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 no longer objected to in view of the amendments filed 2 February 2026.
Specification
The specification is no longer objected to in view of the amendments filed 2 February 2026.
Claim Objections
The claims are no longer objected to in view of the amendments filed 2 February 2026.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-12, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinez (US 8,286,363) in view of Hollingsworth (US 5,407,160).
As to claim 1, Martinez teaches a wall mount (screw mount placement device 100) for holding an object on a wall (Col 1 lines 55+: “Among the many objectives of the present invention is the provision of a screw mount placement device which can quickly create level marks for hanging and positioning wall mounted items.”), comprising: a main body (housing 106. See also Examiner’s annotated Fig 1 below) having at least one securing structure for securing the wall mount to the wall (center aperture 154 is capable of being used for securing the device to a wall. Similarly, screw placement guides 108 are capable of being used for securing the device to a wall.), and at least two auxiliary bodies (top rack 246, bottom rack 248. See Fig 4) which are mounted movably on the main body (the racks 246, 248 mesh with circular gear 240 and each slide left and right according to arrows in Fig 1) and each have at least one holding structure (holders 136, 138 are located on racks 246, 248 respectively.) for holding an object on the wall (holders 136, 138 which are useful for holding cable 130 which is capable of holding a picture frame, for example), wherein the at least two holding structures are mounted on the main body via the auxiliary bodies so as to each be movable relative to the securing structure (the holders 136, 138 are located on racks 246, 248. See Col 3 lines 35-40: “Bottom rack 248 has left arm 260 at the end of bottom rack gear 244 to form an L-shape therewith. Left arm 260 fits with left sliding holder 136 of the left slide 112. Top rack 246 has right arm 262 at the end of top rack gear 242 to form an L-shape therewith. Right arm 262 fits with right sliding holder 138 of the right slide 114.”).
PNG
media_image1.png
268
464
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
342
716
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Martinez does not teach wherein at least one holding structure of the wall mount can be detachably secured in or on the auxiliary bodies.
However, in the field of wall mounts for holding an object on a wall, it was known at the time the invention was effectively filed to provide for a holding structure which can be detachably secured on the wall mount. See Hollingsworth which teaches a fastener for holding objects to a perforated wall (Title). Hollingsworth teaches an embodiment in Fig 29a-29b where a wall mount (base member 327) is used with a holding structure (hook portion 317) which can be detached from the base member. Hollingsworth teaches, “The design also permits easy interchangeability of hook portions 317 without the need to remove the base member from the pegboard wall.” See Hollingsworth Col 15 Lines 34-49.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have provided for at least one holding structure of the wall mount can be detachably secured in or on the auxiliary bodies as claimed and as taught by Hollingsworth. Such a person would have been motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success in order to achieve the benefits as described by Hollingsworth such as the easy interchangeability between a variety of differently designed hook portions.
PNG
media_image3.png
550
308
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As to claim 2, Martinez in view of Hollingsworth teaches the wall mount of claim 1, wherein at least one holding structure (Hollingsworth’s hook 317) of the wall mount is or are connected or connectable to the object by means of a force-fitting and/or form-fitting and/or integral connection (as shown in Hollingsworth Figs 29a and 29b, there is an integral connection with slide 315 fitting into slot 313. Also, bump 323 is snap engaged with depression 325. See Col 15 lines 34-49).
As to claim 3, Martinez in view of Hollingsworth teaches the wall mount of claim 1 wherein at least one holding structure of the wall mount is configured as hook means for hooking into at least one hook receptacle of the object (hook means does not invoke 112(f). As shown in Hollingsworth Figs 29a and 29b, the hook 317 is a hook useful for performing this intended use).
As to claim 5, Martinez in view of Hollingsworth teaches the wall mount of claim 1, wherein the at least two auxiliary bodies are mounted in or on the main body so as to be linearly movable (See Martinez Fig 3. The racks 246, 248 are mounted on body 106. The racks are movable linearly left-and-right as shown by arrows in Fig 1.).
