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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A (Figs 1-14) in the reply filed on 06/08/2026 is acknowledged.
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 15-16 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.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the engaging protrusion" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the engaging groove of the first inclined portion" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the axial direction" in lines 2-3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner suggests the following amendment for claim 16: --provided in front of the engaging groove of the catch in an [[the]] axial direction.-- Appropriate correction is required.
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 1, 13-14, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endo JPH09164044 in view of Vogler 7,566,037.
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Endo discloses a merchandise display device (Fig 1) comprising: an attachment (Fig 1, #12) configured to or capable of being attached to a merchandise display fixture; a product hanging bar (Fig 1, #13) is configured to allow a product to hang thereon, including a first inclined portion (Fig 1, #13) extending from a proximal end (Fig 1, #13a) to a distal end (annotated Fig 1 below) and being attached to the attachment (Fig 1, #12) at the proximal end (Fig 1, #13a) in a manner inclined downwards toward a front (as shown in Fig 1), and a second inclined portion (Fig 1, #13b) bent upwards and extending diagonally from the distal end (annotated Fig 1 below) of the first inclined portion (Fig 1, #13);
a catch (Fig 1, #16) configured to or capable of catching a product hanging on the first inclined portion (Fig 1, #13); and a trigger (annotated Fig 1 below) configured to release the catch (Fig 1, #16).
PNG
media_image1.png
921
1624
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Endo has been discussed above but does not explicitly teach wherein the product hanging bar has a resin surface.
Vogler discloses a merchandise display device (Fig 1) wherein the product hanging bar has a resin surface (col 9, lines 64- col 10, line 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fabricate the product hanging bar (Endo, Fig 1, #13) of Endo from a resin material has taught by Vogler since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. Further, the substitution of one known material for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 13, modified Endo discloses the merchandise display device wherein the catch (Endo, Fig 1, #16) includes an engaging groove (Endo, annotated Fig 1 above) provided near the distal end (Endo, annotated Fig 1 above) of the first inclined portion (Endo, Fig 1, #13).
Regarding claim 14, modified Endo discloses the merchandise display device wherein the catch (Endo, Fig 1, #16) includes an engaging protrusion (Endo, annotated Fig 1 above) provided near the distal end (Endo, annotated Fig 1 above) of the first inclined portion (Endo, Fig 1, #13).
Regarding claim 16, as best understood, modified Endo discloses the merchandise display device wherein the catch (Endo, Fig 1, #16) includes an engaging protrusion (Endo, annotated Fig 1 above) provided in front of the engaging groove (Endo, annotated Fig 1 above) of the catch (Endo, Fig 1, #16) in an axial direction.
Regarding claim 19, modified Endo discloses the merchandise display device wherein a small protrusion (Endo, annotated Fig 1 above) protruding slightly upwards is provided to a surface of the resin bar. (Endo, Fig 1, #13).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-12 and 17-18 allowed.
Claim 15 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.
Conclusion
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 DEVIN K BARNETT whose telephone number is (571)270-1159. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-6pm.
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 at 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.
/DEVIN K BARNETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Prosecution Insights