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 no. 18/958,464 for an ADJUSTABLE ELECTRICAL FIXTURE MOUNTING ASSEMBLY, filed on 11/25/2024. Claims 1-18 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.
Claims 13-18 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.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the extension assembly body" therein. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 14-18 are rejected for the same reasons as dependent on claim 13.
Claim 13 contains the limitation wherein “the extension assembly moves axially relative to the extension assembly.” This limitation is unclear and confusing because it is unknown how the extension assembly moves axially relative to itself. Rather, the Examiner will interpret the limitation as the adjustment member moves axially relative to the extension assembly. Appropriate clarification is requested. Claims 14-18 are rejected for the same reasons as dependent on claim 13.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the hanger body" therein. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 15-18 are rejected for the same reasons as dependent on claim 14.
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) 1, 2, 7, 8, 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerr, Jr. (U.S. Pat. 4,909,405) in view of Shinault (U.S. Pat. 7,275,731).
Regarding claim 1, Kerr teaches a brace assembly for mounting an electrical box between support members (joists), the brace assembly comprising: a hangar body having a first end and a second end; an extension assembly operatively coupled to the first end of the hangar body, the extension assembly being movable between a retracted position and an extended position relative to the hangar body (see below); and a mounting bracket mounted to the brace assembly for releasably mounting the electrical box to the brace assembly; but does not teach the extension assembly being selectively movable and configured to lock when in the retracted position and when in the extended position; and an adjustment member operatively coupled to the extension assembly such that the adjustment member can move axially relative to the extension assembly. Shinault, however, teaches the concept of a telescopically adjustable support brace (Figs. 3, 4) comprising an extension assembly (38) operatively coupled to a first end of a hangar body (14), the extension assembly being selectively movable between a retracted position and an extended position relative to the hangar body and configured to lock (at 46, 48) when in the retracted position and when in the extended position; and an adjustment member (56) operatively coupled to the extension assembly such that the adjustment member can move axially relative to the extension assembly in order to provide a telescoping device that can maintain a fixed distance or length between two objects. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to construct the extension assembly of Kerr being selectively movable and configured to lock when in the retracted position and when in the extended position; and a telescoping adjustment member operatively coupled to the extension assembly such that the adjustment member can move axially relative to the extension assembly in order to provide an adjustable and secure telescopic support that can accommodate various lengths between various support members in a secure position to prevent undesired movement, in view of Shinault.
[AltContent: textbox (Hangar body)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Mounting bracket)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (1st end)][AltContent: textbox (Support member)][AltContent: textbox (2nd end)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
222
598
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (Support member)]
[AltContent: textbox (Extension assembly)][AltContent: textbox (Electrical box)]
Regarding claim 2, Kerr and Shinault teach the assembly of claim 1, wherein Shinault teaches that the extension assembly comprises an extension member (38, telescoping arm) and a locking member (46, 48) that operatively couples the extension member to the first end of the hangar body.
Regarding claim 7, Kerr teaches a brace assembly for mounting an electrical box between support members (joists), the brace assembly comprising: a hangar body; an extension assembly operatively coupled to a first end of the hangar body such that the extension assembly is movable between a retracted position and an extended position relative to the hangar body (see figure above); and a mounting bracket mounted to the brace assembly for releasably mounting the electrical box to the brace assembly; but does not teach the extension assembly being configured to lock when in the retracted position and when in the extended position; and an adjustment member operatively coupled to the extension assembly configured such that the adjustment member moves axially relative to the extension assembly. Shinault, however, teaches the concept of a telescopically adjustable support brace (Figs. 3, 4) comprising an extension assembly (38) operatively coupled to a first end of a hangar body (14), the extension assembly being movable between a retracted position and an extended position relative to the hangar body and configured to lock (at 46, 48) when in the retracted position and when in the extended position; and an adjustment member (56) operatively coupled to the extension assembly configured such that the adjustment member moves axially relative to the extension assembly in order to provide a telescoping device that can maintain a fixed distance or length between two objects. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to construct the extension assembly of Kerr being configured to lock when in the retracted position and when in the extended position; and a telescoping adjustment member operatively coupled to the extension assembly configured such that the adjustment member moves axially relative to the extension assembly in order to provide an adjustable and secure telescopic support that can accommodate various lengths between various support members in a secure position to prevent undesired movement, in view of Shinault.
Regarding claim 8, Kerr and Shinault teach the assembly of claim 7, wherein Shinault teaches that the extension assembly comprises an extension member (38, telescoping arm) and a locking member (3, 4) that operatively couples the extension member to one end (the first end) of the hangar body.
Regarding claim 13, as best understood, Kerr teaches a brace assembly for mounting an electrical box between support members (joists), the brace assembly comprising: a hangar body; an extension assembly operatively coupled to one end of the hangar body such that the extension assembly is movable between a retracted position and an extended position relative to the hangar body (see figure above); and a mounting bracket mounted to the brace assembly for releasably mounting the electrical box to the brace assembly; but does not teach the extension assembly being configured to lock when in the retracted position and when in the extended position; and an adjustment member operatively coupled to the extension assembly and configured such that the adjustment member moves axially relative to the extension assembly. Shinault, however, teaches the concept of a telescopically adjustable support brace (Figs. 3, 4) comprising an extension assembly (38) operatively coupled to a first end of a hangar body (14), the extension assembly being movable between a retracted position and an extended position relative to the hangar body and configured to lock (at 46, 48) when in the retracted position and when in the extended position; and an adjustment member (56) operatively coupled to the extension assembly configured such that the adjustment member moves axially relative to the extension assembly in order to provide a telescoping device that can maintain a fixed distance or length between two objects. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to construct the extension assembly of Kerr being configured to lock when in the retracted position and when in the extended position; and a telescoping adjustment member operatively coupled to the extension assembly configured such that the adjustment member moves axially relative to the extension assembly in order to provide an adjustable and secure telescopic support that can accommodate various lengths between various support members in a secure position to prevent undesired movement, in view of Shinault.
Regarding claim 14, as best understood, Kerr and Shinault teach the assembly of claim 13, wherein Shinault teaches that the extension assembly comprises an extension member (38, telescoping arm) and a locking member (3, 4) that operatively couples the extension member to the hangar body.
Claim(s) 3-6, 9-12 and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerr, Jr. (U.S. Pat. 4,909,405) in view of Shinault (U.S. Pat. 7,275,731) in further view of Zoppelt (U.S. Pat. 2,594,605).
Regarding claims 3-6, 9-12 and 15-18, as best understood, Kerr and Shinault teach the assembly of claim 2, but do not teach that the locking member comprises a push button telescoping tube lock, the push button telescoping tube lock is positioned at least partially within the extension assembly and configured to engage the hangar body in the retracted position and the extended position, the locking member comprises a snap clip and the snap clip is coupled to one end of the hangar body and configured to engage the extension assembly in the retracted position and the extended position. Zoppelt teaches an adjustable tube with a locking member that comprises a push button telescoping tube lock (Figs. 3, 4), the push button telescoping tube lock is positioned at least partially within an extension assembly and configured to engage a hangar body in the retracted position and the extended position, the locking member comprises a snap clip (clip comprises a snapping engagement due to spring material), and the snap clip is coupled to one end of the hangar body and configured to engage the extension assembly in the retracted position and the extended position in order to maintain the adjusted or retracted position to which the members may be set. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to construct the locking member comprising a push button telescoping tube lock, the push button telescoping tube lock positioned at least partially within the extension assembly and configured to engage the hangar body in the retracted position and the extended position, the locking member comprising a snap clip and the snap clip coupled to one end of the hangar body and configured to engage the extension assembly in the retracted position and the extended position in order to provide a quick locking member that is totally contained within the brace assembly in order to prevent loss of the locking member, in view of Zoppelt.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USP 7621493, 5720461, 5303894, 4682452, 2594605, 2293168 (hanger assemblies)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NKEISHA J. SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-5781. The examiner can normally be reached Normal hours: M/Th 7-4; T 9-5; W 7-3; F 7-4.
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.
/NKEISHA SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632 February 21, 2026