CTNF 29/909,857 CTNF 96680 DETAILED ACTION 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority The priority claim is objected to for the incorrect citation of the application number. In particular, the ADS of the instant application inadvertently cites Application No. 29/909843, when in fact the related application for the instant application is Application No. 29/909842. In an attempt to overcome this objection, a corrected ADS must be submitted in which the domestic priority application number is amended to reflect the correct application. Examiner’s Comment on Telephonic Election/Interview The examiner notes that an Examiner’s Amendment regarding amendments to the specification, specifically cancelling of figure descriptions and amending the broken line statement, as well as amendments to the drawings were discussed with the Applicant’s Attorney, Dennis Donahue, on 16 March 2026. However, upon further examination, the examiner submits that several rejections are necessitated by the present drawings. For clarity of the record, all of the objections and rejections are given below. Telephonic Restriction/Election This application discloses the following embodiments: Embodiment 1: FIGS. 1-8 disclose a bracket with two curved legs with a mounting plate on top in which one end is flat and one end is stair stepped. Embodiment 2: FIGS. 9-16 disclose a bracket with two curved legs with a mounting plate on top in which one end is flat and one end is stair stepped in which the central hole in the bracket and the two ovular features on each leg are depicted in broken lines. Embodiment 3 : FIGS. 17-24 disclose a bracket with two curved legs with a mounting plate on top in which one end is flat and one end is stair stepped in which the entire upper mounting plate, the central hole in the bracket and the two ovular features on each leg are depicted in broken lines. Multiple embodiments of a single inventive concept may be included in the same design application only if they are patentably indistinct. See In re Rubinfield , 270 F.2d 391, 123 USPQ 210 (CCPA 1959). Embodiments that are patentably distinct from one another do not constitute a single inventive concept and thus may not be included in the same design application. See In re Planter , 155 USPQ 222 (Comm’r Pat. 1967). The difference in scope in which the upper mounting plate is depicted in broken lines creates patentably distinct designs. The above disclosed embodiments divide into the following patentably distinct groups of designs: Group I: Embodiments 1 and 2 Group II: Embodiment 3 Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121. During a telephone discussion with attorney of record, Dennis Donahue on 16 March 2026, an election was made without traverse to prosecute the design of Group 1. Affirmation of this election should be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Group II is withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being for a nonelected design. Applicant is also requested to cancel all non-elected drawing figures and the corresponding descriptions. Specification The broken line statement is objected to because it does not fully identify and describe the exact nature of the broken lines included in the figures. As it is possible that broken lines with different purposes may be included in a single application, the description must make a visual distinction between the two purposes (MPEP 1503.02). In particular, the current broken line statement does not make clear what the broken lines in the drawings are depicting, ie- portions of the design, environmental subject, etc. In order to overcome this objection, the broken line statement must be amended. It is suggested that Applicant amend the broken line statement to something similar to as follows, if commensurate with Applicants intent: --The broken lines in the figures depict portions of Electronic Device Platform and form no part of the claimed design.-- Further, the cross-reference statement in the specification is objected to. In particular, the incorporation by reference statement inadvertently cites Application No. 29/909843. In order to overcome this objection, the cross-reference statement must be amended. It is suggested that Applicant amend the statement to correct the cited Application No. to 29/909842. Claim Rejection – 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b), as the claimed invention is not described in such full, clear, concise and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to make and use the same, and fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or joint inventor regards as the invention. The claim is indefinite and nonenabling because the drawings do not describe the claimed design such that the exact scope and appearance thereof can be properly understood. In particular, the lower leg/support portions shown in FIGS. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 ,8, 9, 10, 11, 12 ,15, and 16 are depicted inconsistently in the views in which they are shown. For example, FIGS. 1 and 9 depict the right leg as having a concave curvature (labeled A below) and the left leg as a straight diagonal (labeled B below). However, FIGS. 2 and 10 depicts the left leg as having a convex curvature (labeled C below). Furthermore, FIGS. 3, 4, 11, and 12 depict both legs as having a concave curvature (labeled D below), and lastly FIGS. 7, 8, 15, and 16 depict both the right and left legs as being straight diagonal from the upper mounting plate with no curvature (labeled E below). As a result, due at least to the inconsistent depiction discussed above, the exact scope and appearance of the claimed design cannot be fully determined. PNG media_image1.png 645 603 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 437 592 media_image2.png Greyscale PNG media_image3.png 473 1105 media_image3.png Greyscale PNG media_image4.png 436 1087 media_image4.png Greyscale Guidance for Amendment In an attempt to overcome the rejection without introducing new matter, Applicant may amend the figures to consistently and accurately depict the features discussed above in all views in which they are seen. All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black, sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction”, 37 C.F.R. 1.84(l). It should be obvious, at a glance, which lines are solid and which lines are broken. Broken lines should employ an even, consistent rhythm in the breaks, even on curves and angles, with the dashes being larger than the spaces between. Extra care is required in areas of tight detail regarding broken lines due to the tendency of the broken lines and dashes to merge to solid line when reduced for publication (please refer to 37CFR 1.84(k)(l) for additional guidance as well). 15-05-04 AIA 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. If all the figures on a drawing sheet are canceled, a replacement sheet is not required. A marked-up copy of the drawing sheet (labeled as “Annotated Sheet”) including an annotation showing that all the figures on that drawing sheet have been canceled must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change to the drawings. 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. When preparing new or replacement drawings, be careful to avoid introducing new matter into the disclosure, prohibited by 35 U.S.C.§132 and 37 C.F.R.§1.121(f). Additionally, any amendment must meet the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a). That is, it must be apparent that applicant was in possession of the amended design at the time of filing. This pertains to either the addition to, or the removal of, any elements shown in the original disclosure of the design. The application has been examined based on the appearance of the design as shown in the drawings. Although the claimed invention is not described in exact terms, the Examiner has rejected the claim in view of prior art based on the appearance of the design as shown in the drawings. Therefore, the following rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) are also set forth. Claim Rejection - 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) 15-11-aia AIA The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tall Dual Graph Mount shown in the Rose Metal Products Trophy Mount Brochure (hereafter “Tall Dual Graph Mount”), as seen in Applicants IDS filed 11 August 2023 in which a copy of the NPL document has been filed , because 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. The appearance of Tall Dual Graph Mount is substantially the same as that of the claimed design. The ordinary observer test is the sole test for anticipation. International Seaway Trading Corp. v. Walgreens Corp. , 589 F.3d 1233, 1237-38, 1240, 93 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2009) and MPEP § 1504.02. PNG media_image5.png 645 603 media_image5.png Greyscale PNG media_image6.png 314 208 media_image6.png Greyscale Two designs are substantially the same if their resemblance is deceptive to the extent that it would induce an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, to purchase an article having one design supposing it to be the other. Door- Master Corp. v. Yorktowne Inc. , 256 F3d.1308 (Fed. Cir. 2001) citing Gorham Co. v. White , 81 U.S. 511, 528 (1871). The comparison takes into account significant differences between the two designs, not minor or trivial differences that necessarily exist between any two designs that are not exact copies of one another. Just as “minor differences between a patented design and an accused article's design cannot, and shall not, prevent a finding of infringement,” ( Litton , 728 F.2d at 1444), so too minor differences cannot prevent a finding of anticipation. Int'l Seaway supra. Conclusion The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) and under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tall Dual Graph Mount. 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLE SANDERS HOLMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8517. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 am - 3 pm (PT). 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, Chris Mclean can be reached on (571)270-1996. 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. /COLE SANDERS HOLMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2952 Application/Control Number: 29/909,857 Page 2 Art Unit: 2952 Application/Control Number: 29/909,857 Page 3 Art Unit: 2952 Application/Control Number: 29/909,857 Page 4 Art Unit: 2952 Application/Control Number: 29/909,857 Page 5 Art Unit: 2952 Application/Control Number: 29/909,857 Page 6 Art Unit: 2952 Application/Control Number: 29/909,857 Page 7 Art Unit: 2952 Application/Control Number: 29/909,857 Page 8 Art Unit: 2952 Application/Control Number: 29/909,857 Page 9 Art Unit: 2952