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 .
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, no information disclosure statement has been filed on behalf of this case.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the indented track" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Appropriate correction/explanation is required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 1 requires the extending portion to be in the form of U-shaped structure. Such a U-shaped structure inherently includes a base and first and second raised side portions connected to the base portion. Claim 6 depends from claim 1 and recites the extending portion as comprising the base portion and the first and second raised side portions. Accordingly, the limitations recited in claim 6 are inherent in the U-shaped structure already required by claim 1 and do not further limit the subject matter of claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claims 7-8 are rejected based on their respective dependencies.
Appropriate correction/explanation is required.
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 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.
Claims 1, 3-6, 9-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (U.S. Pat. No. 4141525) in view of Bottomley (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 20080023604 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Miller teaches a strut mounting bracket, comprising:
a securing portion (24) configured to couple to a surface; and
an extending portion (22) coupled to the securing portion, wherein the extending portion has a substantially U-shaped cross section, wherein the extending portion is configured to slidingly receive a strut (14).
However, Miller is silent to disclose at least one surface of the extending portion comprises a plurality of protrusions, and wherein the plurality of protrusions are configured to frictionally contact an inside surface of the strut.
Bottomley teaches at least one surface of the extending portion comprises a plurality of protrusions (Bottomley; protrusions defined by 15 and/or 13a, 13b), and wherein the plurality of protrusions are configured to frictionally contact an inside surface of the strut (Bottomley; B).
Miller and Bottomley 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 invention of Miller comprising a protrusions and strut configuration as disclosed by Bottomley. The motivation would have been to provide appropriate grip during the retention.
Regarding claim 3, Miller as modified teaches the extending portion includes a tapered end (ends at 13a, 13b).
Regarding claim 4, Miller teaches a longitudinal axis of the extending portion (22) is substantially perpendicular to a planar surface of the securing portion (24).
Regarding claim 5, Miller as modified teaches at least one of the plurality of protrusions (Bottomley; protrusions defined by 15 and 13a, 13b) is configured to exert a normal force on an end of the strut (Miller; 12).
Regarding claim 6, Miller teaches the extending portion (22) comprises a base portion (portion comprising 32), a first raised side portion (28), and a second raised side portion (30), wherein the base portion is coupled to the first raised side portion and the second raised side portion.
Regarding claim 9, Miller teaches the base portion (portion comprising 32) is wider than first raised side portion (28) or the second raised side portion (30).
Regarding claim 10, Miller teaches the indented track comprises a first flat surface (14) and a second flat surface (16), and wherein the first flat surface is substantially perpendicular to the second flat surface.
Regarding claim 11, Miller as modified teaches the plurality of protrusions (protrusions defined by 15 and 13, 13b) comprise a plurality of ridges.
Regarding claim 12, Miller as modified teaches each protrusion of the plurality of protrusions has a first side (Bottomley; at one side of recess 15) and a second side (Bottomley; at another side of recess 15) that is angled relative to the first side.
Regarding claim 13, Miller teaches the securing portion (24) comprises a plurality of openings (36a, 36b, 40, 42).
Regarding claim 14, Miller as modified teaches the plurality of protrusions cause the strut (12) to resist movement in a first linear direction toward the securing portion (24) more than in a second, opposite linear direction away from the securing portion.
Regarding claim 15, Miller teaches the securing portion (24) and the extending portion (22) comprise a single integral part.
Regarding claim 16, Miller teaches a strut mounting bracket, comprising:
a securing portion (24) configured to couple to a surface [capable/intended use]; and
an extending portion (22) coupled to the securing portion, wherein the extending portion is configured to slidingly receive a strut (12), and wherein the extending portion comprises:
a base portion (portion comprising 32);
a first raised side portion (28) coupled to the base portion; and
a second raised side portion (30) coupled to the base portion.
However, Miller is silent to disclose a first and second plurality of protrusions.
Bottomley teaches a first and second plurality of protrusions (Bottomley; protrusions defined by 15 and/or 13a, 13b). 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 invention of Miller comprising the first and second plurality of protrusions and strut configuration as disclosed by Bottomley such that the first raised side portion comprises a first plurality of protrusions configured to contact a first inside surface of the strut, wherein the second raised side portion comprises a second plurality of protrusions configured to contact a second inside surface of the strut, and wherein a first distance between a first protrusion of the first plurality of protrusions and a second protrusion of the second plurality of protrusions is greater than a second distance between the first inside surface and the second inside surface. The motivation would have been to provide appropriate grip during the retention.
Regarding claim 18, Miller teaches the extending portion (22) is substantially U-shaped.
Regarding claim 19, Miller teaches the extending portion (22) is substantially perpendicular to the securing portion (24).
Regarding claim 20, Miller teaches a strut mounting bracket assembly, comprising:
a strut (12);
a first strut mounting bracket, comprising:
a first securing portion (24) configured to couple to a first surface, and
a first extending portion (22) coupled to the first securing portion,
wherein the first extending portion is configured to slidingly receive a first end of the strut. However, Miller is silent to disclose a second strut mounting bracket. The Examiner notes that providing duplicated parts that provide predictable results is considered within the level of an ordinary skill in the art see e.g. MPEP 2144.04. Thus, 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 invention of Miller having
a second strut mounting bracket, comprising: a second securing portion (another one of 24) configured to couple to a second surface, and a second extending portion (another one of 22) coupled to the second securing portion, wherein the second extending portion is configured to slidingly receive a second end of the strut. The motivation would have been to create a framework or to support single strut from both ends.
Furthermore, Miller is silent to disclose a first and second plurality of protrusions.
Bottomley teaches a first and second plurality of protrusions (Bottomley; protrusions defined by 15 and/or 13a, 13b). 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 invention of Miller comprising the first and second plurality of protrusions and strut configuration as disclosed by Bottomley such that the first extending portion comprises a first plurality of protrusions configured to contact a first inside surface of the strut and resist movement of the strut in a first longitudinal direction more than movement in a second, opposite longitudinal direction; and
a second plurality of protrusions configured to contact a second inside surface of the strut and resist movement of the strut in the second longitudinal direction more than movement in the first longitudinal direction. The motivation would have been to provide appropriate grip during the retention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (U.S. Pat. No. 4141525) in view of Bottomley (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 20080023604 A1) and further in view of Murphy (U.S. Pat. No. 5071281).
Regarding claim 8, Miller teaches the base portion. However, Miller is silent to disclose the base portion comprises a plurality of openings that are substantially circular. Murphy teaches a base portion (Murphy; 15) comprising a plurality of openings (Murphy; 14) that are substantially circular.
Miller and Murphy 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 provide the plurality of openings that are substantially circular. The motivation would have been to fixedly secure the mounting bracket to a frame member.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD IJAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6280. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00 am-10:00 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, 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.
MUHAMMAD IJAZ
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3631
/Muhammad Ijaz/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631