As to claim 7, Martinez in view of Hollingsworth teaches the wall mount of claim 1, wherein the at least two auxiliary bodies are coupled to the main body via a control mechanism (circular gear 240) in such a way that the two auxiliary bodies assume a predefined position relative to the main body at least in portions during their movement relative to the main body, in the manner of positive control (the racks 246, 248 mesh with circular gear 240. Thus when rack 246 slides left, it causes rack 248 to slide right according to arrows in Fig 1).
As to claim 8, Martinez in view of Hollingsworth teaches the wall mount of claim 7, wherein the control mechanism (this limitation invokes 112(f). See claim 9.) controls the mobility of the auxiliary bodies relative to the main body in such a way that a center of gravity of the wall mount based on a longitudinal extension of the wall mount changes by at most 15% (as the racks 246 and 248 necessarily extend laterally by the same distance at the same time, the center of gravity of the device remains unchanged.).
As to claim 9, Martinez in view of Hollingsworth teaches the wall mount according to claim 7 wherein the control mechanism comprises a tooth flank surface on each of the auxiliary bodies (rack 246 includes teeth 244 and rack 248 includes teeth 242 as illustrated in Fig 4), and a gearwheel (circular gear 240) that meshes with the tooth flank surfaces of the auxiliary bodies and is rotatably mounted on the main body (as illustrated in Fig 4).
As to claim 10, Martinez in view of Hollingsworth teaches the wall mount of claim 1, wherein the securing structure is configured as an interface for securing the wall mount to a wall by a securing means (the “securing means” are interpreted in view of the specification as a screw or nail. Martinez’s center aperture 154 is a securing structure because it is an aperture through which a nail or screw may hold the device to a wall.).
As to claim 11, Martinez in view of Hollingsworth teaches the wall mount of claim 10, wherein the securing structure: -is arranged or configured as an interface arranged or formed centrally over the longitudinal extension of the main body, and/or -is arranged or configured as interfaces on both sides of a center of a longitudinal extension of the main body and having the same spacing from the center (the broadest reasonable interpretation of an “and/or” limitation is to choose the “or.” In this case, Examiner chooses the first option for examination. The center aperture 154 of Martinez meets the claimed “securing structure.” The center aperture 154 is formed centrally over the longitudinal extension of the main body as illustrated in Fig 1.).
As to claim 12, Martinez in view of Hollingsworth teaches the wall mount of claim 1, wherein the securing structure (center aperture 154) is a single interface for securing the wall mount to a wall in a force-fitting and/or form-fitting manner (The center aperture 154 is capable of having a nail hammered through it. A nail hammered through an aperture in the device 100 is a force-fitting manner of securing the device to a wall.).
As to claim 15, Martinez in view of Hollingsworth teaches the wall mount of claim 1, wherein an adapter (slides 112, 114 reasonably fit the structure of “adapter”) comprises a receiving portion for receiving the main body in a force-fitting and/or form-fitting and/or integral manner (the slides 112, 114 fit within the main housing 106 in a form-fitting manner), and a securing portion which allows for the adapter to be secured to a wall (screw placement guides 108) in a force-fitting and/or form-fitting and/or integral manner (the guides 108 are integral with slides 112, 114), the main body connected to a wall exclusively via the adapter (this is an intended use of the adapter. The slides 112, 114 are capable of connecting the housing to a wall via the screw placement guides 108).
As to claim 16, Martinez in view of Hollingsworth teaches an arrangement (the device 100 of Martinez) comprising a wall mount of claim 1 (the device 100 of Martinez), and a levelling device (level 122), wherein the levelling device comprises a connection interface, by means of which the levelling device can be connected to the wall mount in a predefined position and orientation relative to the wall mount in a force-fitting and/or form-fitting manner (as the levels 122 are connected to the body 106 of Martinez, there is inherently a connection interface. The connection interface produces the connected levels 122 which are in a predefined position and orientation relative to the device in a form-fitting manner.).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinez in view of Hollingsworth as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Marshall et al. (US 11781850).
