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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the first portion oriented oblique to the second portion from claim 13 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The following paragraphs utilize the incorrect spelling of “complement”. Complement is used when two things complete or enhance one another, whereas compliment is used when referring to a polite expression of praise or admiration. Paragraphs [0011], [0065]- 2 instances, [0079]- 2 instances, [0080], [0081]- 2 instances, [0083], [0095]- 2 instances, [00102]- 2 instances.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 9 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 2 recites the limitation "...wherein the bracket member defining a second..." The examiner believes this should be corrected to "...wherein the bracket member defines a second...". Claim 9 recites the limitation "…wherein the first engagement surface and the second engagement surface are complimentary surfaces.” However, this limitation utilizes the incorrect spelling of "complement", as noted above in the specification objection. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Smith (U.S. 11,098,528).
Regarding claim 1, Smith teaches an adjustable mounting bracket for a tension assembly for a continuous looped operator comprising: a mounting projection (304) defining a projection (305) extending from a surface of the mounting projection (304, see fig 7); and a bracket member (240) defining a first elongated aperture (as defined in annotated fig 6), the first elongated aperture (as defined in annotated fig 6) configured to receive the projection (304), wherein the projection (305) is configured to slide within the first elongated aperture (as seen in fig 2), and wherein the mounting projection (304) is configured to removably fasten (fasteners as described in column 6 lines 30-38) to the bracket member (240).
PNG
media_image1.png
620
427
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Smith teaches the adjustable mounting bracket of claim 1. Smith further teaches wherein the bracket member (240) defining (defines, see claim objection above) a second elongated aperture (as defined in annotated fig 6) horizontally aligned with the first elongated aperture (see annotated fig 6).
Regarding claim 14, Smith teaches the adjustable mounting bracket of claim 1. Smith further teaches wherein the mounting projection (304) defines a channel (316) that extends around an outer circumference of the mounting projection (see fig 7).
Regarding claim 15, Smith teaches the adjustable mounting bracket of claim 14. Smith further teaches wherein the mounting projection (304) is configured to be received by a tension assembly (200), the tension assembly (200) includes a locking member (222) configured to engage the channel (316) to fasten the mounting projection (304) to the tension assembly (200).
Regarding claim 16, Smith teaches the adjustable mounting bracket of claim 14. Smith further teaches wherein the mounting projection (304) is configured to be received by a tension assembly (200), the tension assembly (200) includes a locking member defining a plurality of arcuate surfaces (222, see fig 3), the plurality of arcuate surfaces (222) are configured to be received by the channel (316) to fasten the mounting projection (304) to the tension assembly (200).
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) 3-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (U.S. 11,098,528) in view of Blum (U.S. 8,100,600).
Regarding claim 3, Smith teaches the adjustable mounting bracket of claim 2. Smith teaches a first elongated aperture and a second elongated aperture (as defined in annotated fig 6), but does not teach that the first and second elongated apertures are different shapes.
Blum teaches an adjustable mounting bracket assembly with first and second apertures where the apertures are different in shape (as seen in fig 4, Blum teaches a connector assembly with first and second elongated apertures where the first and second elongated apertures are comprised of different shapes).
Smith and Blum are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of mounting assemblies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Smith to incorporate the teachings of Blum and provide a mounting bracket with first and second apertures which are different shapes. Doing so would best accommodate components of a fastener into the different apertures in order to create a secure fit between components.
Regarding claim 4, Smith teaches the adjustable mounting bracket of claim 2. While Smith mentions a fastener assembly in column 6 lines 30-38, it does not give further details as to the fasteners used in the fastener assembly to removably fasten the mounting projection (304) to the bracket member (240).
Blum teaches a mounting assembly that utilizes a fastener assembly including a first portion (70) and a second portion (22).
Smith and Blum are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of mounting assemblies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Smith to incorporate the teachings of Blum and provide a fastener assembly with first and second portions. Doing so would allow utilizing multiple fastener components to create a secure fit between components.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Smith and Blum teaches the adjustable mounting bracket of claim 4. Smith and Blum further teach wherein the first portion (70 Blum) is configured to be received by the first elongated aperture (as defined in annotated fig 6) and the second portion (22 Blum) is configured to be received by the second elongated aperture (as defined in annotated fig 6, and as taught by the combination above).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Smith and Blum teaches the adjustable mounting bracket of claim 5. Smith and Blum further teach wherein the second portion (22 Blum) is configured to slide relative to the second elongated aperture (as defined in annotated fig 6), and the second portion (22 Blum) is restricted from rotating relative to the second elongated aperture (due to shape of nut 22 and shape of second elongated aperture, as per the combination above).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Smith and Blum teaches the adjustable mounting bracket of claim 5. Blum further teaches wherein the first portion (70) is a threaded fastener (as seen in fig 5) and the second portion (22) is a nut configured to threadably engage the threaded fastener (as seen in fig 5).
Claim(s) 8-10, 17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (U.S. 11,098,528) in view of Loyd (U.S. 9,631,373).
Regarding claim 8, Smith teaches the adjustable mounting bracket of claim 1. Smith further teaches wherein the mounting projection (304) includes a first engagement surface (surface where 304 meets bracket member 240) on the surface of the mounting projection (304), and the bracket member (240) includes a second engagement surface (surface where bracket member 240 meets mounting projection 304), wherein in response to the mounting projection (304) being removably fastened to the bracket member (240). Smith is silent as to the first and second engagement surfaces being configured to interlock.
