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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 11, and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 3 “wherein” is repeated in lines 1 and 2. The second instance of “wherein” should be deleted.
In claim 11 line 2, “fixing a first device a first and second structural members” should read “fixing a first device to first and second structural members.”
In claim 13, “wherein” is repeated in lines 1 and 2. The second instance of “wherein” should be deleted.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5, 6, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “substantially” in claims 5 and 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear to what extent the first and second track must be parallel to be considered “substantially parallel.” For the purposes of this Office Action, “substantially” is interpreted to mean within 10 percent.
Claims 6 and 16 similarly recite the terms “substantially parallel” in line 3 and “substantially perpendicular” in line 3-4. It is not clear to what extent the third and the fourth track must parallel to be considered “substantially parallel” or to what extent the third track must be perpendicular to the first and second tracks to be considered “substantially perpendicular”. For the purposes of this Office Action, “substantially” is interpreted to mean within 10 percent.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 1-5, 7, 9-15, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0316690 by Wong et al (hereinafter “Wong”).
Regarding claim 1, Wong teaches an apparatus comprising:
a first device (Fig 1 and Fig 2, housing base 103) having first and second openings (Fig 2 openings shown in 103, see also Examiner Annotated Figure A below, hereinafter “EAF A”; paragraph [0058]), and a first track between the first and second openings of the first device (Fig 2 and Fig 4);
a second device, which includes an elongated rail (Fig 4 first section of arm 103c and EAF A; paragraph [0058]);
a third device, which includes an elongated rail (Fig 4 second section of arm 103c and EAF A); and
wherein the first device is configured so that a first end of the rail of the second device is configured to be inserted into the first opening of the first device, so that a the rail of the second device lies within the first track of the first device, while a first end of the rail of the third device is configured to be inserted into the second opening of the first device, so that the rail of the third device lies with the first track of the first device and interlocks with the rail of the second device (Fig 2 and EAF A; paragraph [0058]).
Wong does not explicitly teach that the first device is configured such that a majority of the rail of the second device lies within the first track or that a majority of the rail of the third device lies within the first track.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make it such that a majority of the rails of the second device and the third device are such that they are able to lie within the first track. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05 II. A). In the instant case, the general conditions of the claim are taught by Wong and the fraction of the rail which lies within the track of the first device would readily changeable in the system taught by Wong. In addition, it is observed that the fraction of the rail which lies within the track of the device would be a result effective variable because one of ordinary skill would understand that having a larger fraction of the rail length within the track would provide stronger support for the system and a smaller fraction would require less material.
Regarding claim 2, Wong further teaches that the second device includes a plate fixed to a second end of the rail of the second device opposite the first end of the rail of the second device (EAF A and Fig 4, plate shown at end of second device); and wherein the third device includes a plate fixed to a second end of the rail of the third device opposite the first end of the rail of the third device (EAF A and Fig 4, plate shown at end of third device).
PNG
media_image1.png
717
1321
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner Annotated Figure A, from Figure 3 of Wong
Regarding claim 3, Wong further teaches that the plate of the second device has an opening through which a fastener is configured to be inserted to fix the plate of the second device to a member (EAF A and Fig 4; paragraph [0099]); wherein the plate of the third device has an opening through which a fastener is configured to be inserted to fix the plate of the second device to a member (EAF A and Fig 4; paragraph [0099]).
Regarding claim 4, Wong teaches that the apparatus further comprises
a fourth device, which includes an elongated rail (Fig 4 and EAF A, first portion of arm 103d);
a fifth device, which includes an elongated rail (Fig 4 and EAF A, second portion of arm 103d); and
wherein the first device is configured so that a first end of the rail of the fourth device is configured to be inserted into a third opening of the first device, so that the rail of the fourth device lies within a second track of the first device, while a first end of the rail of the fifth device is configured to be inserted into a fourth opening of the first device, so that the rail of the fifth device lies with the second track of the first device and interlocks with the rail of the fourth device (Fig 2 and EAF A; paragraph [0058]).
Wong does not explicitly teach that the first device is configured such that a majority of the rail of the fourth device lies within the second track or that a majority of the rail of the fifth device lies within the second track.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make it such that a majority of the rails of the fourth device and the fifth device are such that they are able to lie within the second track. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05 II. A). In the instant case, the general conditions of the claim are taught by Wong and the fraction of the rail which lies within the track of the first device would readily changeable in the system taught by Wong. In addition, it is observed that the fraction of the rail which lies within the track of the device would be a result effective variable because one of ordinary skill would understand that having a larger fraction of the rail length within the track would provide stronger support for the system and a smaller fraction would require less material.
Regarding claim 5, Wong further teaches that the first track of the first device is parallel to the second track of the first device (Fig 3).
Regarding claim 7, Wong further teaches that the first device has a rectangular periphery (Fig 4 first device 103).
Regarding claim 9, Wong further teaches that the fourth device includes a plate fixed to a second end of the rail of the fourth device opposite the first end of the rail of the fourth device (EAF A and Fig 4, plate shown at end of fourth device); and
the fifth device includes a plate fixed to a second end of the rail of the fifth device opposite the first end of the rail of the fifth device (EAF A and Fig 4, plate shown at end of fifth device).
Regarding claim 10, Wong further teaches that the plate of the fourth device has an opening through which a fastener is configured to be inserted to fix the plate of the fourth device to a member (EAF A and Fig 4; paragraph [0099]); and the plate of the fifth device has an opening through which a fastener is configured to be inserted to fix the plate of the fifth device to a member (EAF A and Fig 4; paragraph [0099]).
Regarding claim 11, Wong teaches a method comprising the steps of:
fixing a first device a first and second structural members by use of second and third devices (Fig 4 and EAF A, first device 103 and second and third devices being first and second portions of 103c; paragraph [0099]);
wherein the first device has first and second openings (Fig 2 openings shown in 103, see also EAF A paragraph [0058]), and a first track between the first and second openings of the first device (Fig 2 and Fig 4);
wherein the second device includes an elongated rail (Fig 4 first section of arm 103c and EAF A; paragraph [0058]);
wherein the third device includes an elongated rail (Fig 4 second section of arm 103c and EAF A); and
wherein the first device is configured so that a first end of the rail of the second device is configured to be inserted into the first opening of the first device, so that the rail of the second device lies within the first track of the first device, while a first end of the rail of the third device is configured to be inserted into the second opening of the first device, so that the rail of the third device lies with the first track of the first device and interlocks with the rail of the second device Fig 2 and EAF A; paragraph [0058]).
But Wong does not explicitly teach that the first device is configured such that a majority of the rail of the second device lies within the first track or that a majority of the rail of the third device lies within the first track.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make it such that a majority of the rails of the second device and the third device are such that they are able to lie within the first track. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05 II. A). In the instant case, the general conditions of the claim are taught by Wong and the fraction of the rail which lies within the track of the first device would readily changeable in the system taught by Wong. In addition, it is observed that the fraction of the rail which lies within the track of the device would be a result effective variable because one of ordinary skill would understand that having a larger fraction of the rail length within the track would provide stronger support for the system and a smaller fraction would require less material.
Regarding claim 12, Wong further teaches that the second device includes a plate fixed to a second end of the rail of the second device opposite the first end of the rail of the second device (EAF A and Fig 4, plate shown at end of second device); and the third device includes a plate fixed to a second end of the rail of the third device opposite the first end of the rail of the third device (EAF A and Fig 4, plate shown at end of third device).
Regarding claim 13, Wong further teaches that the plate of the second device has an opening through which a fastener is configured to be inserted to fix the plate of the second device to a member (EAF A and Fig 4; paragraph [0099]); and the plate of the third device has an opening through which a fastener is configured to be inserted to fix the plate of the second device to a member (EAF A and Fig 4; paragraph [0099]).
