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 .
Remarks
In response to applicant’s amendment, dated 11/13/2025, the examiner acknowledges the cancellation of claim 6 and the addition of claim 8. Claims 1-5, 7 and 8 are pending.
Regarding the objections to the Drawings, Specification and Claims, as set forth in the Office Action mailed 09/19/2025, the examiner acknowledges the corrections and withdraws the objections.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 1-7, the examiner has considered applicant’s arguments in light of the amended claims and withdraws the rejection.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim(s) 1-2 and 5-7 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN 107477320) in view of Oh (KR 10222388), the examiner has considered applicant’s arguments in light of the amended claims and withdraws the rejection. Likewise, the rejection based on Zhang of claims 3-4 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Mackin (US 2020/0386378) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Mackin (US 2020/0386378) in view of Ancel (US 2003/0151912).
Regarding claim 1, Mackin discloses “a base assembly, comprising: a wall bracket (Fig. 4, ref.# 118), used to attach the modular mount to a wall, and a primary tube (Fig. 4, ref.# 104), attached to the wall bracket; and a head assembly, comprising: a secondary tube (Fig. 4, ref.# 106), with two ends, wherein the first end fastens to the primary tube (Fig. 4, connection at ref. # 112); and a head (Fig. 4, ref.# 116), which in its standard position is flush with the second end of the secondary tube, wherein the head and the secondary tube each attach to a hinge (Fig. 4, ref.# 122, 234, 132), wherein, when greater than a specified force is applied to the head, the head rotates around the hinge away from its standard position (paragraph 0023: frictionally held in place, which would allow for rotation after a specified force is applied).”
In the event that the pivoting structure of ref. # 122, 124 and 132 is considered to not be a “hinge”, Mackin would not teach “wherein the head and the secondary tube each attach to a hinge, wherein, when greater than a specified force is applied to the head, the head rotates around the hinge away from its standard position”. However, a loading dock light system that specifically teaches a “hinge” to rotate a head around the hinge away from a standard position was well known in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention as taught by Ancel (See Fig. 2, ref.# 18; paragraph 0055). Thus, it would have been obvious to modify Mackin wherein the head and the secondary tube each attach to a hinge, wherein, when greater than a specified force is applied to the head, the head rotates around the hinge away from its standard position” in order for the head to be rotate through a larger angle and thus fully out of the way of any vehicle that hits the head (See Fig. 12 of Ancel).
Regarding claim 7, Mackin discloses “wherein the secondary tube comprises a conduit”. (paragraph 0020: hollow tubing)
Regarding claim 8, Mackin discloses “wherein a mounted device is selected from the group consisting of a still camera, a digital camera, a light, a microphone and a speaker.” (abstract: light)
Claim(s) 2 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mackin (US 2020/0386378) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Mackin (US 2020/0386378) in view of Ancel (US 2003/0151912) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Oh (KR 102223881).
Regarding claims 2 and 5, Mackin, or modified Mackin, discloses all the structure set forth in the claims except (Claim 2) “wherein the head comprises: a pan attached to the secondary tube, enabling a device to mount to the underside of the pan; and a lid that covers the pan” and (Claim 5) “wherein when the head is in the shape of a hexahedron.”
However, a head that includes pan enabling a device to mount to the underside of the pan; and a lid that covers the pan and “wherein when the head is in the shape of a hexahedron” was well known in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention as taught by Oh (KR 102223881) (See Fig. 1: ref.# 110 (pan), ref.# 140 (lid), ref.# 50 (device), w/ cube shaped head (ref.# 110, 140)). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mackin to include the head of Oh (including “a pan attached to the secondary tube, enabling a device to mount to the underside of the pan; and a lid that covers the pan” and “wherein when the head is in the shape of a hexahedron” in order to provide a system that is adjustable and resistant to weather.
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mackin (US 2020/0386378) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Mackin (US 2020/0386378) in view of Ancel (US 2003/0151912) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wiegel, et al. (US 11,215,346).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Mackin, or modified Mackin, discloses all the structure set forth in the claims except (Claim 3) “wherein the primary tube is L- shaped and comprises: a 1st part that attaches to the wall bracket and, when the modular mount is mounted on the wall, extends perpendicular to the wall, and a 2nd part connected to the 1st part, which forms a 90 degree angle with the first part” and (Claim 4) “wherein the secondary tube fits inside of or outside of the 2nd part of the primary tube and the secondary tube and the primary tube are fastened by aligning pre-drilled holes in each of the two tubes and inserting fasteners through the pre-drilled holes”. However, a loading dock support structure that that includes “a 1st part that attaches to the wall bracket and, when the modular mount is mounted on the wall, extends perpendicular to the wall, and a 2nd part connected to the 1st part, which forms a 90 degree angle with the first part”, and “wherein the secondary tube fits inside of or outside of the 2nd part of the primary tube and the secondary tube and the primary tube are fastened by aligning pre-drilled holes in each of the two tubes and inserting fasteners through the pre-drilled holes” was well known in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention as taught by Wiegel (See Figs. 4, 7, 11). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Mackin “wherein the primary tube is L- shaped and comprises: a 1st part that attaches to the wall bracket and, when the modular mount is mounted on the wall, extends perpendicular to the wall, and a 2nd part connected to the 1st part, which forms a 90 degree angle with the first part” and “wherein the secondary tube fits inside of or outside of the 2nd part of the primary tube and the secondary tube and the primary tube are fastened by aligning pre-drilled holes in each of the two tubes and inserting fasteners through the pre-drilled holes” in order to allow the light to be positioned at a desired position offset from the wall and base of the mount.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Li, et al. (CN 109555940) and Japanese reference (JP S634738) teach a wall mount with a hinge.
Whitley, et al. (US 2011/0203059) teaches a loading dock support structure for a light and speaker.
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 RODNEY FULLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2118. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 4:30 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, Stephanie Bloss can be reached at 571-272-3555. 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.
/RODNEY E FULLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
February 27, 2026