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 .
The following correspondence is a non-final Office Action for application # 18887739, entitled: Corner Mounting Bracket Device, filed on 09/17/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
Claim 16 is 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 16 recites the limitation "the first locking mechanism" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For Examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted as best understood by the Examiner.
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) 1-2, 6, 11-12, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Perez et al. (U.S. Pat. 6015123).
Regarding claim 1, Perez discloses a corner mounting bracket device comprising: a body 10 comprised of: a front wall (as shown in Fig. 1 below) comprised of a mounting bracket 200, the mounting bracket 200 comprised of an opening 208; and a rear wall (as seen in Fig. 1 below) comprised of a channel (see 16d,16e), the channel 16d,16e comprised of a fastener 30.
Regarding claim 2, Perez discloses the corner mounting bracket device, where the channel 16d,16e is comprised of a right-angled channel (as seen in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Perez discloses a corner mounting bracket device comprising: a body 10 comprised of: a front wall (as shown in Fig. 1 below) comprised of a mounting bracket 200 removably attached to the front wall (see Fig. 1), the mounting bracket 200 comprised of an opening 208; and a rear wall (as seen in Fig. 1 below) comprised of a channel (see 16d,16e), the channel 16d,16e comprised of a fastener 30.
Regarding claim 11, Perez discloses the corner mounting bracket device, where the mounting bracket 200 attaches to the front wall via a repositionable pivot point 12.
Regarding claim 12, Perez discloses the corner mounting bracket device, where the pivot point 12 is comprised of a ball and socket joint or a hinge. The Examiner notes that the pivot point 12 comprises a hinge, as seen in Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 15, Perez discloses the corner mounting bracket device, where the mounting bracket 200 attaches to the front wall via a second locking mechanism (see connection between 12 & 202).
PNG
media_image1.png
761
664
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3, and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perez in view of Debelius (U.S. Pat. 3482910).
Regarding claims 3 and 7, Perez is discussed above, and teaches the corner mounting bracket comprising a fastener 30. However, Perez fails to teach where the fastener is comprised of a magnet, or where the channel is comprised of a pad. Debelius teaches a corner bracket 26, comprising a front wall 27,28. Debelius’ corner bracket further comprises a pad comprised of a magnetic material 31.
Regarding claim 8, Debelius teaches the corner mounting bracket device, where the pad 31 is comprised of a rubberized pad, a silicone grommet, a silicone pad, or a neoprene pad (as discussed in col. 3, lines 29-34).
Regarding claim 9, Debelius teaches the corner mounting bracket device, where the mounting bracket is comprised of a dampening structure. The Examiner notes that the rubber magnet material taught by Debelius is capable of being a damper.
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 bracket of Perez to have a magnetic fastener that comprises a dampening pad, in order to provide a support arrangement connectable to at least two magnetic material walls of an object which extend at an angle to each other to support an article in a convenient position on the object without the need for modification of the object, as taught to be desirable by Debelius (see discussion in col. 2, lines 9-14).
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perez in view of Gallien (U.S. Pub. 20080224004).
Regarding claim 4, Perez is discussed above, and teaches the corner mounting bracket. However, Perez fails to teach where the body 10 comprises a level. Gallien teaches a corner bracket 25, having a body that comprises a level 105.
Regarding claim 5, Gallien teaches the corner mounting bracket device, where the level 105 is comprised of a bubble level or a digital level (as discussed in para. [0031], lines 7-9).
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 body of Perez’ corner mounting bracket to have a bubble level, in order to allow the proper orientation of the bracket to be determined when the bracket is mounted to the corner, as taught to be desirable by Gallien (see discussion in para. [0031], lines 3-7).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perez in view of Debelius as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Matsumoto (U.S. Pat. 4976385).
Regarding claim 10, Perez and Debelius are discussed above, and teach the corner mounting bracket, having a dampening structure. However, Perez and Debelius fail to teach where the dampening structure is a hydraulic damper or spring. Matsumoto teaches a corner bracket, comprising a magnet 24, and a dampening structure 6, comprising a spring.
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 corner bracket of Perez and Debelius to have a spring dampening structure, in order to allow for elastic deforming when struck by a user, thereby ensuring safety, as taught to be desirable by Matsumoto (see discussion in col. 4, lines 50-52).
Claim(s) 13-14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perez in view of Dittmer (U.S. Pat. 7175152).
Regarding claim 13, Perez is discussed above, and teaches the corner mounting bracket having a pivot point 12. However, Perez fails to teach where the pivot point is comprised of a first locking mechanism. Dittmer teaches a mounting bracket comprising a pivot point 68, which further connects to a locking mechanism 30.
Regarding claims 14 and 16, Dittmer teaches the corner mounting bracket device, where the first locking mechanism 30 is comprised of a button locking mechanism or a lever locking mechanism. The Examiner notes that Dittmer’s locking mechanism is a lever locking mechanism, as seen in Fig. 2.
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 pivot point of Perez’ corner mounting bracket to have a locking mechanism, in order to secure the mounting bracket to the body, as taught to be desirable by Dittmer (see discussion in col. 2, lines 45-47).
Claim(s) 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perez in view of Debelius.
Concerning method claims 17-20, in view of the structure disclosed by Perez and Debelius above, the method of operating the device would have been obvious, since Perez and Debelius’ corner mounting bracket device provides the same structure as the device described in the specification. The Examiner submits that it can be assumed that the device of Perez and Debelius is capable of performing the claimed process.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In addition to the reference to Perez et al., Debelius, Gallien, Matsumoto, and Dittmer above, the Examiner submits the Notice of References Cited (PTO-892). The Examiner notes that the prior art cited discloses other mounting devices, including corner mounting brackets.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL D MCDUFFIE whose telephone number is (571)272-3832. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8AM-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, 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.
/Michael McDuffie/Examiner, Art Unit 3632 13-Dec-25
/TERRELL L MCKINNON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3632