This is a Non-Final office action for serial number 18/677,707.
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 4 objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 3. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 2-4, 13, 14, and 18 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "an applied force" in line 3. There is insufficient/improper antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The “an applied force” of claim 2 appears to be the same as “a force is applied” in claim 1, line 12 therefore claim 2 is indefinite.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the lock plunger" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the lock plunger" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13, line1 recites “four keyholes”, the examiner can not determine if the “four keyholes” are included within the “Multiple keyholes” recited in claim 1, line 4 therefore claim 13 is indefinite and confusing.
Claim 14, line 2 recites “four keyholes”, the examiner can not determine if the “four keyholes” are included within the “Multiple keyholes” recited in claim 1, line 4 therefore claim 14 is indefinite and confusing.
Claim 18, line 2 recites “four keyholes”, the examiner can not determine if the “four keyholes” are included within the “Multiple keyholes” recited in claim 16, line 7 therefore claim 18 is indefinite and confusing.
The claims have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 for the above reasons. Please note that the Examiner may not have pointed out each and every example of indefiniteness. The applicant is required to review all the claim language to make sure the claimed invention is clear and definite.
All words in a claim must be considered in determining the patentability of theclaim against the prior art. If no reasonably definite meaning can be ascribed to certainterms in the claim, the subject matter does not become obvious, the claim becomesindefinite. In re Wilson, 424F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970). The examiner's analysis ofthe claims, in particular claim language within the claims as rejected under 35 USC 112 above, indicates that considerable speculation as to the meaning of the terms employed and assumptions as to the scope of the claims needs to be made, as the examiner does not understand what is exactly being claimed by the applicant. Any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 should not be based on such speculations and assumptions. In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859,862 (CCPA 1962); Ex parte Head, 214 USPQ 551 (Bd.App. 1981). Accordingly, the applicant should not assume that any claims not rejected using prior art is considered allowable since the examiner can not clearly determine the limitations of the claim due to indefiniteness. The applicant should be aware that once the claims have been corrected to remove the problems concerning indefiniteness, prior art may be used to reject the claims and the next action made final or if the application is in a final status the amendment after final may not be entered as requiring further search and/or consideration.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 6, and 13-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ortel et al. (Ortel) 10,774,985 in view of Rosenthan et al. (Rosenthan) 11,326,735.
Ortel discloses:
1. A mounting bracket for attaching to a T-bar of a suspended ceiling, the mounting bracket comprising: a bracket body (14/20), the bracket body including; multiple holes (46); and at least one flange hook (28/18) configured to receive a first edge of a flange of the T-bar (2); a toolless locking element (16) including; a slidable piece (16) having a flange hook (50) configured to receive a second edge of the flange of the T-bar, the second edge of the flange of the T-bar being opposite the first edge of the flange of the T-bar; and a locking mechanism (68) that is configured to allow the slidable piece to move parallel to the bracket body when a force is applied to the locking mechanism.
5. The mounting bracket of claim 1, wherein the slidable piece includes a tab (64) that extends beyond a footprint of the bracket body (14/20).
6. The mounting bracket of claim 1, wherein the slidable piece has a tab (64) at an end of the slidable piece that is opposite the flange hook (50) of the slidable piece.
16. An apparatus comprising: a wireless access point (AP) (4); and a mounting bracket attached to the wireless AP (4), the mounting bracket configured to attach to a T-bar (2) of a suspended ceiling, the mounting bracket comprising: a bracket body (14/20), the bracket body including; multiple holes (46); and at least one flange hook (28/18) configured to receive a first edge of a flange of the T-bar (2); a toolless locking element (16) including; a slidable piece (16) having a flange hook (50)configured to receive a second edge of the flange of the T-bar, the second edge of the flange of the T-bar being opposite the first edge of the flange of the T-bar; and a locking mechanism (68) that is configured to allow the slidable piece to move parallel to the bracket body when a force is applied to the locking mechanism.
PNG
media_image1.png
422
660
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ortel discloses all of the limitations of the claimed invention except for the keyholes being four keyholes, the bracket body being rectangular shaped, the Wireless AP including mounting pegs.
