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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
1. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/23/2024 was filed prior to the mailing date of this action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
2. Claims 1, 15 and 18-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 1, 15 and 18, the claim uses letters followed by a period (a., b., c. …) to differentiate between limitations. However, MPEP 608.01(m) requires each claim to begin with a capital letter and end with a period and that periods may not be used elsewhere in the claims except for abbreviations. The additional periods should be removed or replaced to avoid the issue.
Claim 19, “a front surface” should read “[[a]] the front surface” to avoid the antecedent basis issue.
Claim 20, “a front surface” should read “[[a]] the front surface” to avoid the antecedent basis issue.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
Claims 1-17 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.
Regarding claim 1, the language recites “wherein each of said first and second flanges is operable for engagement with a wall stud”. However, it is not precisely clear if the language is requiring a single wall stud or if the language is requiring at least two wall studs (a wall stud for each of said first and second flanges). For purposes of examination, as best understood by the examiner, the language will be interpreted as requiring at least two wall studs. The claim language later recites “said wall stud”. In view of the above interpretation, the term “said wall stud” lacks proper antecedent basis because it is not precisely clear which of the plurality of wall studs is being referred to. For purposes of examination, as best understood by the examiner, the language will be interpreted as referencing one of the previously introduced wall studs.
Claims 2-14 are rejected for depending upon a rejected base claim.
Regarding claim 2, the language recites “a wall stud”. However, the term “a wall stud” lacks proper antecedent basis because it is not precisely clear if the term “a wall stud” is introducing a new wall stud or if the term “a wall stud” is meant to reference of the previously introduced wall studs. For purposes of examination, as best understood by the examiner, the language will be interpreted as referencing the respective one of the plurality of the previously introduced wall studs.
Claims 3-14 are rejected for depending upon a rejected base claim.
Regarding claim 3, the language recites “wherein a pair of first flanges are provided at a top and a bottom of said first side of said front surface and a pair of second flanges are provided at a top and a bottom of said opposite side of said front surface”. However, it is not precisely clear if the language is requiring a pair of flanges at a top of said first side, a pair of flanges at the bottom of said first side, a pair of flanges at a top of said opposite side and a pair of flanges at a bottom of said opposite side or if the language is requiring a pair of first flanges, wherein one first flange is positioned at the top of said first side and one first flange is positioned at the bottom of said first side; and a pair of second flanges, wherein one second flange is positioned at the top of said opposite side and one second flange is positioned at the bottom of said opposite side. For purposes of examination, as best understood by the examiner, the language will be interpreted as requiring a pair of first flanges, wherein one first flange is positioned at the top of said first side and one first flange is positioned at the bottom of said first side; and a pair of second flanges, wherein one second flange is positioned at the top of said opposite side and one second flange is positioned at the bottom of said opposite side.
Claim 4 is rejected for depending upon a rejected base claim.
Regarding claim 4, the language recites “a wall stud”. However, the term “a wall stud” lacks proper antecedent basis because it is not precisely clear if the term “a wall stud” is introducing a new wall stud or if the term “a wall stud” is meant to reference of the previously introduced wall studs. For purposes of examination, as best understood by the examiner, the language will be interpreted as referencing the respective one of the plurality of the previously introduced wall studs.
Regarding claim 5, the language recites “a wall stud”. However, the term “a wall stud” lacks proper antecedent basis because it is not precisely clear if the term “a wall stud” is introducing a new wall stud or if the term “a wall stud” is meant to reference of the previously introduced wall studs. For purposes of examination, as best understood by the examiner, the language will be interpreted as referencing the respective one of the plurality of the previously introduced wall studs.
Regarding claim 6, the language recites “a wall stud”. However, the term “a wall stud” lacks proper antecedent basis because it is not precisely clear if the term “a wall stud” is introducing a new wall stud or if the term “a wall stud” is meant to reference of the previously introduced wall studs. For purposes of examination, as best understood by the examiner, the language will be interpreted as referencing the respective one of the plurality of the previously introduced wall studs.
Claims 7-14 are rejected for depending upon a rejected base claim.