As to claim 6, Martinez in view of Hollingsworth teaches the wall mount of claim 1, but does not teach the position and/or orientation of at least one auxiliary body relative to the main body can be displayed using a display device.
In this instance, the term “display device” is interpreted in view of the specification as something within view of and comparable to a scale. In this way, Martinez does not teach a scale and thus no structural feature may be compared to one. However, in the field of devices useful for affixing items to a wall, it was known at the time the invention was effectively filed to provide for a display device in order to measure the distance an arm extends from the center of the device. See Marshall which teaches “an installation tool for affixing objects to plurality of vertical surfaces” (Abstract). Marshall teaches a rectangular body 102 having arms 136 therein. The arms are attached to thumbscrews 140 which interact with the front face of the body 102 through a track 142. The location of the thumbscrew and thus the extension of the arm is measured by a scale 126.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have provided for a track, thumbscrew, and scale of Marshall as the display device in Martinez. Such a person would have been motivated to do so in order to accurately measure the position of the links 112. See also MPEP § 2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinez in view of Hollingsworth as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Farris (US 5,471,760).
As to claim 13, Martinez in view of Hollingsworth teaches the wall mount claim 1, but does not teach the securing structure comprises at least two securing points.
Rather, the securing structure had previously been interpreted as the central aperture 154 which has only 1 securing point. However, in the field of wall mounting, it was known at the time the invention was effectively filed to provide for devices having two separate securing points. See Farris which teaches a picture hook locator having a longitudinal slot 26 which has at least two securing points (an extreme top and an extreme bottom, for example) which are useful for securing the device.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have provided for a second securing point to the device of Martinez above the center aperture 154. Such a second securing point would have provided for extra securing of the device to the wall.
Martinez in view of Farris thus teaches: for securing the wall mount to a wall in a force-fitting and/or form-fitting manner (the center aperture and the longitudinal slot are each capable of having a nail placed through them. A nail hammered through an aperture in the device is a force-fitting manner of securing the device to a wall.), wherein the at least two securing points are located on a common straight line (as illustrated in Farris, the longitudinal slot is a straight line, thus suggesting a similar configuration when in combination with Martinez), wherein the line is oriented perpendicularly to a main extension axis of the wall mount and/or of the main body and/or of at least one auxiliary body (the longitudinal slot is vertical, which is perpendicular to the main body of Martinez and perpendicular to the adapter 66 having cable hanging struck portions 72 as shown in Farris Fig 4.).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinez in view of Hollingsworth as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Miller et al. (US 10,458,790).
As to claim 14, Martinez in view of Hollingsworth teaches the wall mount of claim 1, but does not teach a clamping and/or latching means which acts in a clamping or latching manner on a movement of at least one auxiliary body relative to the main body.
However, in the field of devices useful for affixing items to a wall, it was known at the time the invention was effectively filed to provide for a clamping or latching means in order to effectively stop unwanted movement of sliding arms. See Miller which teaches arms 106, 108 which slide laterally from a main housing via a center gear 110 (see Fig 4) in a fashion similar to that of the invention and of Martinez. Miller also teaches at Col 5 lines 58-60: “a locking mechanism 113 is turned in one direction to tightening the arms while in the extended position thereby capturing the desired dimensions.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have provided locking mechanism 113 of Miller in the device of Martinez. Such a person would have been motivated to do so in order to achieve the locking benefits of Miller. See also MPEP § 2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
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 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Martinez (US 8,286,363).
