DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-16 are pending for consideration following applicant’s amendment filed 3/19/2026.
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 .
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, and 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al. (US Patent 9,022,326) in view of Lee (US Patent 9,656,622).
Regarding Claim 1, Brown discloses an outlet box assembly (it is noted that the term “outlet box assembly” is merely the name given to the claimed device, as the body of the claim only describes the outlet box with respect to an intended use of the base) comprising: a base 44 having a bracket support 56 configured to receive a support bracket 12 (col. 6, lines 28-32) for mounting the outlet box assembly to a wall (via fastener holes 16), the base 44 having a first circumferential wall (wall defining circular hole 68) defining a base through-hole 68, and a second circumferential wall radially surrounding the first circumferential wall (as best shown in Figure 8a, the boss or protrusion extending from plate 70 which defines the through-hole 68 includes a first circumferential wall defining the through-hole 68 and a second circumferential wall radially surrounding the first circumferential wall, the second circumferential wall delimiting the thickness of the boss or protrusion extending from plate 70).
Brown further discloses the base through-hole 68 configured to receive a portion of one of a tubing or a fitting (col. 9, lines 33-36), however Brown does not disclose an elastomeric insert configured to be at least partially positioned within the base through-hole, the elastomeric insert defining an insert through-hole, the insert through-hole including a plurality of longitudinally-extending ribs that extend along a length of the insert through-hole; wherein the insert through-hole is sized to receive a portion of one of a tubing or a fitting to secure the one of the tubing or the fitting to the base; and wherein the elastomeric insert is configured to absorb vibrations and provide acoustic isolation to and from the one of the tubing or the fitting.
Lee teaches a device for supporting a pipe 160 and further teaches an elastomeric insert 140 (rubber member 140) configured to be at least partially positioned within a base through-hole (through-hole extending through base 115), the elastomeric insert 140 defining an insert through-hole (through-hole extending through the center of 140 as shown in Figure 4), the insert through-hole including a plurality of longitudinally-extending ribs 145 that extend along a length of the insert through-hole (as shown in Figures 2 and 3); wherein the insert through-hole is sized to receive a portion of one of a tubing or a fitting (in the manner in which it receives pipe 160) to secure the one of the tubing or the fitting to the base 115 (as shown in Figure 3); and wherein the elastomeric insert 140 is configured to absorb vibrations and provide acoustic isolation to and from the one of the tubing or the fitting (col. 5, lines 12-18; 140 is configured to absorb vibrations and provide acoustic isolation via the ribs 145 in the same manner as achieved by applicant’s ribs).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the device of Brown such that the base through-hole includes an elastomeric insert having a plurality of longitudinal ribs as taught by Lee for the purpose of utilizing an alternative pipe positioning structure (the rubber insert) which is formed from a single component rather than a multi-component structure as disclosed by Brown (including the first and second connector parts 80a and 80b) to thereby reduce the number of components in the assembly.
Regarding Claim 2, Brown in view of Lee further discloses a retainer (143 as taught by Lee; the radially extending rim 143 is seen to define a retainer as it retains the insert in the base) configured to attach to the base (in the manner taught by Lee, 143 abuts a surface of the base) along an end of the elastomeric insert 140 (as shown by Lee in Figure 3), wherein a retainer through-hole is aligned with the base through-hole (the rim 143 includes a central through-hole in alignment with the insert through-hole and the base through-hole).
Regarding Claim 3, Brown in view of Lee further discloses the fitting is configured to be inserted into and through the elastomeric insert (in the manner taught by Lee as shown in Figure 3; it is noted that the fitting is recited as part of the intended use of the claimed assembly rather than as part of the claimed assembly) and indirectly secured to the base through the elastomeric insert (in the manner taught by Lee in Figure 3).
Regarding Claim 5, Brown in view of Lee further discloses a portion of the fitting positioned within the elastomeric insert has a constant outer diameter (in the manner taught by Lee in Figure 3; it is noted that although the fitting is recited as part of the intended use of the claimed assembly rather than as part of the claimed assembly, Lee teaches the recited features of the fitting as the pipe or fitting 160 has a constant outer diameter at the location within the insert 140).
Regarding Claim 7, Brown further discloses the bracket support 56 defines an L-shaped cross-section (an L-shaped cross-section is formed by portions 60 and 58 as best shown in Figure 3e) that corresponds with an L-shaped cross-section of the support bracket 12 (L-shaped cross-section of the support bracket 12 formed by portions 24a and 30a as shown in Figure 5b).
Regarding Claim 8, Brown in view of Lee further discloses a retainer (143 as taught by Lee; the radially extending rim 143 is seen to define a retainer as it retains the insert in the base) configured to be attached to the base (in the manner taught by Lee, 143 abuts a surface of the base), wherein when attached, the retainer 143 is positioned at last partially outside of the base through-hole (in the manner taught by Lee, the retainer 143 extends such that it is at least partially positioned outside of the through-hole defined within 115).
Regarding Claim 9, Brown in view of Lee further discloses, wherein, when attached to the base, the retainer (143 as taught by Lee as described above) secures the elastomeric insert 140 to the base to prevent axial movement of the elastomeric insert relative to the base (in the manner taught by Lee in which the retainer prevents axial movement of 140 relative to 115).
Regarding Claim 10, Brown in view of Lee further discloses the retainer (143 as taught by Lee as described above) defines a retainer through-hole (hole through the center of the retainer) that aligns with the base through-hole (in the manner taught by Lee, the hole through the retainer aligns with the hole through 115) such that the fitting extends through both the retainer through-hole and the base through-hole (as shown in Figure 3 of Lee).
Regarding Claim 12, Brown further discloses a support structure 42 having a longitudinally extending leg 48 between the base 44 and the wall (leg 48 extends through the base 44 as best shown in Figure 6b; it is noted that the “wall” is not recited as part of the claimed assembly and the device of Brown is capable of being assembled to a wall arranged such that the leg 48 extends between 44 and the wall).
Regarding Claim 13, Brown further discloses the support structure 42 has a substantially T-shaped cross-section (structure 42 is seen to have a T-shaped structure via the center plate 46 and the perpendicular leg 48 extending therefrom).
Regarding Claim 14, Brown further discloses the support structure 42 defines at least one built-in notch (leg portion 48 includes threads 50, the threads 50 inherently include a notch between adjacent threads) along a length of the support structure (along the length of portion 48) that defines a fragile area (it is noted that a “fragile area” is a broad term which has not been given a special definition in applicant’s specification as filed and the threaded portion 50 of Brown is seen to be readable as a “fragile area” because it is capable of being damaged by an external force).
Regarding Claim 15, Brown is seen as further disclosing the support structure 42 has a flat base 46 that includes an acoustic liner 55 (the term “acoustic liner” does not require any particular shape or form as this term has not been given a special definition in applicant’s specification as filed; therefore, the gusset 55 extending from the flat base 46 is seen to be readable as an acoustic liner because it lines a portion of the flat base and is capable of absorbing at least some vibrations, including acoustic vibrations) to absorb vibrations between the outlet box assembly and the wall (as described above, the gusset 55 is seen to be at least capable of absorbing vibrations between the assembly and the wall).
Regarding Claim 16, Brown further discloses the base 44 comprises at least one support receptacle 62 configured to receive a first end of the support structure 42 (62 receives an end of portion 48 of the support structure 42).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al. (US Patent 9,022,326) in view of Lee (US Patent 9,656,622) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Beele (US Patent 9,528,636).
Regarding Claim 11, Brown in view of Lee does not disclose the retainer defines two slots respectively positioned on opposite sides of the retainer through-hole to attach the retainer to the base.
Beele teaches a device for supporting a pipe 2 and further teaches a through-hole of a base 3 includes an elastomeric insert 4 configured to be at least partially positioned within the base through-hole (as shown in Figures 1 and 8 especially); further including a retainer 37 (as shown in Figure 8) defines two slots respectively positioned on opposite sides of the retainer through-hole (respective slots for bolts as shown in Figure 8) to attach the retainer to the base 3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the device of Brown in view of Lee such that the retainer is separately formed from the insert and includes two slots on opposite sides of the retainer through-hole as taught by Beele for the purpose of allowing a user to separate the retainer from the insert to thereby allow for replacement of the retainer in the event that it becomes damaged.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, applicant argues that there is no motivation to combine Brown with the teachings of Lee. Applicant argues that Lee is directed to fixing a pipe of a vehicle and preventing vibration in vehicles and further argues that there is no teaching or suggestion in Brown for the need to reduce the number of parts as suggested in the Office action. These arguments are not persuasive because both Brown and Lee are directed support brackets for pipes and therefore are considered analogous art to each other as well as applicant’s arrangement for supporting a pipe. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a modification to reduce the number of components in an assembly will assist in reducing the potential for misplacing a component during assembly.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Conclusion
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 KEVIN MURPHY whose telephone number is (571)270-5243. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am-4pm.
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, Craig Schneider can be reached on (571) 272-3607. 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.
/KEVIN F MURPHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753