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 # 19063663, entitled: BRACKET FOR HOUSEHOLD APPLIANCE AND METHOD FOR USE, filed on 02/26/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II. (Claims 1-11) in the reply filed on 01/20/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/20/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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(s) 1-2 and 4-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipate by Shimozaki (U.S. Pub. 20080099647).
Regarding claim 1, Shimozaki discloses a bracket 1 for coupling an appliance to a cabinet, comprising: a body 10,20 having an appliance attachment portion 10 and a cabinet attachment portion 20 and an offset (at 12) connecting the appliance attachment portion 20 to the cabinet attachment portion 10; and where the offset 12 is formed in the body 10,20 and has a pair of right angles such that a plane defined along the appliance attachment portion 10 is spaced from and parallel with a plane defined along the cabinet attachment portion 20 (as seen in Fig. 2 (c) below).
Regarding claim 2, Shimozaki discloses the bracket 1, where the appliance attachment portion 10 comprises a pair of apertures (as seen in Fig. 2(b) below) spaced by a bridge extending between the pair of apertures (see also Fig. 2(b) below).
Regarding claim 4, Shimozaki discloses the bracket 1, further comprising a pair of fingers 8 extending from opposite sides of the bridge such that one of the pair of fingers 8 overlies a respective one of the pair of apertures (as shown in Fig. 2(b) below).
Regarding claim 5, Shimozaki discloses the bracket 1, where one of the pair of fingers 8 extends away from the appliance attachment portion 10 such that the pair of fingers 8 do not position within the pair of apertures (as shown in Fig. 2(c) below).
Regarding claim 6, Shimozaki discloses the bracket 1, where each finger 8 of the pair of fingers 8 includes a protrusion 6 that extends from the pair of fingers 8 toward the pair of apertures (as seen best in Fig. 2(b) below).
Regarding claim 7, Shimozaki discloses the bracket 1, where the protrusion 6 does not extend into a respective one of the pair of apertures (see Fig. 2 (c) below).
Regarding claim 8, Shimozaki discloses the bracket 1, where the pair of fingers 8 comprises a pair of spring fingers configured to impart a spring force when bent or moved away from an initial position (the Examiner notes that the fingers 8 flex to fit into hole 25).
PNG
media_image1.png
223
505
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
296
529
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimozaki in view of Merck et al. (U.S. Pat. 20130206944).
Regarding claim 3, Shimozaki is discussed above and teaches the bracket 1, but fails to explicitly teach where a pair of ridges extend from the appliance attachment portion 10 on opposite sides of the pair of apertures. Merck teaches a bracket 200 that has attachment portions 213,215, where a pair of ridges 235 extend from one attachment portion 213.
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 appliance attachment portion of Shimozaki to have ridges, in order to provide additional strength to the bracket, as taught to be desirable by Merck (see discussion in para. [0061], lines 1-4).
Claim(s) 9-11 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimozaki in view of Simmons et al. (U.S. Pat. 8528994).
Regarding claim 9, Shimozaki is discussed above, and teaches the bracket 1, having a channel (formed by sidewalls 22 in Fig. 2(c)), but fails to teach where the cabinet attachment portion 20 comprises an extension portion extending from the cabinet attachment portion 20. Simmons teaches brackets 54,55, having extension portions 170,171.
With regards to claim 10, Simmons teaches the bracket, where the cabinet attachment portion 20 comprises a first opening 19, and Simmons teaches where the extensions 170,171 comprise second and third openings 174,175.
Regarding claim 11, Simmons teaches the bracket, where the first opening and the second opening are capable of being equally spaced from the channel 22.
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 cabinet attachment portion of Shimozaki to have an extension and openings, in order to provide multiple mounting points for the bracket, as taught to be desirable by Simmons (see discussion in col. 4, lines 1-4).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In addition to the reference to Shimozaki, Merck, and Simmons et al. above, the Examiner submits the Notice of References Cited (PTO-892). The cited references disclose brackets for securing equipment to objects via fasteners.
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 31-Mar-26
/TERRELL L MCKINNON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3632