This is a Non-Final office action for serial number 18/679,536.
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 4-7 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.
Claims 4-7 recites “object” however “the object” appears to be the same limitation as the “frame” of claim 4 therefore Claims 4-7 are indefinite and confusing.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 1 recites, “retracted position, where the ball is not engaged with the channel and the hook of each of the pair of hangers is positioned below the upper edge of the frame” and claim 6 recites “wherein the hooks of each of the hangers are positioned below an upper edge of the object when the hooks are in the retracted position” therefore claim 6 does not further limit claim 1 from which claim 6 depends since, the “frame” and the “object” are the same limitation. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 1 recites “an extended position, where the hook is spaced apart from the bracket by the shaft and the ball is engaged with the channel so that the hook extends above the upper edge of the frame” and claim 7 recites “wherein the hooks of each of the hangers are spaced apart from the upper edge of the object when the hooks are in the extended position” therefore claim 7 does not further limit claim 1 from which claim 7 depends since, the “frame” and the “object” are the same limitation. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
The claims have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 for the above reasons. Please note that the Examiner may not have pointed out each and every example of indefiniteness. The applicant is required to review all the claim language to make sure the claimed invention is clear and definite.
All words in a claim must be considered in determining the patentability of theclaim against the prior art. If no reasonably definite meaning can be ascribed to certainterms in the claim, the subject matter does not become obvious, the claim becomesindefinite. In re Wilson, 424F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970). The examiner's analysis ofthe claims, in particular claim language within the claims as rejected under 35 USC 112 above, indicates that considerable speculation as to the meaning of the terms employed and assumptions as to the scope of the claims needs to be made, as the examiner does not understand what is exactly being claimed by the applicant. Any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 should not be based on such speculations and assumptions. In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859,862 (CCPA 1962); Ex parte Head, 214 USPQ 551 (Bd.App. 1981). Accordingly, the applicant should not assume that any claims not rejected using prior art is considered allowable since the examiner can not clearly determine the limitations of the claim due to indefiniteness. The applicant should be aware that once the claims have been corrected to remove the problems concerning indefiniteness, prior art may be used to reject the claims and the next action made final or if the application is in a final status the amendment after final may not be entered as requiring further search and/or consideration.
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) 1, 3-9, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Treleven in view of Luk et al. (Luk) 2011/0248060. The applicant is reminded that the object/frame is not positively claimed therefore the prior art only need to be capable of performing the functions related to the object/frame.
Treleven discloses claims:
1. An over the door hanging apparatus, comprising: a frame (10) having a pair of sides (left side right side) and an upper edge (see figure) extending between the sides; a pair of hangers (44/45), wherein each hanger is mounted to one of the pair of sides and includes a shaft extending along a longitudinal axis from a flattened end stopper (46) to a hook formed by a first leg that extends perpendicularly from the shaft and a second leg that extends at an angle to the first leg and is spaced apart from the shaft to accommodate to a door therebetween; and a set of mounting brackets (41/42), wherein each bracket includes a channel (holes within 41/42) having a passageway (holes) dimensioned to accept the shaft but not the flattened end stopper of each hanger, wherein the shaft of each of the pair of hangers extends through the passageway of the channel of one of the set of mounting brackets and is free to slide through the passageway along the longitudinal axis so that the shaft of each of the pair of hangers is moveable between a retracted position (see specification), where the flattened end is not engaged with the channel and the hook of each of the pair of hangers is positioned below the upper edge of the frame (when fully retracted the hook would be below the upper edge), and an extended position, where the hook (44/45 is spaced apart from the bracket (41/42) by the shaft and the flattened end stopper is engaged with the channel so that the hook extends above the upper edge of the frame and can engage the door (12) with the door being accommodated between the second leg of the hook and the shaft and first leg of the hook in engagement with a top of the door (12).
3. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the set of mounting brackets includes two mounting brackets (41/42) associated with each of the pair of hangers (44/45).
4. The apparatus of claim 3, wherein the mounting brackets (41/42) are secured to an object.
5. The apparatus of claim 4, wherein the object (if the frame of claim 1) has two opposing lateral sides (see figure) and the mounting brackets are secured to opposing lateral sides of the object.
6. The apparatus of claim 5, wherein the hooks of each of the hangers are positioned below an upper edge of the object when the hooks are in the retracted position.
7. The apparatus of claim 6, wherein the hooks of each of the hangers are spaced apart from the upper edge of the object when the hooks are in the extended position.
8. The apparatus of claim 7, wherein the hangers are free to rotate about a longitudinal axis of the shaft of the hooks.
[AltContent: textbox (Side upper Edge Frame side)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Hook 44/45)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (Stopper 46)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox ( Set of brackets 44/42
Including channels/passageway)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]‘
PNG
media_image1.png
180
324
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (1st leg
2nd leg
shaft)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Upper edge)]
PNG
media_image2.png
410
312
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Treleven discloses all of the limitations of the claimed invention except for the shape of the hangers including a first leg that extends perpendicularly from the shaft and a second leg that extends obliquely to the first leg and is spaced apart from the shaft. Luk teaches is known to have a hook having a first leg that extends perpendicularly from the shaft and a second leg that extends obliquely to the first leg and is spaced apart from the shaft.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First leg
2nd leg)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (shaft)]
PNG
media_image3.png
314
192
media_image3.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 Treleven to have made the wire hook having a first leg that extends perpendicularly from the shaft and a second leg that extends obliquely to the first leg and is spaced apart from the shaft as taught by Luk for the purpose of providing a means to firmly grip the panel/door to prevent accidental removal or slipping.
Treleven discloses all of the limitations of the claimed invention except for the flattened end of the shaft being a ball. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have made the flattened end of the shaft being a ball, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art since the applicant has not shown how the chosen shape is critical.
Modified Treleven in view of Luk inherently teaches claims:
9. A method of suspending an object from a door, comprising the steps of: providing an over the door hanging apparatus having, a pair of hangers (44/45), wherein each hanger includes a shaft extending from a ball to a hook formed by a first leg that extends perpendicularly from the shaft and a second leg that extends at an angle to the first leg and is spaced apart from the shaft to accommodate to a door therebetween, and a set of mounting brackets (41/42), wherein each bracket includes a channel (holes of 41/42) having a passageway dimensioned to accept the shaft but not the flattened end (46) of each hanger; coupling the over the door hanging apparatus to the object (10) having a frame (10) with a pair of sides and an upper edge extending between the sides by securing the set of mounting brackets (41/42) to the sides of the frame (10) of the object with the shafts of the hangers extending through the channels of the mounting brackets; sliding the shaft of each of the hangers through the passageway along a longitudinal axis of the shaft to move each of the pair of hangers from a retracted position, where the flattened end is not engaged with the channel and the hook of each of the pair of hangers (44/45) is positioned below the upper edge of the frame, to an extended position, where the hook is spaced apart from the bracket by the shaft and the ball is engaged with the channel so that the hook extends above the upper edge of the frame; and positioning the hooks over a top of the door so that the first leg of the hook engages the top of the door with the door being accommodated between the second leg of the hook and the shaft.
11. The method of claim 9,wherein the set of mounting brackets includes two mounting brackets (41/42) associated with each of the pair of hangers (44/45).
Claim(s) 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Treleven in view of Luk et al. (Luk) 2011/0248060 in view of Stewart 20060219851.
Treleven in view of Luk discloses all of the limitations of the claimed invention except for the mounting brackets are secured to the object by screws.
Stewart discloses that it is known to have a Claim
12. The method of claim 11, wherein the mounting brackets (4) are secured to the object by screws (via holes 22).
It would have been an obvious engineering design choice 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 Treleven in view of Luk to have the mounting brackets are secured to the object by screws since Stewart teaches having an integral or one-piece bracket (see figure 6) into a separate bracket using screws (figure 4) is a well known and conventional modification since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art and are mechanical equivalents. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Treleven in view of Luk in view of Stewart inherently discloses
13. The method of claim 12, wherein the object has two opposing lateral sides and the mounting brackets are secured to opposing lateral sides of the object.
14. The method of claim 13, wherein the hooks of each of the hangers are positioned below an upper edge of the object when the hooks are in the retracted position.
15. The method of claim 14, wherein the ball of each of the hangers is in connect with one channel of one mounting bracket when the hangers are in the extended position.
16. The apparatus of claim 15, wherein the hangers are free to rotate about a longitudinal axis of the shaft of the hooks.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 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.
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