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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined in this application
This communication is the first action on the merits
Claims 1-20 are rejected herein
Information Disclosure Statement
As of the date of this action, an information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed on 1/21/2025 and 1/23/2025 and reviewed by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 9-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rojas (U.S. Pat. No. 20050218280 A1) in view of Mossman (U.S. Pat. No. 20080067298 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Rojas teaches a monitor mount configured for attachment to a pegboard, the monitor mount comprising: a pegboard mounting plate(10), the pegboard mounting plate including: a base (14 registers with the front of the pegboard) configured to register with a frontside of the pegboard, a pegboard hook (22) attached to the base (14), the pegboard hook including a set of prongs (set of prongs 24) configured to pass through pegboard holes and register with a backside of the pegboard US (prongs 24 register with the backside of the pegboard in Fig. 7); and a bottom support attached to the base(26), the bottom support configured to resist tilting of the pegboard mounting plate relative to the pegboard(prongs 26 configured to resist tilting of the pegboard mounting plate).
Rojas does not teach a mounting plate attached to the base, the mounting plate being for attaching a monitor. Mossman teaches a monitor mounting plate attached to the base (125 is attached to the base through arms 140 and 141). Rojas and Mossman are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem-solving area e.g. providing a structure for supporting an object. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to attach the monitor mounting plate to the base. The motivation would have been to provide the capability of mounting larger objects to the pegboard mounting plate. In paragraph 0043, Rojas talks about using different attachments to the backing plate 14.
Regarding claim 3, Rojas as modified teaches the monitor mount of claim 1 of wherein the pegboard hook is a first pegboard hook(22) with a first set of prongs (prongs 24),wherein the bottom support includes a second pegboard hook(20) attached to the base, the second pegboard hook including a second set of prongs (prongs 26) configured to pass through the pegboard holes and register with the backside of the pegboard (prongs 26 go through the pegboard holes and register with the backside of the pegboard).
Regarding claim 4, Rojas a modified teaches the monitor mount of wherein the first set of prongs is an upward facing set of prongs (prongs 24 face upwards; Rojas), and wherein the second set of prongs is a downward facing set of prongs (prongs 26 face downwards, see Fig. 3 Rojas).
Regarding claim 6, Rojas as modified teaches the monitor mount of claim 1, wherein each prong in the set of prongs is located along a line spaced at regular intervals corresponding to spacing of the pegboard holes in the pegboard (the prongs 24 and 26 are located along a line spaced at regular intervals corresponding to the spacing of the pegboard holes; Rojas).
Regarding claim 7, Rojas as modified teaches the monitor mount of claim 6, wherein the spacing of the pegboard holes is one inch (the pegboard holes are one inch apart; see Rojas page 3 paragraph 0039).
PNG
media_image1.png
503
399
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Rojas as modified teaches the monitor mount of claim 1, wherein each of the set of prongs includes a transverse portion (see A in Fig. 7 above; Rojas) configured to extend though a pegboard hole of the pegboard holes and a lateral portion (see B in Fig. 7 above; Rojas) configured to register with the backside of the pegboard.
Regarding claim 10, Rojas as modified teaches the monitor mount of claim 1, further comprising a tilt adjustment pivot between the base and the monitor mount (142; Mossman).
PNG
media_image2.png
543
460
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Rojas as modified teaches the monitor mount of claim 10, further comprising a view angle adjustment pivot between the base and the monitor mount (view angle adjustment pivot at D in Fig. 2 above; Mossman).
Regarding claim 12, Rojas as modified teaches the monitor mount of claim 1, further comprising: an arm coupling the monitor mount to the base (140 and 141; Mossman), an arm angle adjustment pivot between the base and the arm (C labeled in Fig. 2 above; Mossman); and a view angle adjustment pivot between the arm and the monitor mount (D labeled on Fig. 2 above; Mossman).
Regarding claim 13, Rojas as modified teaches the monitor mount of claim 12, further comprising a tilt adjustment pivot between the arm and the monitor mount (142; Mossman).
Regarding claim 14, Rojas as modified teaches the monitor mount of claim 1, wherein the monitor mount is releasably attached to the base (12 is releasably attachable from 11; Mossman).
Regarding claim 15, Rojas as modified teaches the monitor mount of claim 14, further comprising a monitor mount bracket (11; Mossman) secured to the base, wherein the monitor mounting plate is releasably attached to the monitor mount bracket (monitor mounting plate is releasably attachable as 12 may be removed from 11; Mossman).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rojas (U.S. Pat. No. 20050218280 A1) in view of Mossman (U.S. Pat. No. 20080067298 A1) and further in view of White (U.S. Pat. No. 20160265716 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Rojas as modified teaches the monitor mount of claim 1. Rojas as modified does not teach wherein the bottom support includes a magnet configured to register with a frontside of the pegboard. White teaches wherein the bottom support includes a magnet configured to register with a frontside of the pegboard (the location of magnet 36 functionally allows it to register with the frontside of the pegboard). Rojas and White are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem-solving area e.g. providing a structure for supporting an object. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a magnet as part of the bottom support. The motivation would have been to provide the capability of strongly mounting the device to a ferromagnetic pegboard.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rojas (U.S. Pat. No. 20050218280 A1) in view of Mossman (U.S. Pat. No. 20080067298 A1) and further in view of Valiulus (U.S. Pat. No. US 4850557 A).
Regarding claim 5 Rojas as modified teaches the monitor mount of claim 4. Rojas as modified does not teach wherein the second set of prongs is releasably attached to the base. Valiulis teaches a pegboard mount (hanger assembly 10) wherein the set of prongs is releasably attached to the base (vertically extending horns 40(set of prongs) can be removed from plate 25(the base)). Rojas and Valiulis are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem-solving area e.g. providing a structure for supporting an object. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the second set of prongs releasably attached to the base. The motivation would have been to increase the ease of installing the bracket into the pegboard.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rojas (U.S. Pat. No. 20050218280 A1) in view of Mossman (U.S. Pat. No. 20080067298 A1) and further in view of Shea (U.S. Pat. No. US 20030164432 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Rojas as modified teaches the monitor mount of claim 6. Rojas as modified does not teach wherein the set of prongs includes at least three prongs along the line. Shea teaches a pegboard mount (foot support end 24) wherein the set of prongs includes at least three prongs along the line (there are three tabs 30). Rojas and Shea are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem-solving area e.g. providing a structure for supporting an object. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the set of prongs includes at least three prongs along the line. The motivation would have been to increase the stability by using at least 3 prongs.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rojas (U.S. Pat. No. 20050218280 A1) in view of Mossman (U.S. Pat. No. 20080067298 A1) and further in view of Whalen (U.S. Pat. No. US 20160058184 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Rojas as modified teaches the monitor mount of claim 1. Rojas as modified does not teach wherein the monitor mounting plate includes mounting holes that conform to a VESA standard mount. Whalen teaches wherein the monitor mounting plate includes mounting holes that conform to a VESA standard mount (see page 1 paragraph 0010 “The mounting structure has openings matching the VESA standard so that the structure is easily bolted to the television to carry the television above the console.”). Rojas and Whalen are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem-solving area e.g. providing a structure for supporting an object. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the monitor mounting plate include mounting holes that conform to a VESA standard mount. The motivation would have been to allow for the mounting plate to fit with panel televisions that fit within the VESA standard.
Claim(s) 17, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rojas (U.S. Pat. No. 20050218280 A1) in view of Mossman (U.S. Pat. No. 20080067298 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Rojas teaches an assembly comprising: a pegboard(36) including a sheet material with an array of pegboard holes(38); and a monitor mount comprising: a pegboard mounting plate (14), the pegboard mounting plate including: a pegboard hook attached to the base (22), the pegboard hook including a set of prongs (prongs 24) passing through pegboard holes in the array of pegboard holes and registering with a backside of the pegboard (the prongs 24 move through the holes 38 and register with the backside); and a bottom support attached to the base (prongs 20), the bottom support configured to resist tilting of the pegboard mounting plate relative to the pegboard (prongs 20 resist tilting of the pegboard mounting plate). Rojas does not teach a monitor mounting plate attached to the base. Mossman teaches a monitor mounting plate attached to the base (125 is attached to the base through arms 140 and 141). Rojas and Mossman are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem-solving area e.g. providing a structure for supporting an object. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to attach the monitor mounting plate to the base. The motivation would have been to provide the capability of mounting larger objects to the pegboard.
Regarding claim 19, Rojas as modified teaches the assembly of claim 17 wherein the pegboard hook(22; Rojas) is a first pegboard hook with a first set of prongs (prongs 24; Rojas),wherein the bottom support includes a second pegboard hook attached to the base (ear 24; Rojas), the second pegboard hook including a second set of prongs (ears 24 pass through the pegboard holes and register with the backside of the pegboard; Rojas) passing through pegboard holes in the array of pegboard holes and registering with the backside of the pegboard.
Regarding claim 20, Rojas as modified teaches the assembly of claim 17, but does not teach further comprising a monitor mounted to the monitor mounting plate. Mossman teaches a monitor mounted to the monitor mounting plate (monitor 630 mounted on the monitor mounting plate in Fig. 17A; Mossman). Rojas and Mossman are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem-solving area e.g. providing a structure for supporting an object. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to attach a monitor to the monitor mounting plate. The motivation would have been to attach an object to the mount it is meant to support.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rojas (U.S. Pat. No. 20050218280 A1) in view of Mossman (U.S. Pat. No. 20080067298 A1) and further in view of Mack(U.S. Pat. No. US 20210156644 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Rojas as modified teaches the assembly of claim 17, but it does not teach wherein the sheet material is a ferromagnetic sheet material, and wherein the bottom support includes a magnet magnetically attached to the sheet material. Mack teaches a pegboard (panel 30) wherein the sheet material is a ferromagnetic sheet material (page 3 paragraph 0029 “The pegboard or slat wall can be made of a magnetic material, such as an iron alloy that can be coated as with paint”), wherein the bottom support includes a magnet magnetically attached to the sheet material (magnetic mounting device 114). Rojas and Mack are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem-solving area e.g. providing a structure for supporting an object. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a ferromagnetic sheet material for the pegboard mount. The motivation would have been to create a stronger bond between the pegboard and the base.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM DONALD JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571) 272-9214. The examiner can normally be reached M, T, Th, F between 7:30 AM and 5:30 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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at 5712728227. 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.
/W.D.J./ Examiner, Art Unit 3631
/ANNA M MOMPER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights