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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 22, 2026 has been entered.
In the Amended Claims of 4/22/2026, Claims 1-3, 11-13, 16, 18, 21-23, 25, and 27-30 are pending. Claim 1 is amended.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the front wall portion and the side walls having the same length as claimed in Claim 1 must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. Similarly, the confined space (not identified with a reference number) dimensioned to fully receive the container mount such that the container mount is fully positioned behind the front wall portion (42) is not shown. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites “…dimensioned to fully receive the container amount within said confined space…”
It is believed that this is a typographical error and the term ‘container mount’ (116) is intended. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-3, 11-13, 16, 18, 21-23, 25, and 27-30 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 claims 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.
Claim 1 recites “each mounting socket (40) [is] configured with at least a front wall portion (42) and spaced apart back wall portion (44), the front wall portion and the back wall portion connected by side walls (50) extending therebetween, and a top wall portion, the front wall portion and the side walls having the same length…”
This is not supported in the original description, drawings or disclosure.
As shown below, there are two different instances of the sidewalls (50) in relation to a top mounting socket.
In Figure 1-D, the inclined side walls (50) are shown APART from the bottom mounting opening (46).
PNG
media_image1.png
1079
1114
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In Figure 1-I, the inclined sidewalls are shown as NOT being the same length as the front wall portion (42). Note that Figure 1-I is a sectional representation along line 1-I of Figure 1D above
PNG
media_image2.png
1269
1054
media_image2.png
Greyscale
There is no other indication what comprises the side walls of the mounting socket, as no other indication exists for identifying the side walls or their extent relative to the front wall portion (42).
Furthermore, the stated benefit recited on Page 8 of 9 in the Remarks and Arguments of April 22, 2026 that the confined space is dimensioned to fully receive a container mount within the confined space such that the container mount is fully positioned behind the front wall portion (42) is not identified in the original disclosure. Applicant also does not indicate where such support for this amendment is to be found in the original disclosure.
Therefore, the structure of the container mount including the front wall portion and the side walls having the same length is new matter and is unsupported by the original disclosure. Similarly, it is not disclosed anywhere in the original disclosure that the front wall portion (42), back wall portion (44), the side walls (50) and top wall portion are dimensioned to fully receive the container mount. Indeed, the terms ‘fully’ or ‘completely’ are entirely absent in the original disclosure.
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 1-3, 11-13, 16, 18, 21-23, 25, and 27-30 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.
As discussed above, it is unclear or undisclosed how the front wall portion (42), spaced apart back wall portion (44), side walls (believed to be element 50), and top wall portion (unshown) of the mounting socket is configured such that the front wall portion and the side walls have the same length. Therefore, this claim is also indefinite.
For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the mounting socket is generally configured to receive a container mount.
All dependent claims are rejected as dependent on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 2, 11-13, 16, 18, 21-23, 25, 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Antonia (US 2427335) in view of Scott (US 2019/0285225).
Regarding Claim 1, Antonia discloses a container (15) comprising a back wall having a back face with a T-shaped lug or finger (48) configured to mate with an upper socket (43) that is part of a wall bracket (42). While Antonia discloses that the upper socket has a central vertical slot, the details of the socket are not explicitly shown.
Scott discloses a similar container (21) having a back wall having a back face with a mounting socket (19). This mounting socket is configured with at least a front wall portion and a spaced apart back wall portion, the front wall portion and the back wall portion connected by side walls extending therebetween and a top wall portion in a configuration which complements the form of connection member (11) having a retention portion (15) with the edge (16). The back wall portion extends continuously between the side walls. The front wall portion, the back wall portion, the side walls and the top wall portion defining together a confined space along a longitudinal axis (as discussed in the channel structure described in Scott Paragraph 0121 and reproduced below) and has a bottom mounting opening therebetween opening into the confined space. The mounting socket of Scott is also mountable over a container mount (11) and is generally configured to have such a mount be fully received within a confined space defined by the socket walls. Antonia and Scott are analogous inventions in the art of wall-mountable containers with socket mounts.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the socket mounts of Antonia with the structure shown in Scott in order to provide a vertical downward limit to the container’s travel and prevent lateral movement of the connection member within the receiving portions (Paragraphs 0120-0122).
