DETAILED ACTION
This is a final Office action in response to the amendment filed 11/13/2025.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-8, 10, 14-16, and 21-24 are pending;
Claims 1, 2, 8, and 10 are currently amended; claims 3-7 and 14-16 are original; claims 9, 11-13, and 17-20 have been cancelled; claims 21-24 are new;
Claims 1-8, 10, 14-16, and 21-24 are rejected herein.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection set forth below in the current Office action. Note that the new grounds of rejection are necessitated by Applicant's amendments to the claims.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 2-8, line 1, it is advised that "of Claim" be changed to --of claim-- for consistency. See claims 14-16 and 21-24.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-8, 10, 14-16, and 21-24 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.
Regarding claim 1, there is no support in the original disclosure of the present application for the following limitations in the claim: "lateral recesses formed along each of the first lateral edge and the second lateral edge" (claim 1, lines 4 and 5). As best understood, the retainer (310) includes only one lateral recess (360) formed along the first lateral edge (362, e.g., the left lateral edge in Figure 23B) and only one lateral edge (360) formed along the second lateral edge (362, e.g., the right lateral edge in Figure 23B). Nowhere in the original disclosure of the present application discloses that "lateral recesses [are] formed along each of the first lateral edge and the second lateral edge" as claimed. As such, the limitations "lateral recesses formed along each of the first lateral edge and the second lateral edge" (claim 1, lines 4 and 5) are considered as new matter. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1, there is no support in the original disclosure of the present application for the following limitations in the claim: "a second connecting rib… parallel to the first connecting rib" (claim 1, lines 14 and 15). As best understood, the second connecting rib (333) appears to be substantially parallel to the first connecting rib (332). Nowhere in the original disclosure of the present application discloses that "[the] second connecting rib… [is] parallel to the first connecting rib" as claimed. As such, the limitations "a second connecting rib… parallel to the first connecting rib" (claim 1, lines 14 and 15) are considered as new matter. Similar rejection applies to the limitations in claim 10 (lines 18 and 19). Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 23, there is no support in the original disclosure of the present application for the following limitations in the claim: "a third connecting rib… being spaced from and extending perpendicular to the second connecting rib" (claim 23, lines 2 and 3). The drawings do not clearly and reasonably indicate that the third connecting rib (334) is "spaced from" the second connecting rib (333). As best understood, the third connecting rib (334) appears to be simply adjacent to the second connecting rib (333). Moreover, as best understood, the third connecting rib (334) appears to be substantially perpendicular to the second connecting rib (333). Nowhere in the original disclosure of the present application discloses that "[the] third connecting rib… being spaced from and extending perpendicular to the second connecting rib" as claimed. As such, the limitations "a third connecting rib… being spaced from and extending perpendicular to the second connecting rib" (claim 23, lines 2 and 3) are considered as new matter. Similar rejection applies to the limitations in claim 24 (lines 2 and 3). Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-8, 14-16, 21, and 22 are rejected as being dependent from a rejected claim.
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, 10, 14-16, and 21-24 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 limitations "a front surface defining a width of the retainer extending from a first lateral edge to a second lateral edge" in lines 3 and 4 are indefinite. It is not clear as to which element (i.e., the "front surface" in line 3, the "width" in line 3, or the "retainer") extends "from a first lateral edge to a second lateral edge" as claimed. Similar rejection applies to the limitations in claim 10 (lines 3 and 4). Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1, the limitations "lateral recesses formed along each of the first lateral edge and the second lateral edge" in lines 4 and 5 are indefinite. Note that the instant limitations are understood as --lateral recesses formed along the first lateral edge and lateral recesses formed along the second lateral edge--. However, as best understood, the retainer (310) includes only one lateral recess (360) formed along the first lateral edge (362, e.g., the left lateral edge in Figure 23B) and only one lateral edge (360) formed along the second lateral edge (362, e.g., the right lateral edge in Figure 23B). It is not clear as to how "lateral recesses" (i.e., more than one lateral recess) can possibly be formed "along each of the first lateral edge and the second lateral edge" as claimed. For the purpose of examination, the limitations "lateral recesses formed along each of the first lateral edge and the second lateral edge" are considered to be met by the prior art, if the prior art shows --a first lateral recess formed along the first lateral edge and a second lateral recess formed along the second lateral edge--. