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
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because the current drawing does not clearly presents the claimed invention. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show “a front leg are wielded to right and left hangers” 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 has been re-written in order to clearly reflect the recited structure:
--Claim 1 – A boot hanger is referred to as a channel block comprising:
a stationary base with two extended hangers and two mechanical fasteners for locking; wherein the boot hanger is configured to append footwear upright; and
wherein the boot hanger having a material of ninety-five percent high-density polyethylene plastic (HDPE).
Claim 3 has been re-written as follow, since a patent claim must be written as a single sentence with a period at the end.
--Claim 3 -- The boot hanger of claim 2, wherein said stationary base has said 1-inch holes located in the channel block front leg; and
wherein the mechanical fasteners (2-bolts) sizing .75 inches are designed to enter both of said holes to secure the channel block to the point of location to such areas as a truck bed or SUV back seat.
Claim 7 has been re-written as follow:
--Claim 7 -- The boot hanger of claim 6, said balancers are wielded vertically on the level of both hangers to stabilize the footwear or boots.
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 1-8 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In Reference to Claim 1
Claim 1 recites “a boot hanger … comprising: a material of …, and having a stationary base …” It is not clear whether the whole boot hanger is made of HDPE or only several components are made of HDPE? The Office considers that only several components are made of HDPE.
In Reference to Claim 2
Claim 2 recites the limitation "said back and front legs" in Line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “said center” in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear what center the Applicant is claiming.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “channel block”. There is improper antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It shall be “the channel block”
In Reference to Claim 3
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the point of location" in Line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the channel block front leg" in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In Reference to Claim 4
Claim 4 recites “a front leg” in Line 1. There is improper antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It shall be “the front leg”
Claim 4 recites “a front leg that is plastic wielded to right and left hangers.” Is this front leg wielded to both right and left hangers or only one of the hanger?
Claim 4 recites “ right and left hangers” in Line 2. It is not clear whether this right and left hanger are the same as the extended hanger? The Office takes an assumption that they are the same.
In Reference to Claim 5
Claim 5 recites “said straight handle” in Line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In Reference to Claim 6
Claim 6 recites “said straight handle” in Line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In Reference to Claim 7
Claim 7 recites “said balancers” in Line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In Reference to Claim 8
Claim 8 is rejected by its virtue dependency to Claim 7.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 1,885,250 to Frye in view of US Patent Publication 2015/0164257 to Elstein.
In Reference to Claim 1
Fryer discloses a boot hanger is referred to as a channel block comprising: having a stationary base with extended hangers (Fig. 4, 7 and 8) and mechanical fasteners (Fig. 1, annotated by the examiner) for locking; and performs in optimum (It is now clear how to define “optimum”, the rejection is made based on the structure, not the performance result) use to append footwear upright.
Fryer does not teach the material of the hanger.
Elstein teaches the boot hanger can be molded by plastic (Paragraph 88)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, to incorporate teachings from Elstein into the design of Frye. Doing so, would result in plastic hangers being used to as hanger material. Both inventions of Elstein and Frye are for boot hanger. Elstein teaches a method of reducing the product weight with less cost material.
In Reference to Claim 2
Fryer discloses said stationary base is rectangular in shape (As showed in Fig. 4) has a leg (Fig. 1, annotated by the examiner) and said center (Fig. 1, annotated by the examiner) for positioning channel block to a truck bed (The Office considers that the truck bed is merely the working environment, not a part of the invention in terms of the structure.)
Fryer discloses only one leg. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to a plurality of legs, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art.
In Reference to Claim 3
Fryer discloses said stationary base has said holes (As showed in Fig. 1, the channel block is secured to a frame by 5 bolts, therefore, there are holes on the stationary base) located in the channel block front leg. the mechanical fasteners (Fig. 1, annotated by the examiner) are designed to enter both holes to secure the channel block to the point of location to such areas as a truck bed or SUV back seat. (The Office considers that the truck bed is merely the working environment, not a part of the invention in terms of the structure.)
Fryer does not teach the size of fasteners. According to MPEP, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Claims 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Fryer and Elstein as applied to Claim 4, and further in view of US Patent Publication 2013/0086811 to Williams.
In Reference to Claim 4
Fryer discloses said channel block comprises leg (Fig. 1, annotated by the examiner) coupled with hanger (Fig. 1, 7)
Fryer does not teach the hanger is welded to the hanger.
Williams teaches the hanger rod is welded to the frame (Paragraph 27).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, to incorporate teachings from Willams into the combination of Fryer and Elstein as applied to Claim 4. Doing so, would result in the hanger rod is welded to the frame as being taught by Williams. Both inventions of Fryer and Williams are for boot hangers. Willams provides a convenient, lightweight and dryer for drying a multiple number of pairs of articles such as skates, boots and gloves.
In Reference to Claim 5 and 6
Fryer discloses the left hanger is composed of said straight handle (Fig. 1, annotated by the examiner), elbow (Fig. 1, annotated by the examiner), level (Fig. 1, annotated by the examiner), and balancer (Fig. 1, 16).
Fryer discloses only one leg. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to a plurality of legs, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art.
In Reference to Claim 7
Fryer discloses the balancer (Fig. 1, 16) is fixed to the level.
Fryer does not teach the balancer is welded to the level.
According to MPEP: "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process."
In Reference to Claim 8
Fryer discloses the hangers a flung outward (As showed in Fig. 1)
Fryer does not teach the 60-degree angle.
According to MPEP, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Therefore, the Office considers that the flung outward angles are merely a performance related design parameters.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEMING WAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1410. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur: 8 am to 6 PM.
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, Edelmira Bosques can be reached at 5712705614. 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.
DEMING . WAN
Examiner
Art Unit 3748
/DEMING WAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762 10/9/25