Furthermore, while Antonia and Scott disclose only a single socket mounting means for each container, it is generally known in the art to provide two such sockets for wider containers to provide additional stability as seen in Harcz (US 91714542). This represents an obvious variation in the duplication of a socket mount that would provide no unexpected results in the function of the container mount.
Regarding Claim 2, Antonia discloses the container comprises a bottom mounting socket (44) that allows for the container to tilt forward after being lifted (Col. 5 Lines 3-28). This may be modified to have a bottom opening for receiving a bottom bracket as a reversal of parts to further support the container on a vertical surface.
Regarding Claim 11, Scott discloses the back wall portion of the mounting socket is shorter than a front wall portion thereof.
Regarding Claim 12, Scott discloses the front wall portion of the mounting sockets extends coplanar with an outside face of a back wall of the container.
Regarding Claim 13, Scott discloses the front wall portion of the mounting socket is part of the back surface of the back wall.
Regarding Claim 16, Scott discloses the mounting socket comprises an open portion at a back wall thereof and is mountable over a wall container mount having a T-like cross section.
Regarding Claim 18, Antonia discloses the container comprises a lid (33) pivotally hinged at a top of the back wall, and being displaceable between a closed position at which it bears over a top end of walls of the container, and at least a first open position at which it is disposed at an upright position.
Regarding Claim 21, the sockets and mounts seen in Antonia have a longitudinal axis of the top mounting sockets and of the at least one bottom mounting socket are parallel with one another.
Regarding Claims 22 and 23, Antonia discloses the outside, back wall surface of the bottom mounting socket can extend at the same plane of an outside face of the back wall of the container.
Regarding Claim 25, Antonia discloses the bottom mount has a T-like cross section which may be used as the container mount as a reversal of parts that would not impact the functioning of the container.
Regarding Claim 27, Antonia discloses a sliding axis of the top mounting sockets coincides with a sliding axis of the bottom socket.
Regarding Claim 28, Antonia discloses the front wall portion of the mounting socket extends flush with a back face of a back wall of the container.
Regarding Claim 29, Antonia discloses the back wall portion of the bottom mounting socket extends flush with a back face of a back wall of the container.
Regarding Claim 30, Antonia discloses there is tapered portion of the upper slot (Col. 4 Lines 51-54). This may be implemented as a longitudinal axis of each of the pair of top mounting sockets is inclined with respect to the back wall of the container, whereby said longitudinal axis intersects a plane of the back wall of the container.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Modified Antonia in view of Scott as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Smalley (US 8042700).
Regarding Claim 3, Modified Antonia discloses the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Modified Antonia does not disclose container comprises, at a back wall thereof, a locking slot configurable for arresting engagement with a locking latch slidably displaceable therein.
Smalley discloses a similar tray container comprising dovetail T-mounts (44, 45) and corresponding sockets (55) wherein a back wall is configured with a locking slot (46) configurable for arresting engagement with a locking latch (52) slidably displaceable therein (Col. 4 Lines 39-62). Modified Antonia and Smalley are analogous inventions in the art of vertical surface mountable containers with dovetail or T-slot sockets.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the container of Modified Antonia with the locking slot and latch disclosed in Smalley in order to maintain and secure the container in position until it is desired to remove it from its position (Col. 4 Lines 57-62).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 22, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that with respect to the socket 19 described in Scott, there is no front wall portion that has the same length as the side walls. When the mount 11 of Scott is introduced into the socket (19) only a peripheral portion interacts with the socket walls and there is no possible configuration of the socket of Scott in which the mounting socket fully receives the container mount within the space defined by the socket such that the container mount is fully positioned behind the front wall portion. Applicant further argues that there is a small amount of mechanical interaction between the mount and the socket. In the present invention, there is a relatively larger contact area between the mount and the socket.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In Scott, the size and shape of the mount (11) is substantially similar to that of Applicant mount 200. Furthermore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize and find obvious that the dimensions of the relative connecting members may be varied to provide more security and greater contact areas based on the size, shape, and weight of the container to be mounted.
PNG
media_image3.png
1107
1741
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIDEON R. WEINERTH whose telephone number is (571)270-5121. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10AM-6PM EST.
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, Orlando Aviles can be reached at (571) 270-5531. 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.
/GIDEON R WEINERTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights