This is a Non-Final office action for serial number 17/699,243.
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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include any reference sign(s). 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.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the reference numbers for: hooks, bolts, curve, bar, beam, support bracket, brackets, square plate, slot, and nut as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: “blot” on page 4, line 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-5 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims include numerous grammatical errors such as “know as”, claim 1, line 1; “that is bend by molding”, claim 1, line 5; “in the shape where the slot receive support”, claim 1, line 6; “which is design with” claim 1, line 8; evenly place over tow beam, claim 1, line 3; . Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected (claims dependent on a rejected claim are rejected based on their dependence unless otherwise specified) 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the end" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the attic" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the curves" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "its" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the center" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the two grove" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites, “its dimension receive weight upon which item or equipment can be place via by a hook or via with a bolt that is place in the storage support bracket onto the slot that is in the center of both end of the storage support bracket in the dimension which is place between the two grove that is over the beam where item can be place on the beam as a storage device on the bracket that is place over the beam known as the storage support bracket” is replete with confusing and indefinite language. This recitation which makes it difficult to determine what is the “item or equipment” and what is the “storage support bracket” since the limitations continuously recite the “item”, the “equipment”, and the “support bracket” as if such limitations are the same part therefore making it difficult to understand the claim limitations.
Claims 1-5 recite hooks, bolts, curve, pin, bar, beam, support bracket, brackets, square plate, slot, four connection, and a weight which are not clearly disclosed within the specification and drawings since the specification and drawings do not include reference numbers therefore failing to particularly point out and distinctly disclose the subject matter of the invention resulting in claims 1-5 to be indefinite and confusing. The examiner can not clearly without any doubt understand how the invention works or how the device is assembled due to the lack of reference numbers within the specification and drawings therefore being indefinite and confusing.
All words in a claim must be considered in determining the patentability of theclaim against the prior art. If no reasonably definite meaning can be ascribed to certainterms in the claim, the subject matter does not become obvious, the claim becomesindefinite. In re Wilson, 424F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970). The examiner's analysis ofthe claims, in particular claim language within the claims as rejected under 35 USC 112 above, indicates that considerable speculation as to the meaning of the terms employed and assumptions as to the scope of the claims needs to be made, as the examiner does not understand what is exactly being claimed by the applicant. Any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 should not be based on such speculations and assumptions. In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859,862 (CCPA 1962); Ex parte Head, 214 USPQ 551 (Bd.App. 1981). Accordingly, the applicant should not assume that any claims not rejected using prior art is considered allowable since the examiner can not clearly determine the limitations of the claim due to indefiniteness. The applicant should be aware that once the claims have been corrected to remove the problems concerning indefiniteness, prior art may be used to reject the claims and the next action made final or if the application is in a final status the amendment after final may not be entered as requiring further search and/or consideration.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected, as best understood, under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Burdy et al. (Burdy) 10,249,855. Burdy discloses (Claim 1) A method, comprising: receiving, via a weight on a device know as a storage support bracket (Figure 2) where the method of placing weight (11) is used; via a hook (38) that is curve with a bolt on the end that is attached to a utility rod or bar (54) which is evenly place over two beam that is already present in the attic which comprising: via two slot (conventionally a slot, see Becker 4,535,863, element 32) that created in the storage support bracket that have a dimension; that is bend by molding the storage support bracket in a shape upon forming the curves in the shape where the slot receive support using a pin over a beam in the attic which; via the other slot, the second support on the other end of the storage support bracket which is design with a second pin in according to its dimension receive weight upon which item or equipment can be place via by a hook or via with a bolt that is place in the storage support bracket onto the slot that is in the center of both end of the storage support bracket in the dimension which is place between the two grove that is over the beam where item can be place on the beam as a storage device on the bracket that is place over the beam known as the storage support bracket; (Claim 2) The method of claim 1, wherein providing the storage support bracket with two slots on each end of the bar on the bottom of the bracket comprises presenting the pin to hold support over the beam where weight is distributed evenly over the bracket and respectively hold the storage support bracket in place in the attic for storage equipment to be place on the storage device; (Claim 3) The method of claim 1, further comprising storing a list of equipment and corresponding items, wherein the item is placed on the storage support bracket as a storage unit, that received weight on the storage support bracket where two slots is placed on each side of the bracket where a hook or bolt can place into the two slot or holes that hold weight on the bracket via, a bicycle or tools or garden equipment; (Claim 4) The method of claim 1, further comprising providing a tray (56) of shelf on the two bracket where the shelf is bolted to two bracket having (4) four connection to the hook or bolt where a list of equipment and corresponding items, wherein the item is placed on the storage support bracket as a storage unit, that received weight on the storage device via, a bicycle or tools (11) or garden equipment; (Claim 5) The method of claim 1, wherein the weight of object that is placed on the bolt where the end of the bolt have a hook (38) that is attached to the bolt for item to be placed on the hook as it is bolt and mounted on the storage support bracket in the two slot, where item can be placed on the hook as a storage device to store equipment via bicycle or a tool on the hook that is connected to the bar.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art discloses conventional hook type suspending devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIMBERLY T WOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-6826. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thur 9:00am-5:30pm flexible schedule.
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 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 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.
/KIMBERLY T WOOD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631