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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-4 and 8-11 are pending and have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits. As of the date of this application, no Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) has been filed on behalf of this case.
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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4 and 8-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,285,671. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the pending claims is encompassed by the claims of the patent. More specifically, claim 1 of the patent encompasses pending claims 1 and 8; patent claim 2 is a substantial duplicate of pending claim 2, with the only differences being caused by the amendment on 03/05/2025; and patent claims 3-5 are identical to pending claims 3-4 and 9-11, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Staten et al. (US 2012/0289384) in view of Chen (US 2020/0114191).
In regards to Claim 1, Staten discloses a mounting system for attachment of interchangeable exercise machine accessories, comprising: a mounting bracket configured to be attached to a vertical support column (Staten: Fig. 6-11; 16) of an exercise machine having a plurality of horizontal holes for attachment of exercise accessories, the mounting bracket, comprising a housing (Staten: Fig. 4-11; 52) formed of a rigid material or materials having a front and two sides (Staten: Fig. 4-11; 26, 28) in a partial rectangular configuration, and configured to partially enclose the vertical support column within the front and two sides when mounted; a mounting plate (Staten: Fig. 4-11; 52), comprising a housing formed of a rigid material or materials having a front and two sides (Staten: Fig. 4-11; 32, 34) in a partial rectangular configuration, and configured to partially enclose the mounting bracket within the front and two sides when mounted; a support structure (Staten: Fig. 4-11; 38) for an exercise accessory; and one or more fastening devices (Staten: Fig. 4-11; 66, 74) for attachment of the mounting plate to the mounting bracket.
Staten fails to disclose a housing extension on one side of the housing for attachment of a first pin. However, Chen teaches a housing extension (Chen: Fig. 3; 31) on one side of the housing for attachment of a first pin (Chen: Fig. 3; 34).
Staten and Chen are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area e.g. adjustable support brackets. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mounting bracket housing in Staten with the extension and pin from Chen, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide an attaching pin that is more visible to a user (Chen: Fig. 3; shows visible pin), thereby making the first step of the attachment process simpler by making the pin easier to align at the desired location.
In regards to Claim 2, Staten, as modified, teaches the mounting system of claim 1, wherein the one or more fastening devices used between the mounting bracket and mounting plate comprise one or more of tabs and slots (Staten: Fig. 4-11; 66, 74), pins and holes, rails and slots, bolts or screws with corresponding threads in the mounting bracket or mounting plate, and magnets.
In regards to Claim 3, Staten, as modified, teaches the mounting system of claim 2, wherein the one or more fastening devices (Staten: Fig. 4-11; 66, 74) are configured to engage with one another via friction.
In regards to Claim 4, Staten, as modified, teaches the mounting system of claim 3, wherein the one or more fastening devices are tabs and slots (Staten: Fig. 4-11; 66, 74), further wherein the tabs are angled to cause increasing friction within the slots as the tabs are inserted into the slots.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Staten et al. (US 2012/0289384) in view of Chen (US 2020/0114191) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yang et al. (US 2015?0257533).
In regards to Claim 8, Staten, as modified, teaches the mounting system of claim 1, but fails to disclose a locking mechanism comprising a cam attached to the mounting plate via a cam pin, the cam being configured to engage with a surface of the mounting bracket when rotated.
However, Yang teaches a locking mechanism comprising a cam (Yang: Fig. 4a-5c; 24) attached to a mounting plate (Yang: Fig. 4a-5c; 20) via a cam pin, the cam being configured to engage with a surface of the mounting bracket when rotated.
Staten and Yang are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area e.g. adjustable support brackets. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mounting bracket and plate in Staten with the locking mechanism from Yang, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a locking means that secures the mounting plate to the mounting bracket via clamping forces that cause holding pressure at multiple locations, is quickly securable by a user, and provides a tactile indication that has been moved to a fully locked position, thereby making repositioning of the mounting plate simpler and faster while still ensuring a secure hold (Yang: [0085]-[0087]).
In regards to Claim 9, Staten, as modified, teaches the mounting system of claim 8, wherein the cam (Yang: Fig. 4a-5c; 24) is mounted in-line with the support structure (Staten: Fig. 4-11; 38), and has an offset such that rotation of the cam causes an outer edge of the cam to engage with the surface of the mounting bracket (Yang: Fig. 5a-5c).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 for cited references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Taylor Morris whose telephone number is (571)272-6367. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10AM-6PM PST / 1PM-9PM 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, 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.
/Taylor Morris/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631