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. 18/969,690, for a WIRE SUPPORT BRACKET, filed on 12/5/2024. Claim 1-20 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species 4 (Figs. 13-14) in the reply filed on 7/15/2026 is acknowledged. The argument is deemed proper and therefore the requirement is WITHDRAWN.
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.
Claim 11 is 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 11 contains the term “a of the clip” which appears to be a typographical error. Appropriate clarification is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 8 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Witherbee et al. (U.S. Pat. 11,585,486).
Regarding claim 8, Witherbee teaches a bracket for connecting an elongated member to an electrical box comprising: a bracket body having a planar portion with a proximal end configured to connect to an electrical box and a distal end spaced from the electrical box, the distal end including a plurality of openings; a flange extending from the distal end of the bracket body; and a clip connected to at least one of the plurality of openings, the clip configured to support a conduit extending into the electrical box.
[AltContent: textbox (conduit)][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (clip)][AltContent: textbox (Distal end)]
PNG
media_image1.png
474
356
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Plurality of openings)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (flange)][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (Proximal end)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (Planar portion)]
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (Electrical box)]
Regarding claim 11, as best understood, Witherbee teaches the bracket of claim 8, wherein the opening includes a slot for releasably receiving a portion of the clip (member 312 contains a variety of sizes and shapes of openings to allow for many types and locations of clamps, see slots shown in Figs. 10A-D).
Claim(s ) 12, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Korcz et al. (U.S. Pub. 2017/0077689).
Regarding claim 12, Korcz teaches an electrical box and support bracket assembly comprising: an electrical box having a rear surface and a plurality of sides defining an interior; a first bracket connected to the electrical box and configured to support a conductor extending into the electrical box, wherein the first bracket includes a first portion secured to the electrical box, a second portion movably connected to the first portion, and a plurality of tabs movably connected to the second portion; and a second bracket connected to the electrical box and configured to support an elongated member.
[AltContent: textbox (tabs)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
532
432
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (conductor)]
[AltContent: textbox (2nd portion)][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (1st bracket)][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (1st portion)][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (Electrical box)][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (2nd bracket)][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (Elongated member)]
[AltContent: arrow]
Regarding claim 19, Korcz teaches the electrical box and support bracket assembly of claim 12, wherein the first bracket is positioned on a first side of the electrical box and the second bracket is positioned on a second side of the electrical box.
Although claim 20 contains purely functional limitations, it is nonetheless rejected because Korcz teaches the electrical box and support bracket assembly of claim 12, wherein the second bracket is configured to support an elongated member extending substantially perpendicular to the electrical conductor (holes allow second bracket to support an elongated member extending substantially perpendicular to the electrical conductor since the holes are compatible with elongated members that can extend in horizontal orientations).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 14 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korcz et al. (U.S. Pub. 2017/0077689) in view of Witherbee et al. (U.S. Pat. 11,585,486).
Regarding claim 14, Korcz teaches the electrical box and support bracket assembly of claim 12, but does not teach that the second bracket includes, a bracket body having a planar portion with a proximal end configured to connect to an electrical box and a distal end spaced from the electrical box, the distal end including a plurality of openings; a flange extending from the distal end of the bracket body; and a clip connected to at least one of the plurality of openings, the clip configured to support a conduit extending into the electrical box. Witherbee, however, teaches a bracket (see figure above) for connecting an elongated member to an electrical box comprising: a bracket body having a planar portion with a proximal end configured to connect to an electrical box and a distal end spaced from the electrical box, the distal end including a plurality of openings; a flange extending from the distal end of the bracket body; and a clip connected to at least one of the plurality of openings, the clip configured to support a conduit extending into the electrical box. 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 substitute the second bracket comprising a bracket body having a planar portion with a proximal end configured to connect to an electrical box and a distal end spaced from the electrical box, the distal end including a plurality of openings; a flange extending from the distal end of the bracket body; and a clip connected to at least one of the plurality of openings, the clip configured to support a conduit extending into the electrical box in order to accommodate supporting various accessories attached to the electrical box, in view of Witherbee.
Regarding claim 17, Korcz and Witherbee teach the electrical box and support bracket assembly of claim 14, wherein Witherbee teaches that the opening includes a slot for releasably receiving a portion a of the clip (member 312 contains a variety of sizes and shapes of openings to allow for many types and locations of clamps, see slots shown in Figs. 10A-D).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 allowed.
Claims 9, 10, 13, 15, 16 and 18 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 11581718, 11837859, 10851937, 9825446 (supporting bracket).
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 September 15, 2026
Prosecution Insights