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 .
Amendment filed 7/16/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the present application.
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 8 and 13-17 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.
Re. Cls. 8 and 16, the limitations “at least 8 kilograms” and “at least 1.5 mm” render the claims indefinite since they are open ended ranges without an effective upper bound. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be reasonable ascertained, rendering the claim indefinite in the Examiner’s position.
Re. Cl. 13, the limitation “a high friction material…positioned coplanar with each one of the plurality of magnets, the plurality of magnets exerting an attractive force across a gap defined by the protrusion of the high friction material” renders the claim indefinite in the Examiner’s position. It is unclear how the high friction material and the magnet can be both coplanar and have a gap defined by a protrusion of the high friction material. In other words, if there is a gap created by the high friction material protruding relative to the magnet, how could they be considered coplanar or existing on the same plane. It appears that the limitation contradicts itself rendering the limitation indefinite in the Examiner’s position. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret the limitation to refer to coaxial since the center axis of the high friction material and magnets are located as such in the Applicant’s invention as seen in Fig. 2 for instance.
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, 5-6, 11, 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Olson US 3186673 (hereinafter Olson).
Re. Cl. 1, Olson discloses: An adjustable magnetic mount (Fig. 9) comprising: a body (20, Fig. 9) having a back surface (22, Fig. 10) and a front surface (23, Fig. 10); and at least one magnet (32, 33, 34, 35, Fig. 9) coupled to the back surface (see Fig. 9-11); the at least one magnet recessed from a reference plane (see top surface of 42, Fig. 11) defined by a high friction material (42, Fig. 11) surrounding the at least one magnet (see Fig. 11, the top surface of 32 is shown below the top surface of 42 Fig. 11, thus being recessed as claimed); wherein the high friction material protrude beyond the magnet to allow the magnet to exert an attractive force on a mounting surface across a gap defined by the protrusion of the high friction material relative to the magnet (see Fig. 11, Col. 4, Lines 13-16 and Lines 18-22; as discussed the upper surface of the housing 37 extends above the upper surface of the magnet 38 and the O-ring 42 extends above the upper surface of the housing 37, so therefore there is a gap between the O-ring and the magnet as claimed).
Re. Cl. 5, Olson discloses: wherein the high friction material circumferentially surrounds the at least one magnet (see Fig. 9).
Re. Cl. 6, Olson discloses: a placeholder on the body to receive the high friction material and the at least one magnet (see Fig. 9 and 11, 41); the placeholder retaining the high friction material without the at least one magnet (see Fig. 11, the placeholder 41 retains the high friction material 42 without any aid from the magnet 32 since the magnet does not interact directly with the O-ring).
Re. Cl. 11, Olson discloses: the high friction material is selected based on a coefficient of friction (see Fig. 9-11 and rubber as disclosed in Col. 4, Lines 19-24 to inhibit sliding on the tray, thus rubber having an appropriate coefficient of friction), the coefficient of friction to reduce sliding of the adjustable magnetic mount along a mounting surface (Col. 4, Lines 19-22).
Re. Cl. 13, Olson discloses: A magnetic mount (Fig. 9) for attachment to a ferromagnetic surface (see Fig. 9-11, the device is capable of being used in the claimed intended use; Col. 1, Lines 45-48), comprising: a plurality of magnets (32, 33, 34, 35, Fig. 9) coupled to a body (20, Fig. 9) of the magnetic mount (see Fig. 9), the plurality of magnets oriented towards the ferromagnetic surface (see Fig. 1, the device is capable of being used in the claimed intended use in the same manner as having magnets face tray 2); and a high friction material (42, Fig. 11) coupled to the body and positioned coplanar with each one of the plurality of magnets (see Fig. 9-11), the plurality of magnets exerting an attractive force across a gap defined by a protrusion of the high friction material (see Fig. 11, Col. 4, Lines 13-16 and Lines 18-22; as discussed the upper surface of the housing 37 extends above the upper surface of the magnet 38 and the O-ring 42 extends above the upper surface of the housing 37, so therefore there is a gap between the O-ring and the magnet as claimed).
Re. Cl. 17, Olson discloses: the body is a work surface for supporting a load of up to 22.6 kilograms for a ferromagnetic surface with a thickness of 1 millimeter to 3 millimeters (see Fig. 9, body 20 is a work surface which supports a load of the tray; the Examiner notes that the body is capable of being used in the claimed intended use with a very light magnetic tray having a thickness in the claimed range).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 2 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olson in view of Malyshev US 2023/0232971 (hereinafter Malyshev).
Re. Cls. 2 and 15, Olson discloses that the high friction material is a pad which is positioned circumferentially with respect to each one of the plurality of magnets (see Fig. 9-11, 42 is an O-ring which surrounds the magnets) but does not disclose that the high friction material is a silicon. Malyshev discloses a magnetic mount (Fig. 11) which includes magnets (202, 204, 206) that have a high friction material used in the form of a silicone pad (Paragraph 0033).
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 Olson material to be silicone rather than rubber as disclosed by Malyshev with reasonable expectation of success since it has been held obvious to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Please note that in the instant application, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Claims 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olson in view of Puchini US 2022/0048442 (hereinafter Puchini).
Re. Cls. 3 and 7, Olson discloses the at least one magnet includes a plurality of magnets (32, 33, 34, 35 Fig. 9) coupled to the back surface to support a weight capacity of the adjustable magnetic mount (see Fig. 9-11); the at least one magnet is a plurality of magnets to accommodate a mounting surface with a steel thickness of more than 2 millimeters (see Fig. 9-11 and Fig. 1, the device is capable of being used in the claimed intended use with a steel tray having the claimed thickness). Re. Cls. 3 and 7, Olson does not explicitly disclose the magnets being selectively removable (Cl. 3), the plurality of magnets being selectively removable (Cl. 7). Puchini discloses a magnetic mount (Fig. 2) which includes a body (102) securing a plurality of magnets (114) within placeholders (106). Re. Cls. 3 and 7, Puchini discloses the magnets being selectively removable (see Fig. 8, using 116 and 118).
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 Olson magnets to be removable as disclosed by Puchini with reasonable expectation of success since such a modification would enable the user to replace worn or otherwise compromised magnets. Further, it would have been obvious to replace the securing means of Olson with the securing means of Puchini since it has been held obvious to replace one known means with another to achieve a predictable result. KSR Int’l Co. V. Teleflex Inc. 550 U.S. ___, 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007) (KSR)
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olson in view of Hatamian US 2017/0354275 (hereinafter Hatamian).
Re. Cls. 8 and 16, Olson discloses when the at least one magnet includes a plurality of magnets coupled to the back surface of the adjustable magnet (see Fig. 9). Re. Cls. 8 and 16, Olson does not explicitly disclose the adjustable magnetic mount has a weight capacity of at least 8 kilograms (Cl. 8) or a weight capacity of the magnetic mount is at least 8 kg for a ferromagnetic surface thickness of at least 1.5 millimeters (Cl. 16). Hatamian discloses a magnetic mount (Fig. 1) which includes a plurality of magnets (103, Fig. 1) secured within a holder (104, Fig. 1) which can be modified to vary the holding capacity of the mount (see Paragraph 0042).
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 Olson device to have its weight capacity to be variable as disclosed by Hatamian with reasonable expectation of success since Hatamian states that such a modification enable for supporting objects having various sizes/weights (Paragraph 0042).
Re. the limitation “at least 8 kg for a ferromagnetic surface thickness of at least 1.5 mm,” as discussed above Hatamian discloses that the number of magnets used is a result effective variable since changing the number, size and attributes of magnets enables for supporting various different sized loads (Paragraph 0042). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of combined Olson in view of Hatamian device to make its holding capacity at least 8kg as claimed as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olson in view of Broadbelt US 10304429 (hereinafter Broadbelt).
Re. Cls. 4 and 14, Olson disclose the high friction material protrudes beyond the magnet (see Fig. 11); a protrusion distance of the high friction material from each of the plurality of magnets (see Fig. 11) but does not specify that the value is up to/no greater than 0.8 millimeters. Broadbelt discloses a magnetic mount (Fig. 6a) which uses magnets (408) and a high friction material (407), wherein the high friction material protrudes beyond the magnets to create a gap (air gap 704) between the magnets and the mounted surface. Re. Cls. 4 and 14, Broadbelt discloses that this gap has a value of up to/not greater than 0.8mm (Col. 7, Lines 21-25, 1/32’’ converts to 0.79375 millimeters, thus being within the claimed range).
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 Olson device such that its gap is measured as less than 0.8mm as disclosed by Broadbelt with reasonable expectation of success since Broadbelt states that such a value is desirable in preventing/minimizing/reducing any potential damage to the magnets and clanking by slowing the velocity of the attachment (Col. 8, Lines 17-20).
Claims 1 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko US 8757568 (hereinafter Ko) in view of Buck US 5411231 (hereinafter Buck)
Re. Cl. 1, Ko discloses: An adjustable mount (Fig. 8) comprising: a body (32, Fig. 8) having a back surface (see Fig. 8, surface engaging 2) and a front surface (see Fig. 8, surface which 324 is on).
Re. Cl. 9, Ko discloses: the front surface includes a display mounting interface (324, Fig. 8)to receive a monitor with a VESA hole pattern (see Fig. 8, the device is capable of receiving a monitor with a VESA hole pattern in the same manner as 3).
Re. Cl. 10, Ko discloses: the display mounting interface includes a slot (see Fig. 8, created by 324 and 324b) with a channel opening (324a, Fig. 8) configured to receive a VESA mounting plate (see Fig. 8, 324a is configured to receive a VESA mounting plate in the same manner as it receive mounting plate 14).
Re. Cl. 1, Ko does not disclose and at least one magnet coupled to the back surface; the at least one magnet recessed from a reference plane defined by a high friction material surrounding the at least one magnet; wherein the high friction material protrude beyond the magnet to allow the magnet to exert an attractive force on a mounting surface across a gap defined by the protrusion of the high friction material relative to the magnet. Buck discloses a magnetic hanging mount (Fig. 1) which includes a body (10) having a front (where 20 attaches, Fig. 1) and back surface (see Fig. 3, which engages with 14), at least one magnet (30, Fig. 2-3) coupled to the back surface (see Fig. 2-3); the at least one magnet recessed from a reference plane defined by a high friction material (52, Fig. 3) surrounding the at least one magnet (see Fig. 3, the material 52 is located on top and bottom of 30, thus at least partially surrounding 30); wherein the high friction material protrude beyond the magnet to allow the magnet to exert an attractive force on a mounting surface across a gap defined by the protrusion of the high friction material relative to the magnet (see Fig. 3, magnet 30 applies the attractive force over gap 44 defined by how 52 protrudes further than 30).
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 Ko to include the magnetic/high friction attachment of Buck with reasonable expectation of success since Buck states that such a modification enables for attachment to a steel door or any magnetic object without causing any physical penetration into the surface of the object that might otherwise create damage to the surface (Col. 1, Lines 54-59). Such a modification would be useful in supporting the monitor on steel doors which is commonly found in industrial, commercial and domestic applications (Abstract, Lines 4-7).
Claims 1, 12 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunley US 4907769 (hereinafter Hunley) in view of Olson.
Re. Cl. 1, Hunley discloses: An adjustable magnetic mount (Fig. 1) comprising: a body (12, Fig. 1) having a back surface (bottom of 12, Fig. 1) and a front surface (see Fig. 4, where 44 protrudes); and at least one magnet (18, 22, 26, Fig. 1) coupled to the back surface (see Fig. 1);.
Re. Cl. 12, Hunley discloses: the body is a first section of the adjustable magnetic mount (see Fig. 1), a second section (40, Fig. 1) coupled to the first section via at least one hinge (46, Fig. 3), the second section provided a work surface to support a load (see Fig. 1, flashlight using 36).
Re. Cl. 18, Hunley discloses: A method (Fig. 1), comprising; selecting a number of magnets (see 18, 26 and 22, Fig. 1) to install on a body (12, Fig. 1) of a magnetic mount based on a thickness of a ferromagnetic surface (Col. 3, Lines 13-15), the body including a placeholder (20, 24, 28, Fig. 1) configured to receive at least one of the number of magnets (see Fig. 1); attaching the magnetic mount to the ferromagnetic surface (Col. 3, Lines 13-15, to an iron surface) at least one of the number of magnets to exert an attractive force on the ferromagnetic surface (Col. 3, Lines 13-15).
Re. Cl. 1 and 18-19, Hunley does not disclose the at least one magnet recessed from a reference plane defined by a high friction material surrounding the at least one magnet; wherein the high friction material protrude beyond the magnet to allow the magnet to exert an attractive force on a mounting surface across a gap defined by the protrusion of the high friction material relative to the magnet (Cl. 1), such that a high friction material coupled to the body contacts the ferromagnetic surface; the magnets exert an attractive force across a gap defined by a protrusion distance of the high friction material relative to the at least one of the number of magnets (Cl. 18) or the high friction material is positioned circumferentially relative to at least one of the number of magnets (Cl. 19). Olson discloses an adjustable magnetic mount (Fig. 9) comprising: a body (20, Fig. 9) having a back surface (22, Fig. 10) and a front surface (23, Fig. 10); and at least one magnet (32, 33, 34, 35, Fig. 9) coupled to the back surface (see Fig. 9-11); the at least one magnet recessed from a reference plane (see top surface of 42, Fig. 11) defined by a high friction material (42, Fig. 11) surrounding the at least one magnet (see Fig. 11, the top surface of 32 is shown below the top surface of 42 Fig. 11, thus being recessed as claimed); wherein the high friction material protrude beyond the magnet to allow the magnet to exert an attractive force on a mounting surface across a gap defined by the protrusion of the high friction material relative to the magnet (see Fig. 11, Col. 4, Lines 13-16 and Lines 18-22; as discussed the upper surface of the housing 37 extends above the upper surface of the magnet 38 and the O-ring 42 extends above the upper surface of the housing 37, so therefore there is a gap between the O-ring and the magnet as claimed). Re. Cl. 19, Olson discloses the high friction material is positioned circumferentially relative to at least one of the number of magnets (see Fig. 9-11)
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 Hunley device to have its magnetic mount include the high friction material as disclosed by Olson with reasonable expectation of success since Olson states that such a modification inhibits slippage of the device when its magnetically attached (Col. 4, Lines 19-24).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunley in view of Olson as applied to claims 1, 12 and 18-19 above, and further in view of Broadbelt.
Re. Cl. 20, the combination of Hunley in view of Olson does not disclose the high friction material is modified to adjust a coefficient of friction based on material properties of the ferromagnetic surface. Broadbelt discloses a magnetic mount (Figs. 3-8c) which includes magnets (408, 808) and various forms of high friction materials (406, 806). Re. Cl. 20, Broadbelt discloses disclose the high friction material is modified (compare the structure of 406 to 806, Figs. 6a and 8a and the different materials disclosed in Col. 4, Lines 54-59) to adjust a coefficient of friction based on material properties of the ferromagnetic surface (as discussed in Col. 4, Lines 54-59, neoprene and polychloroprene are preferred materials and it is the Examiner’s position that these materials would have different coefficients of friction that would perform differently on the attached surface).
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 structure and/or material of the Olson O-ring as disclosed by Broadbelt with reasonable expectation of success since Broadbelt states that such materials and structures are materials which would prevent/reduce any lateral slippage of the mount relative to the device secured (Col. 4, Lines 54-59). Further, it is the Examiner's position that based on the disclosure of Broadbelt discussed above, one of ordinary skill would recognize it obvious to modify the material used in the high friction material for different coefficients of friction to accommodate different supporting surfaces as necessary for use.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Re. Applicant’s argument that Olson does not disclose the claimed high friction material protruding beyond the magnet as required by amended claim 1, the Examiner disagrees. As set forth above, Olson discloses such a configuration in Fig. 11 and supports such a conclusion in Col. 4, Lines 13-16 and Lines 18-22. By indicating that the upper surface of the housing 37 extends above the upper surface of the magnet 38 and the O-ring 42 extends above the upper surface of the housing 37 there would necessarily be a gap between the O-ring and the magnet as claimed. Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that Olson does disclose the elements of claim 1 and Applicant’s argument is considered but is not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 and other references besides the Olson reference, these arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure. Carnevali US 2004/0232291, Christie US 2016/224632, and Hatamian US 2017/0354275 disclose other known magnetic mounts which are presented to the Applicant for their consideration.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER E GARFT whose telephone number is (571)270-1171. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m..
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.
/CHRISTOPHER GARFT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632
Prosecution Insights