As to claim 17, Martinez teaches a method for mounting an object on a wall (Col 1 lines 55-58: “Among the many objectives of the present invention is the provision of a screw mount placement device which can quickly create level marks for hanging and positioning wall mounted items”) using; a wall mount (device 100) for holding an object on a wall (the “wall mounted item” described at Col 1 lines 58), the wall [mount] comprising: a main body (housing 106) having at least one securing structure (center aperture 156) for securing the wall mount to a wall (the center aperture is a hole through which a fastener may pass, which is a normal use of a hole in a wall-hanging device. Passing a fastener through the center aperture and into the wall meets the method step of securing the wall mount to a wall), and at least two auxiliary bodies (racks 246, 248 as shown in Fig 4) which are mounted movably on the main body (the racks 246, 248 mesh with circular gear 240 and each slide left and right according to arrows in Fig 1) and each have at least one holding structure for holding an object on the wall (136, 138 which are useful for holding cable 130 which is capable of holding a picture frame, for example), wherein the at least two holding structures are mounted on the main body via the auxiliary bodies so as to each be movable relative to the securing structure (the holders 136, 138 are located on racks 246, 248. See Col 3 lines 35-40: “Bottom rack 248 has left arm 260 at the end of bottom rack gear 244 to form an L-shape therewith. Left arm 260 fits with left sliding holder 136 of the left slide 112. Top rack 246 has right arm 262 at the end of top rack gear 242 to form an L-shape therewith. Right arm 262 fits with right sliding holder 138 of the right slide 114.”); and/or the arrangement according to claim 16 (this is an optional limitation and is not considered here.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 5, 7-12, and 15-17 under 35 USC 102 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues Martinez does not teach “wherein at least one holding structure of the wall mount can be detachably secured in or on the auxiliary bodies.”
Examiner has provided Hollingsworth which teaches these limitations.
On pages 10-11 of the remarks, Applicant argues, “Moreover, the screw mount placement device 100 of Martinez is not intended for mounting on a wall. Rather, the screw mount placement device 100 of Martinez is used for creating level screw marks for hanging an item into a desired position relative to another mounted object. Without hindsight of the present application, one of ordinary skill in the art would not mount the screw mount placement device 100 of Martinez on a wall. As such, Martinez fails to disclose the wall mount apparatus as recited in independent claim 1.”
First, Examiner asserts that claim 1 is a product claim. The broadest reasonable interpretation for the claim limitation, “at least one securing structure for securing the wall mount to the wall” in a product claim is that the prior art device must be capable of performing the intended use. See MPEP § 2114 II: “Manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art.”
Although Applicant did not argue claim 17 separately, Examiner notes claim 17 is a method claim. Above, claim 17 is treated as an independent claim that does not depend from claim 16.
Claim 17 includes the same limitation “at least one securing structure for securing the wall mount to the wall” which is not explicitly a method step. Still, as the claim is a method claim, the use of the device is considered under a different standard. See MPEP § 2112.02: “Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986).”
Here, Examiner attempts to establish the “normal and usual operation” of the device of Martinez.
Point 1: It has been established that Martinez’s device is useful in the field of hanging artwork. Examiner is not suggesting that Martinez should be used for some far-flung or esoteric purpose. Clearly, Martinez is used to make marks on a wall for the purpose of hanging artwork, as is argued by Applicant. Is it also within the “normal and usual” use of the device of Martinez to not just make marks through the apertures 116 and 108, but to also drive fasteners therethrough?
Point 2: Driving a fastener would be recognized by a person having ordinary skill in the art, or even a person of common sense, as a necessary step in the process of hanging artwork. Moreover, the act of driving a fastener through an aperture would be recognized by such a person to require similar skill as making a mark.
Point 3: Martinez intends for artwork to hang from the device 100. Martinez’s device include hooks (cable slings 266) which hold cable 130. Examiner rhetorically asks why the device 100 would have hooks if not to hang the artwork? A device useful only for making equidistant marks would have no need for hooks.
On balance, it would be within the “normal and usual” operation of Martinez for an artisan to place fasteners through apertures 116, 108 to fasten the device 100 to a wall for hanging an artwork. Accordingly, in view of MPEP § 2112.02, method limitations pertaining to using the claimed device for hanging on a wall are met by Martinez.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JACOB JAMES CIGNA whose telephone number is (571)270-5262. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm Monday-Friday.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/JACOB J CIGNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726 12 March 2026