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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species M, N, and O in the reply filed on 01/29/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 6, 8, and 15-17, 19, and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 1-5, 7, and 9-14 have been examined herewith.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2017/143380 A1 to Rosati.
PNG
media_image1.png
372
301
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Rosati discloses a unitary mount, comprising: a vertical receptacle (See Figure above); one or more flanges (See Figure above), wherein at least one of the flanges is a vertical-facing flange (See Figure above); and one or more support-chutes (See Figure above), wherein at least one of the support-chutes is disposed between, the vertical receptacle and the vertical-facing flange (See Figure above).
Regarding claim 5, wherein: the one or more flanges of the mount, have bolt-holes (See Figure above).
Regarding claim 18, wherein: the mount is made of a pre-defined material (the mount is made by a material).
Claim(s) 1-3, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 10,090,651 B2 to Broemstrup et al.
PNG
media_image2.png
487
789
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Broemstrup et al. disclose a unitary mount, comprising: a vertical receptacle (See Figure above); one or more flanges (See Figure above), wherein at least one of the flanges is a vertical-facing flange (See Figure above); and one or more support-chutes (See Figure above), wherein at least one of the support-chutes is disposed between, the vertical receptacle and the vertical-facing flange (See Figure above).
Regarding claim 2, wherein the unitary mount comprises: a horizonal receptacle (See Figure above), wherein a portion of the vertical receptacle is formed by a portion of the horizontal receptacle (vertical receptacle runs into the horizontal receptacle).
Regarding claim 3, wherein: the vertical receptacle has external supporting structures (each of the flanges/supports extending from the vertical receptacle).
Regarding claim 7, wherein: the support-chute is divided into a plurality of segments (each of the chutes formed by the flanges or external supports).
Regarding claim 9, wherein: the horizontal receptacle has a closed profile (when flanges are attached, the receptacle is closed profile).
Regarding claim 11, wherein: the horizontal receptacle has one or more external supporting structures (each flange extending from the vertical walls of the horizontal receptacle; See Fig.1A).
Regarding claim 13, wherein: the vertical-facing flange extends beyond, at least one of: the horizontal receptacle, or the vertical receptacle (the flanges extend above and below the horizontal receptacle and left and right of the vertical receptacle).
Regarding claim 14, wherein: the mount has a horizontal-facing flange (See Figure above); and the horizontal-facing flange extends beyond the vertical receptacle (See Figure above).
Regarding claim 18, wherein: the mount is made of a pre-defined material (formed from a material).
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2018/0347190 A1 to Lafontaine.
PNG
media_image3.png
466
522
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Lafontaine discloses a unitary mount, comprising: a vertical receptacle (See Figure above); one or more flanges (See Figure above), wherein at least one of the flanges is a vertical-facing flange (See Figure above); and one or more support-chutes (See Figure above), wherein at least one of the support-chutes is disposed between, the vertical receptacle and the vertical-facing flange (See Figure above).
Regarding claim 3, wherein: the vertical receptacle has external supporting structures (See Figure above).
Regarding claim 7, wherein: the support-chute is divided into a plurality of segments (See Figure above).
Regarding claim 18, wherein: the mount is made of a pre-defined material (formed from a material).
Claim(s) 1-3, 10-13, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2018/0347190 A1 to Lafontaine.
PNG
media_image4.png
490
615
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, a unitary mount, comprising: a vertical receptacle (See Figure above); one or more flanges (See Figure above), wherein at least one of the flanges is a vertical-facing flange (See Figure above); and one or more support-chutes (See Figure above), wherein at least one of the support-chutes is disposed between, the vertical receptacle and the vertical-facing flange (See Figure above).
Regarding claim 2, wherein the unitary mount comprises: a horizonal receptacle (See Figure above), wherein a portion of the vertical receptacle is formed by a portion of the horizontal receptacle (shared vertical wall).
Regarding claim 3, wherein: the vertical receptacle has external supporting structures (See Figure above).
Regarding claim 10, wherein: the mount has bolt-holes (See Figure above) disposed on the vertical receptacle.
Regarding claim 11, wherein: the horizontal receptacle has one or more external supporting structures (See Figure above).
Regarding claim 12, wherein: the horizontal receptacle has internal surface-augmentations (See Figure above).
Regarding claim 13, wherein: the vertical-facing flange extends beyond the vertical receptacle (See Figure 10).
Regarding claim 18, wherein: the mount is made of a pre-defined material (made from a material).
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 10, 14, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2022/0090385 A1 to Leary.
PNG
media_image5.png
539
714
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Leary discloses a unitary mount, comprising: a vertical receptacle (See Figure above); one or more flanges (See Figure above), wherein at least one of the flanges is a vertical-facing flange (See Figure above); and one or more support-chutes (See Figure above), wherein at least one of the support-chutes is disposed between, the vertical receptacle and the vertical-facing flange (See Figure above).
Regarding claim 2, wherein the unitary mount comprises: a horizonal receptacle (See Figure above), wherein a portion of the vertical receptacle is formed by a portion of the horizontal receptacle (share a sidewall).
Regarding claim 3, wherein: the vertical receptacle has external supporting structures (See Figure above).
Regarding claim 5, wherein: the one or more flanges of the mount, have bolt-holes (See Figure above).
Regarding claim 10, wherein: the mount has bolt-holes (See Figure above) disposed on, at least one of: the horizontal receptacle, or the vertical receptacle.
Regarding claim 14, wherein: the mount has a horizontal-facing flange; and the horizontal-facing flange extends beyond the vertical receptacle (See Figure above).
Regarding claim 18, wherein: the mount is made of a pre-defined material (formed from a material).
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0347190 A1 to Lafontaine.
Regarding claim 4, Lafontaine discloses internal surface augmentations (See Figure above) on the horizontal receptacle but not within the vertical receptacle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided augmentations on the internal surfaces of the vertical receptacle so to provide a snugger connection with the member inserted within the receptacle so to reduce the chances of the insert to be removed or loosened.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN D KWIECINSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-5160. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday from 8:30 am to 4:00 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, Brian Mattei can be reached at (571) 272-3238. 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.
RDK
/RYAN D KWIECINSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635