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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-20 are pending and Claims 1-5, 7, 9-15, and 17-20 have been examined in this application. As of the date of this application, the Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS) filed on 07/24/2024 has/have been taken into account.
Response to Amendment
In the amendment dated 05/26/2026, the following has occurred: Claims 9, 12, 15, and 18 have been amended; No claims have been canceled; No claims have been added. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that: “While Hoffman et al. may teach placement of the base of downwardly curved prongs coincident with a side edge of a plate, Hoffman et al. does not teach, disclose, or suggest this broader, integrated configuration. Hoffman et al. does not teach, disclose, or suggest modifying Long such that both the base plate and the first insert plate pivotally coupled to the base plate include downwardly curved prongs that curve in the same direction, as expressly required by claim 1. The Examiner's reliance on Hoffman et al. addresses, at most, the location of a prong base, but does not remedy the absence in the cited art of the claimed structural and directional relationship between the downwardly curved prongs of the base plate and the downwardly curved prongs of the insert plate. Furthermore, locating the base of a prong coincident with a side edge of a plate does not imply or suggest same-direction curvature across two pivotally related plates.” – Long discloses an insert plate including a downwardly curved prong but the prong of its base plate is not downwardly curved and coincident with its side edges. Hoffman was not relied on to only teach coincident prong bases, but to teach downwardly curved prongs with coincident bases and as such when the base plate of Long is modified by Hoffman, which already has an insert plate having a downwardly curved prong, the combination reads on the claim as the prongs on each plate are downwardly curved and the required coincidence is taught.
In response to applicant’s argument that: “Additionally, the proposed modification would require a substantial redesign of Long et al., not a routine substitution. The combination proposed by the Office Action is not a simple substitution of one known element for another. To arrive at claim 1, Long et al. would need to be materially reworked so that its base plate and insert plate each include downwardly curved wall-penetrating prongs arranged in the same direction. That is a substantial redesign affecting the geometry, penetration behavior, and cooperative mounting function of the assembly of Long et al.
Even if one were to combine Long et al. and Hoffman et al., the Office Action has not shown that the resulting device would possess the claimed same-direction curved prong arrangement, or that one of skill in the art would have reasonably expected success in implementing that arrangement within the pivoting insert/base plate structure of Long et al. The claim requires a coordinated interaction between the base plate prongs and the insert plate prong.” – As stated above, only the prongs of the base plate in Long are being modified and such a modification would not require a drastic change to the base plate, only the addition of material on each edge. The claims require one or more downwardly curved prongs on a base plate, and a downwardly curved prong on an insert plate, when modified by Hoffman, Long teaches these elements.
In response to applicant’s argument that: “Obviousness cannot be established by dissecting claim 1 into isolated elements and then locating those elements piecemeal in the prior art. The proper inquiry is whether the cited references, considered together, would have suggested the claimed combination as a whole. Here, they do not. At most, Hoffman et al. may be cited for the limited proposition that a prong base can be coincident with a side edge of a plate. But that does not teach or suggest the complete arrangement recited in claim 1, particularly that the base plate prongs and the insert plate prong are all downwardly curved and curve in the same direction within a pivotally coupled wall hanger assembly.” – As stated above, the examiner is not isolating just the prong base in the modification, the base plate and prong in Long is being modified by the base plate and prongs in Hoffmann to provide an improved prong arrangement afforded by the curvature and positioning of the prongs.
In response to applicant’s arguments that: “As stated above with respect to Hoffman et al., even assuming Hoffman et al. teach prongs having bases coincident with one of first and second opposing side edges of a base plate, that limited disclosure does not teach or suggest the specific structure required by claim 1, nor does it provide a reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the base plate prongs of Will et al. with the prongs of Hoffman et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Claim 1 is not directed merely to the location of a prong base on a plate. Rather, claim 1 requires (1) a base plate including one or more downwardly curved prongs, (2) a first insert plate pivotally coupled to the base plate, also including a first downwardly curved prong; and (3) the downwardly curved prongs of both plates curving in the same direction. The Examiner's reliance on Hoffman et al. addresses, at most, only the positional aspect of the base of a prong. Even if Hoffman et al. teaches that isolated positional aspect, that does not supply a teaching or suggestion to modify the base plate prongs of Will et al. so as to arrive at the specific claimed arrangement. The claim is not directed merely to where a prong begins on a plate, but to a coordinated structural relationship between the prongs of the base plate and the prong of a pivotally coupled insert plate.
Nor would one of ordinary skill in the art have been motivated to modify the base plate prongs in Will et al. with the prongs of Hoffman et al. merely because Hoffman et al. disclose prongs coincident with opposing side edges of a base plate. That feature, standing alone, does not provide any reason to alter the prong structure or geometry of Will et al. to match Hoffman et al. The rejection therefore improperly extracts a single feature from Hoffman et al. and imports it into Will et al. without identifying any teaching in either reference that such a modification would be desirable or appropriate in the assembly of Will et al. Absent such a rationale, the proposed combination is based on impermissible hindsight using Applicant's claim as a roadmap.
Further, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the base plate prongs of Will et al. with the prongs of Hoffman et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide prongs having a relatively high ratio of height to thickness, which can provide both an improved installation experience and more routinely successful mounting, as well as a configuration in which the retainers of the base plate are located lower than those of the insert plate. Neither Will et al. nor Hoffman et al. teach or suggest these characteristics or advantages, nor do the references indicate that incorporating the prongs of Hoffman et al. into Will et al. would yield such a result. To the contrary, the proposed modification would require redesigning the geometry and relative positioning of the retainers of Will et al. within a pivotally coupled base plate/insert plate assembly. The cited art provides no basis to conclude that such a redesign would have been expected to succeed or to provide the asserted benefits.” – Will discloses an insert plate including a downwardly curved prong and a base plate including downwardly curved prongs. Hoffman was not relied on to only teach coincident prong bases, but to teach downwardly curved prongs with coincident bases and as such when the base plate of Will is modified by Hoffman, the combination reads on the claim as the prongs on each plate are downwardly curved and the required coincidence is taught. Furthermore, Will discusses positioning the prongs of its base at a lower position than that of its insert plate, which the positioning and structure of Hoffman provides and therefore one having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such a structural change as it would maintain the downward curvature with the new positioning as well as be motivated by the improved installation experience and more successful mounting cited by Hoffman.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). More specifically, the arguments regarding the straight tine of Long do not apply to the rejection as Long has been modified by Hoffman to teach the recited curved prongs.
Additionally, the amendment has overcome the objections set forth in the previous action.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long (US 2014/0231604) in view of Hoffman (WO 2019/226809).
In regards to Claim 1, Long discloses a wall hanger assembly comprising: a base plate (Long: Fig. 2A-2B; 14) including one or more prongs (Long: Fig. 2A-2B; 18); and a first insert plate (Long: Fig. 2A-2B; 10) pivotally coupled to the base plate and including a proximal edge, a distal edge, and opposing side edges, the insert plate further including a first downwardly curved prong (Long: Fig. 2A-2B; 22a) having a base, wherein the prong extends outwardly along an arc to a wall-penetrating outer end.
Long fails to disclose a base plate including one or more downwardly curved prongs each having a base, wherein each prong of the one or more prongs extends outwardly along an arc to a wall-penetrating outer end and wherein the base of the prong is coincident with one of first and second opposing side edges of the base plate; wherein the downwardly curved prongs of the base plate and the first downwardly curved prong of the first insert plate curve in the same direction. However, Hoffman teaches a base plate (Hoffman: Fig. 20-23; 1000/2000; Fig. 20-22 are misnumbered) including one or more downwardly curved prongs (Hoffman: Fig. 20-23; 1050/2050) each having a base, wherein each prong of the one or more prongs extends outwardly along an arc to a wall-penetrating outer end and wherein the base of the prong is coincident with one of first and second opposing side edges (Hoffman: Fig. 20-23; 1015/2015, 1016/2016) of the base plate. [Note: When modified by the prongs of Hoffman, the prongs in Long all curve in the same direction.]
Long and Hoffman are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area e.g. mounting brackets. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the base plate in Long with the prongs and alignment notch taught by Hoffman, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a prong arrangement that improves the weight holding capacity of the overall assembly especially when used with relatively weak surfaces, lowers the potential for damage caused by penetrating the wall, and also avoids negatively affecting the ability of the base plate to be aligned to a desired position (Hoffman: Pg. 1, Ln. 11-16, 19-24; Pg. 5, Ln. 8-9; Pg. 15, Ln. 5-6).
In regards to Claim 2, Long, as modified, teaches the wall hanger assembly of claim 1, wherein the one or more downwardly curved prongs (Hoffman: Fig. 20-23; 1050/2050) includes a pair of curve prongs.
In regards to Claim 3, Long, as modified, teaches the wall hanger assembly of claim 2, wherein the pair of curved prongs (Hoffman: Fig. 20-23; 1050/2050) each extend to an outer end, the outer ends are coplanar (Hoffman: Fig. 21).
In regards to Claim 4, Long, as modified, teaches the wall hanger assembly of claim 1, wherein the base plate (Long: Fig. 2A-2B; 14) is pivotally coupled to the first insert plate (Long: Fig. 2A-2B; 10) at a first hinge segment (Long: Fig. 2A-2B; 12).
In regards to Claim 17, Long, as modified, teaches the wall hanger assembly of claim 1, wherein the base of the downwardly curved prong (Hoffman: Fig. 20-23; 1050/2050) of the base plate has a height measured along the side edge and a thickness measured along a top edge, and wherein the height is a least three times the thickness (Hoffman: Pg. 6, Ln. 13).
In regards to Claim 18, Long, as modified, teaches the wall hanger assembly of claim 1, wherein the first insert plate (Long: Fig. 2A-2B; 10) is rotatable in the direction away from a front surface of the base plate (Long: Fig. 2A-2B; 14) to insert the first downwardly curved prong into a surface.
In regards to Claim 19, Long, as modified, teaches the wall hanger assembly of claim 1 wherein the first insert plate (Long: Fig. 2A-2B; 10) further includes a second downwardly curved prong (Long: Fig. 2A-2B; 22b) extending outwardly along an arc to an outer end,
Long fails to explicitly disclose wherein the outer end of the first prong and the outer end of the second prong are coplanar. However, Hoffman teaches an insert plate (Hoffman: Fig. 14-17; 440) having first and second downwardly curved prongs (Hoffman: Fig. 14-17; 460); and wherein an outer end of a first downwardly curved prong and an outer end of a second downwardly curved prong that are coplanar (Hoffman: Fig. 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the insert plate prongs in Long with the prongs taught by Hoffman, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a prong arrangement that improves the weight holding capacity of the overall assembly especially when used with relatively weak surfaces, and lowers the potential for damage caused by penetrating the wall, (Hoffman: Pg. 1, Ln. 11-16, 19-24).
In regards to Claim 20, Long, as modified, teaches the wall hanger assembly of claim 1, wherein the assembly is adjustable between an open state and a closed state, and wherein the first insert plate (Long: Fig. 2A-2B; 10) includes a rear surface residing in a plane substantially parallel to a front surface of the base plate (Long: Fig. 2A-2B; 14) in the closed state (Long: Fig. 8).
Claims 1-4, 14-15, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Will et al. (US 2017/0002974) in view of Hoffman (WO 2019/226809).
Regarding Claim 1, Will discloses a wall hanger assembly comprising: a base plate (Will: Fig. 1-2; 11) including one or more downwardly curved prongs (Will: Fig. 1-2; 28) each having a base, wherein each prong of the one or more prongs extends outwardly along an arc to a wall-penetrating outer end; and a first insert plate (Will: Fig. 1-2; 13) pivotally coupled to the base plate and including a proximal edge, a distal edge, and opposing side edges, the insert plate further including a first downwardly curved prong (Will: Fig. 1-2; 128) having a base, wherein the prong extends outwardly along an arc to a wall-penetrating outer end, wherein the downwardly curved prongs of the base plate and the first downwardly curved prong of the first insert plate curve in the same direction (Will: Fig. 9).
