DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim 1 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 line 2, and line 5 “a fixing bracket” where it is unclear if this is meant to be the same “a fixing bracket” or if the second recitation should be “the fixing bracket”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the bottom surface". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the range hood". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims: 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which applicant(s) regard as their invention. Specifically the use of the word “well” when indicating a value, duration, numerical range, location, shape, or comparative sizing or proximity is considered indefinite as the specification or arguments previously presented fails to provide some standard for measuring that degree; and there is no standard that is recognized in the art for measuring the meaning of the term of said degree.Terms of Degree: When a term of degree is used in the claim, the examiner should determine whether the specification provides some standard for measuring that degree. If the specification does not provide some standard for measuring that degree, a determination must be made as to whether one of ordinary skill in the art could nevertheless ascertain the scope of the claim (e.g., a standard that is recognized in the art for measuring the meaning of the term of degree). The claim is not indefinite if the specification provides examples or teachings that can be used to measure a degree even without a precise numerical measurement (e.g., a figure that provides a standard for measuring the meaning of the term of degree). During prosecution, an applicant may also overcome an indefiniteness rejection by submitting a declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 showing examples that meet the claim limitation and examples that do not. < Federal Register /Vol. 76, No. 27 / February 9, 2011 / Notices, (Page 7165 :Col 3, Par. 0003) >
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the first connecting piece". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1-4,9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by US Publication 20070256681 to Chiang.
As to claim 1, Chiang discloses A hanging bracket, including a fixing strip (20) that is fixed to the bottom of a fixing bracket (30) through (via) a first connecting piece (23), and the fixing strip is provided with a second mounting hole (hole for 22 Fig 4) that is fastened to the range hood (14) through a second connecting piece (bolt 22), a fixing bracket (33) that is located on the fixing strip (Fig 4) and can slide along the length direction of the fixing strip (Abs) , and an elastic hook (36, Par 0035) that is fixed on the bottom surface of the fixing bracket (30, best shown Fig 6) and used to hook the range hood through the hook portion (Fig 4 assembled). [It is noted at this time that in light of the specification the use of the word “through” is liberally used, such as in Par 0042 where it states “During installation, the hanging bracket and fixing bracket 6 (a cabinet in this embodiment) are securely connected through the first connecting piece, that is, the first connecting piece passes through the first mounting hole 11 to install the hanging bracket at the bottom of fixing bracket 6” where the use of the word through can be interpreted as “by use of” as in the first above instance, or interpreted as “passing from one face to another” as in the second recitation. As such the breadth of through in the claims is given interpretation to mean “by use of”].
As to claim 2, Chiang discloses wherein the fixing strip (20) is provided with a guide hole along the length direction (between 23’s, and the fixing bracket and fixing strip are connected through a fastening device (insertion mechanism of wall 32 into 23) that passes through the guide hole (32 into space between 23), and the fastening device (17), when released, drives the fixing bracket to slide inside the guide hole (Fig 4), causing the fixing bracket to slide relative to the fixing strip, and when the fastening device is locked, the positions of the fixing bracket and fixing strip are relatively fixed (Par 0035).
As to claim 3, Chiang discloses wherein the guide hole (23) corresponding to the fixing bracket is provided with a slider (walls 32) , and the slider is inserted into the guide hole and slides in the guide hole as the fixing bracket slides (Fig 4).
As to claim 4, Chiang discloses wherein the fixing strip and fixing bracket fit well in a limit position in the width direction of the fixing strip (Fig 4).
As to claim 9, Chiang discloses wherein the top surface of fixing strip (20) is provided with an elevating bracket (23), and the fixing strip or elevating bracket (23) is fixed at the bottom of fixing bracket (33) through the first connecting piece (overlap of 32 and 23).
As to claim 10, Chiang discloses the top of range hood body (14) is provided with a third mounting hole (Fig 4, where 22 is screwed in) corresponding to the second mounting hole, and the range hood body is provided with a hook hanging hole corresponding to the elastic hook (17 as shown fig 6 but as hole indentation would be inherent to be on hood and fixing bracket 30 otherwise would not work to be a recess hole divot to support portion 36), support portions are provided on both sides of the hook hanging hole (angled portion of the hood best shown 14 region and 11 region Fig 6), and the two support portions are inclined towards each other (shown inclined inward), and when the range hood body moves up close to the hanging bracket, the elastic hook is aligned and inserted into the hanging hole (capable of, slides together), the range hood body sits on the hook portion through the support portion, and the second and third mounting holes are directly aligned (all holes aligned even before when hook portions 17/36 aligned), and alternatively, the range hood body moves along its width direction through the fixing bracket to align the second and third mounting holes and after alignment, the second and third mounting holes are securely connected through the second connecting piece.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 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 and overcoming any 112 issues.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSE SAMUEL BOGUE whose telephone number is (571)270-1406. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00-5:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mark Laurenzi can be reached on 571-270-7878. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JESSE S BOGUE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights