DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final Office action in reply to the response filed 01/26/2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 9-11, and 13-24 are pending;
Claims 1, 5, 7, 9-11, 14, 16, and 18 are currently amended; claims 2, 13, 15, and 17 are original; claims 3, 4, 8, and 12 have been cancelled; claim 6 was previously presented; claims 19-24 have been withdrawn;
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 9-11, and 13-18 are rejected herein.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Invention I (claims 1, 2, 5-7, 9-11, and 13-18) and Species A (Figures 2-4, 7, and 13) in the reply filed 01/26/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 19-24 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and/or a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted 12/16/2024, 08/20/2025, and 02/12/2026 have been considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the feature "[t]he mounting apparatus of claim 1, wherein the backplate comprises at least one polymeric film layer" (claim 13, lines 1 and 2) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the feature "[t]he mountable apparatus of claim 13, wherein the backplate comprises a foam layer" (claim 14, lines 1 and 2) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the feature "[t]he mountable apparatus of claim 14, wherein the foam layer is adhered directly to the polymeric film layer or through the use of a tie layer" (claim 15, lines 1 and 2) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include at least the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: "202" (page 5, line 30); "204" (page 5, line 31); "A" (page 6, line 36); "260" (page 7, line 14); "372" (page 11, line 21); "333" (page 11, line 31); "335" (page 11, line 31); "511" (page 12, line 26); "1010" (page 12, line 29); "H" (page 13, line 4); "511" (page 12, line 5); "560" (page 12, lines 7 and 16).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: "201" (Figure 1).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because the reference character "370" (Figure 5) has been used to designate two different structures in Figure 5.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as "amended." If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either "Replacement Sheet" or "New Sheet" pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5-7, 9, 11, and 15-17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 4, "the mounting plate" appears to be --the at least one mounting plate--.
Claim 5, lines 1 and 2, "the flexible mounting body" appears to be --the at least one flexible mounting body--.
Claim 6, lines 1 and 2, "the flexible mounting body" appears to be --the at least one flexible mounting body--.
Claim 7, lines 1 and 2, "the mounting plate" appears to be --the at least one mounting plate--.
Claim 9, lines 1 and 2, "the flexible mounting body" appears to be --the at least one flexible mounting body--.
Claim 11, line 2, "contains" appears to be --includes--.
Claim 15, line 2, "the polymeric film layer" appears to be --the at least one polymeric film layer--.
Claim 16, line 2, it is recommended that "thereof" be changed to --of the backplate--.
Claim 16, line 3, "the flexible mounting body" appears to be --the at least one flexible mounting body--.
Claim 17, line 2, "the polymeric film layer" appears to be --the at least one polymeric film layer--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 11, the limitation "left and right sides of the cover" in claim 11 (line 3) is interpreted as --a left side of the cover and a right side of the cover--.
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 1, 2, 5-7, 9-11, and 13-18 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.
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 9-11, and 13-18 are replete with indefinite limitations. As such, the indefinite limitations identified and discussed below are merely exemplary and are not exhaustive. It is requested that Applicant proofread claims 1, 2, 5-7, 9-11, and 13-18 and amend wherever applicable.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation "the wire segments" in claim 1 (line 3) is indefinite. Firstly, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation "the wire segments" (claim 1, line 3) in the claim. Secondly, it is not clear as to how "the wire segments" in claim 1 (line 3) is related to the "the storage device" in claim 1 (line 2) and/or the "at least one wire segment" of the "storage device" in claim 1 (line 2). For example, are "the wire segments" in claim 1 (line 3) arbitrary wire segments that are not structural elements of the "the storage device" in claim 1 (line 2)? Or does the "the storage device" in claim 1 (line 2) comprise "the wire segments" in claim 1 (line 3), such that the "the storage device" in claim 1 (line 2) comprises "the wire segments" in claim 1 (line 3) in addition to the "at least one wire segment" in claim 1 (line 2)? Or does the "at least one wire segment" of the "storage device" in claim 1 (line 2) comprise "the wire segments" in claim 1 (line 3), such that the "storage device" in claim 1 (line 2) should be recited as comprising --a plurality of wire segments-- instead of "at least one wire segment" as currently claimed? Similar rejection applies to the limitation "the wire segments" in claim 1 (line 8). Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1, the limitations "[a] mountable apparatus comprising: a storage device including at least one wire segment; at least one mounting plate onto which at least one of the wire segments is engaged, wherein the mounting plate comprises a backplate and at least one flexible mounting body; and optionally a cover attachable to the storage device, the cover obscuring the at least one flexible mounting body and at least a portion of at least one of the wire segments" are recited in claim 1 (lines 1-8). The recitation of the language "and optionally" in claim 1 (line 6) renders the scope of claim 1 indefinite. It is not clear as to whether or not the "mountable apparatus" in claim 1 (line 1) positively requires "a cover attachable to the storage device, the cover obscuring the at least one flexible mounting body and at least a portion of at least one of the wire segments" (claim 1, lines 6-8) as a required structure within the scope of claim 1. For the purpose of examination, based on the recitation of the language "and optionally" in claim 1 (line 6), "a cover attachable to the storage device, the cover obscuring the at least one flexible mounting body and at least a portion of at least one of the wire segments" in claim 1 (lines 6-8) is considered as an optional structure that is not a required structure within the scope of claim 1. In other words, the limitations of claim 1 are considered to be fully met by the prior art if the prior art discloses or teaches "[a] mountable apparatus comprising: a storage device including at least one wire segment; at least one mounting plate onto which at least one of the wire segments is engaged, wherein the mounting plate comprises a backplate and at least one flexible mounting body" (claim 1, lines 1-5), since the recited "cover" in claim 1 is an optional structure. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 2, the limitations "wherein the storage device includes at least two substantially parallel wire segments" in claim 2 (lines 1 and 2) are indefinite. Note that claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, recites "a storage device including at least one wire segment" in line 2. It is not clear as to how the "at least two substantially parallel wire segments" in claim 2 (lines 1 and 2) are related to the "at least one wire segment" in claim 1 (line 2). For example, does the "storage device" in claim 2 (line 1) comprise "at least two substantially parallel wire segments" in claim 2 (lines 1 and 2) in addition to the "at least one wire segment" in claim 1 (line 2)? Or does the "at least one wire segment" of the "storage device" in claim 1 (line 2) comprise the "at least two substantially parallel wire segments" in claim 2 (lines 1 and 2)? Likewise, it is not clear as to how the "at least two substantially parallel wire segments" in claim 2 (lines 1 and 2) are related to "the wire segments" in claim 1 (line 3). For example, it is not clear as to whether the "at least two substantially parallel wire segments" in claim 2 (lines 1 and 2) and "the wire segments" in claim 1 (line 3) refer to the same wire segments or different wire segments. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 7, the limitations "wherein the mounting plate includes at least two flexible mounting bodies arranged in parallel" in claim 7 (lines 1 and 2) are indefinite. Note that claim 1, from which claim 7 depends, recites "wherein the mounting plate comprises a backplate and at least one flexible mounting body" in lines 4 and 5. It is not clear as to how many flexible mounting bodies claim 7 requires. For example, does the "mounting plate" in claim 7 (lines 1 and 2) comprise "two flexible mounting bodies arranged in parallel" in claim 7 (lines 1 and 2) in addition to "at least one flexible mounting body" in claim 1 (lines 4 and 5), totaling at least three flexible mounting bodies? Or does the "mounting plate" in claim 7 (lines 1 and 2) comprise "at least one flexible mounting body" in claim 1 (lines 4 and 5), wherein the "at least one flexible mounting body" in claim 1 (lines 4 and 5) comprises "two flexible mounting bodies arranged in parallel" in claim 7 (lines 1 and 2), totaling two flexible mounting bodies? Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 10, the limitations " wherein each flexible mounting body includes a recess having a bottom surface, and wherein the bottom surface of each of the recesses are substantially coplanar with each other" in claim 10 (lines 1 and 2) are indefinite. Firstly, note that claim 1, from which claim 10 depends. recites "wherein the mounting plate comprises a backplate and at least one flexible mounting body" in lines 4 and 5. The limitation "at least one flexible mounting body" in claim 1 (lines 4 and 5) is simply directed to one flexible mounting body. It Is not clear as to how the limitation "each flexible mounting body" in claim 10 (lines 1 and 2) makes any logical sense, when there is one flexible mounting body and the term "each" is well understood to be used with a plurality of objects. Moreover, the limitation "the recesses" in claim 10 (line 3) appears to indicate that claim 10 requires a plurality flexible mounting bodies. However, claim 1 merely recites "at least one flexible mounting body" in lines 4 and 5 and claim 10 does not set forth the "at least one flexible mounting body" in claim 1 (lines 4 and 5) comprising a plurality of flexible mounting bodies. Therefore, it is not clear as to how many flexible mounting bodies of the "at least one mounting plate" (see claim 1) claim 10 requires. Secondly, the limitation "the bottom surface" is a singular noun and the term "are" in a plural verb. It is not clear as to how "the bottom surface of each of the recesses are substantially coplanar with each other" (claim 10, lines 1 and 2) as claimed. How can one bottom surface be "substantially coplanar with each other"? Should there be a plurality of bottom surfaces to be capable of being "substantially coplanar with each other"? Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 11, the limitations "[t]he mountable apparatus of claim 1, wherein the cover contains at least one protrusion to snap on the storage device, and wherein the cover includes a retention notch on left and right sides of the cover to engage and hold the wire segment" are recited in claim 11 (lines 1-4). Note that claim 1, from which claim 11 depends, recites "[a] mountable apparatus comprising: a storage device including at least one wire segment; at least one mounting plate onto which at least one of the wire segments is engaged, wherein the mounting plate comprises a backplate and at least one flexible mounting body; and optionally a cover attachable to the storage device, the cover obscuring the at least one flexible mounting body and at least a portion of at least one of the wire segments" in lines 1-8. As previously mentioned with respect to claim 1 above, the recitation of the language "and optionally" in claim 1 (line 6) renders the scope of claim 1 indefinite. It is not clear as to whether or not the "mountable apparatus" in claim 1 (line 1) positively requires "a cover attachable to the storage device, the cover obscuring the at least one flexible mounting body and at least a portion of at least one of the wire segments" (claim 1, lines 6-8) as a required structure within the scope of claim 1. For the purpose of examination, based on the recitation of the language "and optionally" in claim 1 (line 6), "a cover attachable to the storage device, the cover obscuring the at least one flexible mounting body and at least a portion of at least one of the wire segments" in claim 1 (lines 6-8) is considered as an optional structure that is not a required structure within the scope of claim 1. The limitations "[t]he mountable apparatus of claim 1, wherein the cover contains at least one protrusion to snap on the storage device, and wherein the cover includes a retention notch on left and right sides of the cover to engage and hold the wire segment" in claim 11 (lines 1-4) are still directed to the "mountable apparatus" and simply further describe "the cover" optionally required in claim 1. Likewise, the scope of claim 11 is indefinite. It is not clear as to whether or not the "mountable apparatus" in claim 11 (line 1) positively requires "a cover attachable to the storage device, the cover obscuring the at least one flexible mounting body and at least a portion of at least one of the wire segments [claim 1, lines 6-8]… wherein the cover contains at least one protrusion to snap on the storage device, and wherein the cover includes a retention notch on left and right sides of the cover to engage and hold the wire segment [claim 11, lines 1-4]" as a required structure within the scope of claim 11. For the purpose of examination, based on the recitation of the language "and optionally" in claim 1 (line 6), "a cover attachable to the storage device, the cover obscuring the at least one flexible mounting body and at least a portion of at least one of the wire segments [claim 1, lines 6-8]… wherein the cover contains at least one protrusion to snap on the storage device, and wherein the cover includes a retention notch on left and right sides of the cover to engage and hold the wire segment [claim 11, lines 1-4]" is considered as an optional structure that is not a required structure within the scope of claim 11. In other words, the limitations of claim 11 are considered to be fully met by the prior art if the prior art discloses or teaches "[a] mountable apparatus comprising: a storage device including at least one wire segment; at least one mounting plate onto which at least one of the wire segments is engaged, wherein the mounting plate comprises a backplate and at least one flexible mounting body" (claim 1, lines 1-5), since the recited "cover" in claims 1 and 11 is an optional structure. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 11, the limitations "wherein the cover includes a retention notch on left and right sides of the cover to engage and hold the wire segment" in claim 11 (lines 1-4) are indefinite. It is not clear as to how "a retention notch" is "on left and right sides of the cover" as claimed. How is one retention notch on a plurality of sides? Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 11, the limitations "wherein the cover includes a retention notch on left and right sides of the cover to engage and hold the wire segment" in claim 11 (lines 1-4) are indefinite. Note that claim 1, from which claim 11 depends, recites "a storage device including at least one wire segment; at least one mounting plate onto which at least one of the wire segments is engaged" in lines 2 and 3. It is not clear as to how "the wire segment" in claim 11 (line 4) is related to the "at least one wire segment" in claim 1 (line 2) and/or the "at least one of the wire segments" in claim 1 (line 3). For example, does "the wire segment" in claim 11 (line 4) refer to the "at least one wire segment" in claim 1 (line 2) or the "at least one of the wire segments" in claim 1 (line 3)? Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 15, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation "the use" (claim 15, line 2) in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 17, the limitations "wherein the peelable silicone adhesive is disposed on a surface of the foam layer opposite the polymeric film layer" in claim 17 (lines 1 and 2) are indefinite. Note that claim 16, from which claim 17 depends, recites "wherein the backplate comprises a peelable silicone adhesive on a major surface thereof opposing the flexible mounting body" in lines 1-3. Is the peelable silicone adhesive of claim 17 disposed on "a surface of the foam layer opposite the polymeric film layer" as recited in claim 17 (lines 1 and 2) in addition to being disposed on "a major surface thereof opposing the flexible mounting body" as recited in claim 16 (lines 2 and 3). Or is the peelable silicone adhesive of claim 17 disposed on one surface? In other words, it is not clear as to whether the limitation "a major surface thereof opposing the flexible mounting body" in claim 16 (lines 2 and 3) and the limitation "a surface of the foam layer opposite the polymeric film layer" in claim 17 (lines 1 and 2) refer to the same surface or different surfaces. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 18, the limitations "[t]he mountable apparatus of claim 1, wherein the cover has an awning, the awning obscuring the at least one flexible mounting body and at least a portion of each of the wire segments" are recited in claim 18 (lines 1-3). Note that claim 1, from which claim 18 depends, recites "[a] mountable apparatus comprising: a storage device including at least one wire segment; at least one mounting plate onto which at least one of the wire segments is engaged, wherein the mounting plate comprises a backplate and at least one flexible mounting body; and optionally a cover attachable to the storage device, the cover obscuring the at least one flexible mounting body and at least a portion of at least one of the wire segments" in lines 1-8. As previously mentioned with respect to claim 1 above, the recitation of the language "and optionally" in claim 1 (line 6) renders the scope of claim 1 indefinite. It is not clear as to whether or not the "mountable apparatus" in claim 1 (line 1) positively requires "a cover attachable to the storage device, the cover obscuring the at least one flexible mounting body and at least a portion of at least one of the wire segments" (claim 1, lines 6-8) as a required structure within the scope of claim 1. For the purpose of examination, based on the recitation of the language "and optionally" in claim 1 (line 6), "a cover attachable to the storage device, the cover obscuring the at least one flexible mounting body and at least a portion of at least one of the wire segments" in claim 1 (lines 6-8) is considered as an optional structure that is not a required structure within the scope of claim 1. The limitations "[t]he mountable apparatus of claim 1, wherein the cover has an awning, the awning obscuring the at least one flexible mounting body and at least a portion of each of the wire segments" in claim 18 (lines 1-3) are still directed to the "mountable apparatus" and simply further describe "the cover" optionally required in claim 1. Likewise, the scope of claim 18 is indefinite. It is not clear as to whether or not the "mountable apparatus" in claim 18 (line 1) positively requires "a cover attachable to the storage device, the cover obscuring the at least one flexible mounting body and at least a portion of at least one of the wire segments [claim 1, lines 6-8]… wherein the cover has an awning, the awning obscuring the at least one flexible mounting body and at least a portion of each of the wire segments [claim 18, lines 1-3]" as a required structure within the scope of claim 18. For the purpose of examination, based on the recitation of the language "and optionally" in claim 1 (line 6), "a cover attachable to the storage device, the cover obscuring the at least one flexible mounting body and at least a portion of at least one of the wire segments [claim 1, lines 6-8]… wherein the cover has an awning, the awning obscuring the at least one flexible mounting body and at least a portion of each of the wire segments [claim 18, lines 1-3]" is considered as an optional structure that is not a required structure within the scope of claim 18. In other words, the limitations of claim 18 are considered to be fully met by the prior art if the prior art discloses or teaches "[a] mountable apparatus comprising: a storage device including at least one wire segment; at least one mounting plate onto which at least one of the wire segments is engaged, wherein the mounting plate comprises a backplate and at least one flexible mounting body" (claim 1, lines 1-5), since the recited "cover" in claims 1 and 18 is an optional structure. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 5, 6, 9, 13, 14, and 16 are rejected, at least, as being dependent from 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.
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 9-11, and 18, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chu et al. (US 2013/0168517 A1), hereinafter Chu.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant is reminded that the "cover" is optional as recited. As such, Chu does not need show such optional "cover" to meet all limitations of claim 1. Chu discloses a mountable apparatus (10, 14, 20, fig 7) comprising: a storage device (20, fig 7) including at least one wire segment (22, fig 7); at least one mounting plate (10, fig 7) onto which at least one of the wire segments is engaged (see Figure 7), wherein the mounting plate comprises a backplate (14, fig 7) and at least one flexible mounting body (10, fig 7, also see Figure 2, see paragraph 0027); and optionally a cover attachable to the storage device, the cover obscuring the at least one flexible mounting body and at least a portion of at least one of the wire segments.
Regarding claim 2, wherein the storage device includes at least two substantially parallel wire segments (see Figure 7).
Regarding claim 5, wherein the flexible mounting body is more rigid in a longitudinal direction than a transverse direction (see Figure 7).
Regarding claim 6, wherein the flexible mounting body includes a plurality of discrete body segments (12, fig 7) arranged at a defined pitch (see Figure 7).
Regarding claim 7, wherein the mounting plate includes at least two flexible mounting bodies (10, fig 7) arranged in parallel.
Regarding claim 9, wherein the flexible mounting body includes a recess (13, fig 7) dimensioned to receive a wire segment of the storage device (see Figure 7).
Regarding claim 10, wherein each flexible mounting body includes a recess having a bottom surface (12a, fig 1, see annotation), and wherein the bottom surface of each of the recesses are substantially coplanar with each other (see Figure 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
606
652
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (12a – Bottom Surface)][AltContent: textbox (12a – Bottom Surface)]
Regarding claim 11, wherein the cover contains at least one protrusion to snap on the storage device, and wherein the cover includes a retention notch on left and right sides of the cover to engage and hold the wire segment.
Regarding claim 18, wherein the cover has an awning, the awning obscuring the at least one flexible mounting body and at least a portion of each of the wire segments.
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 13-17, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu et al. (US 2013/0168517 A1), hereinafter Chu, in view of Bries et al. (US 2008/0135159 A1), hereinafter Bries.
Regarding claim 13, Chu does not explicitly disclose the mountable apparatus, wherein the backplate comprises at least one polymeric film layer.
Bries teaches a backplate (42, 50, fig 4) comprising: at least one polymeric film layer (44, fig 4, see paragraph 0061).
Chu and Bries are analogous art because they are at least from the same field of endeavor, i.e., mounts. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the backplate (Chu: 14, fig 7) as a backplate (Bries: 42, 50, fig 4) with at least one polymeric film layer (Bries: 44, fig 4, see paragraph 0061), as taught by Bries, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation would have been to allow the backplate to be removed without any damage to the support surface. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Chu and Bries to obtain the invention as specified in claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, wherein the backplate comprises a foam layer (Bries: 47, fig 4, see paragraph 0061).
Regarding claim 15, wherein the foam layer is adhered directly to the polymeric film layer (Bries: see paragraph 0068) or through the use of a tie layer.
Regarding claim 16, wherein the backplate comprises a peelable silicone adhesive (Bries: 50, fig 4, see paragraph 0071) on a second major surface thereof opposing the flexible mounting body (Bries: see Figure 4; Chu: see Figure 7).
Regarding claim 17, wherein the peelable silicone adhesive is disposed on a surface of the foam layer opposite the polymeric film layer (Bries: see Figure 4; Chu: see Figure 7).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. See the attached PTO-892 for various
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Guang H Guan whose telephone number is (571) 272-7828. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays (10:00 AM - 6:00 PM).
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.
/G. H. G./Examiner, Art Unit 3631
/JONATHAN LIU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Prosecution Insights