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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “the magnet” in at least independent claims 1 and 12; “the gypsum facing paper” of claims 5 and 6; “the double-sided adhesive” and “the plaster” in at least claims 8-9; “the fixture” that is “the cabinet” or “the shelf” in at least claims 10 and 11, and “the recess in a fixture” in claim 17 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: the magnet 110 as mentioned in specification paragraph [0024]. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 13 recitation “13. The method of claim 12, further comprising adjusting a height of the at least one fixture support magnet by twisting a cover of the at least one fixture support magnet in one of a clockwise direction and a counterclockwise direction” is not understood. It is unclear how the height of the at least one fixture support magnet can be adjusted by twisting a cover of the at least one fixture support magnet in one of a clockwise direction and a counterclockwise direction.
“.
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.
Claims 10 and 11 are 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. Regarding claims 10 and 11, the “at least one fixture” is vague and indefinite as to whether it is the same fixture recited in claim 4.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Frakes (US 7789229 B2)
With respect to claim 1, Frakes discloses an adjustable fixture support magnet, comprising: a magnet (44); a receptacle (14) configured to receive the magnet (44); a cover (22), comprising an external first screw thread (42); a locking mechanism (the inner threads of 14 which engages threads 40 of cover 22) removably connecting the receptacle (14) with the cover (22); and a base (16), comprising an internal second screw thread (inner threads of 16) corresponding to the first screw thread (42).
With respect to claim 2, Frakes discloses the device of claim 1 as advanced above, wherein each of the receptacle (14), the cover (22) and the base (16) is substantially circular.
With respect to claim 4, Frakes discloses a system for magnetically mounting at least one fixture (inner receptacle 26), comprising: at least one fixture support magnet according to claim 1 as advanced above; at least one support bracket (32, figure 3); and at least one magnetic plate (34, figure 3).
With respect to claim 10, Frakes discloses the system of claim 4, further comprising: at least one fixture (26).
With respect to claim 11, Frakes discloses the method of claim 10 as advanced above, except for wherein the at least one fixture comprises at least one of a cabinet and a shelf (inner cylinder 26 with a bottom acts as a shelf for holding the item within the interior of 26).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by DeRita (US 20160047117 A1).
With respect to claim 12, DeRita discloses a method of magnetically mounting at least one fixture (30, figures 3-5), comprising: installing at least one magnetic plate (25, figure 5) behind at least one section of drywall (12a, figures 3-6, last 10 lines of paragraph [0046], “In this preferred kit embodiment, the panel preferably includes the magnetic strip on the rear panel surface (or embedded thereunder) for attachment of the panel to the wall system structure (e.g., a stud) and magnetic or metal strips under the front panel surface so that the attachment of the chair rail may be readily installed on the panel surface.”); affixing at least one fixture support magnet (31, figure 3) to a rear face of the at least one fixture (30, figure 5); positioning the rear face of the at least one fixture parallel to and proximate the at least one magnetic plate (25, figure 5).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bernsen (US 11592173 B1).
With respect to claim 12, Bernsen discloses a method of magnetically mounting at least one fixture (shelf 100, figures 1A-1B), comprising: installing at least one magnetic plate (the head 178 of nail 176 is magnetized plate, see column 9, lines 31-34, Bernsen discloses “The fasteners 176 may comprise a ferrous material that is formulated to magnetically couple to the second magnet 152”) behind at least one section of drywall (172); affixing at least one fixture support magnet (152) to a rear face (142, figure 1A) of the at least one fixture; positioning the rear face of the at least one fixture parallel to and proximate the at least one magnetic plate (178).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frakes (US 7789229 B2) in view of Pressl (US 2919796 A).
. With respect to claim 3, Frakes discloses the device of claim 1 as advanced above, wherein the locking mechanism (40) comprises: a recessed track (between the inner threads of 14 which engages threads 40 of 22 is helical recess track) in an inner surface of the receptacle; and a projection (the threads 40 form projection) an outer surface of the cover of a size corresponding to a width of the recessed track.
However, Frakes does not disclose wherein the locking mechanism comprises: a recessed track in an outer surface of the receptacle; and a projection an inner surface of the cover of a size corresponding to a width of the recessed track.
Pressl teaches the locking mechanism comprising a recessed track (39, figure 2) in an outer surface of the receptacle (26); and a projection (the inner surface threads of cover 11, an inner surface of the cover (11) of a size corresponding to a width of the recessed track (39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to have modify the locking mechanism of Frakes such that wherein the locking mechanism comprises: a recessed track in an outer surface of the receptacle; and a projection an inner surface of the cover of a size corresponding to a width of the recessed track as demonstrated by Pressl since such modification would have involved a mere reversal of parts which is well-known the ambit of one of ordinary skilled in the art.
Claims 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frakes (US 7789229 B2) in view of Bernsen (US 11592173 B1) and in view of Hansen (US 20060191237 A1).
With respect to claim 5, Frakes discloses the system of claim 4 as advanced above, except for further comprising facing paper (per claim 5); wherein the facing paper comprises gypsum facing paper (per claim 6); further comprising an adhesive (per claim 7); and wherein the adhesive comprises double-sided industrial grade mounting tape (per claim 8); and further comprising plaster (per claim 9) as a result of having a magnetic system mounted behind a drywall (not claimed).
Bernsen discloses a method of magnetically mounting at least one fixture (shelf 100, figures 1A-1B), comprising: installing at least one magnetic plate (the head 178 of nail 176 is magnetized plate, see column 9, lines 31-34, Bernsen discloses “The fasteners 176 may comprise a ferrous material that is formulated to magnetically couple to the second magnet 152”) behind at least one section of drywall (172); affixing at least one fixture support magnet (152) to a rear face (142, figure 1A) of the at least one fixture; positioning the rear face of the at least one fixture parallel to and proximate the at least one magnetic plate (178).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to have modify the system of Frakes such that the magnet plate is behind the drywall for the well-known advantage of aesthetic purposes as taught by Bernsen.
Frakes and Bernsen combined does not disclose patching hole materials for the drywall after installation of the magnetic plate behind the drywall comprising the materials of facing paper (per claim 5); wherein the facing paper comprises gypsum facing paper (per claim 6); further comprising an adhesive (per claim 7); and wherein the adhesive comprises double-sided industrial grade mounting tape (per claim 8); and further comprising plaster (per claim 9) as a result of having a magnetic system mounted behind a drywall (not claimed).
Hansen teaches patching of hole (24) in one section of drywall (22); wherein Hansen discloses the step of patching at least one hole in the at least one section of drywall comprises: applying an adhesive (16a, figure 8) to a first side of at least one piece of facing paper; applying the at least one piece of facing paper to the at least one section of drywall (42, figure 8); and applying drywall mesh and plaster (14a, figure 2) to each of the at least one piece of facing paper and the at least one section of drywall; wherein Hansen discloses the at least one piece of facing paper comprises at least one piece of gypsum facing paper ( Hansen discloses “ [0011] As stated, it is preferred for the cement product used in the repair patch of this invention to comprise a plaster which is a known and commercially available material used in flexible medical bandages and the like. A gypsum plaster or plaster of Paris may be used.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to have provided fixture support magnet system of Frakes and Bernsen combined with the method of patching at least one hole in the at least one section of drywall when a hole is made in the drywall with the material of gypsum facing paper, adhesive and plaster as such materials for patching a drywall hole is conventional and well-known in the art as demonstrated by Hansen.
Frakes, Bernsen and Hansen combined all the claimed features invention except for wherein the adhesive comprises double-sided industrial grade mounting tape. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to have provided the adhesive tape of Frakes, Bernsen and Hansen combined such that comprises double-sided industrial grade mounting tape as such tape is conventional and well-known in the art.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernsen (US 11592173 B1) in view of Dewall (US 6452097 B1)
With respect to claim 14, Bernsen discloses the method of claim 12 as advanced above, except for further comprising: installing at least one support bracket behind the at least one section of drywall. Dewall teaches installing at least one support bracket (11) behind the at least one section of drywall (10) for supporting a magnet plate (12 and 13) onto a stud (16, figure 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to have modify the magnetic mounting arrangement of Bernsen such that at least one support bracket is provided for mounting to a stud for the support of a magnet behind a drywall as taught to be desirable by DeWall.
With respect to claim 15, Bernsen and DeWall combined discloses the method of claim 14 as advanced above, wherein DeWall teaches the step of installing at least one magnetic plate (13 in DeWall) behind at least one section of drywall (10) comprises affixing the at least one magnetic plate (13) to the at least one support bracket (11).
With respect to claim 16, Bernsen and DeWall combined discloses the method of claim 14 as advanced above, wherein DeWall discloses the step of installing at least one support bracket (11) behind the at least one section of drywall (10) comprises affixing the at least one support bracket (11) to at least one stud (26, figure 5).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernsen (US 11592173 B1) in view of Victor et al (US 2978215 A).
With respect to claim 17, Bernsen discloses the method of claim 12 as advanced above, wherein Bernsen discloses the step of affixing at least one fixture support magnet (152, figure 1A-1B) to a rear face (142) of the at least one fixture (100) comprises: inserting a base of the at least one fixture support magnet (152) into a corresponding recess (148) in the rear face of the at least one fixture.
However, Bernsen does not disclose drilling at least one screw into the rear face of the at least one fixture through a screw hole in the base of the fixture support magnet.
Victor et al (US 2978215 A) discloses method step of affixing at least one fixture support magnet (18, figure 5) to a rear face (15, figure 5) of the at least one fixture (10) comprises: inserting a base (17) of the at least one fixture support magnet (18) into a corresponding recess (recess of 15, figure 5) in the rear face of the at least one fixture; and drilling at least one screw (20, figure 5) into the rear face of the at least one fixture through a screw hole (19, and hole accommodating screw 20, figure 5) in the base of the fixture support magnet (18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to have modify the fixture support magnet of Bernsen such that the magnet is fixed via screw by applying the steps of drilling at least one screw into the rear face of the at least one fixture through a screw hole in the base of the fixture support magnet for positively mounting the magnet within the recess as taught to be desirable by Victor.
Claims 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernsen (US 11592173 B1) in view of Hansen (US 20060191237 A1).
With respect to claim 18, Bernsen discloses the method of claim 12 as advanced above except for further comprising: patching at least one hole in the at least one section of drywall. Hansen teaches patching of hole (24) in one section of drywall (22). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to have provided fixture support magnet system of Bernsen with the method of patching at least one hole in the at least one section of drywall when a hole is made in the drywall as taught to be desirable by Hansen.
With respect to claim 19, Bernsen and Hansen combined discloses the method of claim 18 as advanced above, wherein Hansen discloses the step of patching at least one hole in the at least one section of drywall comprises: applying an adhesive (16a, figure 8) to a first side of at least one piece of facing paper; applying the at least one piece of facing paper to the at least one section of drywall (42, figure 8); and applying drywall mesh and plaster (14a, figure 2) to each of the at least one piece of facing paper and the at least one section of drywall.
With respect to claim 20, Bernsen and Hansen combined discloses the method of claim 19 as advanced above except for wherein the adhesive comprises double-sided industrial grade mounting tape. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to have provided the adhesive tape of Bernsen and Hansen combined such that comprises double-sided industrial grade mounting tape as such tape is conventional and well-known in the art.
With respect to claim 21, Bernsen and Hansen combined discloses the method of claim 19 as advanced above; wherein Hansen discloses the at least one piece of facing paper comprises at least one piece of gypsum facing paper ( Hansen discloses “ [0011] As stated, it is preferred for the cement product used in the repair patch of this invention to comprise a plaster which is a known and commercially available material used in flexible medical bandages and the like. A gypsum plaster or plaster of Paris may be used.”).
The allowability of claim 13 cannot be determined at this time due to the ambiguities discussed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hordis (US 7367131 B1). teaches installing at least one support bracket (16) behind the at least one section of drywall (22) for supporting a magnet plate (12 and 30). Gilbreath (US 5269861 A) and Bernard (US 4776906 A) teaches patching of drywall. The remaining prior art of record further demonstrate magnetic support attached for fixtures of interest.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ko (Korie) H Chan whose telephone number is (571)272-6816. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday -Friday, 8:00 - 5:00 EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jonathan Liu can be reached on 571-272-8227. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Ko H Chan/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Khc
Prosecution Insights