Regarding claim 14, Wong teaches that the method further comprises:
fixing the first device to the first and second members using fourth and fifth devices (EAF A; paragraph [0099]);
wherein the fourth device includes an elongated rail (Fig 4 and EAF A, first portion of arm 103d);
wherein the fifth device includes an elongated rail (Fig 4 and EAF A, second portion of arm 103d); and
wherein the first device is configured so that a first end of the rail of the fourth device is configured to be inserted into a third opening of the first device, so that a majority of the rail of the fourth device lies within a second track of the first device, while a first end of the rail of the fifth device is configured to be inserted into a fourth opening of the first device, so that the rail of the fifth device lies with the second track of the first device and interlocks with the rail of the fourth device (Fig 2 and EAF A; paragraph [0058]).
Wong does not explicitly teach that the first device is configured such that a majority of the rail of the fourth device lies within the second track or that a majority of the rail of the fifth device lies within the second track.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make it such that a majority of the rails of the fourth device and the fifth device are such that they are able to lie within the second track. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05 II. A). In the instant case, the general conditions of the claim are taught by Wong and the fraction of the rail which lies within the track of the first device would readily changeable in the system taught by Wong. In addition, it is observed that the fraction of the rail which lies within the track of the device would be a result effective variable because one of ordinary skill would understand that having a larger fraction of the rail length within the track would provide stronger support for the system and a smaller fraction would require less material.
Regarding claim 15, Wong further teaches that the first track of the first device is parallel to the second track of the first device (Fig 3).
Regarding claim 17, Wong further teaches that the first device has a rectangular periphery (Fig 4 first device 103).
Regarding claim 19, Wong further teaches that the fourth device includes a plate fixed to a second end of the rail of the fourth device opposite the first end of the rail of the fourth device (EAF A and Fig 4, plate shown at end of fourth device); and
the fifth device includes a plate fixed to a second end of the rail of the fifth device opposite the first end of the rail of the fifth device (EAF A and Fig 4, plate shown at end of fifth device).
Regarding claim 20, Wong further teaches that the plate of the fourth device has an opening through which a fastener is configured to be inserted to fix the plate of the fourth device to a member (EAF A and Fig 4; paragraph [0099]); and the plate of the fifth device has an opening through which a fastener is configured to be inserted to fix the plate of the fifth device to a member (EAF A and Fig 4; paragraph [0099]).
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong as applied to claims 5 and 15 above, and further in view of US 6,176,599 issued to Farzen (hereinafter “Farzen”).
Regarding claims 6 and 16 (same limitations, different dependencies), Wong teaches the apparatus of claims 5 and 15 (see details in claims 5 and 15 rejections above). But Wong does not teach that the first device includes a third track and a fourth track; wherein the third track is parallel to the fourth track and perpendicular to the first and second tracks; wherein the first device is configured so that a first end of the rail of the second device is configured to be inserted into a fifth opening of the first device, so that a majority of the rail of the second device lies within the third track of the first device, while a first end of the rail of the third device is configured to be inserted into a sixth opening of the first device, so that a majority of the rail of the third device lies with the third track of the first device and interlocks with the rail of the second device, while a first end of the rail of the fourth device is configured to be inserted into a seventh opening of the first device, so that a majority of the rail of the fourth device lies within the fourth track of the first device, while a first end of the rail of the fifth device is configured to be inserted into an eighth opening of the first device so that a majority of the rail of the fifth device lies within the fourth track of the first device and interlocks with the rail of the fourth device.
