This is a Non-Final office action for serial number 18/613,458.
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
Claims 19 and 20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention I, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on February 12, 2023.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 3, 5, 8, 12-14, and 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (2) as being anticipated by Uy D935339 .
Uy discloses claims:
3. The hanging device according to claim 21,wherein the open round ring is formed as a one-piece body.
5. The hanging device according to claim 21,wherein the open round ring is circular or oval.
8. The hanging device according to claim 21,wherein the first end and/or the second end is/are moveably attached to the open round ring.
12. The hanging device according to claim 21,wherein the overlapping portion extends at least 20 degrees.
13. The hanging device according to claim 21,wherein the open round ring has a uniform thickness.
14. The hanging device according to claim 21,wherein the open round ring is form-stable.
21. A hanging device for hanging a piece of clothing or a towel on a coat hook, the hanging device comprising: an open round ring having first and second legs that spatially coincide with one another in an overlapping, curved, and parallel configuration along a circumference of the open round ring to form a receiving portion; a first end disposed at a terminus of the first leg; and a second end disposed at a terminus of the second leg, wherein the first end contacts the second leg and the second end contacts the first leg to form a gap between the first and second legs; wherein the open round ring essentially maintains its shape during use.
23. The hanging device of claim 21, wherein the first end and/or the second end has an oval or round cross-section.
24. The hanging device of claim 21, wherein the first end has a widest cross- section where it contacts the second leg and the second end has a widest cross- section where it contacts the first leg.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (1st & 2nd end has oval or round cross-section)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First end of first leg
Gap between 1st & 2nd leg
Second end of second leg
Open round ring)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
204
450
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
172
362
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 3, 5, 8-10, 12-14, 21 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirby 932787.
Kirby discloses claims:
3. The hanging device according to claim 21,wherein the open round ring is formed as a one-piece body.
5. The hanging device according to claim 21,wherein the open round ring is circular or oval.
8. The hanging device according to claim 21,wherein the first end and/or the second end is/are moveably attached to the open round ring.
9. hanging device according to claim 21,wherein an outside portion of the first end and/or the second end is made of a resilient material (column 1, line 45).
10. The hanging device according to claim 21,wherein a proximal portion of the first end and/or the second end is made of a resilient material (column 1, line 45).
12. The hanging device according to claim 21,wherein the overlapping portion extends at least 20 degrees.
13. The hanging device according to claim 21,wherein the open round ring has a uniform thickness.
14. The hanging device according to claim 21,wherein the open round ring is form-stable.
21. A hanging device for hanging a piece of clothing or a towel on a coat hook, the hanging device comprising: an open round ring having first and second legs that spatially coincide with one another in an overlapping, curved, and parallel configuration along a circumference of the open round ring to form a receiving portion; a first end disposed at a terminus of the first leg; and a second end disposed at a terminus of the second leg, wherein the first end contacts the second leg and the second end contacts the first leg to form a gap between the first and second legs; wherein the open round ring essentially maintains its shape during use.
23. The hanging device of claim 21, wherein the first end and/or the second end has an oval or round cross-section.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Open Round Ring 10
First leg
First end
Gap 14
Second end
Second leg)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image3.png
308
112
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
334
410
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim(s) 3, 5, 8, 12-14, and 21-24 anis/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo CN203564045 in view of Taurins 8998006.
Guo discloses claim:
21. A hanging device for hanging a piece of clothing or a towel on a coat hook, the hanging device comprising: an open ring having first and second legs that spatially coincide with one another in an overlapping, and parallel configuration along the open ring to form a receiving portion; a first end disposed at a terminus of the first leg; and a second end disposed at a terminus of the second leg, wherein the first end contacts the second leg and the second end contacts the first leg to form a gap between the first and second legs; wherein the open ring essentially maintains its shape during use.
3. The hanging device according to claim 21,wherein the open round ring is formed as a one-piece body.
8. The hanging device according to claim 21,wherein the first end and/or the second end is/are moveably attached to the open round ring.
13. The hanging device according to claim 21,wherein the open ring has a uniform thickness.
14. The hanging device according to claim 21,wherein the open ring is form-stable.
23. The hanging device of claim 21, wherein the first end and/or the second end has an oval or round cross-section.
24. The hanging device of claim 21, wherein the first end has a widest cross- section where it contacts the second leg and the second end has a widest cross- section where it contacts the first leg.
[AltContent: textbox (First end Gap Second leg Second end round cross round section section )][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Open Ring 12
First leg )][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Hook 2)]
PNG
media_image5.png
344
410
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Guo discloses all of the limitations of the claimed invention except for the open round ring (Claim 1) having an overlapping portion comprising curved, and parallel configuration along a circumference of the open round ring..
Taurins teaches it is known to have the open section being an open ring is circular or oval including a curved structure being essentially oval or round cross-section.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Round ring Triangle ring)]
PNG
media_image6.png
240
482
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success to have modified Guo to have changed the shape of the open section to an open round ring is circular or oval as taught by Taurin, since Taurin shows that having an open round ring is an equivalent structure known in the art to an open triangular ring or an open round/circular or oval shape therefore it is obvious to substitute the triangular open ring for the round open ring or vice verse as a mechanical well known design choice since the applicant has not disclose how the shape is critical and the applicant teaches within the applicant’s own specification that the shape of the ring is interchangeable such as Triangular, oval, circular, etc. without departing from the invention, destroying the invention, or introducing any unexpected results.
Guo in view of Taurin as modified teach claims
5. The hanging device according to claim 1, wherein the open section is circular or oval.
12. The hanging device according to claim 1, wherein the overlapping portion extends at least 20 degrees.
22. The hanging device of claim 21, further comprising a hook attached to the open round ring.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo CN203564045 in view of Taurin 8998006.
Guo in view of Taurin discloses the claimed invention except for wherein at least one of the overlapping structures comprises or is formed as an elastic portion. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to (Claim 2) wherein at least one of the overlapping structures comprises or is formed as an elastic portion, 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. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo CN203564045 in view of Taurin 8998006 .
Guo discloses all of the limitations of the claimed invention except for an outside portion of the first end and/or the second end is made of a resilient material; wherein a proximal portion of the first end portion and/or the second end portion is made of a resilient material. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to (Claim 9) outside portion of the first end and/or the second end is made of a resilient material; (Claim 10) wherein a proximal portion of the first end portion and/or the second end portion is made of a resilient material, 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 and Guo teaches the end portions are anti-slip member which would include being made of a resilient material. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo CN203564045 in view of Taurin 8998006.
Guo discloses all of the limitations of the claimed invention except for wherein a cross section of the first end portion and/or the second end portion transverse to the overlapping portion varies asymmetrically along a longitudinal axis. It would have been an obvious matter of design engineering choice to have made Guo to have (Claim 15) wherein a cross section of the first end and/or the second end transverse to the overlapping portion varies asymmetrically along a longitudinal axis, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component since Guo teaches of the end portion is wider at the distal end and tapered toward the side of the end portion is a mechanical equivalent to the applicant’s limitation. Therefore a change in shape wherein a cross section of the first end portion and/or the second end portion transverse to the overlapping portion varies asymmetrically along a longitudinal axis is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill.
Modified Guo teaches claims:
15. The hanging device according to claim 21,wherein a cross section of the first end
16. The hanging device according to claim 15, wherein the cross section is larger distally than proximally thereby producing maximum force at the terminus of the first leg and/or the second leg.
17. The hanging device according to claim 16, wherein the cross section is skewed toward an opposing one of the legs thereby increasing compressive forces between the first leg and the second.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to new references (Kirby 932787 Uy D935339). claim(s) 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.
Applicant's arguments filed June 25, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to arguments that,
Claims 5 and 12 depend from independent claim 21, and benefit from arguments presented above. Further, as discussed above, one of skill in the art would not replace Guo's triangular ring with a circular ring (vis-a-vis Taurins) because doing so would render Guo's invention unsatisfactory for its intended purpose of preventing bunching and wrinkling of trousers. Accordingly, there would be no suggestion or motivation to make such a modification. ("If a proposed modification would render the prior art invention being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, then there is no suggestion or motivation to make the proposed modification." In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 221 USPQ 1125 (Fed. Cir. 1984).) Reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejections of claim 5 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is respectfully requested.
Further, curvature of the ring is more than a change in shape or design choice because the purpose of Guo's hanger is to keep trousers from bunching and wrinkling by securing them on a flat surface, whereas a round ring would promote bunching and wrinkling of trousers hung thereon.
the following remarks traverse the above arguments. The applicant argues that modifying the shape of Guo’s triangular ring to a circular ring are merely an allegation that the change in shape would render Guo’s invention unsatisfactory for its intended purpose of preventing bunching or wrinkling of trousers by alleging that only a flat surface can prevent bunching or wrinkling however, a flat surface is not the only surface that can keep trousers from bunching or wrinkling so, stating that changing the shape to a circular ring would cause bunching or wrinkling is a mere allegation. Modifying Guo’s triangular ring to a circular ring would clearly continue to hold trousers on the device within the gap between the first leg and second leg since, the first end and second ends would grip and hold the trousers in place and stretched out within the gap along the circular ring therefore preventing the trousers from bunching or wrinkling. In addition the size of the ring and the size of the trousers are also a factor in determining the effectiveness of the device since one skill in the art would make the modified circular ring of a size that would allow the device to prevent the trousers from bunching and wrinkling when stretched out between the first and second ends of the device therefore allowing the modified device of Guo in view of Taurin to meet the intended use aspect of Guo, therefore meeting the limitations of the applicant’s invention.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., flat surface) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that "an open round ring having first and second legs that spatially coincide with one another in an overlapping, curved, and parallel configuration along a circumference of the open round ring.", the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIMBERLY T WOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-6826. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thur 9:00am-5:30pm flexible schedule.
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.
/KIMBERLY T WOOD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Prosecution Insights