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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 1, Figures 3-15, in the reply filed on 7/9/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 4 and 6-15 are withdrawn, Claims 16 and 17 are newly added, and Claims 1-3, 5, 16 and 17 are pending.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,084,268 (Pat 268). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the limitations of the claims in the instant application are found in the cited patent.
Regarding Claim 1: All the limitations of the instant application’s Claim 1 are included in Claim 1 of Pat. 268, as shown below in the table.
Instant Claim 1:
Pat 268
1. (Original) A bracket for affixing a device to a shipping container, the bracket comprising:
Claim 1 preamble.
a base;
Claim 1, line 3: “a base”
a first arm and a second arm disposed on distal ends of the base;
Claim 1, lines 4-5: “a first arm and a second arm disposed on distal ends of the base”
a first flange and second flange extending from the first arm and the second arm
Claim 1, lines 6-7: “a first flange and second flange extending from the first arm and the second arm”
a mounting mechanism on the base for mounting the device
Claim 1, lines 14-15: “a mounting mechanism on the base for mounting the device”
a first affixing mechanism and a second affixing mechanism to affix the first flange and the second flange respectively to adjacent locking rods on the shipping container, said first affixing mechanism and second affixing mechanism allowing rotation of the locking rods.
Claim 1, lines 8-13: “a first affixing mechanism and a second affixing mechanism to affix the first flange and the second flange respectively to adjacent locking rods on the shipping container, said first affixing mechanism and second affixing mechanism allowing rotation of the locking rods”
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.
Claims 16 and 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.
Claim 5 recites “where the base includes adjusting screws to increase a width of the bracket.” It is unclear based on the structure recited in the claims, how the screws increase a width of the bracket. More structural details are required to define, with particularity, what the invention is.
Claims 16 and 17 recite the phrase “and/or” which is confusing and indefinite. The use of the slash "/" within the claims should be avoided because it leads to confusion in claim interpretation. Examiner suggests Applicant amend the claims to recite something similar to "at least one of [A] and [B]".
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) 1-3, 5, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent App. No. 2014/0077576 to Brawner (Brawner).
PNG
media_image1.png
858
565
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1: Brawner discloses a bracket for affixing a device to a shipping container, the bracket comprising: a base (See Annotated Fig. A); a first arm (See Annotated Fig. A) and a second arm (See Annotated Fig. A) disposed on distal ends of the base; a first flange (See Annotated Fig. A) and second flange (See Annotated Fig. A) extending from the first arm and the second arm; a mounting mechanism (10) on the base for mounting the device; a first affixing mechanism (See Annotated Fig. A) and a second affixing mechanism (See Annotated Fig. A) to affix the first flange and the second flange respectively to adjacent locking rods on the shipping container, said first affixing mechanism (See Annotated Fig. A) and second affixing mechanism (See Annotated Fig. A) allowing rotation of the locking rods.
Please note that the shipping container is not a required limitaiton of the claimed invention, which is only directed to a bracket and not to a bracket coupled to a shipping container. Moreover, all references to the shipping container or aspects of the shipping container (i.e. the locking rods) are all recited within intended use statements which merely recite how the device is intended to be used.
Regarding Claim 2: Brawner discloses a bracket according to claim 1, wherein the base (See Annotated Fig. A) is configured to fit within a corrugation behind the adjacent locking rods. Please note that no additional structure has been claimed or defined here that particularly point to what specifically allows this bracket “to fit within a corrugation.” This is all intended use statements. Therefore, Brawner is configured to fit within a corrugation behind the adjacent locking rods to the same extent as the structural limitations that the claims have recited.
Regarding Claim 3: Brawner discloses a bracket according to claim 1, wherein at least one portion of the base (See Annotated Fig. A) is configured to contact the shipping container when the first flange and the second flange are behind the adjacent locking rods. Please note that no additional structure of the base has been claimed or defined here that particularly points to what specifically allows this base to contact a container if it were attached. This is all intended use statements. Therefore, the base of Brawner is configured to contact the container to the same extent as the structural limitations that the claims have recited.
Regarding Claim 5: Brawner discloses a bracket according to claim 1, where the base includes adjusting screws (See Annotated Fig. A) to increase a width of the bracket.
Regarding Claim 16: Brawner discloses a bracket according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the first and/or second flange (See Annotated Fig. A) comprises a slit (See Annotated Fig. A) for receiving a tongue (See Annotated Fig. A) of the respective first or second affixing mechanism.
Regarding Claim 17: Brawner discloses a bracket according to claim 1, wherein an end of at least one of the first and/or second flange comprises a cup (See Annotated Fig. A), the cup having a slit (See Annotated Fig. A) for receiving a tongue (See Annotated Fig. A) of the respective first or second affixing mechanism.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In addition to the references used in this rejection and those cited in the PTO-892, the following references are very relevant to the claimed invention: US 2017/0314732.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERET C MCNICHOLS whose telephone number is (571)270-7363. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00 - 5:00 (Eastern).
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at 571-272-4797. 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.
ERET C. MCNICHOLS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3632
/ERET C MCNICHOLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632
Prosecution Insights