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 .
This correspondence is in response to applicant’s reply filed on 06/29/2026. Claims 1, 3, and 7-24 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Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 7-8, and 24 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), 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), and 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), 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); and 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 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).
Regarding claim 24, Shimozaki discloses the bracket 1, where each of the protrusions 6 provided on each finger 8 of the pair of fingers 8 can be configured to further bend the pair of fingers away from the a respective one of the pair of apertures (shown in Fig. 2(b) below) in order to generate a sufficient spring force to maintain the bracket 1 against a planar mounting wall positioned between the appliance attachment portion 10 and the pair of fingers 8.
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
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 and 21-23 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 18 (formed between 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 25, 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 25 and the second opening 174,175 are capable of being equally spaced from the channel 18.
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).
Regarding claim 21, Shimozaki teaches the bracket 1, where the cabinet attachment portion 20 defines a length extending in a direction distal from the appliance attachment portion 10, and where the length is adjustable by way of bending the cabinet attachment portion 20 180 degrees along the channel 18.
Regarding claim 22, Shimozaki teaches the bracket 1, where the bending of the cabinet attachment portion 20 180 degrees along the channel 18 shortens the length of the cabinet attachment portion 20 (as seen in Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 23, Shimozaki and Simmons teach the bracket 1, where the bending of the cabinet attachment portion 20 180 degrees along the channel 18 aligns the first opening 25 with the second opening 174,175.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that Shimozaki fails to disclose where “each finger of the pair of fingers includes a protrusion that extends from the pair of fingers toward the pair of apertures,” the Examiner submits the following. As disclosed in the Non-Final Rejection mailed on 04/03/2026, Shimozaki discloses: “…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).” The Examiner notes that as shown in Fig. 2(b) below, the portion of the fingers 8 that extend into the apertures, is the protrusion 6.
PNG
media_image2.png
296
529
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it is submitted that Shimozaki discloses the limitations of claim 1, as amended.
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 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 8-Sep-26
/TERRELL L MCKINNON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3632
Prosecution Insights