre-AIA 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fan (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 20220136528 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Fan teaches a bracket for installing a terminal device, the bracket comprising:
a bracket body (10A or 24);
two installing elements (13A) respectively protruding outward from two sides of the bracket body, each of the two installing elements comprising an engaging portion (tapered surface of 13a), wherein the two installing elements are configured to be inserted into the terminal device (20) such that the terminal device is installed on the bracket, and each of the two engaging portions is configured to engage each of the two installing elements with the terminal device; and
at least one holding element (12A) protruding outward form the bracket body and configured to be inserted into at least one loading hole (252 or hole for receiving F4 as shown in Fig. 2) of the terminal device;
wherein the bracket body comprises a bracket backside (rear surface of 10A) configured to be fixed to a structural body (50).
PNG
media_image1.png
410
386
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
410
386
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Fan teaches each of the two engaging portions (F2) is disposed on and protrudes from an external surface (external surface of F2) of each of the two installing elements and has an inclined surface (see Fig. 2 for configuration), an angle is contained between each of the two inclined surfaces and each of the two external surfaces, and a distance between each of the two inclined surfaces and the external surface of each of the two installing elements increases toward the bracket body (see Figs. 1-2 for configuration).
Regarding claim 5, Fan teaches each of the two installing elements (F1) further comprises a plurality of enforcement ribs (F3 see annotated figure above) disposed on an internal surface of each of the two installing elements.
Regarding claim 8, Fan teaches a terminal equipment comprising:
a terminal device (20, 25), comprising:
an installation plane (rear surface of 25);
at least one loading hole (252) disposed on the installation plane; and
two engaging components (251) respectively disposed at two sides of the installation plane; and
a bracket, comprising:
a bracket body (10A);
two installing elements (13A) respectively disposed at two sides of the bracket body, wherein each of the two installing elements is detachably engaged with each of the two engaging components; and
at least one holding element protruding outward from the bracket body, wherein the at least one holding element is detachably inserted into the at least one loading hole;
wherein, when the terminal device is installed on the bracket, each of the two engaging components are engaged with each of the two installing elements, and the at least one holding element is inserted into the at least one loading hole so that the at least one holding element supports the terminal device along a direction perpendicular to a protruding direction of the at least one holding element (see Fig. 2 for configuration);
the bracket body comprises a bracket backside (rear surface of 10A) configured to be fixed to a structural body (50).
Regarding claim 9, Fan teaches a terminal device body (20, 25) with two side planes (side planes taken parallel to and offset from outer side surfaces 20 towards one another intersecting 251 see annotated figure below), the installation plane is connected to the two side planes, and the two engaging components (tapered surfaces of 13A) are respectively disposed at the two side planes.
PNG
media_image3.png
564
624
media_image3.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 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 2, 4, 6, 7, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 20220136528 A1).
Regarding claims 2 and 15, Fan teaches each of the two installing elements (13A and F1). Fan teaches various embodiments of connecting means. 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 bracket 10A with the installing elements as disclosed for bracket 24. The motivation would have been to provide appropriate grip during the retention. While keeping the terminal removable. Furthermore, such modification would have provided the installing members in form of board structure. However, Fan is silent to disclose has a board structure, one end of each of the two installing elements that is away from the bracket body is arc-shaped, and the at least one holding element (12A) has a board structure in a semi-circle shape. The Examiner notes that that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the installing members having arc shaped and the at least one holding element has a board structure in a semi-circle shape. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. The motivation would have been to facilitate the installation while preventing unwanted movement.
Regarding claim 4, Fan as modified teaches each of the two installing elements (tapered portion of 13A) further comprises a bend portion with an arc section (bend of 13A tapered portion defining the arc) and a linear section (front flat section of 13A) integrally connected to the arc section, each of the two arc sections is connected to one end of each of the two installing elements (13A) that is away from the bracket body, and each of the two linear sections is separated from an external surface (outer cylindrical surface of 13A) of each of the two installing elements by a gap.
Regarding claim 6, Fan teaches the bracket body, the two installing elements, and the at least one holding element. However, Fan is silent to disclose the bracket body, the two installing elements, are made of a metal material. The Examiner takes the official notice that metal is 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 make the invention of Fan made of metal. The motivation would have been to make the invention of Fan durable.
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Fan teaches the at least one holding element. However, Fan is silent to disclose a number of the at least one holding element is two, and the two holding elements are disposed to be spaced apart from each other. The Examiner notes that providing duplicated parts that provide predictable results is considered within the level of an ordinary skill in the art see e.g. MPEP 2144.04. Thus, 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 Fan having at least two holding elements spaced apart from one another. The motivation would have been to provide appropriate grip during the retention. Additionally, it would have been the obvious matter of design choice.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-18 are allowed.
Claims 10-14 and 20-21 are 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.
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