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, a number of the first barbs on one side of the first shaped portion differing from a number of the first barbs on the opposite side of the first shaped portion; and a number of the second barbs on one side of the second shaped portion differing from a number of the second barbs on the opposite side of the second shaped portion (claim 10) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stahl, JR. et al. (US 2018/0142469) in view of Gharibeh et al. (US 7,739,844).
With regard to claim 1: Stahl, JR. et al. discloses a mounting bracket (30) (fig. 4) comprising a bracket body having a middle portion (32), a first sidewall (left leg 34), a first leg (left outwardly extending flange 36), a second sidewall (right leg 34), and a second leg (left outwardly extending flange 36) (fig. 4),
wherein the middle portion (32) extends between and connects the first sidewall (left leg 34) and the second sidewall (right leg 34) (fig. 4);
wherein the first leg (left outwardly extending flange 36) extends from the first sidewall (left leg 34) (fig. 4);
wherein the second leg (right outwardly extending flange 36) extends from the second sidewall (right leg 34) (fig. 4);
wherein a height of the first sidewall (left leg 34) is the same as a height of the first leg (left outwardly extending flange 36) (figs. 3-4);
wherein a height of the second sidewall (right leg 34) is the same as a height of the second leg (left outwardly extending flange 36) (figs. 3-4).
Stahl, JR. et al. does not disclose a first shaped portion extends from the first leg and a second shaped portion extends from the second leg; wherein the first shaped portion including a first plurality of barbs and the second shaped portion including a second plurality of barbs.
Gharibeh et al. discloses a mounting bracket (14) with a first shaped portion (one the left barbed anchors 18) including a first plurality of barbs that extends from a first leg and a second shaped portion (on the right barbed anchors 18) including a second plurality of barbs that extends from a second leg for preventing separation from an adjacent layer (foam) (fig. 4; col. 2, lines 16-33).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the bracket of Stahl, JR. et al. to include a first shaped portion including a first plurality of barbs that extends from the first leg and a second shaped portion including a second plurality of barbs that extends from the second leg such as taught by Gharibeh et al. in order to provide a known means of attachment for preventing separation of an insulation layer from the bracket. No new or unpredictable results would be obtained from modifying the bracket of Stahl, JR. et al. to include a first shaped portion that extends from the first leg and a second shaped portion that extends from the second leg such as taught by Gharibeh et al. Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Stahl, JR. et al. as modified by Gharibeh et al. discloses a height of the first shaped portion is the same as a height of the second shaped portion; wherein the height of the first shaped portion is less than the height of the first leg; wherein the height of the second shaped portion is less than the height of the second leg; wherein the first shaped portion has a first tapered end furthest from the first leg; wherein the second shaped portion has a second tapered end furthest from the second leg; wherein the first shaped portion including the plurality of first barbs situated between the first leg and the first tapered end; and wherein the second shaped portion including the plurality of second barbs situated between the second leg and the second tapered end.
With regard to claim 2: Stahl, JR. et al. as modified by Gharibeh et al. discloses a width of the first shaped portion is less than a width of the first sidewall; and wherein a width of the second shaped portion is less than a width of second first leg.
With regard to claim 3: Stahl, JR. et al. as modified by Gharibeh et al. discloses a depth of the first shaped portion is greater than a depth of the first leg; and wherein a depth of the second shaped portion is greater than a depth of the second leg.
With regard to claim 4: Stahl, JR. et al. in view of Gharibeh et al. does not disclose that the first shaped portion has four of the first barbs; and wherein the second shaped portion has four of the second barbs.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp, as the selected option was one of a finite number of available number of barbs to provide a desired surface area of contact for engaging and securing to adjacent layer. No new or unpredictable results would be obtained from modifying the mounting bracket of Stahl, Jr. et al. in view of Gharibeh et al.. Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
With regard to claim 5: Stahl, JR. as modified by Gharibeh et al. discloses that each of the first barbs defines a first notch in the first shaped portion, each first notch forms an acute angle; wherein each of the second barbs defines a second notch in the second shaped portion, each second notch forms an acute angle.
Stahl, Jr. et al. in view of Gharibeh et al. does not disclose that each first notch forms an angle of about 42 degrees; and that each second notch forms an angle of about 42 degrees.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp, as the selected option was one of a finite number of angles formed by the notches so as to provide a desired degree of grip and securement of the insulation layer. No new or unpredictable results would be obtained from modifying the mounting bracket of Stahl, Jr. et al. in view of Gharibeh et al. to have each first notch form an angle of about 42 degrees; and each second notch form an angle of about 42 degrees. Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
With regard to claim 6: Stahl, JR. et al. discloses that the bracket body further includes a mullion cover mount (clip 50) having a pair of spaced barbs (clip legs 54) (fig. 7 and 9-10).