However, Farzen teaches a similar system for supporting a lighting unit (Abstract, Fig 3) having a first device (Fig 1 plaster frame 20), a second, third, fourth and fifth device, each having an elongated rail (Fig 1 rods 61 and 62 of each hanger bar 60), the second device and third device configured to be inserted into a first track in the first device (Fig 2 second and third devices 61/62 of the first set of bar hangers 60 are inserted into track formed by hooks 22) , the fourth device and fifth device configured to be inserted into a second track in the first device (Fig 2 fourth and fifth devices 61/62 of the second set of bar hangers 60 are inserted into a second parallel track formed by hooks 22 on opposite side of first device) wherein the second device and the third device interlock, the fourth device and the fifth device interlock, and the second, third, fourth, and fifth device are configured to mount the first device to support surfaces (Fig 2; col 4 line 9-16). Farzen further teaches that the first device includes a third track and a fourth track (Fig 1 first device 20 has additional hooks 22 on left and right sides of device in addition to the top and bottom); wherein the third track is parallel to the fourth track and perpendicular to the first and second tracks (Fig 1); wherein the first device is configured such that the rails of the second, third, fourth, and fifth devices may be similarly inserted into the third and fourth tracks (referenced structure is capable of such function).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Wong by including additional means for mounting the second, third, fourth, and fifth devices to the perpendicular sides of the first device. In particular, one of ordinary skill, having the teachings of Wong and Farzen before them, would have found it obvious to include an additional set of openings and tracks, similar to the first set of Wong, on the sides perpendicular to the first set, with the motivation of allowing the first device to be mounted in either direction, thus providing a more flexible mounting system.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong as applied to claims 4 and 14 above, and further in view of US 2022/00185823 by Vinh et al (hereinafter “Vinh”).
Regarding claims 8 and 18 (same limitations, different dependencies), Wong teaches the apparatus of claims 4 and 14 (see details in claims 4 and 14 rejections above). Wong further teaches that the first device is made of plastic (paragraph [0059] first device/base 103 may be made of plastic). But Wong is silent as to the material of the second, third, fourth, and fifth devices.
However, Vinh teaches a similar supporting structure having a first device (Fig 1 housing 1300a with bar hanger holders 1200a) and second, third, and fourth devices which include elongated rails (Fig 1g 1110-1, 1110-2, 1110-3 and 1110-4 of bar hanger assembly 1100a), wherein the second and third devices are configured to be inserted into a first track in the first device (Fig 1B, second and third devices 1110-3 and 1110-2 inserted into 1200a-2); and the fourth and fifth devices are configured to be inserted into a second track in the first device that is parallel to the first track (Fig 1A fourth and fifth devices 1110-1 and 1110-4 inserted into 1200a-1), the first, second, third, and fourth devices being configured to mount the first device to structural members (paragraph [0140]; Fig 8A). Vinh further teaches that the second, third, fourth, and fifth devices are made of metal (paragraph [0165], each bar hanger portion 1110 formed of metal).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Wong by making the second, third, fourth, and fifth devices of metal, as taught by Vinh. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known component or material on the basis of suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious mechanical design expediency. (See MPEP 2144.07.) In this case, making such components of metal is known to have advantages in workability and ease of manufacturing and also durability and strength in application.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 10712046 issued to Gao et al discloses a support structure used for a ventilator, having parallel sets of telescoping rod supports and a frame structure having sliding rods/tracks through which the telescoping rods are inserted and folding rods between the sliding rods.
US 4,803,603 issued to Carson discloses a support frame for a light fixture having slots and tracks to accommodate adjustable interlocking hanger bars.
US 2005/0003754 by Pilger discloses a mounting system for ductwork of a ventilation system including a mounting frame and mounting brackets having interlocking rails.
The following publications are also noted as relevant to applicant’s disclosure, but are not considered prior art because they were filed and published after the filing date of the instant application:
US 2026/0002663 by Portinga et al discloses a similar support structure used for a lighting device.
US 2024/0369209 by Menendez et al discloses a similar adjustable support for a light fixture.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amy E Carter whose telephone number is (703)756-5894. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 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, Steven B McAllister can be reached at (571) 272-6785. 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.
/AMY E CARTER/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/Allen R. B. Schult/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762