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
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Examiner notes that this claim appears should be dependent from claim 9 (not claim 8, as the claim presently is).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 (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 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.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE 102004028453, hereafter ‘453.
Re Clm 1: ‘453 discloses an adapter comprising: a main body (1 or 2), wherein the main body includes a flat panel (facing surfaces of body); and a plurality of brackets (3 and 4) having one or more tabs (see fig 1), the plurality of brackets are attached to the flat panel (via screws through holes 11 and 12).
Re Clm 2: ‘453 discloses wherein the plurality of brackets include a first side (bottom) and an opposing second side (top); three tabs (protruding tabs 25, 26, 27 along with tabs flush with body surface), integrally formed with and protruding from the first side; and a single tab (laterally extending ridge/flange at bottom) integrally formed with and extending from the opposing second side, wherein the second side is opposite the first side (see fig 1).
Re Clm 6: ‘453 discloses wherein the plurality of brackets are made from aluminum material (paragraph 0006).
Re Clm 7: ‘453 discloses wherein the flat panel is made of wood (disclosed throughout document).
Re Clm 15: ‘453 discloses an adapter comprising: a main body (1), wherein the main body includes a flat panel (attached to bracket 3); and a plurality of brackets (3 and 4), the plurality of brackets are attached to the flat panel (via screws through holes 11 and 12), wherein the bracket includes a central plate (25, 26 or 27), and two outer plates (plates flush with body 1) attached to the central plate, wherein the central plate includes a connector portion with two gaps between the connector portion and the outer plates (see fig 1).
Re Clm 18: ‘453 discloses wherein the two outer plates include one or more holes (11 and 12).
Re Clm 19: ‘453 discloses wherein the plurality of brackets are made from aluminum material (as disclosed in paragraph 0006).
Re Clm 20: ‘453 discloses wherein the flat panel is made of wood (disclosed throughout document).
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.
Claims 3-5, 8-14, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 102004028453, hereafter ‘453.
Re Clms 3-4 and 16-17: ‘453 fails to disclose the length, width, and thickness dimensions of the flat panel. It would have been obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided the flat panel with two opposing sides with 4 1/8 inches in length, and two opposing sides with 4 7/16 inches in length, and a thickness range from 1/16 inches to 1/8 inches, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change is size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237, (CCPA 1955).
Re Clm 5: ‘453 as modified above disclose wherein the plurality of brackets include one or more holes (holes 11 and 12).
Re Clm 8: ‘453 fails to disclose wherein the flat panel is made of steel. Examiner notes that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided the body (bracket mounting surface) to be made of steel for its high-strength characteristics, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Re Clm 9: ‘453 discloses an adapter comprising: a main body (1 or 2); and a plurality of brackets (3 and 4) having one or more tabs (see fig 1), the plurality of brackets are attached to the body (via screws through holes 11 and 12).
‘453 fails to disclose wherein the main body includes a hollow column. Examiner notes, however, that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided the plurality of brackets of ‘453 on any structural surface, including on any known hollow column (post).
Re Clm 10: ‘453 as modified above fails to explicitly disclose or suggest wherein the hollow column is a square column. Examiner notes that square hollow columns are extremely well-known and widely available for a variety of structural applications. it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided the hollow column to be square, since a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Re Clm 11: ‘453 as modified above disclose wherein the plurality of brackets include a first side (bottom) and an opposing second side (top); three tabs (protruding tabs 25, 26, 27 along with tabs flush with body surface), integrally formed with and protruding from the first side; and a single tab (laterally extending ridge/flange at bottom) integrally formed with and extending from the opposing second side, wherein the second side is opposite the first side (see fig 1).
Re Clm 12: ‘453 as modified above disclose wherein the plurality of brackets are made from aluminum material (paragraph 0006).
Re Clm 13: ‘453 as modified above disclose wherein the body (hollow column, as modified above) is made of wood (throughout disclosure).
Re Clm 14: ‘453 fails to disclose wherein the hollow column is made of steel. Examiner notes that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided the body (bracket mounting surface) to be made of steel for its high-strength characteristics, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN PETER MASINICK whose telephone number is (571)270-3060. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8a-5p 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, Amber Anderson can be reached at (571)270-5281. 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.
/JONATHAN P MASINICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678