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 without traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on June 15, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 8 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 15, 2026.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “first and second locking tab elements disposed on the first and second frame member sections, respectively” in the third paragraph of the body of the claim. Examiner has been unable to find support for the limitation in the originally filed Specification. The Specification clearly and expressly teaches ‘locking tab elements’ being disposed on one of the first and second frame member sections (figures 3b, 4, 7, and 13, elements 26 being the ‘locking tab elements,’ element 281 being the ‘first frame member section,’ and element 282 being the ‘second frame member section’; paragraphs 82, 85, and 92). However, the Specification does not teach an embodiment, or otherwise provide antecedent basis for, a first locking tab element being disposed on the first frame member section and a second locking tab being disposed on the second frame member section, as recited by claim 1. Examiner recognizes that the Specification teaches a ‘locking frame element’ being disposed on the ‘first frame member section’ and a “head member” being disposed on the ‘second frame member section’ (figures 3, 4, 7, and 13, element 25H being the ‘head member’; paragraphs 82 – 85 and 92). However, the Specification clearly distinguishes the ‘locking tab elements’ from the ‘head members,’ such that the ‘locking tab elements’ are separate and distinct from the ‘head members’ (figures 3, 4, 7, and 13, elements 28H and 26; paragraphs 82 – 85 and 92).
Claim 7 further recites the limitation “the first and second locking tab elements are disposed on top ridges of the first and second frame member sections, respectively.” As explained above, while the Specification teaches ‘locking tab elements’ being disposed on one of the ‘first and second frame member sections,’ the Specification does not provide antecedent basis for the ‘locking tab elements’ being disposed on each of the ‘first and second frame member sections.’
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 17/690,724, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. As explained above, the specification of the parent application does not provide support for the limitation “first and second locking tab elements disposed on the first and second frame member sections, respectively,” as recited by claim 1. Likewise, the specification of the parent application does not provide support for the limitation “the first and second locking tab elements are disposed on top ridges of the first and second frame member sections, respectively,” as recited by claim 7.
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.
Claim 6 is 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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “about 1.5 to about 2.0 inches thick.” Because “about” is a term of degree and is not expressly defined in the Specification, the metes and bounds of the limitation are unclear. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “1.5 to 2.0 inches thick.”
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 - 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Ege (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2023/0160221).
As to claim 1, Ege teaches an adaptable door mounting support (abstract), comprising: a bottom section (figure 1, element 21 being the ‘bottom section’; paragraph 27); first and second frame member sections defining slots and being interconnected by the bottom section to define a channel (figures 1, 3, and 7, element 181 being the ‘first frame member section,’ element 182 being the ‘second frame member section,’ elements 26 being the ‘slots,’ and element 20 being the ‘channel’; paragraphs 27, 31, and 34); first and second locking tab elements disposed on the first and second frame member sections, respectively (figure 1b, element 16 being the ‘first locking tab element’ and element 15H being the ‘second locking tab element’; paragraphs 34 – 35); a cable tie anchored to the first locking tab element and threaded through the slots and across the channel and through the second locking tab element (figures 1b, 3, and 6, element 15 being the ‘cable tie’; paragraphs 34 – 35 and 41 – 45), the cable tie being pullable through the slots and across the channel and through the second locking tab element such that a height of a section of the cable tie crossing the channel is adjusted relative to the bottom section and the second locking tab element being configured to selectively lock the cable tie in place (figures 1b, 3, and 6, elements 15, 26, 20, 15H, and 21; paragraphs 41 – 45).
As to claim 2, Ege teaches that the first and second frame members are A-shaped (figure 1b, elements 181 and 182; paragraph 27).
As to claim 3, Ege teaches that the first and second frame member sections are formed from a flat rectangular sheet of corrugated cardboard having a plurality of transverse, parallel pre-scored fold lines (figure 7, element 13 being the ‘flat rectangular sheet’ and elements 24 being the ‘plurality of transverse, parallel pre-scored fold lines’; paragraphs 28 and 37 – 41).
As to claim 4, Ege teaches that the slots are defined as elongate tie apertures that extend transversely to the transverse, parallel pre-score fold lines (figure 7, elements 26 and 24).
As to claim 5, Ege teaches that the channel is a door support channel which is configured to support a door therein (figures 1b and 3, element 20; paragraphs 27 and 47).
As to claim 6, Ege teaches that the door support channel is 1.5 to 2.0 inches thick (figures 1b and 3, element 20; paragraph 30).
As to claim 7, Ege teaches that the first and second locking tab elements are disposed on top ridges of the first and second frame member sections, respectively (figures 1b and 3, elements 241 being the ‘top ridge of the first frame member section’ and element 242 being the ‘top ridge of the second frame member section’; paragraph 35).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ege ‘339 (U.S. Patent Number 12,163,339) Claim 1 of Ege ‘339 anticipates an adaptable door mounting support (preamble), comprising: a bottom section (first paragraph of the body of claim 1); first and second frame members sections defining slots and being interconnected by the bottom section to define a channel (first paragraph of the body of claim 1); a cable tie anchored to a locking tab element and threaded through the slots and across the channel and through a second locking tab element (second, fourth, and fifth paragraphs of the body of claim 1), the cable tie being pullable through the slots and cross the channel and through the second locking tab element such that a height of a section of the cable tie crossing the channel is adjusted relative to the bottom section and the second locking tab element being configured to selectively lock the cable tie in plate (fourth and fifth paragraphs of the body of claim 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER BESLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:30 am - 7:30 pm (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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J. BESLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights