DETAILED ACTION This is the first office action for US Application 18/319,217 for a Laminated Hook Including a Fastening System. 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. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1-21 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 1 recites the limitation "the fastener set" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (the antecedent basis is for “at least one fastener set”). Claim 2 recites the limitation "the plurality of fastener sets" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 13 recites the limitation "the holes" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 13 recites the limitation "the fastener set" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (the antecedent basis is for “at least one fastener set”). 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. Claim(s) 1 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by KR 20210065770 to Kang . Regarding claim 1, Kang discloses a laminated hook (see figure 2) comprising a plurality of plates (311 and 312). Each plate comprises a plurality of holes (at 313), wherein each plate has a profile of a hook, and the plurality of plates are aligned with each other. The plurality of holes within the plurality of plates are aligned with each other, and the aligned holes between the plurality of plates form a set of aligned holes, wherein the plurality of plates comprise a plurality of sets of aligned holes (see figure 2). There is at least one fastener set (313) that comprises a nut and a bolt (the specification reads, “the coupling member 313 may be provided to penetrate the first plate 311 and the second plate 312 at a plurality of points… As the coupling member 313, a bolt and a nut may be used…”). At least one set of the aligned holes between the plurality of plates are fitted with a nut and with a bolt to secure the plurality of plates together to form the laminated hook. Regarding claim 11, the laminated hook comprises four plates (311a, 311b) 312a-g). Regarding claim 12, the hook is a laminated ladle hook. 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim (s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang in view of US 3,863,421 to Busch et al . Regarding claim 2, Kang does not specifically disclose the nut and bolt as comprising a barrel nut and bolt. Busch et al. provides a teaching for utilizing a barrel nut (18) and bolt (16) assembly extending through apertures of objects to connect the objects together (see figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have utilized a barrel nut and bolt assembly as the nut and bolt assembly of Kang, as taught by Busch et al. Claim (s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang in view of official notice provided by the Examiner . Regarding claim 13, Kang discloses method for forming a laminated hook (see figure 2) comprising the steps of: providing a plurality of plates (311 and 312) , wherein e ach plate has a profile of a hook ; aligning the plurality of plates with each other; clamping the plurality of aligned plates together; providing at least one fastener set (313) that comprises a nut and a bolt (the specification reads, “the coupling member 313 may be provided to penetrate the first plate 311 and the second plate 312 at a plurality of points… As the coupling member 313, a bolt and a nut may be used…”) ; fitting at least one set of the aligned holes between the plurality of plates with a nut and with a bolt; and fastening the nut and bolt together to secure the plurality of plates together to form the laminated hook. Kang discloses a plurality of holes (at 313) aligned with each other so that the aligned holes between the plurality of plates form a set of aligned holes to provide a plurality of aligned plates comprising at least one set of aligned holes. Kang does not disclose the steps of forming the holes by drilling at least one hole through the plurality of plates. However, the Examiner is providing official notice that utilizing drilling to form a hole in a plate is well known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective fling date of the present invention to have formed the holes through drilling as is well known in the art. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 3-10 and 14-21 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art does not disclose or suggest a laminated hook with a plurality of plates connected by a barrel nut and bolt extending through a plurality of holes in the plates, wherein the barrel nut comprises a socket and a second end having a receiving portion for the bolt, and wherein the bolt comprises a first end having a socket and a second end that is insertable within the receiving portion of the bolt. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 0727529 to Young US 20250276874 to Mathe US 2024/0300647 to Brown US 2012/0074277 to Krumpe US 4372016 to LaViolette JP 2022039762 to Yoshioka The above prior art discloses various hook arrangements. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT STEVEN M MARSH whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-6819 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon-Thurs 9 am-7:30 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Terrell McKinnon can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-4797 . 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT STEVEN M. MARSH Primary Examiner Art Unit 3632 /STEVEN M MARSH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632