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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 13-15 are pending and have been examined in this application. As of the date of this application, the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 01/21/2023 has been taken into account.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 01/21/2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Response to Amendment
In the amendment dated 08/18/2025, the following has occurred: Claims 13-15 have been amended; No claims have been canceled; No claims have been added. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that: “Part 22 is described in Vermillion as a pin for a socket (paragraph 18) and part 32 is described as a second wall body. In FIG. 2 neither part looks like a hook or even suggests the appearance of hook.” – Firstly element 36 was cited in addition to 22 as a hook, and Fig. 1 and 2 show a curved element for catching and holding; and something curved or bent like a hook which aligns with Merriam-Webster’s definition of a hook. The term that a specification uses for an element does not prevent it from reading on the recitation of a hook.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 13-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Additionally, the amendment has overcome some of the objections and 112 rejections set forth in the previous action.
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.
Claims 13-15 are 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 recites “a flexible hook member extending and being biased to the rear side, and constructed to reversibly and automatically close the space existing between the rear side and the bottom loop tip”. – However, in regards to this tip the specification states:
“The tip 19 and the hook member 21 can be moved downward and upward in the directions of arrows 29. The tip 16 of loop 15 is biased towards the front side 14 and the tip 19 and hook member 21 of loop 18 are biased towards the rear side 13.” (Pg. 3, Ln. 13-16; emphasis added)
Nowhere in the specification or drawings is there described or shown a tip that automatically closes a space and as such the specification does not reasonably convey that the inventor had possession of the invention and therefore fails to comply with the written description requirement
Claims 14-15 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, rejected claim 13.
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.
Claim 14 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the lower loop" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vermillion (US 2017/0219127) in view of Fathi et al. (US 8,162,276) and Judd (US 7,882,600).
Regarding Claim 13, Vermillion discloses a planar hook device that suspends items on a support, comprising: a) a top end (Vermillion: Annotated Fig. 1; T), a bottom end (Vermillion: Annotated Fig. 1; B), a front side (Vermillion: Annotated Fig. 1; F), and a rear side (Vermillion: Annotated Fig. 1; R); b) the top end extending away from the front side and then extending downward towards the bottom end and then extending back towards the front side, thereby forming an upper loop (Vermillion: Fig. 1; 10) having a tip (Vermillion: Fig. 2; 18, 34) adjacent to the front side, wherein a space exists between the front side and the upper loop tip; c) the bottom end extending away from the rear side and then extending upwards towards the top end and then extending back towards the rear side, thereby forming a bottom loop (Vermillion: Fig. 1; 12) having a tip (Vermillion: Fig. 2; 22, 36) adjacent to the rear side, wherein a space exists between the rear side and the bottom loop tip; d) the bottom loop tip having a hook member (Vermillion: Fig. 2; 22, 36) extending and being biased to the rear side, and constructed to reversibly close the space existing between the rear side and the bottom loop tip, wherein the upper loop and the bottom loop are springs (Vermillion: [0016], [0019]; resilient loops), wherein the upper loop tip is biased towards the front side (see note), and wherein a space between the front side and the upper loop tip provides an opening into an interior of the upper loop and wherein the space between the rear side and the bottom loop tip provides an opening into an interior of the bottom loop.
Vermillion fails to disclose a hook device that suspends purses or handbags which do not have handles; and a ring-shaped connecting member positioned on the bottom end for attaching the planar hook device to a key ring. However, Fathi teaches a hook device that suspends purses or handbags which do not have handles on a support (Fathi: Col. 1, Ln. 66-67; Col. 2, Ln. 1-14); and a ring-shaped connecting member (Fathi: Fig. 14; 1390) positioned on a bottom end for attaching the hook device to a key ring.
Vermillion and Fathi are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area e.g. support hooks; and releasably securing loose items. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to support a purse or handbag without a handle in the hook device of Vermillion and to modify it with a ring-shaped connecting member, as taught by Fathi, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a device that supports a purse or bag with a shoulder strap as well as an additional accessory from a support (Fathi: Col. 1, Ln. 66-67; Col. 2, Ln. 1-14), thereby further expanding the utility of the device by increasing the number and types of items it can support in a location where they are not a tripping hazard (Vermillion: [0029]-[0031]). [Note: The loops of Vermillion are disclosed as being resilient, therefore they are biased to move toward the respective front and rear sides when moved away from said sides.
Furthermore, Vermillion fails to disclose a flexible hook member extending, and constructed to reversibly and automatically close the space existing between the rear side and the bottom loop tip. However, Judd teaches a flexible hook member (Judd: Fig. 2a; 26, 30) extending and being biased to a rear side, and constructed to reversibly and automatically close the space existing between the rear side and the bottom loop tip (Judd: Col. 6, Ln. 59-64).
Vermillion and Judd are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area e.g. support hooks; and releasably securing loose items. 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 hook device in Vermillion with the flexible material and automatic closing from Judd, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a structure that is made of a high memory plastic so that it returns to a closed state after being opened and prior to locking (Judd: Col. 6, Ln. 59-64), thereby further securing a received item prior to the device being latched.
Regarding Claim 14, Vermillion, as modified, teaches the planar hook device of claim 13, further comprising a portion of an article or the purses or the handbags in the lower loop (Fathi: Col. 1, Ln. 66-67; Col. 2, Ln. 1-14).
Regarding Claim 15, Vermillion, as modified, teaches planar hook device of claim 1, further comprising a portion of the support (Vermillion: Fig. 5-6; 52, 62) retained in the upper loop (Vermillion: Fig. 1; 10).
Annotated Figures
PNG
media_image1.png
851
769
media_image1.png
Greyscale
I: Vermillion; Fig. 1
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 for cited references.
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 Taylor Morris whose telephone number is (571)272-6367. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10AM-6PM PST / 1PM-9PM EST.
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.
/Taylor Morris/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631