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 23, the limitations "a third connecting rib… being spaced from and extending perpendicular to the second connecting rib" in lines 2 and 3 are indefinite. The drawings do not clearly and reasonably indicate that the third connecting rib (334) is "spaced from" the second connecting rib (333). As best understood, the third connecting rib (334) appears to be simply adjacent to the second connecting rib (333). Moreover, as best understood, the third connecting rib (334) appears to be substantially perpendicular to the second connecting rib (333). It is not clear as to how the third connecting rib (334) is "spaced from and extending perpendicular to the second connecting rib" as claimed. For the purpose of examination, the limitations "a third connecting rib… being spaced from and extending perpendicular to the second connecting rib" are considered to be met by the prior art, if the prior art shows --a third connecting rib… being adjacent to and extending substantially perpendicular to the second connecting rib--. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 24, the limitations "wherein the coupler includes a third connecting rib (a) coupled to the bottom side of the coupler and the front surface of the retainer and (b) being spaced from and extending perpendicular to the second connecting rib" in lines 1-3 are indefinite. Firstly, claim 10, from which claim 24 depends, recites "a lower portion of the first side extending below the bottom side of the coupler" in lines 11 and 12. As best understood, the claimed "lower portion of the first side" in claim 10 appears to refer to the gusset (334) and the claimed "third connecting rib" in claim 24 also appears to refer to the gusset (334). It is not clear as to how the coupler (320) can possibly include "a third connecting rib" in claim 24 in addition to "a lower portion of the first side" in claim 10. Secondly, the drawings do not clearly and reasonably indicate that the third connecting rib (334) is "spaced from" the second connecting rib (333). As best understood, the third connecting rib (334) appears to be simply adjacent to the second connecting rib (333). Moreover, as best understood, the third connecting rib (334) appears to be substantially perpendicular to the second connecting rib (333). It is not clear as to how the third connecting rib (334) is "spaced from and extending perpendicular to the second connecting rib" as claimed. For the purpose of examination, the limitations "wherein the coupler includes a third connecting rib (a) coupled to the bottom side of the coupler and the front surface of the retainer and (b) being spaced from and extending perpendicular to the second connecting rib" are considered to be met by the prior art, if the prior art shows --wherein the lower portion of the first side of the coupler includes a third connecting rib (a) coupled to the bottom side of the coupler and the front surface of the retainer and (b) being adjacent to and extending substantially perpendicular to the second connecting rib--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-8, 14-16, 21, and 22 are rejected as being dependent from a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1-4, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ziegler (US 4,026,508) in view of Blankenship (US 4,801,116) and Danko (US 4,534,530).
Regarding claim 1, Ziegler discloses a bracket (see Figure 1) for a display unit (50, fig 3), the bracket comprising: a retainer (12, fig 1) operable to selectively interface with the display unit (see Figure 3) and including (i) a front surface (12a, fig 1, see annotation) defining a width of the retainer extending from a first lateral edge (12b, fig 2, see annotation) to a second lateral edge (12c, fig 2, see annotation); and a coupler (15, fig 1) attached to the front surface of the retainer (see Figure 1) and including: a top side (16, fig 1); a bottom side (17, fig 4) disposed on an opposite side from the top side (see Figures 1-5); a socket (25, fig 1), the socket having: a first receptacle (20, fig 2) defining a first width (see Figure 2); and a second receptacle (30, fig 2) defining a second width different than the first width (see Figure 2).
[AltContent: textbox (25a – Opening)]
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (12a – Front Surface)]
PNG
media_image1.png
294
216
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
308
310
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: connector]
[AltContent: textbox (12b – Rear Surface)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
[AltContent: textbox (12c – Second Lateral Edge)]
[AltContent: textbox (12b – First Lateral Edge)][AltContent: textbox (12a – Front Surface)]
Ziegler does not disclose the bracket, (1) wherein the retainer includes lateral recesses formed along each of the first lateral edge and the second lateral edge; (2) wherein the coupler includes: a first connecting rib extending from the front surface and coupled along the top side; and a second connecting rib spaced from the first connecting rib and extending from the front surface along the bottom side and parallel to the first connecting rib.
With respect to the missing limitations (1) above, Blankenship teaches a bracket (10, fig 1) for a display unit (50, fig 1), the bracket comprising: a retainer (15, 16, 18, fig 1) operable to selectively interface with the display unit (see Figure 1) and including (i) a front surface (12a, fig 3, see annotation) defining a width of the retainer extending from a first lateral edge (12b, fig 3, see annotation) to a second lateral edge (12c, fig 3, see annotation) and (ii) lateral recesses (12d, 12e, fig 3, see annotation) formed along each of the first lateral edge and the second lateral edge (see Figures 1-4).
PNG
media_image3.png
276
240
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (12d – Lateral Recess)]
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (12e – Lateral Recess)]
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (12b – First Lateral Edge)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (12c – Second Lateral Edge)][AltContent: connector]
[AltContent: textbox (12a – Front Surface)]
Ziegler and Blankenship are analogous art because they are at least from the same field of endeavor, i.e., brackets. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the retainer (Ziegler: 12, fig 1) with lateral recesses (Blankenship: 12d, 12e, fig 3, see annotation) formed along each of the first lateral edge (Ziegler: 12b, fig 2, see annotation) and the second lateral edge (Ziegler: 12c, fig 2, see annotation; Blankenship: see Figures 1-4), as taught by Blankenship, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation would have been to allow the user to firmly grasp the bracket of Ziegler via the lateral recesses of Blankenship for handling and assembly.
With respect to the missing limitations (2) above, Danko teaches a bracket (10, fig 1) for a display unit (14, fig 1), the bracket comprising: a retainer (22a, fig 8, see annotation, see the boxed region) including a front surface (22b, fig 11, see annotation); and a coupler (22c, fig 11, see annotation, see boxed region) attached to the front surface of the retainer (see Figures 1, 8, and 11) and including: a top side (22d, fig 11, see annotation); a bottom side (22e, fig 11, see annotation) disposed on an opposite side from the top side (see Figures 1, 8, and 11); a socket (40, fig 8); a first connecting rib (22f, fig 11, see annotation) extending from the front surface and coupled along the top side (see Figures 1, 8, and 11); and a second connecting rib (22g, fig 11, see annotation) spaced from the first connecting rib and extending from the front surface along the bottom side and parallel to the first connecting rib (see Figures 1, 8, and 11).
[AltContent: textbox (22f – First Connecting Rib)][AltContent: textbox (22d – Top Side)]
[AltContent: rect][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (22a – Retainer)][AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image4.png
206
256
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
224
164
media_image5.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (22c – Coupler)]
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (22b – Front Surface)]
[AltContent: connector]
[AltContent: textbox (22g – Second Connecting Rib)][AltContent: textbox (22e – Bottom Side)]
Danko is analogous art because it is at least from the same field of endeavor, i.e., brackets. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the coupler (Ziegler: 15, fig 1) with a first connecting rib (Danko: 22f, fig 11, see annotation) extending from the front surface (Ziegler: 12a, fig 1, see annotation) and coupled along the top side (Ziegler: 16, fig 1; Danko: see Figures 1, 8, and 11) and with a second connecting rib (Danko: 22g, fig 11, see annotation) spaced from the first connecting rib and extending from the front surface along the bottom side (Ziegler: 17, fig 4) and parallel to the first connecting rib (Danko: see Figures 1, 8, and 11), as taught by Danko, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation would have been to reinforce the attachment of the coupler of Ziegler to the retainer of Ziegler to better support the weight of the supported hanger of Ziegler. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Ziegler, Blankenship, and Danko to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, wherein the socket extends from the top side of the coupler (Ziegler: see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 3, wherein: the first receptacle extends from an opening (Ziegler: 25a, fig 2, see annotation) in the top side of the coupler (Ziegler: see Figures 1 and 2); and the second receptacle extends from the first receptacle (Ziegler: see Figures 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 4, wherein the first width is greater than the second width (Ziegler: see Figure 2).
Claim 21, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ziegler (US 4,026,508) in view of Blankenship (US 4,801,116), Danko (US 4,534,530), and Edson (US 4,194,637).
Regarding claim 21, Ziegler, as modified by Blankenship and Danko with respect to claim 1, does not teach the bracket, wherein the retainer includes a passage extending from the front surface to a rear surface of the retainer and aligned with the coupler.
