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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined in this application
This communication is the first action on the merits
Claims 1-20 are rejected herein
Information Disclosure Statement
As of the date of this action, no information disclosure statement has been filed on behalf of this case.
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 1-20 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.
The recitation of claim 1, it is recited in line 7 “configured to mount bracket main body to a structure by hand" It is unclear as to what structure, i.e. the full scope of the invention as claimed, the Applicant wishes to seek Patent protection for, i.e. the broad in scope sub combination of a “removable bracket” that is intended for use with a “structure” or the more narrow in scope combination of an “a removable bracket with a structure”. The language of the claims is to give the public clear notice as to the full scope of patent protection sought. Do the Applicants seek protection for the “removable” whether “a structure” is present or not. Applicants should either amend the preamble to clearly indicate that the full combination of the “removable bracket” with “a structure” is within the scope for which Patent protection is sought or amend the body of the claim to make clear that the “structure” is purely a functional element and is not within the scope of Patent protection sought.
Since the Applicants appear to be seeking Patent protection for the “removable bracket” alone as indicated by the preamble of “a removable bracket”, for purposes of examination the Examiner has considered the claims to be drawn solely to the broad sub combination of the “removable bracket” and any recitation drawn to some “structure” as being purely functionally recited and not a required structure within the scope of the claims. Claims 4, 5, 8, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17, and 18 contain similar issues.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “with holes" in lines 1-2. It is unclear whether these holes are the same as those in claim 1. This can be modified to “with the holes.”
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the pad" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This can be modified to “a pad.”
Claim 14 appears to be a method claim that depends on an apparatus. The Examiner has considered this to be functional language. This can be modified to “The removable bracket of claim 13, wherein the tabbed ends are configured to be installed into holes of the structure, the bracket main body is configured to be rotated upwards and oriented to allow the tabbed ends to insert into the holes and once the tabbed ends are inserted, the bracket main body is configured to be rotated downward and the pad is configured to contact a lower edge of the structure.”
Dependent claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 12, 16, 19, and 20 are rejected based on their respective dependencies.
Appropriate correction/explanation is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Meyer (US Pat. No. 6565048).
PNG
media_image1.png
794
528
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Meyer teaches a removable bracket, the removable bracket comprising: a bracket main body formed from a single piece of material (102), wherein the bracket main body comprises a first portion (108) and a second portion (114) with a first bend between the first and second portions (bend between 108 and 114), and a third portion (104) with a second bend between the second and third portions (bend between 104 and 114); a mounting clip (80) mechanically coupled to the third portion, wherein the mounting clip is configured to mount the bracket main body to a structure by hand (clip is coupled to structure 60); and a pair of prongs (two prongs 82) extending from the mounting clip, wherein each of the pair of prongs is configured to insert into a respective one of a pair of holes in the structure (capable of/intended use).
Regarding claim 5, Meyer teaches the removable bracket of claim 1, wherein the pair of prongs each include a tabbed end (tabbed ends of 82) which extends from a respective one of the prongs and are each configured to be received by one of the pair of holes in the structure (capable of/intended use).
Regarding claim 8, Meyer teaches the removable bracket of claim 1, that is capable of being used with the structure is a lighting rail with holes.
Regarding claim 9, Meyer teaches the removable bracket of claim 8, wherein when inserted through holes of the lighting rail, the tabbed ends are capable of contacting an inner edge of the lighting rail and the pad is capable of contacting a lower edge of the lighting rail.
Regarding claim 11, Meyer teaches a removable bracket, the removable bracket comprising: a bracket main body (102) configured to support an item when the removable bracket is mounted to a structure (capable of/intended use); a mounting clip (80) attached to the bracket main body (80 attached to 102), wherein the mounting clip comprises: a pair of prongs (82) configured to insert into a pair of holes in the structure for mounting the bracket main body to the structure (capable of/intended use); a pair of tabbed ends (tabbed ends of 82) extending from an end of each of the prongs, wherein the tabbed ends are bent away from the prongs such that when inserted into the holes in the structure, the tabbed ends contact an inner edge of the structure thereby preventing the prongs from sliding out of the holes (capable of/intended use).
Regarding claim 12, Meyer teaches the removable bracket of claim 11, wherein the bracket main body includes a first portion (108) and a second portion (114) with a first bend between the first and second portions (bend between 108 and 114), and a third portion (104) with a second bend between the second and third portions. (bend between 114 and 104)
Regarding claim 15, Meyer teaches the removable bracket of claim 11, wherein each of the tabbed ends include a rounded end configured to slide through the holes of the structure (ends of 82 appear to be rounded, and capable of/intended use).
Regarding claim 17, Meyer teaches the removable bracket of claim 12, wherein when the removable bracket is mounted to the structure, the first bend aligns the first portion substantially horizontally and the second portion is angled upwardly from the first bend to the structure (Capable of/intended use).
Regarding claim 18, the removable bracket of claim 17, wherein when the structure is disposed beneath an interior ceiling panel and the item is a duct, the duct is secured to the first and second portion of the bracket main body such that the duct is wedged against the interior ceiling panel (Capable of/intended use).
Regarding claim 19, Meyer teaches the removable bracket of claim 12, wherein the bracket main body is formed from a single piece of material (102).
Regarding claim 20, the removable bracket of claim 12, wherein the mounting clip (80) is formed from a single piece of material (clip 80 appears to be made from a single piece of material).
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.
Claims 2, 7, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer in view of Hanley (US Pat. No. 20200305629).
Regarding claim 2, Meyer teaches the removable bracket of claim 1. Meyer does not teach that it comprises a mounting hole through the bracket main body wherein the mounting hole is positioned in the second portion. Hanley teaches a mounting hole through the bracket main body wherein the mounting hole is positioned in the second portion (hole 26 in Fig. 2). Meyer and Hanley are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem-solving area e.g. providing a bracket for supporting an object. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to put a hole in the second portion of the bracket. The motivation would have been to allow a securing means to be placed through the hole.
Regarding claim 7, Meyer teaches the removable bracket of claim 1, wherein the first bend has an angle between ninety degrees and one-hundred eighty degrees (angle is a right angle as described in column 2 lines 44-48). Meyer does not teach that the second bend has an angle less than ninety degrees. Hanley teaches that the second bend has an angle less than ninety degrees (as seen in Fig. 3 below). Meyer and Hanley are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem-solving area e.g. providing a bracket for supporting an object. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the second bend less than ninety degrees. The motivation would have been to allow for tolerance between the different parts. In addition, the Examiner notes that it would have been obvious matter of design choice to make the bracket of Meyers have an angle of the second bend less than ninety degrees. A change is angle/shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art see e.g. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) and In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
PNG
media_image2.png
338
448
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 3 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer as modified in view of McMath (US Pat. No. 8616512).
Regarding claim 3, Meyer as modified teaches the removable bracket of claim 2. Meyer as modified does not teach that the mounting hole is configured to receive a band which passes through the second portion and wraps around an underside surface of the first portion. McMath teaches that the mounting hole (hole within 80 on Fig. 5) is capable of receiving a band (78) which pass through the second portion and wraps around an underside surface of the first portion. Meyer and McMath are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem-solving area e.g. providing a bracket for supporting an object. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a band through the mounting hole in the second portion of the bracket. The motivation would have been to secure something with the band to the bracket.
Regarding claim 16, Meyer teaches the removable bracket of claim 12. Meyer does not teach that the second portion include a centered mounting hole configured to allow a banded fastener to pass through the second portion and wrap around the first portion. McMath teaches that the second portion include a centered mounting hole (hole within 80 on Fig. 5) that is capable of allowing a banded fastener to pass through the second portion and wrap around the first portion. Meyer and McMath are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem-solving area e.g. providing a bracket for supporting an object. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to put a hole in the second portion of the bracket. The motivation would have been to allow a securing means to be placed through the hole.
Claims 4, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer in view of Ryan (US Pat. No. 6364263).
Regarding claim 4, Meyer teaches the removable bracket of claim 1. Meyer does not teach the bracket comprising a pad disposed on a rear portion of the mounting clip, wherein the pad is configured to provide cushioning between the mounting clip and the structure. Ryan teaches a pad disposed on a rear portion of the mounting clip, wherein the pad is configured to provide cushioning between the mounting clip and the structure (friction pad 52 or 58 in Fig. 6B). Meyer and Ryan are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem-solving area e.g. providing a bracket for supporting an object. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a pad between the mounting clip and the structure. The motivation would have been to snugly engage the mounting clip to the structure.
Regarding claim 13, Meyer teaches the removal bracket of claim 11. Meyer does not teach the bracket wherein a pad is attached to the mounting clip and provides cushioning when the mounting clip is mounted to the structure. Ryan teaches the bracket wherein a pad is attached to the mounting clip and provides cushioning when the mounting clip is mounted to the structure. (friction pad 52 or 58 in Fig. 6B). Meyer and Ryan are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem-solving area e.g. providing a bracket for supporting an object. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a pad attached to the mounting clip that provides cushioning when the mounting clip is mounted to the structure. The motivation would have been to snugly engage the mounting clip to the structure.
Regarding claim 14, Meyer as modified teaches the removable bracket of claim 13, the tabbed ends capable of being installed into holes of the structure, the bracket main body is capable of being rotated upwards and oriented to allow the tabbed ends to insert into the holes and once the tabbed ends are inserted, the bracket main body is capable of being rotated downward and the pad contacts a lower edge of the structure.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer in view of Stock (U.S. Pat. No. 20020190171).
Regarding claim 6, Meyer teaches the removable bracket of claim 5, wherein the tabbed ends extend from the pair of prongs at a third bend. Meyer does not teach that the third bend has an angle between ninety degrees and one-hundred eighty degrees. Stock teaches that the tabbed end of the prong may have a bend at an angle between ninety and one-hundred eighty degrees (angle shown in Fig. 6 below). Meyer and Stock are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem-solving area e.g. providing a bracket for supporting an object. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the angle of the bend between the tabbed end and the pair of prongs between ninety and one-hundred eighty degrees. The motivation would have been to allow for tolerance between the separate parts so they work as intended.
PNG
media_image3.png
483
490
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer in view of Wilson (US Pat. No. 11881694).
Regarding claim 10, the removal bracket of claim 1 is taught by Meyer. Meyer does not teach that a clip is adhered to the first portion and is configured for hanging an item beneath the removable bracket. Wilson teaches a clip is adhered to the first portion and is capable of hanging an item beneath the removable bracket (Securing member 118 Fig. 1). Meyer and Wilson are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem-solving area e.g. providing a bracket for supporting an object. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to put a clip on the first portion that is configured for hanging an item beneath the removable bracket. The motivation would have been to secure an item to the bracket.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM DONALD JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571) 272-9214. The examiner can normally be reached M, T, Th, F between 7:30 AM and 5:30 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 5712728227. 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.
/W.D.J./Examiner, Art Unit 3631
/Muhammad Ijaz/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Prosecution Insights