Regarding claim 9, the language recites “a wall stud”. However, the term “a wall stud” lacks proper antecedent basis because it is not precisely clear if the term “a wall stud” is introducing a new wall stud or if the term “a wall stud” is meant to reference of the previously introduced wall studs. For purposes of examination, as best understood by the examiner, the language will be interpreted as referencing the respective one of the plurality of the previously introduced wall studs.
Regarding claim 10, the language recites “a wall stud”. However, the term “a wall stud” lacks proper antecedent basis because it is not precisely clear if the term “a wall stud” is introducing a new wall stud or if the term “a wall stud” is meant to reference of the previously introduced wall studs. For purposes of examination, as best understood by the examiner, the language will be interpreted as referencing the respective one of the plurality of the previously introduced wall studs.
Regarding claim 11, the language recites “a wall stud”. However, the term “a wall stud” lacks proper antecedent basis because it is not precisely clear if the term “a wall stud” is introducing a new wall stud or if the term “a wall stud” is meant to reference of the previously introduced wall studs. For purposes of examination, as best understood by the examiner, the language will be interpreted as referencing the respective one of the plurality of the previously introduced wall studs.
Regarding claim 14, the language recites “said stud”. However, the term “said stud” lacks proper antecedent basis because it is not precisely clear which stud “said stud” is intending to reference. For purposes of examination, as best understood by the examiner, the language will be interpreted as referencing a respective one of the plurality of the previously introduced wall studs.
Regarding claim 15, the language recites “a pair of perpendicular flanges positioned at upper and lower corners of the front surface”. However, it is not precisely clear if the language is requiring a pair of flanges at the upper corner and a pair of flanges at the lower corner or if the language is requiring a pair of flanges, wherein one flange is positioned at the upper corner and one flange is positioned at the lower corner. For purposes of examination, as best understood by the examiner, the language will be interpreted as requiring a pair of flanges, wherein one flange is positioned at the upper corner and one flange is positioned at the lower corner.
Claims 16-17 are rejected for depending upon a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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 1-7, 9-10 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salubro (US Patent 11374389) in view of Drivstuen et al. (US Patent 8479353), hereinafter Drivstuen.
Regarding claim 1, Salubro teaches a support structure (fig. 1) comprising:
a housing having an interior (fig. 1, shown by element 14), an exterior (fig. 1), a front surface (see annotated fig. 1 below), and a rear surface (rear surface of rear wall 12e);
at least one first flange on a first side of said front surface (see annotated fig. 1 below), and at least one second flange on an opposite second side of said front surface (see annotated fig. 1 below) wherein each of said first and second flanges is operable for engagement with a wall stud (fig. 2, each of said first and second flanges are capable of being operable for engagement with a wall stud); and
PNG
media_image1.png
670
840
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a bracket member (mounting bracket 20, fig. 1-2) comprising an elongated body (elongated body of bracket member 20, fig. 1) operable for engagement with the rear surface of said housing (the mounting bracket 20 is in operable indirect engagement with the rear surface of said housing) and a third flange member (see annotated fig. 1 above) attached at one end of said elongated body (fig. 1) wherein said third flange is operable for engagement with said wall stud (fig. 2).
Salubro does not explicitly teach wherein the support structure is for a central vacuum system hose outlet box.
However, Drivstuen teaches a hose valve apparatus (fig. 17-18) which includes a support structure box 28, wherein the support structure box is mounted to a wall stud via a plurality of mounting holes 148 for nailing or screwing the mounting assembly (col. 6, lines 35-40), wherein the support structure box is for a central vacuum system hose outlet box (abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Salubro to incorporate the teachings of Drivstuen to provide wherein the support structure is for a central vacuum system hose outlet box. Specifically, it would have been obvious to modify the support structure box of Salubro to be a support structure for a central vacuum system hose outlet box. Doing so would increase the utility of Salubro by allowing the device of Salubro to house a central vacuum system hose outlet box. Additionally, doing so would securely mount a central vacuum system hose outlet box, promoting longevity of the hose outlet box.
Regarding claim 2, Salubro, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Salubro, as modified, teaches wherein each of said first and second flanges includes at least one opening operable to receive a fastener for securement to a wall stud (fig. 1 of Salubro, wherein each of said first and second flanges (as interpreted above) includes at least one opening capable of receiving a fastener for securement to a wall stud).
Regarding claim 3, Salubro, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 2. Additionally, Salubro, as modified, teaches wherein a first flange is provided at a top of said first side of said front surface (fig. 1 of Salubro, as interpreted above) and a pair of second flanges are provided at a top and a bottom of said opposite side of said front surface (fig. 1 of Salubro, flanges at top and bottom of said opposite side of said front surface).
Salubro, as modified, does not explicitly teach a pair of first flanges are provided at a top and a bottom of said first side of said front surface. That is, Salubro, as modified, does not explicitly teach a flange is provided at a bottom of said first side of said front surface.
However, Salubro teaches flanges are provided at the top and bottom on said opposite side (fig. 1). Due to the angle of the figure, Salubro does not explicitly teach flanges are provided at the top and bottom of said first side on said front surface.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Salubro, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Salubro to provide wherein flanges are provided at the top and bottom on said first side of said front surface. Specifically, it would have been obvious to provide wherein flanges are provided at the bottom of the first side of Salubro fig. 1, in a similar manner to the flanges provided at the bottom of the opposite side of Salubro fig. 1. Doing so would provide additional flanges for mounting, which promotes longevity. Additionally, doing so promotes increased mounting capabilities for different situations and configurations. As best understood by the examiner, in view of the above 35 USC 112(b) rejections, the prior art teaches the claim limitations.
Regarding claim 4, Salubro, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 3. Additionally, Salubro, as modified, teaches wherein all of said first and second flanges are mounted perpendicularly to a plane of said front surface and are operable for engagement against a side surface of a wall stud (fig. 1 of Salubro, wherein all of said first and second flanges are mounted perpendicularly to a plane of said front surface and are capable of engagement against a side surface of a wall stud).
Regarding claim 5, Salubro, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 2. Salubro, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein all of said first and second flanges are mounted in parallel to a plane of said front surface and are operable for engagement against a front surface of a wall stud.
However, Drivstuen additionally teaches wherein all of said first and second flanges (fig. 17, first and second flanges 146) are mounted in parallel to a plane of said front surface (fig. 17) and are operable for engagement against a front surface of a wall stud (col. 6, lines 36-39, wherein the flanges are capable of engagement against a front surface of a wall stud).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Salubro, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Drivstuen to provide wherein all of said first and second flanges are mounted in parallel to a plane of said front surface and are operable for engagement against a front surface of a wall stud. Specifically, it would have been obvious to modify the orientation of the first and second flanges of Salubro such that they are parallel to a plane of said front surface and are operable for engagement against a front surface of a wall stud. Doing so would have been a simple substitution (MPEP 2143) of one known flange orientation for another known flange orientation to obtain the predictable results of providing a flange for mounting to a wall stud.
Regarding claim 6, Salubro, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 2. Additionally, Salubro, as modified, teaches wherein said third flange includes at least one opening operable to receive a fastener for securement to a wall stud (figs. 1-2 of Salubro, opening 22).
Regarding claim 7, Salubro, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 6. Additionally, Salubro, as modified, teaches the mounting bracket 20 may be secured to one side of the box. The mounting bracket is an L-shaped bracket secured to the sidewall (col. 4, lines 38-46).
Salubro, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein said elongated body includes at least one opening operable to receive a fastener for securement to the rear surface of said housing.
However, Salubro teaches a bracket 100 which is attached to a sidewall, wherein the bracket 100 may be secured to the box using one or more fasteners 102. The fasteners may be rivets or screws that pass through one or more mounting holes in the bracket and are riveted or screwed into holes provided on the sidewall (fig. 1, col. 4, lines 56-63)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Salubro, as modified, to incorporate the additional teachings of Salubro to provide wherein the mounting bracket 20 is secured to the sidewall via fasteners and associated holes (as taught by Salubro in col. 4, lines 56-63). Doing so would provide an explicit attachment configuration to allow the device to function as intended. Additionally, doing so would provide a known securing mechanism to attach the bracket to the side wall.
In summary, Salubro, as modified, teaches wherein said elongated body includes at least one opening operable to receive a fastener (the elongated body was modified to be attached via the fasteners and associated holes, as taught by Salubro) for securement to the rear surface of said housing (The incorporated fasteners and associated holes provide for indirect securement to the rear surface of said housing).
Regarding claim 10, Salubro, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 7. Additionally, Salubro, as modified, teaches wherein said at least one first flange is attached to a wall stud and said at least one third flange is attached to the same wall stud (fig. 2 of Salubro, wherein said first flange and said third flange are capable of being attached to the same wall stud).
Regarding claim 13, Salubro, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 7. Additionally, Salubro, as modified, teaches wherein an end of said elongated body is attached to an end of said third flange such that the bracket has an L-shape (fig. 2 of Salubro, L-shaped bracket 20).
Regarding claim 9, Salubro, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 6. Additionally, Salubro, as modified, teaches wherein said at least one first flange is attached to a wall stud and said at least one third flange is attached to the same wall stud (fig. 2 of Salubro, wherein said first flange and said third flange are capable of being attached to the same wall stud).
Regarding claim 14, Salubro, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 6. Salubro, as modified, does not explicitly teach a door assembly secured to an exterior surface of a wall adjacent to said stud, the door assembly having a compressible sealing member that is operable to engage with a recess on a front surface of said outlet box.
However, Drivstuen additionally teaches a door assembly (fig. 2, door 120) secured to an exterior surface of a wall adjacent to said stud (the door assembly is secured to the valve box 28 and is capable of being indirectly secured to an exterior surface of a wall adjacent to said stud), the door assembly having a compressible sealing member (o-ring 122) that is operable to engage with a recess on a front surface of said outlet box (fig. 4, groove 124 that is sized to fit the o-ring (col. 6, lines 15-20)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Salubro, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Drivstuen to provide a door assembly secured to an exterior surface of a wall adjacent to said stud, the door assembly having a compressible sealing member that is operable to engage with a recess on a front surface of said outlet box. Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate the door assembly, o-ring and seating groove of Drivstuen into the device of Salubro, as modified. Doing so would allow the central vacuum system to work as intended and not have a leak at an unused outlet. Additionally, doing so would prevent objects from inadvertently being vacuumed.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salubro (US Patent 11374389) in view of Drivstuen et al. (US Patent 8479353), hereinafter Drivstuen, as applied to claims 1, 2, 6 and 7 above, and further in view of Mominee et al. (US Patent 9627868), hereinafter Mominee.
Regarding claim 12, Salubro, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 7. Salubro, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein an end of said elongated body is attached to a center of said third flange such that the bracket has a T-shape.
However, Mominee teaches a mountable support structure (fig. 1), wherein the mounting flanges have a T-shape (fig. 1, T-shape provided via structures 100).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Salubro, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Mominee to provide wherein an end of said elongated body is attached to a center of said third flange such that the bracket has a T-shape. Specifically, it would have been obvious to modify the distal most flange tabs of the bracket 20 of Salubro such that the distal most flange tabs are provided in a T-shape configuration (as taught by Mominee). Doing so would have been a simple substitution (MPEP 2143) of one known flange configuration for another known flange configuration to obtain the predictable results of providing flanges for mounting.
Claims 8, 11, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salubro (US Patent 11374389) in view of Drivstuen et al. (US Patent 8479353), hereinafter Drivstuen, and further in view of O’Brien (US Patent 3588017).
Regarding claim 8, Salubro, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 6. Salubro, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein the rear surface of said housing includes at least one opening, and said elongated body includes at least one tab that is operable to snap fit into said opening to secure said elongated body against said rear surface.
However, O’Brien teaches a support box for mounting to a wall stud (fig. 1), wherein the rear surface (surface indicated by element 13 in fig. 1) of said housing includes at least one opening (O’Brien teaches the bracket portion 20 is provided with rivet holes 21 by which the base is securely fixed by rivets 22 to the bottom of the box (col. 1, lines 66-71). Therefore, O’Brien teaches the rear surface has an opening to receive the rivet), and said elongated body includes at least one tab (rivet 22 is interpreted as a tab) that is operable to snap fit into said opening to secure said elongated body against said rear surface (the rivet securing the bracket to the box is interpreted as a tab that is capable of snap fitting into said opening to secure said elongated body against said rear surface).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Salubro, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of O’Brien to provide wherein the rear surface of said housing includes at least one opening, and said elongated body includes at least one tab that is operable to snap fit into said opening to secure said elongated body against said rear surface. Specifically, it would have been obvious to further modify Salubro such that the bracket of Salubro is mounted to the rear surface of the housing via a rivet and respective openings. Doing so would promote longevity of the attachment between the bracket and the housing. Additionally, doing so would promote sturdiness of the attachment of the housing to the bracket.
Regarding claim 11, Salubro, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 8. Additionally, Salubro, as modified, teaches wherein said at least one first flange is attached to a wall stud and said at least one third flange is attached to the same wall stud (fig. 1 of Salubro, as modified, wherein the first flange and the third flange are capable of being attached to the same wall stud).
Regarding claim 15, Salubro teaches a outlet box assembly (fig. 1) comprising:
a box including a front surface (see annotated fig. 1 below), a rear surface (rear surface of rear wall 12e), a pair of perpendicular flanges positioned at upper and lower corners of the front surface (see annotated fig. 1 below. As best understood by the examiner, in view of the above 35 USC 112(b) rejections, the prior art teaches the claim limitations), and at least one bore hole on each flange (see annotated fig. 1 below);
PNG
media_image2.png
670
840
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a bracket member (mounting bracket 20, fig. 1-2) comprising an elongated body (elongated body of bracket member 20, fig. 1) with a flange member at an end thereof (see annotated fig. 1 above, third flange member), wherein the flange member has at least one through hole therein (see annotated fig. 1 above)
a plurality of fasteners (fig. 2, 24) configured to secure the valve box and the bracket to a wall stud (fig. 2) through the at least one through hole in the flange member of the bracket (fig. 2).
Salubro does not explicitly teach
wherein the support structure is for a central vacuum system hose outlet box including a valve box,
and wherein said elongated body includes at least one snap tab thereon;
at least one receiving aperture on the rear surface of the valve box configured to engage with the at least one snap tab of the bracket member; and
a plurality of fasteners configured to secure the valve box and the bracket to a wall stud through the at least one bore hole in each perpendicular flange.
However, Salubro additionally teaches fasteners 24 are used to mount the bracket to the wall stud (fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Salubro to incorporate the additional teachings of Salubro to provide fasteners configured to secure the box to the wall stud through the at least one bore hole in each perpendicular flange. Specifically, it would have been obvious to also use fasteners on the holes of the perpendicular flanges. Doing so would provide a more secure connection of the box to the wall. Additionally, doing so would promote longevity of the connection.
Salubro, as modified, does not explicitly teach
wherein the support structure is for a central vacuum system hose outlet box including a valve box,
and wherein said elongated body includes at least one snap tab thereon;
at least one receiving aperture on the rear surface of the valve box configured to engage with the at least one snap tab of the bracket member.
However, Drivstuen teaches a hose valve apparatus (fig. 17-18) which includes a support structure box 28, wherein the support structure box is mounted to a wall stud via a plurality of mounting holes 148 for nailing or screwing the mounting assembly (col. 6, lines 35-40), wherein the support structure box is for a central vacuum system hose outlet box including a valve box (abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Salubro, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Drivstuen to provide wherein the support structure is for a central vacuum system hose outlet box including a valve box. Specifically, it would have been obvious to modify the support structure box of Salubro to be a support structure for a central vacuum system hose outlet box. Doing so would increase the utility of Salubro by allowing the device of Salubro to house a central vacuum system hose outlet box. Additionally, doing so would securely mount a central vacuum system hose outlet box, promoting longevity of the hose outlet box.
Salubro, as modified, does not explicitly teach
and wherein said elongated body includes at least one snap tab thereon;
at least one receiving aperture on the rear surface of the valve box configured to engage with the at least one snap tab of the bracket member.
However, O’Brien teaches a support box for mounting to a wall stud (fig. 1),
wherein said elongated body includes at least one snap tab thereon (rivet 22 is interpreted as a tab);
at least one receiving aperture on the rear surface of the valve box (O’Brien teaches the bracket portion 20 is provided with rivet holes 21 by which the base is securely fixed by rivets 22 to the bottom of the box (col. 1, lines 66-71). Therefore, O’Brien teaches the rear surface has an opening to receive the rivet) configured to engage with the at least one snap tab of the bracket member (the rivet securing the bracket to the box is interpreted as a tab that is capable of snap fitting into said opening to secure said elongated body against said rear surface).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Salubro, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of O’Brien to provide wherein said elongated body includes at least one snap tab thereon;
at least one receiving aperture on the rear surface of the valve box configured to engage with the at least one snap tab of the bracket member.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to further modify Salubro such that the bracket of Salubro is mounted to the rear surface of the housing via a rivet and respective openings. Doing so would promote longevity of the attachment between the bracket and the housing. Additionally, doing so would promote sturdiness of the attachment of the housing to the bracket.
Regarding claim 17, Salubro, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 15. Additionally, Salubro, as modified, teaches wherein the end of said elongated body is attached to an end of said third flange such that the bracket has an L-shape. (fig. 2 of Salubro, L-shaped bracket 20).
Claims 16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salubro (US Patent 11374389) in view of Drivstuen et al. (US Patent 8479353), hereinafter Drivstuen, and further in view of O’Brien (US Patent 3588017), and further in view of Mominee et al. (US Patent 9627868), hereinafter Mominee.
Regarding claim 16, Salubro, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 15. Salubro, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein the end of said elongated body is attached to a center of said third flange such that the bracket has a T-shape.
However, Mominee teaches a mountable support structure (fig. 1), wherein the mounting flanges have a T-shape (fig. 1, T-shape provided via structures 100).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Salubro, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Mominee to provide wherein the end of said elongated body is attached to a center of said third flange such that the bracket has a T-shape. Specifically, it would have been obvious to modify the distal most flange tabs of the bracket 20 of Salubro such that the distal most flange tabs are provided in a T-shape configuration (as taught by Mominee). Doing so would have been a simple substitution (MPEP 2143) of one known flange configuration for another known flange configuration to obtain the predictable results of providing flanges for mounting.
Regarding claim 18, Salubro teaches a method of installing a outlet box (fig. 1) comprising the steps of:
positioning a pair of flanges located along a front surface of the outlet box (see annotated fig. 1 below) against a surface of a wall stud (fig. 2, stud 200);
PNG
media_image3.png
685
840
media_image3.png
Greyscale
aligning a bracket (mounting bracket 20, fig. 1-2), the bracket comprising an elongated body (elongated body of bracket member 20, fig. 1) with a flange member at an end thereof (see annotated fig. 1 above), wherein the flange member has at least one through hole therein (see annotated fig. 1 above)
fastening the bracket to the wall stud by advancing additional fasteners through the at least one through hole in the bracket flange member (fig. 2, fasteners 24).
Salubro does not explicitly teach wherein the support structure is for a central vacuum system hose outlet box,
securing the outlet box to the wall stud by advancing fasteners through at least one through hole in each flange;
aligning a bracket with at least one receiving aperture on a rear surface of the outlet box, the bracket comprising an elongated body with a flange member at an end thereof forming a T-shape, and wherein said elongated body includes at least one snap tab thereon;
engaging the at least one snap tab of the bracket with the at least one receiving aperture on the outlet box.
However, Salubro additionally teaches fasteners 24 are used to mount the bracket to the wall stud (fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Salubro to incorporate the additional teachings of Salubro to provide fasteners configured to secure the box to the wall stud through the at least one bore hole in each of the pair of flanges. Specifically, it would have been obvious to also use fasteners on the holes of the perpendicular flanges. Doing so would provide a more secure connection of the box to the wall. Additionally, doing so would promote longevity of the connection.
Salubro, as modified, does not explicitly teach
wherein the support structure is for a central vacuum system hose outlet box,
aligning a bracket with at least one receiving aperture on a rear surface of the outlet box, the bracket comprising an elongated body with a flange member at an end thereof forming a T-shape, and wherein said elongated body includes at least one snap tab thereon;
engaging the at least one snap tab of the bracket with the at least one receiving aperture on the outlet box.
However, Drivstuen teaches a hose valve apparatus (fig. 17-18) which includes a support structure box 28, wherein the support structure box is mounted to a wall stud via a plurality of mounting holes 148 for nailing or screwing the mounting assembly (col. 6, lines 35-40), wherein the support structure box is for a central vacuum system hose outlet box including a valve box (abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Salubro, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Drivstuen to provide wherein the support structure is for a central vacuum system hose outlet box including a valve box. Specifically, it would have been obvious to modify the support structure box of Salubro to be a support structure for a central vacuum system hose outlet box. Doing so would increase the utility of Salubro by allowing the device of Salubro to house a central vacuum system hose outlet box. Additionally, doing so would securely mount a central vacuum system hose outlet box, promoting longevity of the hose outlet box.
Salubro, as modified, does not explicitly teach
aligning a bracket with at least one receiving aperture on a rear surface of the outlet box, the bracket comprising an elongated body with a flange member at an end thereof forming a T-shape, and wherein said elongated body includes at least one snap tab thereon;
engaging the at least one snap tab of the bracket with the at least one receiving aperture on the outlet box.
However, O’Brien teaches a support box for mounting to a wall stud (fig. 1),
aligning a bracket with at least one receiving aperture on a rear surface of the outlet box (O’Brien teaches the bracket portion 20 is provided with rivet holes 21 by which the base is securely fixed by rivets 22 to the bottom of the box (col. 1, lines 66-71). Therefore, O’Brien teaches the rear surface has an opening to receive the rivet), and wherein said elongated body includes at least one snap tab thereon (rivet 22 is interpreted as a tab);
engaging the at least one snap tab of the bracket with the at least one receiving aperture on the outlet box (the rivet securing the bracket to the box is interpreted as a tab that is capable of snap fitting into said opening to secure said elongated body against said rear surface).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Salubro, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of O’Brien to provide aligning a bracket with at least one receiving aperture on a rear surface of the outlet box, and wherein said elongated body includes at least one snap tab thereon;
engaging the at least one snap tab of the bracket with the at least one receiving aperture on the outlet box.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to further modify Salubro such that the bracket of Salubro is mounted to the rear surface of the housing via a rivet and respective openings. Doing so would promote longevity of the attachment between the bracket and the housing. Additionally, doing so would promote sturdiness of the attachment of the housing to the bracket.
Salubro, as modified, does not explicitly teach
the bracket comprising an elongated body with a flange member at an end thereof forming a T-shape.
However, Mominee teaches a mountable support structure (fig. 1), wherein the mounting flanges have a T-shape (fig. 1, T-shape provided via structures 100).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Salubro, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Mominee to provide wherein the end of said elongated body is attached to a center of said third flange such that the bracket has a T-shape. Specifically, it would have been obvious to modify the distal most flange tabs of the bracket 20 of Salubro such that the distal most flange tabs are provided in a T-shape configuration (as taught by Mominee). Doing so would have been a simple substitution (MPEP 2143) of one known flange configuration for another known flange configuration to obtain the predictable results of providing flanges for mounting.
Regarding claim 19, Salubro, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 18. Additionally, Salubro, as modified, teaches wherein the pair of flanges located along a front surface of the outlet box have an orientation that is perpendicular to a plane of said front surface (see annotated fig. 1 of Salubro above, wherein the pair of flanges were interpreted as being the flanges perpendicular to a plane of said front surface).
Regarding claim 20, Salubro, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 18. Salubro, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein the pair of flanges located along a front surface of the outlet box have an orientation that is parallel to a plane of said front surface.
However, Drivstuen additionally teaches wherein the pair of flanges located along a front surface of the outlet box have an orientation that is parallel to a plane of said front surface (fig. 17, col. 6, lines 36-39, wherein the flanges are capable of engagement against a front surface of a wall stud).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Salubro, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Drivstuen to provide wherein the pair of flanges located along a front surface of the outlet box have an orientation that is parallel to a plane of said front surface. Specifically, it would have been obvious to modify the orientation of the pair of flanges of Salubro such that they are parallel to a plane of said front surface and are operable for engagement against a front surface of a wall stud. Doing so would have been a simple substitution (MPEP 2143) of one known flange orientation for another known flange orientation to obtain the predictable results of providing a flange for mounting to a wall stud.
Conclusion
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gretz (US Patent 8076578) teaches an outlet box similar to the claimed invention
Ball et al. (US PGPUB 20110220221) teaches a mounting system similar to the claimed invention
Gretz (US Patent 7816604) teaches a mounting assembly similar to the claimed invention
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A GUMP whose telephone number is (571)272-2172. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9:00-5:30.
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, David Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. 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.
/MICHAEL A GUMP/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
