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 .
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 11-19 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 11 recites the limitation "the strut channel" in lines 3 and 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 12-19 rejected under 35 USC 112 as being dependent on a rejected claim.
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, 3, 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DuPont, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0102165.
Regarding claim 1, DuPont discloses an attachment assembly comprising: a strut channel (12); a holder clamp (52) configured to connect with the strut channel; and a support clamp (50) configured to secure the holder clamp, wherein the holder clamp is movable in a vertical direction within the support clamp (depending on the orientation of the strut channel, see Fig. 5). The phrases “configured to connect with the strut channel,” “configured to secure the holder clamp,” and “movable in a vertical direction within the support clamp” are statements of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 3, DuPont discloses an attachment assembly wherein the strut channel has a pair of sidewalls and a bottom wall connected between the pair of sidewalls at respective lower ends thereof (as shown in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 8, DuPont discloses an attachment assembly wherein the support clamp is U-shaped (the bottom portion, see Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 9, DuPont discloses an attachment assembly wherein the holder clamp is held within the support clamp (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 10, DuPont discloses an attachment assembly wherein the support clamp and the holder clamp are pre-assembled as a clamp assembly (as shown in Fig. 5).
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) 1-4, 9-12, 17, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephan et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0156413 in view of Jaffari, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0042286.
Regarding claim 1, Stephan discloses a mounting system comprising: a channel member (200); a holder clamp (103, 104) configured to connect with the strut channel; and a support clamp (102) configured to secure the holder clamp, wherein the holder clamp is movable in a vertical direction (depending on orientation of the apparatus) within the support clamp (portion 111 of 103 is situated within as shown in Fig. 19), but does not specifically disclose the channel member is a strut channel. Jaffari teaches a strut channel utilized in a mounting system (420; paragraph 37). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a strut channel due to its versatility and for ease of assembly. The phrases “configured to connect with the strut channel,” “configured to secure the holder clamp,” and “movable in a vertical direction within the support clamp” are statements of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 2, Stephan discloses a mounting system further comprising a base (101) that is connectable with a lower surface (depending on orientation) of the support clamp (components 101, 102, 103 are connected together and therefore each of the component surfaces). The phrase “connectable with a lower surface of the support clamp” is a statement of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 3, Stephan in view of Jaffari discloses a mounting system wherein the strut channel has a pair of sidewalls (the flanges) and a bottom wall (the web) connected between the pair of sidewalls at respective lower ends thereof (se Fig. 4 of Jaffari).
Regarding claim 4, Stephan discloses a mounting system further comprising a first adjustment fastener (106, see Fig. 4A) and a second adjustment fastener (opposing one of 106) respectively receivable by opposing sidewalls of the support clamp to secure the holder clamp within the support clamp (see Fig. 4A, generally). The phrase “receivable by opposing sidewalls of the support clamp to secure the holder clamp within the support clamp” is a statement of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 9, Stephen discloses a mounting system wherein the holder clamp is held within the support clamp (at 111, see Fig. 19).
Regarding claim 10, Stephen discloses a mounting system wherein the support clamp and the holder clamp are pre-assembled as a clamp assembly (as shown in Fig. 4A; depending on the method of assembly chosen by a user).
Regarding claim 11, Stephen discloses a mounting system comprising: a channel member (200); a clamp assembly (101, 102, 103, 104) attachable to the strut channel at a lower surface thereof (depending on strut channel orientation), the clamp assembly including: a holder clamp (103, 104) configured to connect with the strut channel; and a support clamp (102) securing the holder clamp adjustably within a pair of opposing walls (walls of the channel, see Fig. 3A); and a base (101) that is connectable to a lower surface (depending on the orientation) of the clamp assembly (components 101, 102, 103 are connected together and therefore each of the component surfaces), but does not specifically disclose the channel member is a strut channel. Jaffari teaches a strut channel utilized in a mounting system (420; paragraph 37). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a strut channel due to its versatility and for ease of assembly. The phrases “attachable to the strut channel at a lower surface thereof,” “configured to connect with the strut channel,” and “connectable to a lower surface” are statements of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 12, Stephen discloses a mounting system further comprising a first adjustment fastener (106, see Fig. 4A) and a second adjustment fastener (other of 106) to respectively connect the holder clamp with the support clamp on the pair of the opposing walls (see Fig. 4A).
Regarding claim 17, Stephen discloses a mounting system wherein the holder clamp is rotatable about a horizontal axis in the support clamp (via threads, see Fig. 4B).
Regarding claim 19, Stephen in view of Jaffari discloses a mounting system the strut channel is U-shaped (see Jaffari Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 20, Stephen discloses a mounting system comprising: a channel member (200) configured to support a solar panel module; a holder clamp (103) that is connectable with the strut channel; a support clamp (102) having an aperture sized to support the holder clamp therein; and a base (101) having an opening (through which 104 is positioned, see Fig. 11) to receive a fastener (104) to connect to the support clamp, wherein the holder clamp is configured to be adjustable within the aperture positionally and orientationally (at 111), but does not specifically disclose the channel member is a strut channel nor that the aperture of the support clamp is a slot. Jaffari teaches a strut channel utilized in a mounting system (420; paragraph 37). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a strut channel due to its versatility and for ease of assembly. It would also have been obvious to produce the aperture as a slot to allow for versatility and adjustment during assembly, and since there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23.
Claim(s) 11, 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephan, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0228372 in view of Jaffari, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0042286.
Regarding claim 1, Stephan discloses an assembly system comprising: a channel member (300); a holder clamp (301) configured to connect with the strut channel (via intermediate members 101, 102, 103); and a support clamp (101, 102, 103) configured to secure the holder clamp, wherein the holder clamp is movable in a vertical direction (depending on orientation of the apparatus) within the support clamp (see Fig. 3C; movable within 103 and 102 of 109), but does not specifically disclose the channel member is a strut channel. Jaffari teaches a strut channel utilized in a mounting system (420; paragraph 37). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a strut channel due to its versatility and for ease of assembly. The phrases “configured to connect with the strut channel,” “configured to secure the holder clamp,” and “movable in a vertical direction within the support clamp” are statements of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 13, Stephan discloses an assembly system wherein the holder clamp includes serrations on opposing external surfaces thereof (see Figs. 3).
Regarding claim 14, Stephan discloses an assembly system wherein the support clamp includes serrations on opposing internal surfaces thereof (see Figs. 3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 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.
Claims 15-16, 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The closest prior art of record fails to disclose or make obvious a height-adjustable mounting system comprising a strut channel, a support clamp, and a holder clamp, the holder clamp including sidewalls connected by an intermediate wall and/or including holes to accommodate fasteners as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GISELE D FORD whose telephone number is (571)270-7326. The examiner can normally be reached M-T,Th-F 7:30am-4:30pm.
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 Glessner can be reached at 571-272-6754. 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.
GISELE D. FORD
Examiner
Art Unit 3633
/GISELE D FORD/Examiner, Art Unit 3633