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 # 19022192, entitled: BRACKETS, BRACKET ASSEMBLIES, MACHINERY ARRANGEMENTS AND SEMICONDUCTOR PROCESSING SYSTEMS INCLUDING BRACKETS AND BRACKET ASSEMBLIES, AND METHODS OF MAKING BRACKET ASSEMBLIES, filed on 01/15/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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) 1-4, 8-9, and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Speece (U.S. Pub. 20100193508) in view of McIntyre (U.S. Pat. 4097012).
Regarding claim 1, Speece teaches a bracket 100, comprising: a bracket body 110 having: a seat portion defining a bracket axis (as seen in Fig. 1 below); a first slotted portion 196 laterally offset from the seat portion of the bracket body 110; a second slotted portion 196 laterally offset from the seat portion and axially separated from the first slotted portion 196 by the seat portion of the bracket body 110 (as shown in Fig. 1 below); and a flange portion (see Fig. 1 below) extending from the seat portion of the bracket body 110 in a direction opposite the first slotted portion 196 and the second slotted portion 196, the flange portion further extending in parallel with the bracket axis to constrain yaw angle of an interlock switch seated on the bracket body 110 relative to the bracket axis (as seen in Fig. 1 below).
With regards to claim 1, Speece is discussed above, and teaches the bracket. However, Speece fails to explicitly teach slots in the first and second slotted portions 196. McIntyre teaches a bracket 10 for securing equipment to a surface. The bracket 10 of McIntyre utilizes slotted portions 32 comprising slots 32a,32b.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the holes in the first and second slotted portions 196 of Speece to have slots, in order to allow the bracket to accommodate equipment of different sizes, in addition to allowing for adjustability of the bracket, with respect to the equipment it supports and the surface on which is mounted, as taught to be desirable by McIntyre (see discussion in col. 2, lines 59-62 and the Abstract).
Regarding claim 2, Speece is discussed above, and teaches the bracket 100, where the flange portion is a first flange portion. However, Speece fails to teach where the bracket body 110 has a second flange portion, the second flange portion separated from the first flange portion by the bracket axis, the second flange portion parallel to the first flange portion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Speece’s bracket body 110 with a second flange portion, because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations (see MPEP 2141, III. (C)). In the instant case, providing an additional flange portion to Speece’s bracket body 110, would provide additional mounting holes 195, allowing the user to further secure the bracket 110.
Regarding claim 3, Speece teaches the bracket 100, where the seat portion defines a seat fixation aperture 195 (as seen best in Fig. 2) therethrough that is axially offset from the first flange portion and the second flange portion.
Regarding claim 4, McIntyre teaches the bracket, where the first slotted portion 30 defines a slot pair 32b therethrough, slots 32b of the slot pair axially offset from the first flange portion and the second flange portion of the bracket body, the slots 32b of the slot pair further orthogonal relative to the bracket axis defined by the seat portion of the bracket body.
Regarding claim 8, McIntyre teaches the bracket, where the second slotted portion 30 defines a singular slot 32b therethrough, the singular slot 32b orthogonal relative to the bracket axis (as seen in Fig. 3 below) and where the seat portion defines a slot pair therethrough, the slot pair orthogonal relative to the bracket axis.
With regards to claims 4 and 8, the Examiner notes that providing a pair of slots would provide the user with greater adjustability in installing the bracket. The known technique of duplicating the elements of a device, is recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art (see MPEP 2141, III. (D)).
Regarding claim 9, Speece teaches the bracket 100, where the bracket body 110 is formed from a metallic sheet material (as discussed in para. [0022], lines 15-17).
Regarding claim 14, Speece teaches the bracket assembly 100, further comprising at least one of: a locknut 180 captive between the impaling fastener 160 and the seat portion of the bracket body 110 (as seen in Fig. 1 below); and a resilient member formed from an elastomeric material captive between the impaling fastener and the interlock switch.
Regarding claim 15, Speece teaches a semiconductor processing system 600, comprising: an enclosure including a frame member and an access panel or door removable fixed to the relative to the frame member (as seen in Fig. 7); a process module arranged within the enclosure (see Fig. 5); a bracket 100 fixed to the frame member of the enclosure; an interlock switch (as discussed in para. [0021], lines 1-3) arranged within the enclosure and fixed to the bracket 100; an interlock circuit 200 connected to the interlock switch; where the interlock switch is configured to electrically closed the interlock circuit 200 when the access panel or door abuts the frame member (as seen in Fig. 7); and where the interlock switch is configured to electrically open the interlock circuit when the access panel or door is displaced from the frame member (see discussion of electrical system in para. [0035], with reference to Fig. 7).
PNG
media_image1.png
804
590
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
236
518
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 5-7, 10-13, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Speece in view of McIntyre as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Credle, Jr. (U.S. Pat. 4441684).
Regarding claim 5, Speece and McIntyre are discussed above, and teach the bracket. However, Speece and McIntyre fail to teach where the bracket 100 further comprises a pin member fixed to the seat portion and extending therefrom in a direction opposite the first slotted portion 196 and the second slotted portion 196 of the bracket body 110. Credle teaches a mounting bracket 10, comprising a pin member 32.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the seat portion of Speece to have pins, in order to provide a way to center and seat the interlock switch of Speece, as taught to be desirable by Credle (see discussion in col. 3, lines 60-63).
Regarding claim 6, Credle teaches the bracket, where the pin member 32 is capable of being mounted to separate the flange portion from the bracket axis.
Regarding claim 7, Credle teaches the bracket, where the pin member 32 is a first pin member and further comprising a second pin member 33 fixed to the seat portion and extending therefrom in the direction opposite the first slotted portion and the second slotted portion (of Speece) of the bracket body, the second pin member 33 separated from the first pin 32 member by the bracket axis.
Regarding claim 10, Speece, McIntyre, and Credle teach a bracket assembly, comprising: a bracket 100, the bracket body 110 formed from a metallic sheet material (as discussed in para. [0022], lines 15-17 of Speece); an interlock switch (see para. [0021], lines 1-3) extending in parallel with the flange portion of the bracket body 110 (as seen in Fig. 1 below); an impaling fastener seated in the seat portion (via 195 as seen in Fig. 2) of the bracket body 110 and fixing the interlock switch to the seat portion of the bracket body 110; and a first pin member 32 and a second pin member 33 seated in the seat portion of the bracket body and fixing the interlock switch in yaw angle relative to the bracket axis.
Regarding claim 11, Speece teaches the bracket assembly 100, further comprising an interlock circuit lead (at 150) with a bayonet connector fixed to the interlock switch, the bayonet connector extending axially along the bracket axis. Regarding the teaching where the connector and overlies the first slotted portion of the bracket body, the Examiner notes that McIntyre teaches the ability to adjust the bracket to accommodate different sized devices. Extending the bayonet connector over the slotted portion would have been obvious because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations (see MPEP 2141, III. (C)).
Regarding claim 12, Speece teaches the bracket assembly 100, where the interlock switch has an interlock member receptacle 130 overlying the seat portion of the bracket body 110 (as seen in Fig. 1 above), and where the bracket assembly 100 further comprising an interlock member 120 movably supported relative to the interlock switch and received within the interlock member receptacle 130 (as shown in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 13, Speece teaches the bracket assembly 100, further comprising an interlock circuit 200 connected to the interlock switch, where the interlock switch is configured to be electrically open when an interlock member 120 is displaced from an interlock member receptacle 130 defined in the interlock switch (see discussion in para. [0031], and refer to Fig. 6).
Claim(s) 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Speece, McIntyre, and Credle, Jr.
Concerning method claims 16-20, in view of the structure disclosed by Speece, McIntyre, and Credle, Jr. above, the method of operating the device would have been obvious, since Speece, McIntyre, and Credle’s bracket assembly provides the same structure as the device described in the specification. The Examiner submits that it can be assumed that the device of Speece, McIntyre, and Credle, Jr. is capable of performing the claimed process.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In addition to the reference to Speece, McIntyre, and Credle, Jr., the Examiner submits the Notice of References Cited (PTO-892). U.S. Pats. 7775498 to Phillips et al., 20130069512 to Zimmer et al., and 8225827 to Dunlap et al. teach mounting brackets for interlock switches.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL D MCDUFFIE whose telephone number is (571)272-3832. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8AM-4:30PM.
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, 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.
/Michael McDuffie/Examiner, Art Unit 3632 20-Jun-26
/TERRELL L MCKINNON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3632
Prosecution Insights