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 .
This correspondence is in response to applicant’s reply filed on 08/28/2026. Claims 11-12, 14-16, and 19-30 are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claim(s) 11-12, 19-21, 24-25 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fieger (U.S. Pub. 20210247111) in view of Kirschner (U.S. Pat. 6702236).
Regarding claims 11 and 24, Fieger teaches a mounting plate for an expansion valve in a refrigerant circuit, comprising a body 15 with a flat portion (as seen in Figs. 1-2), the body 15 has a substantially rectangular design (as seen in Fig. 2), and a first short side, a second short side, a first long side, and a second long side (see Fig. 2 below), where the body 15 has edges, where a first U-shaped cutout 18 and a second U-shaped cutout 19 are formed in the body 15, through which connecting tubes 11,12 pass, where the connecting tubes 11,12 are vaporizer connecting tubes. However, Fieger fails to teach where at least part of the edges of the body 15 are raised in order to reinforce the body 15. Kirschner teaches a bracket 10 comprising a flat body 12, having a raised edge 34 around the pipe receiver, and a raised edge 18 along the long side of the body 15.
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 and U-shaped cutouts of Fieger’s bracket to have raised edges, in order to advantageously increases the rigidity of the bracket, as taught to be desirable by Kirschner (see discussion in col. 3, lines 24-28).
With regards to claims 11 and 24, Fieger fails to explicitly disclose the dimensions of his mounting plate. 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 size and dimensions of Fieger’s mounting plate, because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense (see MPEP 2141, III. (E)).
Regarding claims 12 and 25, Kirschner teaches the mounting plate, where the raised edges 18,34 of the body 12 are oriented at an angle between 80 degrees and 100 degrees with respect to a plane through the flat portion of the body 12 (as seen in Figs. 1-2 of Kirschner).
Regarding claim 19, Kirschner teaches the mounting plate, where the raised edges 18,34 of the short side and the long side are on the same side of the body 15 (of Fieger).
Regarding claim 20, Kirschner teaches the mounting plate, where the body 12 is made of metal (as discussed in col. 2, lines 8-9), but fails to explicitly teach where the raised edges 18,34 are formed in a shaping process, that includes one of deep drawing or molding. The Examiner notes that The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, section 2113, states that, “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.”
Regarding claim 21, Kirschner teaches the mounting plate, where the raised edges 18,34 of the body 15 are oriented at substantially 90 degrees to the plane through the flat body 15.
Regarding claim 30, Fieger and Kirschner teach the mounting plate, where a raised edge of a U-shaped cutout 18,19 is connected to a raised edge 18,34 of one of the long sides.
PNG
media_image1.png
387
615
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 14-16, 22-23, and 27-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fieger and Kirschner as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Mazur (U.S. Pat. 5312080).
Regarding claims 14 and 27, Fieger and Kirschner are discussed above, and teach the mounting plate. However, Fieger and Kirschner fail to teach where the mounting plate further comprises at least one hole in the body, where an edge of the at least one hole which is raised. Mazur teaches a bracket 64 made of a mounting plate that has at least one hole in the body, where an edge of the at least one hole which is raised.
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 body of Fieger and Kirschner to have raised threaded holes, in order to provide a means for securing fasteners (i.e. screws), as is well known in the art.
Regarding claims 15 and 28, Mazur teaches the mounting plate, where the at least one hole is threaded (as seen in Fig. 11 below).
Regarding claims 16 and 29, Mazur teaches the mounting plate, where the two U- shaped cutouts 18,19 are spaced apart, and the at least one hole is capable of being disposed in the middle of the flat portion of the body 15, between the two U-shaped cutouts 18,19.
Regarding claim 22, Mazur teaches the mounting plate, where the at least one hole in the body 64 is two holes in the body 64, where an edge of both of the two holes are raised (as seen in Fig. 11 below.
Regarding claim 23, Mazur teaches the mounting plate, where both of the two holes in the body 64 are threaded.
PNG
media_image2.png
455
656
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 11-30 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. In addition to the reference to Fieger, Kirschner, and Mazur et al., the Examiner submits the Notice of References Cited (PTO-892). The cited references disclose mounting devices comprising brackets for securing conduit.
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 23-Sep-26
/TERRELL L MCKINNON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3632
