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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
In light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed on 5/26/2026, which firmly binds the system claim set to the hanger bracket claim set, the restriction is withdrawn. Accordingly, Claims 10 and 11 are rejoined.
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 1-11 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a clip aligned with the structure a first end" in line 4. The limitation is unclear because it is missing an “at”. Applicant should amend the limitation to recite: "a clip aligned with the structure at a first end".
The remaining dependent claims are rejected by virtue of their dependencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent No. 10,233,647 to Elliot et al. (Elliot).
PNG
media_image1.png
694
640
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1: Elliot discloses a hanger bracket for securing an eavestrough to a structure, comprising: a main body portion (See Annotated Fig. A), the main body portion including; a clip end (See Annotated Fig. A) aligned with the structure a first end of the main body portion and configured to be coupled to receive one end of the eavestrough; and a curved end (See Annotated Fig. A) arranged at a second end of the main body portion opposite to the first end and configured to support a second end of the eavestrough; and a fastener tunnel (See Annotated Fig. A) configured to receive a fastener for securing the eavestrough and the hanger bracket to the structure through the clip end.
Regarding Claim 2: Elliot discloses a hanger bracket of claim 1 wherein the main body portion comprises a pair of body portions (See Annotated Fig. A).
Regarding Claim 3: Elliot discloses a hanger bracket of claim 2 wherein the pair of body portions (See Annotated Fig. A) are attached along a longitudinal axis (See Annotated Fig. A) of the hanger bracket.
Regarding Claim 4: Elliot discloses a hanger bracket of claim 2, wherein the pair of body portions are mirror images (See Annotated Fig. A) of each other.
Regarding Claim 5: Elliot discloses a hanger bracket of claim 1 further comprising an upper contour (See Annotated Fig. A) for supporting a debris guard.
Regarding Claim 6: Elliot discloses a hanger bracket of claim 5, wherein the upper contour comprises at least two contact surfaces (See Annotated Fig. A) for supporting the debris guard.
Regarding Claim 7: Elliot discloses a hanger bracket of claim 6, wherein the fastener tunnel (See Annotated Fig. A) is formed between the at least two contact surfaces (See Annotated Fig. A).
Regarding Claim 9: This claim includes language that defines the process by which the bracket is made. Such language amounts to a product-by-process limitations, which are treated differently than structural limitations. The MPEP provides the following: “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” (See MPEP Section 2113) Further, the MPEP states that "[b]ecause validity is determined based on the requirements of patentability, a patent is invalid if a product made by the process recited in a product-by-process claim is anticipated by or obvious from prior art products, even if those prior art products are made by different processes." (See MPEP Section 2113)
Moreover, “the structure implied by the process steps should be considered when assessing the patentability of product-by-process claims over the prior art, especially where the product can only be defined by the process steps by which the product is made, or where the manufacturing process steps would be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the final product. (See MPEP 2113)
For the reasons set forth above, Examiner will analyze the patentability of the claim based on the bracket itself and not based on the stated process by which it is made.
Turning to the specifics: Elliot discloses a bracket (See Annotated Fig. A) that is formed.
Claim(s) 1, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent App. No. 2020/0308839 to Neeb et al. (Neeb).
PNG
media_image2.png
520
591
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1: Neeb discloses a hanger bracket for securing an eavestrough to a structure, comprising: a main body portion (See Annotated Fig. B), the main body portion including; a clip end (See Annotated Fig. B) aligned with the structure a first end of the main body portion and configured to be coupled to receive one end of the eavestrough; and a curved end (See Annotated Fig. B) arranged at a second end of the main body portion opposite to the first end and configured to support a second end of the eavestrough; and a fastener tunnel (See Annotated Fig. B) configured to receive a fastener for securing the eavestrough and the hanger bracket to the structure through the clip end.
Regarding Claim 10: Neeb discloses a hanger system comprising: an eavestrough (See Annotated Fig. B); and a hanger bracket as claimed in Claim 1 (See rejection of Claim 1 above).
Regarding Claim 11: Neeb discloses a hanger system according to claim 10, further comprising: a debris guard (See Annotated Fig. B); wherein the hanger bracket includes an upper contour (See Annotated Fig. B) for receiving a bottom contour of the debris guard.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Reasons for Allowable Subject Matter
None of the cited prior art, considered alone or in combination, discloses or teaches the body portions being connected via adhesive, fasteners, rivets or weldments.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In addition to the references used in this rejection and those cited in the PTO-892, the following references are very relevant to the claimed invention: US 6726155, 6543729.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERET C MCNICHOLS whose telephone number is (571)270-7363. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00 - 5:00 (Eastern).
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at 571-272-4797. 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.
ERET C. MCNICHOLS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3632
/ERET C MCNICHOLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632
Prosecution Insights