Rosenthal teaches that it is known to have:
13. The mounting bracket of claim 1, wherein the bracket body (100) includes four keyholes (108).
14. The mounting bracket of claim 1, wherein the bracket body (100) is rectangular shaped and includes four keyholes (108) distributed at four corners of the bracket body (100).
15. The mounting bracket of claim 1, wherein the keyholes (108) of the bracket body includes two circular shaped features.
17. The mounting bracket of claim 16, wherein the wireless AP (500) includes mounting pegs (502) that are locked to corresponding ones of the multiple keyholes (108) of the bracket body (100).
18. The mounting bracket of claim 16, wherein the bracket body is rectangular (100 shape of rectangular) shaped and includes four keyholes (108)distributed at four corners of the bracket body, and wherein the wireless AP includes mounting pegs (502) that are locked to corresponding ones of the four keyholes of the bracket body.
[AltContent: textbox (Keyholes (108) at four corners of a bracket body being rectangular shape 100)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
468
680
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Two circular shape)]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success to have modified Ortel to have included four keyholes distributed at four corners of the bracket body, the keyholes of the bracket body includes two circular shaped features; the wireless AP includes mounting pegs that are locked to corresponding ones of the multiple keyholes of the bracket body; wherein the bracket body is rectangular shaped wherein the wireless AP includes mounting pegs that are locked to corresponding ones of the four keyholes of the bracket body as taught by Rosenthal for the purpose of providing a means of quick securement of the Access Point to a ceiling.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over over Ortel et al. (Ortel) 10,774,985 in view of Rosenthan et al. (Rosenthan) 11,326,735 in further view of Zlotnikov et al. (Zlotnikov) 2023/0126195.
Ortel in view of Rosenthan discloses all of the limitations of the claimed invention except for: wherein the bracket body includes at least two flange hooks configured to receive the first edge of the flange of the T-bar and wherein the flange hook of the slidable piece is between the at least two flange hooks of the bracket body.
Zlotnikov teaches that it is known to have:
7. The mounting bracket of claim 1, wherein the bracket body includes at least two flange hooks (119) configured to receive the first edge of the flange of the T-bar (150a)
8. The mounting bracket of claim 7, wherein the flange hook (113a) of the slidable piece (113) is between the at least two flange hooks (119) of the bracket body.
PNG
media_image3.png
554
534
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success to have modified Ortel in view of Rosenthan to have included the wherein the bracket body includes at least two flange hooks configured to receive the first edge of the flange of the T-bar and wherein the flange hook of the slidable piece is between the at least two flange hooks of the bracket body as taught by Zlotnikov for the purpose of providing a reduction of material therefore being cost effective while still providing a secure means of attachment to the T-bar.
Claim(s) 9, 11, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ortel et al. (Ortel) 10,774,985 in view of Rosenthan et al. (Rosenthan) 11,326,735 in view of Ramones et al. (Ramones) 2025/0126725. Ortel in view of Rosenthan discloses all of the limitations of the claimed invention except for the cable holding channel.
Ramones teaches that it is known to have:
9. The mounting bracket of claim 1, wherein the bracket body includes a cable holding channel (60).
11. The mounting bracket of claim 1, wherein the bracket body includes a cable holding channel that includes cable holding tabs (see figure below).
12. The mounting bracket of claim 1, wherein the bracket body includes a cable holding channel that includes cable holding tabs on both sides of the cable holding channel.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Holding tabs)]
PNG
media_image4.png
596
658
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success to have modified Ortel in view of Rosenthan to have included for the cable holding channel with holding tabs as taught by Ramones for the purpose of providing a means of supporting the cabling associated with the wifi device to prevent damage to the cabling, hide the cable from view, and allow the cabling to have access to an outlet on the ceiling.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 10 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIMBERLY T WOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-6826. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thur 9:00am-5:30pm flexible schedule.
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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at (571) 272-8227. 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.
/KIMBERLY T WOOD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631