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 .
This is the first Office Action for the serial number 18/835,993, A MOUNTING SYSTEM, filed on 8/5/24.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of species I in the reply filed on 1/5/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “International Searching Authority did not believe that there were an unity of invention restriction issues that prevented a complete search”. This is not found persuasive because the international searching authority and the United States rules are different and the USPTO may not always agree with the European examining method.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Since the applicant elected species I, claim 6 reads on non-elected species IV with T-shaped groove, therefore claim 6 is withdrawn to non-elected invention.
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.
Regarding claim 5, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by US Patent # 10,859,201 to Newville.
Newville teaches a mounting rail comprising an upper end and an opposite lower end extending in a longitudinal direction of the mounting rail, a front side and an opposite back side, both the front side and the back side extending between the upper and lower ends. Wherein the back side comprises at least one structure mounting interface for attaching the mounting rail to the structure (142). Wherein the upper end comprises an upper ridge and wherein the lower end comprises a lower ridge. The upper and lower ridges extending along the mounting rail and forming a first bracket mounting interface for mounting the mounting bracket to the front side of the mounting rail in a first orientation. Wherein the front side comprises a second bracket mounting interface for mounting the mounting bracket to the front side of the mounting rail in a second orientation perpendicular to the first orientation. Wherein the second bracket mounting interface comprises a plurality of regularly spaced openings formed in the front side of the mounting rail. Each opening comprises at least one transverse edge extending in a transverse direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction. Wherein the plurality of regularly spaced openings comprises at least two pairs of openings. Each pair of openings comprising an upper opening and a lower opening. Wherein the upper opening is closer to the upper end of the mounting rail than the lower opening is. Wherein the pairs of openings are separated from one another in the longitudinal direction.
PNG
media_image1.png
927
1146
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newville in view of US Patent Application Publication # 2011/0083399 to Lettkeman et al.
Newville teaches the mounting rail is a hollow profile but fails to teach the mounting rail is formed from metal sheet. Lettkeman et al. teaches the sheet metal (section 0020). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Newville’s mounting rail with sheet metal as taught by Lettkeman et al. “to resist flexing and deformation, especially under inclement weather conditions (section 0020 in Lettkeman et al.’s invention).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-16 are 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Regarding claim 7, the prior arts to teach all of the limitation from claims 1 and 7 especially with “wherein the second part is lockingly attachably to a lower end of the first part so as to clamp the mounting bracket to the mounting rail.” Regarding claim 13, the prior arts fail to teach all of the limitations from claims 1 and 13 especially with “a pole adapter configured to be attached to the mounting rail with a front side of the pole adapter facing the mounting rail and with a back side of the pole adapter facing the pole.” Regarding claim 15, the prior arts to teach all of the limitation from claims 1 and 15 especially with “wherein the second part is lockingly attachably to a lower end of the first part so as to clamp the mounting bracket to the mounting rail.”
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US Patent Application Publication # 2009/0230266 to Hillstrom et al.
US Patent Application Publication # 2018/0090916 to Jett et al.
US Patent # 8,864,092 to Newville
US Patent # 9,955,106 to Veikos
US Patent # 7,891,622 to O’Keene
The cited references above teach the mounting bracket and mounting rail for supporting an object.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALFRED J WUJCIAK whose telephone number is (571)272-6827. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3:30pm.
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, David Dunn can be reached at 571-272-6670. 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.
ALFRED J. WUJCIAK III
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3632
/ALFRED J WUJCIAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636 3/11/26