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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 5-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samuels (2,665,869) in view of LoNigro (4,149,693).
As to claim 1, Samuels discloses a hanging apparatus (1, 2, 11, 12, 14; Fig. 1) comprising a hang bar (14) having a hanging zone to mount a hang clip (11, 12) and a mounting zone (see Fig. 1 below; the mounting zone comprises two arm members with each arm member attached to each end of the hang bar (14; Fig. 1)) having mounting apparatus deployed thereon to mount the hang bar on an upright bar (1, 2; the upright bar is considered equivalent to a toolbox since the toolbox is not positively claimed, and an outer facing surface of the upright bar is considered equivalent to a sidewall), the hang bar is configured to be spaced away from the sidewall of the toolbox to create a gap between the hang bar and the sidewall, and a hang clip (12) mounted on the hang bar in the hanging zone. The hang clip having a hook (11) deployed asymmetrically on an outer side of the hang clip, facing away from the sidewall of the toolbox. Samuels further discloses the cross section of the hanging zone of the hang bar is approximately matched with a cross section of an aperture (Fig. 2 or 7) of the hang clip to securely mount the hang clip on the hanging zone. Samuels also discloses the other claimed limitations except for the cross section of the hanging zone of the hang bar is matched with and is enclosed by a cross section of an aperture of the hang clip to securely mount the hang clip on the hanging zone as claimed. LoNigro discloses a hanging apparatus (10; Fig. 1) comprising a hang bar (18) having a hanging zone (20, 21) to mount a hang clip (36) and a mounting zone (22) having mounting apparatus (28-32) deployed thereon to mount the hang bar on a support surface (14) with the hang bar is spaced away from the support surface, and a hang clip (36) having an aperture (40). LoNigro further discloses the cross section of the hanging zone of the hang bar is matched with and is enclosed by a cross section of the aperture (40) of the hang clip to securely mount the hang clip on the hanging zone (Figs. 1 & 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in view of LoNigro to modify the hanging apparatus of Samuels so the hanging apparatus is constructed with the cross section of the hanging zone of the hang bar is matched with and is enclosed by the cross section of an aperture of the hang clip to securely mount the hang clip on the hanging zone as claimed for better securing the hang clip on the hang bar and to prevent the hang clip from accidentally falling off the hang bar and because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
As to claim 2, Samuels discloses the hang bar is one of a flat hang bar (Fig. 1), a hang bar with bent arms (Fig. 1), a hang bar with S-curves, and a hang bar with a mid-section recess.
As to claim 5, Samuels discloses the hanging apparatus comprises a spacer used with the flat hang bar to create a gap between the flat hang bar and the support surface/the sidewall of the toolbox (Fig. 1 below discloses one of the two arm members is considered as a spacer as claimed).
As to claim 6, Samuels further discloses the hook of the hang clip is one of a flat hook, a finger hook, a J-shaped hook (Fig. 1), and an S-shaped hook.
As to claim 7, LoNigro further discloses the cross section of the hang bar and the cross section of the aperture of the hang clip have a rectangular shape (Fig. 3).
As to claim 8, see Fig. 3 of LoNigro.
As to claim 9, the hanging apparatus of Samuels as modified further fails to show the cross section of the hang bar and the cross section of the aperture of the hang clip comprise one of a J shape, a U shape, a square shape, a circular shape and a triangular shape in lieu of the rectangular shape as disclosed by LoNigro. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hanging apparatus of Samuels as modified so the hanging apparatus is constructed with the cross section of the hang bar and the cross section of the aperture of the hang clip comprise one of a J shape, a U shape, a square shape, a circular shape and a triangular shape instead of the rectangular shape because the selection of the specific shape for the cross section of the hang bar and the cross section of the aperture would have been an obvious matter of design choice inasmuch as the resultant structures will work equally well.
As to claim 10, Samuels discloses the support surface (1, 2) is a vertically oriented wall. The hanging apparatus of Samuels as modified is capable to mount on the support surface is a vertically oriented wall of a toolbox.
PNG
media_image1.png
246
376
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references as applied to claim 1 or 2 above, and further in view of The Official Notice. Samuels discloses the hanging apparatus as above and further discloses a weld/seam (19) formed between a body (18) of the hang clip (12) and the hook (11; Fig. 2 and column 2, lines 31-36). To the extent that the hanging apparatus of Samuels as modified further fails to show a seam in the hang clip to allow mounting the hang clip onto the mounting zone of the hang bar as claimed. The Official Notice is taken of an old and conventional practice of providing a device formed from two separate pieces and join together to form the device instead of the device formed from a single piece. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in view of The Official Notice to modify the hanging apparatus of Samuels as modified so the hang clip comprises a seam to allow mounting the hang clip onto the mounting zone of the hang bar to facilitate mounting and because it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 06/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not deemed to be persuasive.
Applicant indicates in the remarks that Samuels does not teach or suggest the hang clip encloses the hang bar, and that the cross section of the hanging zone and the hang clip aperture closely match is noted. This is persuasive. However, LoNigro teaches the hang clip (36; see above) encloses the hang bar (18), and that the cross section of the hanging zone and the hang clip aperture closely match (Fig. 3) as claimed. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in view of LoNigro to modify the hanging apparatus of Samuels so the hanging apparatus is constructed with the cross section of the hanging zone of the hang bar is matched with and is enclosed by the cross section of an aperture of the hang clip to securely mount the hang clip on the hanging zone and because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to LoNigro in the remarks such as LoNigro does not supply the teachings missing from Samuels are noted. They are not persuasive because LoNigro teaches the hang clip (36; see above) encloses the hang bar (18), and that the cross section of the hanging zone and the hang clip aperture closely match (Fig. 3) which are the missing from Samuels as indicated above. Applicant further argues that LoNigro design teaches away from the design of Samuels is noted, this is also not persuasive because LoNigro teaches the cross section of the hanging zone and the hang clip aperture closely match as claimed.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUAN K BUI whose telephone number is (571)272-4552. The examiner can normally be reached Generally M-F, 7-4.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Orlando E. Avilés can be reached on 571-270-5531 or orlando.aviles-bosques@uspto.gov. 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.
/LUAN K BUI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights