This is a 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
Applicant’s election of Invention I in the reply filed on February 12, 2026 is acknowledged (Claims 19 and 20 are withdrawn). Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
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) 1, 3, 4, 6-8, 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Guo CN203564045.
Guo discloses claim:
1. A hanging device for hanging a piece of clothing or a towel on a coat hook, the hanging device comprising a receiving portion configured to receive and hold the piece of clothing or towel, wherein the hanging device is formed as an open ring having an overlapping portion comprising two overlapping structures that are curved and a-) spaced apart from each other; wherein the open ring (12) comprises a section configured to be hung on the coat hook, wherein the open ring is provided with a first end portion and/or a second end portion formed as a portion of a structure having an essentially oval or round cross-section, wherein the first end portion (a) at its widest cross section is in contact with the open ring and/or the second end portion (other a) at it widest cross section is in contact with the open ring; wherein a thickness (D3) of the first end portion and/or the second end portion is greater than a thickness (D2) of either of the two overlapping structures such that a qap (see figure below) is formed between the two overlapping structures by the contact of the first end portion (a) and/or the second end portion (other a) with the open ring (12); and wherein the open ring essentially maintains its shape during use.
3. The hanging device according to claim 1, wherein the open ring is formed as a one-piece body.
4. The hanging device according to claim 1, wherein the overlapping portion comprises parallel structures.
6. The hanging device according to claim 1, wherein the first end portion is arranged a distance from a distal end of the open ring that is attached to the second end portion.
7. The hanging device according to claim 6, wherein the second end portion is arranged the distance from a distal end of the open ring that is attached to the first end portion.
8. The hanging device according to claim 1, wherein the first end portion and/or the second end portion is/are moveably attached to the open ring.
13. The hanging device according to claim 1, wherein the open ring has a uniform thickness.
14. The hanging device according to claim 1, wherein the open ring is form-stable.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (End portion larger distally than proximally)][AltContent: textbox (Overlapping parallel structures also curved since rod is a curved member)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (curved)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (curved)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Overlapping portion )][AltContent: textbox (Overlapping portion )][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
384
604
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Open section triangle ring (12))][AltContent: textbox (Section configured to be hung on a coat hook)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Gap)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First end portion widest cross section thickest D2 greater than thickness of overlapping structures.)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second end portion at its widest cross-section)]
PNG
media_image1.png
384
604
media_image1.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) 2 anis/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo CN203564045.
Guo 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) 5 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo CN203564045 in view of Taurins 8,998,006.
Guo discloses all of the limitations of the claimed invention except for the open section is a triangle ring having an overlapping portion comprising two overlapping structures instead of an open ring having an overlapping portion comprising two overlapping structures.
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: textbox (Shows that it is known to have a triangle open ring and a round open ring are interchangeable as mechanical equivalents for holding/hanging a piece of clothing. )] [AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
240
482
media_image2.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 ring open section 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 teaches within the applicant’s own specification that the shape of the ring is interchangeable such as Triangular, oval, circular, etc..
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.
Claim(s) 9 and 10 anis/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo CN203564045.
Guo discloses all of the limitations of the claimed invention except for an outside portion of the first end portion and/or the second end portion 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 portion and/or the second end portion 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.
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 portion and/or the second end portion 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:
16. The hanging device according to claim 15, wherein the cross section is larger distally than proximally.
17. The hanging device according to claim 16, wherein the cross section is skewed toward an opposing one of the overlapping portions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10 and12-17 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 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