Loyd teaches another type of mounting assembly where the engagement surfaces are configured to interlock (as seen in fig 3, serrated surfaces of the mounting members interlock).
Smith and Loyd are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of mounting assemblies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Smith to incorporate the teachings of Loyd and provide a mounting assembly with engagement surfaces that are configured to interlock. Doing so would reduce or eliminate vertical slipping of the adjustable mounting bracket components as taught by Loyd in column 8 lines 2-4.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Smith and Loyd teaches the adjustable mounting bracket of claim 8. Loyd further teaches wherein the first engagement surface and the second engagement surface are complimentary surfaces (as seen in fig 3, serrated surfaces complement one another to interlock).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Smith and Loyd teaches the adjustable mounting bracket of claim 8. Loyd further teaches wherein the first engagement surface includes a first plurality of teeth and the second engagement surface includes a second plurality of teeth (as seen in fig 3, serrated surfaces complement one another to interlock).
Regarding claim 17, Smith teaches an adjustable mounting bracket for a tension assembly for a continuous looped operator comprising: a mounting projection (304) defining a projection (305) extending from a surface of the mounting projection (304, see fig 7), and a first engagement surface surrounding the projection (surface where 304 meets bracket member 240); a bracket member (240) defining an elongated aperture (as defined in annotated fig 6), the elongated aperture (as defined in annotated fig 6) configured to receive the projection (305), and a second engagement surface surrounding the elongated aperture (surface where bracket member 240 meets mounting projection 304), wherein the projection (305) is configured to slide within the first elongated aperture (as seen in fig 2), and wherein the mounting projection (304) is configured to removably fasten (fasteners as described in column 6 lines 30-38) to the bracket member (240).
Smith is silent as to the first and second engagement surfaces being configured to interlock.
Loyd teaches another type of mounting assembly where the engagement surfaces are configured to interlock (as seen in fig 3, serrated surfaces of the mounting members interlock).
Smith and Loyd are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of mounting assemblies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Smith to incorporate the teachings of Loyd and provide a mounting assembly with engagement surfaces that are configured to interlock. Doing so would reduce or eliminate vertical slipping of the adjustable mounting bracket components as taught by Loyd in column 8 lines 2-4.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Smith and Loyd teaches the adjustable mounting bracket of claim 17. Loyd further teaches wherein the first engagement surface includes a first plurality of peaks and valleys, and the second engagement surface includes a second plurality of peaks and valleys (as seen in fig 3, serrated surfaces complement one another to interlock).
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (U.S. 11,098,528) in view of Marocco (U.S. 8,539,645).
Regarding claim 11, Smith teaches the adjustable mounting bracket of claim 1. While Smith teaches a bracket member (240) with a first portion (as seen in fig 3) that includes the first elongated aperture, Smith is silent as to the bracket member being comprised of a second portion which includes at least one fastener aperture.
Marocco teaches a similar mounting bracket assembly where the bracket member includes a second portion (50) with at least one fastener aperture (34).
Smith and Marocco are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of mounting assemblies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Smith to incorporate the teachings of Marocco and provide a bracket member with a first portion and second portion where the second portion includes at least one fastener aperture. Doing so would reinforce the mounting bracket assembly by providing an additional mounting location for which to attach the mounting bracket assembly to an adjacent structure.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Smith and Marocco teaches the adjustable mounting bracket of claim 11. Smith and Marocco further teach wherein the first portion (as seen in fig 3 Smith) is oriented orthogonal to the second portion (50, see fig 7 Marocco).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Smith and Marocco teaches the adjustable mounting bracket of claim 11. Smith and Marocco further teach wherein the first portion (as seen in fig 3 Smith) is oriented oblique to the second portion (50, as seen in fig 7 Marocco, the angle between the first portion and second portion can be modified as desired).
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (U.S. 11,098,528) in view of Loyd (U.S. 9,631,373) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Blum (U.S. 8,100,600).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Smith and Loyd teaches the adjustable mounting bracket of claim 17. Smith further teaches wherein the elongated aperture is a first elongated aperture (as defined in annotated fig 3), the bracket member (240) further comprising a second elongated aperture aligned with the first elongated aperture (as defined in annotated fig 3). Smith is silent as to the first and second elongated apertures being different shapes.
Blum teaches an adjustable mounting bracket assembly with first and second apertures where the apertures are different in shape (as seen in fig 4, Blum teaches a connector assembly with first and second elongated apertures where the first and second elongated apertures are comprised of different shapes).
Smith, Loyd, and Blum are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of mounting assemblies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Smith and Loyd to incorporate the teachings of Blum and provide a mounting bracket with first and second apertures which are different shapes. Doing so would best accommodate components of a fastener into the different apertures in order to create a secure fit between components.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Smith, Lloyd, and Blum teaches the adjustable mounting bracket of claim 18. Blum further teaches wherein the second elongated aperture has more sides than the first elongated aperture (as seen in fig 4).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 12,377,795, US 11,725,686, US 10,662,650, US 2020/0039033 (teaches mounting assemblies with dual apertures) US 10,006,245 (teaches a mounting bracket with angled feature), US 5,729,948 (teaches engagement features between two mounting surfaces).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Susan M Heschel whose telephone number is (571)272-6621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am-4:00 pm.
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, Daniel Troy can be reached at (571)270-3742. 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.
/SUSAN M. HESCHEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3637
/Muhammad Ijaz/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Prosecution Insights