Will fails to disclose wherein the base of the prong is coincident with one of first and second opposing side edges of the base plate. However, Hoffman teaches a base of a prong (Hoffman: Fig. 20-23; 1050/2050; Fig. 20-22 are misnumbered) that is coincident with one of first and second opposing side edges of a base plate (Hoffman: Fig. 20-23; 1000/2000).
Will and Hoffman are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area e.g. mounting brackets. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the base plate prongs in Will with the prongs of Hoffman, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide prongs with a relatively high ratio of height to thickness, which can provide both an improved installation experience and more routinely successful mounting (Hoffman: Pg. 1, Ln. 19-27), as well as a configuration in which the retainers of the base plate are located lower than those of the insert plate (Will: [0039]).
Regarding Claim 2, Will, as modified, teaches the wall hanger assembly of claim 1, wherein the one or more prongs (Hoffman: Fig. 20-23; 1050/2050) includes a pair of downwardly curved prongs.
Regarding Claim 3, Will, as modified, teaches the wall hanger assembly of claim 2, wherein the pair of downwardly curved prongs (Hoffman: Fig. 20-23; 1050/2050) each extend to an outer end, the outer ends are coplanar (Hoffman: Fig. 21).
Regarding Claim 4, Will, as modified, teaches the wall hanger assembly of claim 1, wherein the base plate (Will: Fig. 1-2; 11) is pivotally coupled to the first insert plate at a first hinge segment (Will: Fig. 1-2; 70).
Regarding Claim 14, Will, as modified, teaches the wall hanger assembly of claim 1, wherein the first insert plate (Will: Fig. 1-2; 13) is pivotable about a hinge axis.
Regarding Claim 15, Will, as modified, teaches the wall hanger assembly of claim 14, wherein the hinge axis is offset from a front surface of the base plate (Will: Fig. 8-9).
In regards to Claim 17, Will, as modified, teaches the wall hanger assembly of claim 1, wherein the base of the downwardly curved prong (Hoffman: Fig. 20-23; 1050/2050) of the base plate has a height measured along the side edge and a thickness measured along a top edge, and wherein the height is a least three times the thickness (Hoffman: Pg. 6, Ln. 13).
Regarding Claim 19, Will, as modified, teaches the wall hanger assembly of claim 1 wherein the first insert plate (Will: Fig. 1-2; 13) further includes a second curved prong (Will: Fig. 1-2; 128) extending outwardly along an arc to an outer end, and wherein the outer end of the first prong and the outer end of the second prong are coplanar.
Regarding Claim 20, Will, as modified, teaches the wall hanger assembly of claim 1, wherein the assembly is adjustable between an open state (Will: Fig. 8) and a closed state (Will: Fig. 9), and wherein the first insert plate (Will: Fig. 1-2; 13) includes a rear surface residing in a plane substantially parallel to a front surface of the base plate (Will: Fig. 1-2; 11) in the closed state.
Claims 5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Will et al. (US 2017/0002974) in view of Hoffman (WO 2019/226809) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Will et al. (US 2017/00270), hereafter referred to as Will ‘974 and Will ‘270, respectively.
Regarding Claim 5, Will ‘974, as modified, teaches the wall hanger assembly of claim 4, but fails to disclose a hinge segment that includes a pair of hinge guides having apertures for receiving hinge axles.
However, Will ‘270 teaches a hinge segment (Will ‘270; 70B) that includes a pair of hinge guides (Will ‘270; 74B) having apertures for receiving hinge axles.
Will and are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area e.g. mounting brackets. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hinge, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a hinge formed of spaced apart rings and pins (Will ’70; [0063]), thereby providing a more constrained pivoting axis to ensure accurate rotation of the plate.
Regarding Claim 11, Will, as modified, teaches the wall hanger assembly of claim 5, wherein the hinge guides (Will ‘270; 74B) are disposed on the first insert plate (Will: Fig. 1-2; 13).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 9-10, and 12-13 are 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.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Taylor Morris whose telephone number is (571)272-6367. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10AM-6PM PST / 1PM-9PM EST.
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.
/Taylor Morris/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Prosecution Insights