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 & 3-4) in the reply filed on 01/08/25 is acknowledged.
Claims 3 and 8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/08/25.
Regarding claim 3, unelected Species B (Figs 2 & 5) is the only embodiment that has a clamping mechanism that comprises a knob and a clamping member adaptable to clamp to various pole shapes.
Regarding claim 8, unelected Species B (Figs 2 & 5) is the only embodiment that has a vertical post that is part of an existing clothesline structure (as shown in Fig 2).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “each hanger member equipped with a plurality of clothespins” (claim 1); “hooks that are attached to the underside of said flat surface” (claim 2) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 Interpretation
The examiner interprets claims 5, 6, 7, and 9 to be functional limitations.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: for better claim construction and consistency throughout the claims the examiner suggests the following amendment:
Claim 10, line 1: -- wherein the flat surface, the tray, and the elongated hanger members --. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-2, 4-7, and 9-10 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.
Regarding claim 1, the following limitation “each hanger member equipped with a clothespins” is unclear and confusing in view of the applicant’s original drawings and disclosure. The applicant’s drawing show that each individual hanger member (Fig 1, #16) has only one clothespin thereon not a plurality of clothespins.
The examiner suggests the following amendment for claim 1:
Claim 1, line 5: -- each hanger member is equipped with a clothespin[[s]] respectively; --. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 5, the following limitation: “wherein the vertical post is telescopic” is unclear and confusing as to if the applicant is positively claiming the vertical post and the vertical post being telescopic (i.e. claiming the combination of the flat surface, the tray, the clamping mechanism, and the vertical post) or if claim 5 is a subcombination claim with the applicant only referring to the vertical post in claim 5 as a functional limitation similar to claim 1. Claim 1 clearly does not positively claim the vertical post, therefore the vertical post in claim 1 is only being referred to in a functional manner. For purposes of examination on the merits, the examiner is treating the limitation “the vertical post is telescopic” in claim 5 as a subcombination claim (functional limitation).
If the applicant intends to claim the combination, then it is suggested to do so clearly.
If applicant intends to claim the subcombination, a recommended amendment could be - -when in use, the vertical post is telescopic.--. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 6, the following limitation: “wherein the vertical post is part of a tripod” is unclear and confusing as to if the applicant is positively claiming the vertical post and the tripod (i.e. claiming the combination of the flat surface, the tray, the clamping mechanism, the vertical post, and a tripod) or if claim 6 is a subcombination claim with the applicant only referring to the vertical post and the tripod in claim 6 as a functional limitation similar to claim 1. Claim 1 clearly does not positively claim the vertical post, therefore the vertical post in claim 1 is only being referred to in a functional manner. For purposes of examination on the merits, the examiner is treating the limitation “the vertical post is part of a tripod” as a subcombination claim (functional limitation) that refers to the vertical post and the tripod in a functional manner.
If the applicant intends to claim the combination, then it is suggested to do so clearly.
If applicant intends to claim the subcombination, a recommended amendment could be - -when in use, the vertical post is part of a tripod.--. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 7, the following limitation: “wherein the tripod is equipped with wheels” is unclear and confusing as to if the applicant is positively claiming the vertical post, the tripod, and the wheels (i.e. claiming the combination of the flat surface, the tray, the clamping mechanism, the vertical post, the tripod, and the wheels) or if claim 7 is a subcombination claim with the applicant only referring to the vertical post, the tripod, and the wheels in claim 7 as a functional limitation similar to claim 1. Claim 1 clearly does not positively claim the vertical post, therefore the vertical post in claim 1 is only being referred to in a functional manner. For purposes of examination on the merits, the examiner is treating the limitation “the tripod is equipped with wheels” as a subcombination claim (functional limitation) that refers to the vertical post, the tripod, and the wheels in a functional manner.
If the applicant intends to claim the combination, then it is suggested to do so clearly.
If applicant intends to claim the subcombination, a recommended amendment could be - -when in use, the tripod is equipped with wheels.--. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 9, the following limitation: “wherein the vertical post is part of a stand-alone structure” is unclear and confusing as to if the applicant is positively claiming the vertical post and the stand-alone structure (i.e. claiming the combination of the flat surface, the tray, the clamping mechanism, the vertical post, and a stand-alone structure) or if claim 9 is a subcombination claim with the applicant only referring to the vertical post and the stand-alone structure in claim 9 as a functional limitation similar to claim 1. Claim 1 clearly does not positively claim the vertical post, therefore the vertical post in claim 1 is only being referred to in a functional manner. For purposes of examination on the merits, the examiner is treating the limitation “the vertical post is part of a stand-alone structure” as a subcombination claim (functional limitation) that refers to the vertical post and the tripod in a functional manner.
If the applicant intends to claim the combination, then it is suggested to do so clearly.
If applicant intends to claim the subcombination, a recommended amendment could be - -when in use, the vertical post is part of a stand-alone structure.--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2, 4, and 10 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base 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 1, 5-7, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gingher 3,046,041 in view of Day 3,249,070; Kirkpatrick 2016/0106208; and Cape 7,147,116.
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Gingher discloses a support system (Fig 1) capable of being used for a linen basket and clothespins, comprising:
a flat surface (Fig 1, #25) configured to hold a linen basket;
a clamping mechanism (Figs 5 & 6, #22, #23, & #38) attached to the flat surface (Fig 1, #25) for securing the support system to a vertical post.
Gingher has been discussed above but does not explicitly teach wherein the support system comprises a tray integrated into the flat surface configured for storing clothespins; a plurality of elongated hanger members attached to the underside of the flat surface, each hanger member equipped with clothespins.
Day discloses a support system (Fig 1) comprising a flat surface (Fig 1, #28) and a tray (Fig 1, #26) integrated into the flat surface (Fig 1, #28), wherein the tray (Fig 1, #26) is configured for or capable of storing clothespins.
Kirkpatrick discloses a support system (Fig 4, #1) that comprises a plurality of elongated hanger members (Fig 4, #3) (annotated Fig 4 below) attached to the underside of the flat surface (annotated Fig 4 below) by hooks (Kirkpatrick, [0017]), each hanger member (Fig 4, #3) (annotated Fig 4 below) equipped with a clip (Fig 4, #4).
Cape teaches that it is old and well known in the art for a support system (Fig 3) to used clips or clothespins (col 2, lines 17-19).
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 flat surface (Gingher, Figs 1 & 5, #25) of Gingher by forming an opening (Day, #18) through the flat surface (Gingher, Figs 1 & 5, #25) of Gingher and inserting a tray (Day, Fig 1, #26) within the opening (Day, #18) as taught by Day in order to enable Gingher to store very small objects such as baby socks or screws without the small objects falling off the support system (Gingher, Fig 1) or getting lost.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to attach hanger members (Kirkpatrick, Fig 4, #3) that have clips (Kirkpatrick, Fig 4, #4) to the lips (Gingher, Fig 5, #27) of the underside of the flat surface (Gingher, Figs 1 & 5, #25) of Gingher in order to store/hang more objects such as gloves on the support system (Gingher, Fig 1) of modified Gingher.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the clips (Kirkpatrick, Fig 4, #4) of modified Gingher with clothespins as taught by Cape (Cape, col 2, lines 17-19) because the substitution of one known storage element (i.e. clip or clothespin) for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, modified Gingher discloses the support system wherein the elongated hanger members (Kirkpatrick, Fig 4, #3) are pivotally connected to hooks (Kirkpatrick, [0017]) that are attached to the underside of said flat surface (Gingher, Figs 1 & 5, #25)
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, modified Gingher discloses the support system wherein the vertical post is telescopic (as explained above the examiner interprets claim 5 to be a functional limitation because “the vertical post” is not positively claimed).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, modified Gingher discloses the support system wherein the vertical post is part of a tripod (as explained above the examiner interprets claim 6 to be a functional limitation because “the vertical post and the tripod” are not positively claimed).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, modified Gingher discloses the support system wherein the tripod is equipped with wheels (as explained above the examiner interprets claim 7 to be a functional limitation because “the vertical post, the tripod, and the wheels” are not positively claimed).
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, modified Gingher discloses the support system wherein the vertical post is part of a stand-alone structure (as explained above the examiner interprets claim 9 to be a functional limitation because “the vertical post and the stand-alone structure” are not positively claimed).
Regarding claim 10, modified Gingher discloses the support system wherein the elongated hanger members (Kirkpatrick, Fig 4, #3) are made of a weather-resistant material (rubber) (Kirkpatrick, [0019]).
Modified Gingher has been discussed above but does not explicitly wherein the flat surface and the tray are made of a weather-resistant material.
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 flat surface (Gingher, Fig 1, #25) and the tray (Day, Fig 1, #26) from a weather-resistant material such as plastic
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, plastic is old and well known in the art and would be desirable as plastic is known to be durable, inexpensive, and easily accessible.
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 11am-7:30pm.
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.
/DEVIN K BARNETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631