With regard to claim 7: Stahl, JR. et al. discloses that the middle portion (32) forms an angle Θ with each of the first sidewall (left leg 34) and the second sidewall (right leg 34); and wherein the angle Θ (acute angle) is less than 90 degrees (fig. 4; par. [0025]).
With regard to claim 8: Stahl, JR. et al. discloses that the angle Θ (more or less than 90) is greater than 70 degrees (fig. 4; par. [0025])..
With regard to claim 9: Stahl, JR. et al. discloses that the first leg (left outwardly extending flange 36) is perpendicular to the first sidewall (left leg 34); and wherein the second leg (right outwardly extending flange 36) is perpendicular to the second sidewall (right leg 34) (fig. 4).
With regard to claim 10: Stahl, JR. et al. as modified by Gharibeh et al. does not disclose a number of the first barbs on one side of the first shaped portion differs from a number of the first barbs on the opposite side of the first shaped portion; and wherein a number of the second barbs on one side of the second shaped portion differs from a number of the second barbs on the opposite side of the second shaped portion.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp, as the selected option was one of a finite number of available number of barb configurations in order to provide a desired surface area of contact for engaging and securing the adjacent insulation layer. No new or unpredictable results would be obtained from modifying the mounting bracket of Stahl, Jr. et al. in view of Gharibeh et al. to have a number of the first barbs on one side of the first shaped portion differs from a number of the first barbs on the opposite side of the first shaped portion; and wherein a number of the second barbs on one side of the second shaped portion differs from a number of the second barbs on the opposite side of the second shaped portion. Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
With regard to claim 11: Stahl, JR. et al. as modified by Gharibeh et al. discloses that the first shaped portion is symmetrical about a central axis of the first shaped portion; and wherein the second shaped portion is symmetrical about a central axis of the second shaped portion.
With regard to claim 12: Stahl, JR. et al. as modified by Gharibeh et al. discloses the central axis of the first shaped portion is perpendicular to the first leg; and wherein the central axis of the second shaped portion is perpendicular to the second leg.
With regard to claim 13: Stahl, JR. et al. as modified by Gharibeh et al. discloses that the first shaped portion extends from an end of the first leg furthest from the first sidewall; and wherein the second shaped portion extends from an end of the second leg furthest from the second sidewall.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mounting bracket of Stahl, JR. et al. previously modified by Gharibeh et al. to have the first shaped portion extend from an end of the first leg furthest from the first sidewall, and the second shaped portion extend from an end of the second leg furthest from the second sidewall in order to provide securement points spaced from one another for a strong connection between the bracket and the insulation.
With regard to claim 14: Stahl, JR. et al. as modified by Gharibeh et al does not disclose a depth of the first shaped portion is less than a depth of the first sidewall; and wherein a depth of the second shaped portion is less than a depth of the second sidewall.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp, as the selected option was one of a finite number of available sizes to provide desired surface area of contact for engaging and securing the insulation layer. No new or unpredictable results would be obtained from modifying the mounting bracket of Stahl, Jr. et al. in view of Gharibeh et al. to have a depth of the first shaped portion less than a depth of the first sidewall; and wherein a depth of the second shaped portion is less than a depth of the second sidewall. Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
With regard to claim 15: Stahl, JR. et al. discloses the bracket body is a unitary structure (fig. 5A).
Stahl, JR. et al. as modified by Gharibeh et al. discloses that the bracket body is a unitary structure.
With regard to claim 16: Stahl, JR. et al. discloses that the bracket body is made of a metal or metal alloy (steel) (par. [0041]).
With regard to claim 17: Stahl, JR. et al. discloses that the bracket body includes a mounting cavity defined by the middle portion (32), the first sidewall (left leg 34), and the second sidewall (right leg 34); and wherein the mounting cavity is sized to be friction fit onto a mounting structure (16) (figs. 1-2 and 8-10).
With regard to claim 18: Stahl, JR. et al. discloses that the mounting structure is one of a mullion (16) (figs. 1-2 and 8-10; par. 0021).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,209,405. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because elements of the instant claim can found within the patented claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art cited is directed to brackets for insulation and/or walls.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSIE T FONSECA whose telephone number is (571)272-7195. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00am - 3:30pm.
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, Brian Glessner can be reached at (571)272-6754. 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.
/JESSIE T FONSECA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights