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 .
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 13, 16, and 19 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 regards to Claim 13, the preamble recites “on a clothing hook”, but lines 6-7 recite “a hanging rod”, which are completely different structures. It is unclear which is correct.
The remaining claims inherit the rejection by dependency.
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 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gadsby (GB 2468700).
In regards to Claim 1, Gadsby teaches a hanger device that ensures that the hanger device and its supported clothing remain secure on a clothing hook the hanger device comprising:
a body component that is triangular in shape (Figure 3); and
at least one eyelet (Detail 22);
a hook extending upward from a top of the body component (Detail 12); and
wherein the at least one eyelet extends downward from the top of the body component (Detail 22 is downward from Detail 12); and
wherein the at least one eyelet allows the hanger device to be secured over a clothing hook (Figure 4 shows a clothing hook can be pass through the eyelet).
In regards to Claim 8, Gadsby teaches the hook can be used to hang the hanger device from a hanging rod or from a neck of the hanger device or a hanger (Figure 4 shows the neck of a hanger passing through the eyelet).
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Varghese-Abraham (20160166098).
In regards to Claim 1, Varghese-Abraham teaches a hanger device that ensures that the hanger device and its supported clothing remain secure on a clothing hook the hanger device comprising:
a body component that is triangular in shape (Figure 2); and
at least one eyelet (Detail 120);
a hook (Detail 102) extending upward from a top of the body component; and
wherein the at least one eyelet extends downward from the top of the body component (Detail 120 is downward from Detail 102); and
wherein the at least one eyelet allows the hanger device to be secured over a clothing hook (the eyelet is larger than the hook 102, so the eyelet could secure a hanger around the hook of another hanger).
In regards to Claim 3, Varghese-Abraham teaches the body component comprises two side arms of equal length (at Details 132, 134), each one projecting down from opposite sides of where the at least one eyelet is seated and upon which a garment would be draped.
In regards to Claim 4, Varghese-Abraham teaches the body component also comprises a bottom bar with a first and a second end adhered to lower ends of the two side arms (Detail 140).
In regards to Claim 5, Varghese-Abraham teaches the at least one eyelet is circular in shape (Figure 2).
In regards to Claim 8, Varghese-Abraham teaches the hook can be used to hang the hanger device from a hanging rod or from a neck of the hanger device or a hanger (Paragraph 18).
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.
Claim(s) 9, 13, and 16 is/are rejected, to the degree definite, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Varghese-Abraham in view of Mata (20190231103).
In regards to Claim 9, while Varghese-Abraham essentially teaches the invention as detailed above, it fails to specifically each a C-shaped component configured to removably secure the body component to the hanging rod. Mata, however, teaches that such C-shaped components are well known in the hanger device art (Figures 1, 6). It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the C-shaped component in the device of Varghese-Abraham, so as to hold multiple hangers in the same area in an orderly fashion (Abstract).
In regards to Claim 13, Varghese-Abraham teaches a hanger device that ensures that the hanger device and its supported clothing remaining secure on a clothing hook, the hanger device comprising:
a body component that is triangular in shape (Figure 2);
at least one eyelet circular in shape (Detail 120);
a hook (Detail 102) extending upward from a top of the body component; and
wherein the at least one eyelet extends downward from the top of the body component (Detail 120 is downward from Detail 102);
wherein the body component comprises two side arms of equal length (at Details 132, 134), each one projecting down from opposite sides of where the at least one eyelet is seated and upon which a garment would be draped;
wherein the body component also comprises a bottom bar with a first and a second end adhered to lower ends of the two side arms (Detail 140); and
wherein the at least one eyelet allows the hanger device to be secured over a clothing hook without worry of the hanger device falling off the clothing hook and onto ground (the eyelet is sized to allow a hook to fit therethrough).
While Varghese-Abraham essentially teaches the invention as detailed above, it fails to specifically each a C-shaped component configured to removably secure the body component to a hanging rod. Mata, however, teaches that such C-shaped components are well known in the hanger device art (Figures 1, 6). It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the C-shaped component in the device of Gadsby, so as to hold multiple hangers in the same area in an orderly fashion (Abstract).
In regards to Claim 16, Varghese-Abraham teaches the hook can be used to hang the hanger device form the hanging rod or from a neck of the hanger device or a hanger.
Claim(s) 11, 12, and 19 is/are rejected, to the degree definite, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Varghese-Abraham in view of Mata as applied to claims 9 and 13 above, and further in view of MacKenzie (5620127).
In regards to Claims 11 and 19, while the combination of Varghese-Abraham in view of Mata essentially teaches the invention as detailed, it fails to specifically teach a plurality of indicia. MacKenzie, however, teaches that when dealing with similar hanger devices, it is well known to include indicia (Figure 2, Detail 204). It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included indicia as taught by MacKenzie in the hanger device of the combination, so as to decorate the device. Advertising or decorative images would enhance the product by providing information or enhancing beauty, which would be appreciated by the ordinarily skilled artisan.
In regards to Claim 12, Varghese-Abraham teaches in paragraph 18 that parts can be molded, which would obviously be plastic.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 Shaun R Hurley whose telephone number is (571)272-4986. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday, 8:00am - 3:00pm.
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, Clinton T Ostrup can be reached at (571) 272-5559. 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.
/SHAUN R HURLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732