Edson teaches a bracket (10, fig 1) for a display unit (F, fig 1), the bracket comprising: a retainer (12, fig 1) including a front surface (12a, fig 4, see annotation); and a coupler (14, fig 1) attached to the front surface of the retainer (see Figure 1); wherein the retainer includes a passage (36, fig 4) extending from the front surface to a rear surface (12b, fig 4, see annotation) of the retainer and aligned with the coupler (see Figures 1-6).
[AltContent: textbox (12a – Front Surface)]
PNG
media_image6.png
312
242
media_image6.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (12b – Rear Surface)][AltContent: connector]
[AltContent: connector]
Edson is analogous art because it is at least from the same field of endeavor, i.e., brackets. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the retainer (Ziegler: 12, fig 1) with a passage (Edson: 36, fig 4) extending from the front surface (Ziegler: 12a, fig 1) to a rear surface (Ziegler: 12b, fig 1, see annotation) of the retainer and aligned with the coupler (Ziegler: 15, fig 1; Edson: see Figures 1-6), as taught by Edson, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation would have been to facilitate easier mounting of the hanger of Ziegler. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Ziegler, Blankenship, Danko, and Edson to obtain the invention as specified in claim 21.
Claims 10, 14, 16, and 24, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thalenfeld (US D449,514 S) in view of Ziegler (US 4,026,508) and Danko (US 4,534,530).
Regarding claim 10, Thalenfeld discloses a bracket (10, fig 1; see annotation below for all added reference numbers) for a display unit (see Figures 1-7), the bracket comprising: a retainer (20, fig 1) operable to selectively interface with the display unit (see Figures 1-7) and including a front surface (21, fig 1) defining a width of the retainer extending from a first lateral edge (22, fig 4) to a second lateral edge (23, fig 4); and a coupler (30, fig 1) attached to the retainer (see Figures 1-7) and having: a bottom side (31, fig 1); a top side (32, fig 1) opposite the bottom side (see Figures 1-7), the top side including an opening (33, fig 4), a first receptacle (34, fig 4) extending from the opening toward the bottom side and defining a first width (see Figures 1-7); a first side (35, fig 1) attached to the front surface of the retainer (see Figures 1-7), a lower portion (36, fig 1) of the first side extending below the bottom side of the coupler (see Figures 1-7); a second side (37, fig 1) opposite the first side and spaced from the front surface of the retainer by a first channel (40, fig 1) extending from the top side of the coupler to the bottom side of the coupler (see Figures 1-7); and an abutment (50, fig 1) spaced from the bottom side by a second channel (50, fig 4).
[AltContent: textbox (33 – Opening)]
PNG
media_image7.png
450
518
media_image7.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: connector]
[AltContent: textbox (34 – First Receptacle)][AltContent: connector]
[AltContent: connector]
[AltContent: textbox (23 – Second Lateral Edge)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (22 – First Lateral Edge)][AltContent: connector]
[AltContent: connector]
[AltContent: textbox (70 – Third Channel)][AltContent: textbox (60 – Second Channel)]
[AltContent: textbox (31 – Top Side)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (40 – First Channel)][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image8.png
682
468
media_image8.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (37 – Second Side)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (35 – First Side)]
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (30 – Coupler)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (10 – Bracket)]
PNG
media_image9.png
100
246
media_image9.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: connector]
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (32 – Bottom Side)]
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (20 – Retainer)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
[AltContent: textbox (24 – Rear Surface)][AltContent: textbox (50 – Abutment)]
[AltContent: textbox (36 – Lower Portion / Third Connecting Rib)][AltContent: textbox (37 – Second Side)][AltContent: textbox (21 – Front Surface)]
Thalenfeld does not disclose the bracket, (1) wherein the top side includes a second receptacle extending from the first receptacle toward the bottom side and defining a second width less than the first width; (2) wherein the coupler includes: a first connecting rib extending from the front surface and coupled along the top side; and a second connecting rib spaced from the first connecting rib and extending from the front surface along the bottom side and parallel to the first connecting rib.
With respect to the missing limitations (1) above, Ziegler teaches a bracket (see Figure 1) for a display unit (50, fig 3), the bracket comprising: a retainer (12, fig 1) operable to selectively interface with the display unit (see Figure 3); and a coupler (15, fig 1) attached to the retainer (see Figure 1) and having: a bottom side (17, fig 4); and a top side (16, fig 1) opposite the bottom side (see Figure 2), the top side including an opening (25a, fig 2, see annotation), a first receptacle (20, fig 2) extending from the opening toward the bottom side and defining a first width (see Figure 2); and a second receptacle (30, fig 2) extending from the first receptacle toward the bottom side and defining a second width less than the first width (see Figure 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
294
216
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (25a – Opening)]
Thalenfeld and Ziegler are analogous art because they are at least from the same field of endeavor, i.e., brackets. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the coupler (Thalenfeld: 30, fig 1) with a second receptacle (Ziegler: 30, fig 2) extending from the first receptacle (Thalenfeld: 34, fig 4) toward the bottom side (Thalenfeld: 31, fig 1) and defining a second width less than the first width (Ziegler: see Figure 2), as taught by Ziegler, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation would have been to accommodate wire hangers with various sizes.
With respect to the missing limitations (2) above, Danko teaches a bracket (10, fig 1) for a display unit (14, fig 1), the bracket comprising: a retainer (22a, fig 8, see annotation, see the boxed region) including a front surface (22b, fig 11, see annotation); and a coupler (22c, fig 11, see annotation, see boxed region) attached to the retainer (see Figures 1, 8, and 11) and having: a bottom side (22e, fig 11, see annotation); a top side (22d, fig 11, see annotation) opposite the bottom side (see Figures 1, 8, and 11); a socket (40, fig 8); a first connecting rib (22f, fig 11, see annotation) extending from the front surface and coupled along the top side (see Figures 1, 8, and 11); and a second connecting rib (22g, fig 11, see annotation) spaced from the first connecting rib and extending from the front surface along the bottom side and parallel to the first connecting rib (see Figures 1, 8, and 11).
[AltContent: textbox (22f – First Connecting Rib)][AltContent: textbox (22d – Top Side)]
[AltContent: rect][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (22a – Retainer)][AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image4.png
206
256
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
224
164
media_image5.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (22c – Coupler)]
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (22b – Front Surface)]
[AltContent: connector]
[AltContent: textbox (22g – Second Connecting Rib)][AltContent: textbox (22e – Bottom Side)]
Danko is analogous art because it is at least from the same field of endeavor, i.e., brackets. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the coupler (Thalenfeld: 30, fig 1) with a first connecting rib (Danko: 22f, fig 11, see annotation) extending from the front surface (Thalenfeld: 21, fig 1) and coupled along the top side (Thalenfeld: 32, fig 1; Danko: see Figures 1, 8, and 11) and with a second connecting rib (Danko: 22g, fig 11, see annotation) spaced from the first connecting rib and extending from the front surface along the bottom side (Thalenfeld: 31, fig 1) and parallel to the first connecting rib (Danko: see Figures 1, 8, and 11), as taught by Danko, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation would have been to further reinforce the attachment of the coupler of Thalenfeld to the retainer of Thalenfeld to better support heavier hangers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Thalenfeld, Ziegler, and Danko to obtain the invention as specified in claim 10.
Regarding claim 14, wherein the first receptacle and the second receptacle are connected (Ziegler: see Figure 2).
Regarding claim 16, wherein the abutment cooperates with the lower portion of the first side to define a third channel (Thalenfeld: 70, fig 4) aligned with and vertically spaced from the first receptacle and the second receptacle (Thalenfeld: see Figures 1-7; Ziegler: see Figure 2).
Regarding claim 24, wherein the coupler includes a third connecting rib (Thalenfeld: 36, fig 1) (a) coupled to the bottom side of the coupler and the front surface of the retainer (Thalenfeld: see Figures 1-7) and (b) being spaced from and extending perpendicular to the second connecting rib (Thalenfeld: see Figures 1-7).
Claim 15, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thalenfeld (US D449,514 S) in view of Ziegler (US 4,026,508), Danko (US 4,534,530), and Hollingsworth et al. (US 5,855,347), hereinafter Hollingsworth.
Regarding claim 15, Thalenfeld, as modified by Ziegler and Danko with respect to claim 10, does not teach the bracket, wherein the first receptacle includes a first set of protrusions extending from opposing side surfaces of the first receptacle, and the second receptacle includes a second set of protrusions extending from opposing side surfaces of the second receptacle.
Hollingsworth teaches a bracket (3, fig 1) for a display unit (7, fig 1), the bracket comprising: a retainer (9, fig 1); and a coupler (15, fig 1) attached to the retainer and having: a receptacle (40, fig 3), wherein the receptacle includes a set of protrusions (39, fig 3, col 11, line 20) extending from opposing side surfaces of the receptacle (see Figures 1-3).
Hollingsworth is analogous art because it is at least from the same field of endeavor, i.e., brackets. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the first receptacle (Thalenfeld: 34, fig 4, as modified by, Ziegler: 20, fig 2) with a first set of protrusions (Hollingsworth: 39, fig 3, col 11, line 20) extending from opposing side surfaces of the first receptacle (Hollingsworth: see Figures 1-3) and form the second receptacle (Thalenfeld: 34, fig 4, as modified by, Ziegler: 30, fig 2) with a second set of protrusions (Hollingsworth: 39, fig 3, col 11, line 20) extending from opposing side surfaces of the second receptacle (Hollingsworth: see Figures 1-3), as taught by Hollingsworth, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation would have been to enable the bracket of Thalenfeld to snugly hold the wire hangers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Thalenfeld, Ziegler, Danko, and Hollingsworth to obtain the invention as specified in claim 15.
Claim 22, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thalenfeld (US D449,514 S) in view of Ziegler (US 4,026,508), Danko (US 4,534,530), and Edson (US 4,194,637).
Regarding claim 22, Thalenfeld, as modified by Ziegler and Danko with respect to claim 10, does not teach the bracket, does not teach the bracket, wherein the retainer includes a passage extending from the front surface to a rear surface of the retainer and aligned with the coupler.
Edson teaches a bracket (10, fig 1) for a display unit (F, fig 1), the bracket comprising: a retainer (12, fig 1) including a front surface (12a, fig 4, see annotation); and a coupler (14, fig 1) attached to the retainer (see Figure 1); wherein the retainer includes a passage (36, fig 4) extending from the front surface to a rear surface (12b, fig 4, see annotation) of the retainer and aligned with the coupler (see Figures 1-6).
[AltContent: textbox (12a – Front Surface)]
PNG
media_image6.png
312
242
media_image6.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (12b – Rear Surface)][AltContent: connector]
[AltContent: connector]
Edson is analogous art because it is at least from the same field of endeavor, i.e., brackets. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the retainer (Thalenfeld: 20, fig 1) with a passage (Edson: 36, fig 4) extending from the front surface (Thalenfeld: 21, fig 1) to a rear surface (Thalenfeld: 24, fig 1) of the retainer and aligned with the coupler (Thalenfeld: 30, fig 1; Edson: see Figures 1-6), as taught by Edson, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation would have been to facilitate easier mounting of the wire hanger. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Thalenfeld, Ziegler, Danko, and Edson to obtain the invention as specified in claim 22.
Claims 1-8 and 23, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thalenfeld (US D449,514 S) in view of Ziegler (US 4,026,508), Danko (US 4,534,530), and Blankenship (US 4,801,116).
Regarding claim 1, Thalenfeld, as modified by Ziegler and Danko (see above discussions with respect to claim 10), teaches a bracket (Thalenfeld: 10, fig 1; see annotation below for all added reference numbers) for a display unit (Thalenfeld: see Figures 1-7), the bracket comprising: a retainer (Thalenfeld: 20, fig 1) operable to selectively interface with the display unit (Thalenfeld: see Figures 1-7) and including (i) a front surface (Thalenfeld: 21, fig 1) defining a width of the retainer extending from a first lateral edge (Thalenfeld: 22, fig 4) to a second lateral edge (Thalenfeld: 23, fig 4); and a coupler (Thalenfeld: 30, fig 1) attached to the front surface of the retainer (Thalenfeld: see Figures 1-7) and including: a top side (Thalenfeld: 32, fig 1); a bottom side (Thalenfeld: 31, fig 1) disposed on an opposite side from the top side (Thalenfeld: see Figures 1-7); a socket (Thalenfeld: 34, fig 4, as modified by, Ziegler: 25, fig 1), the socket having: a first receptacle (Thalenfeld: 34, fig 4, as modified by, Ziegler: 20, fig 2) defining a first width (Ziegler: see Figure 2); and a second receptacle (Thalenfeld: 34, fig 4, as modified by, Ziegler: 30, fig 2) defining a second width different than the first width (Ziegler: see Figure 2); a first connecting rib (Danko: 22f, fig 11, see annotation) extending from the front surface and coupled along the top side (Danko: see Figures 1, 8, and 11; Thalenfeld: see Figures 1-7); and a second connecting rib (Danko: 22g, fig 11, see annotation) spaced from the first connecting rib and extending from the front surface along the bottom side and parallel to the first connecting rib (Danko: see Figures 1, 8, and 11; Thalenfeld: see Figures 1-7).
Thalenfeld, as modified by Ziegler and Danko (see above discussions with respect to claim 10), does not teach the bracket, wherein the retainer includes lateral recesses formed along each of the first lateral edge and the second lateral edge.
Blankenship teaches a bracket (10, fig 1) for a display unit (50, fig 1), the bracket comprising: a retainer (15, 16, 18, fig 1) operable to selectively interface with the display unit (see Figure 1) and including (i) a front surface (12a, fig 3, see annotation) defining a width of the retainer extending from a first lateral edge (12b, fig 3, see annotation) to a second lateral edge (12c, fig 3, see annotation) and (ii) lateral recesses (12d, 12e, fig 3, see annotation) formed along each of the first lateral edge and the second lateral edge (see Figures 1-4).
PNG
media_image3.png
276
240
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (12d – Lateral Recess)]
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (12c – Second Lateral Edge)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (12b – First Lateral Edge)][AltContent: textbox (12e – Lateral Recess)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
[AltContent: textbox (12a – Front Surface)]
Blankenship is analogous art because it is at least from the same field of endeavor, i.e., brackets. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the retainer (Thalenfeld: 30, fig 1) with lateral recesses (Blankenship: 12d, 12e, fig 3, see annotation) formed along each of the first lateral edge (Thalenfeld: 22, fig 4) and the second lateral edge (Thalenfeld: 23, fig 4; Blankenship: see Figures 1-4), as taught by Blankenship, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation would have been to allow the user to firmly grasp the bracket of Thalenfeld via the lateral recesses of Blankenship for handling and assembly. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Thalenfeld, Ziegler, Danko, and Blankenship to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, wherein the socket extends from the top side of the coupler (Thalenfeld: see Figures 1-7).
Regarding claim 3, wherein: the first receptacle extends from an opening (Thalenfeld: 33, fig 4) in the top side of the coupler (Thalenfeld: see Figures 1-7); and the second receptacle extends from the first receptacle (Ziegler: see Figures 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 4, wherein the first width is greater than the second width (Ziegler: see Figure 2).
Regarding claim 5, wherein the coupler includes: a first side (Thalenfeld: 35, fig 1) attached to the front surface of the retainer (Thalenfeld: see Figures 1-7); and an opposite second side (Thalenfeld: 37, fig 1) spaced apart from the front surface of the retainer by a first channel (Thalenfeld: 40, fig 1) extending from the top side to the bottom side (Thalenfeld: see Figures 1-7).
Regarding claim 6, the bracket further comprising a slot (Thalenfeld: 70, fig 1) extending from the bottom side of the coupler and aligned with the socket (Thalenfeld: see Figures 1-7).
Regarding claim 7, wherein the slot is defined by a first lower wall (Thalenfeld: 50, fig 1) and a second lower wall (Thalenfeld: 36, fig 1) disposed adjacent to the bottom side of the coupler (Thalenfeld: see Figures 1-7).
Regarding claim 8, wherein the first lower wall is spaced apart from the bottom side of the coupler on the first side to define a second channel (Thalenfeld: 60, fig 4).
Regarding claim 23, wherein the coupler includes a third connecting rib (Thalenfeld: 36, fig 1) (a) coupled to the bottom side of the coupler and the front surface of the retainer (Thalenfeld: see Figures 1-7) and (b) being spaced from and extending perpendicular to the second connecting rib (Thalenfeld: see Figures 1-7).
Conclusion
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 Guang H Guan whose telephone number is (571) 272-7828. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays (10:00 AM - 6:00 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, 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.
/G. H. G./Examiner, Art Unit 3631
/JONATHAN LIU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3631