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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment and corresponding arguments, filed 10/1/2025, have been reviewed and considered. Claims 1, 10, 13, 15, 18, 20 and 21 have been amended, claim 12 has been canceled and claim 24 has been added. Therefore, claims 1-3, 7-11 and 13-24 are currently pending. Applicant’s amendments are considered sufficient in overcoming the prior art rejections of the previous Office Action. Note that the applicant’s amendment to claim 10 has failed to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of the previous Office Action as discussed within the Office Action below. This Office Action is a Final Rejection.
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 10 is 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.
Within claim 10, the applicant recites, “wherein each of the one first clip and the one second clip comprises a clip that is separate and removable from the crossbar”. This recitation is indefinite because it is not clear if the applicant is stating that the first and second clips themselves are separate and removable from the crossbar or that each of the first and second clips comprise additional clips that are separate and removable from the crossbar. Note that the applicant’s disclosure does not appear to support that each clip comprises an additional clip. Is the applicant trying to recite, “wherein each of the first clips and each of the second clips are separate and removable from the crossbar”? Note that the use of the term “one” within the claim also provides confusion to what clips the applicant is referring.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 10 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KAVLE (US 651,970).
Regarding claim 1, KAVLE discloses a hanger comprising: a crossbar (3, 5) having a first end and an opposing second end and a hook receiving portion (4; note that loop 4 is considered fully capable of receiving a hook as claimed) along a top edge between the first and second ends (Fig. 1); a pair of first clips (7, 8 for one of the clamps 6) and a pair of second clips (7, 8 for the other of the clamps 6), each of the pair of first clips and the pair of second clips moving between an open position configured to receive an article and a closed position configured to grasp the article (Figures 1-2); and first and second coil springs (9; for each clamp 6), the first coil spring (9; for one of the clamps) biasedly coupling the pair of first clips (7, 8) to one another and being located between the pair of first clips (7, 8), the second coil spring (9; for the other of the clamps 6) biasedly coupling the pair of second clips (7, 8) to one another and being located between the pair of second clips (7, 8), wherein the first coil spring (9; for one of the clamps) includes a first spring arm (12) that is coupled to one first clip (8) and a second spring arm (13) that is coupled to the other first clip (7) such that in an at rest state, the pair of first clips are in the closed position, wherein the second coil spring (9; for the other clamp 6) includes a first spring arm (12) that is coupled to one second clip (8) and a second spring arm (13) that is coupled to the other second clip (7) such that in an at rest state, the pair of second clips are in the closed position (Figures 1-2); wherein the crossbar (3, 5) includes a first slot (as defined within 3, 5 and 5a on one side) formed completely through the crossbar from a front face to a rear face and a second slot (as defined within 3, 5 and 5a within the other side) formed completely through the crossbar from the front face to the rear face, each of the first slot and the second slot extending longitudinally along a length of the crossbar (i.e. have a length), the first coil spring (9) being partially received within the first slot and the second coil spring (9) being partially received within the second slot (Figures 1-2); wherein the first slot is defined by a first bottom wall (along top of 3) defining a bottom of the first slot and the second slot is defined by a second bottom wall (along top of 3 on other side) defining a bottom of the second slot, wherein a coil portion (10; inner top side thereof) of the first coil spring (9) is in contact with the first bottom wall and a coil portion (10; inner top side thereof) of the second coil spring is in contact with the second bottom wall (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, KAVLE discloses wherein each of the first spring arm (12) and the second spring arm (13) of each of the first coil spring (9) and the second coil spring (9) has an L-shape (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10, KAVLE discloses wherein each of the one first clip and the one second clip being separate and capable of functioning to be removable from the crossbar (Figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 13, KAVLE discloses wherein a coil section (10) of the first coil spring (9) is disposed within the first slot and a coil section (10) of the second coil spring (the other 9) is disposed within the second slot (Figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 14, KAVLE discloses wherein the first spring arm (12) and the second spring arm (13) extend outwardly from opposite ends of the coil section (10) of the first coil spring (9) and the first spring arm (12) and the second spring arm (13) extend outwardly from opposite ends of the coil section (10) of the second coil spring (9) (Figures 1-2).
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAVLE (US 651,970).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, KAVLE discloses a hanger as discussed above. However, KAVLE fails to disclose the crossbar and the first and second clips being formed of wood. Materials such as wood, plastic and metal are commonly used within the art and each has its own advantages and disadvantages. It is considered old and known in the art for clothes hangers and corresponding clips to be made from a wood material in order to provide the hanger and/or clips with strength, durability and be long-lasting. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have provided the crossbar and the first and second clips of KAVLE from a wood material, because such is considered old and known in the art in order to provide the hanger and clips with strength, durability and be long-lasting.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAVLE (US 651,970) in view of FONVILLE (US 1,367,181).
KAVLE discloses a hanger as discussed above. However, KAVLE fails to disclose each first spring arm having a first extension torsion lock at a free end thereof and each second spring arm having a second extension torsion lock at a free end thereof. FONVILLE discloses a clothespin comprising a pair of clips (jaws 1, 1’) and a spring wherein the spring comprising a first spring arm (6, 7) and a second spring arm (6’, 7’), both having a L-shape (Figures 1-3). FONVILLE discloses the first spring arm (6, 7) having a first extension torsion lock (8) at a free end thereof and the second spring arm (6’, 7’) having a second torsion lock (8’) at a free end thereof (Figures 1-3). FONVILLE discloses the first extension torsion lock (8) comprising a bent end that wraps around one edge of a respective clip (1) and the second extension torsion lock (8’) comprising a bent end that wraps around an opposite edge of the other clip (1’) (Figures 1-3). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have provided each of the first spring arm of KAVLE with a first extension torsion lock at a free end thereof and each of the second spring arm of KAVLE with a second extension torsion lock at a free end thereof, in light of the teachings of FONVILLE, in order to avoid accidental disengagement (i.e. lateral movement) of each of the pair clips from one another.
Claim(s) 11 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAVLE (US 651,970) in view of ALBRECHT (US 2,421,307).
KAVLE discloses a hanger as discussed above. ALBRECHT teaches a slot (32, 32) on opposing sides of a crossbar of a hanger in order to allow corresponding clips (20, 20) to be horizontally adjustable to hold garments of varying structures, sizes and/or shapes (Figure 2). The length of each of the slots (32, 32) of ALBRECHT is greater than 50% of the distance between the respective end of the cross bar to a hook (30) (Fig. 2). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have extended the length of the slots of KAVLE to the degree as claimed, in light of the teachings of ALBRECHT, in order to allow the clips to be horizontally adjustable to hold garments of varying structures, sizes and/or shapes.
Claim(s) 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAVLE (US 651,970) in view of HO (US 2009/0283556 A1).
KAVLE discloses a hanger as discussed above. However, KAVLE fails to disclose a hook including a hook swing limiter as claimed. HO discloses a hanger (10) including a hook swing limiter (28) that is received within a hole (30) formed in a hook receiving body (20; raised portion at central section 12 of crossbar) and is attached to a hook (18) (Figures 1-9). HO discloses the hook swing limiter (28) being configured to prevent movement (can lock in certain positions) of the hook (18) relative to a crossbar (12, 14) of the hanger (10) (Figures 1-9). HO discloses the hook (18) having a threaded bottom end (32) and the hook swing limiter (28) having a threaded bore (34) that mates with the threaded bottom end (32) of the hook (18) (Figures 1-9). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have provided the hanger of KAVLE with a hook secured within a hook receiving portion and a hook swing limiter, in light of the teachings of HO, in order to allow the hanger to be hung from a rail [by the hook] when in use and additionally allow the hook to be collapsed for storage and transportation purposes.
Note that the applicant’s recitation(s) involving pre-heating the hook swing limiter is considered “product-by-process” claim language. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself (MPEP 2113). Since the end product of the applicant’s claimed hook swing limiter and hook is the same as that as disclosed in the prior art, the product-by-process language fails to patentably distinguish over KAVLE in view of HO. For future reference, please note that BOBROW (US 3,478,943) does disclose the process of pre-heating elements for attachment purposes.
Claim(s) 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GIBRON (US 2,889,092) in view of TREIMAN (US 4,312,464).
GIBRON discloses a hanger comprising: a crossbar (20; includes 21, 22 and 25) having a first end (where one supporting bar 21 and bar 25 connect) and an opposing second end (where the other supporting bar 21 connects with bar 25) and a hook receiving portion (centrally located raised top portion of 22) along a top edge (as defined by 21, 21) between (in a horizontal direction) the first and second ends (Fig. 2); a pair of first clips (28, 29; 28, 29) and a pair of second clips (28, 29; 28, 29), each of the pair of first clips and the pair of second clips moving between an open position configured to receive an article and a closed position configured to grasp the article (Figures 1-3); and first (32) and second coil springs (32) (note coils 37), the first coil spring (32) biasedly coupling the pair of first clips (28, 29; 28, 29) to one another and being located between the pair of first clips, the second coil spring (32) biasedly coupling the pair of second clips (28, 29; 28, 29) to one another and being located between the pair of second clips, wherein the first coil spring (32) includes a first spring arm (44, 45) that is coupled to one first clip and a second spring arm (39, 41) that is coupled to the other first clip such that in an at rest state, the pair of first clips are in the closed position, wherein the second coil spring (32) includes a first spring arm (44, 45) that is coupled to one second clip and a second spring arm (39, 41) that is coupled to the other second clip such that in an at rest state, the pair of second clips are in the closed position (Figures 1-3). However, GIBRON fails to disclose a hook swing limiter as claimed.
TREIMAN discloses a hanger comprising a hook swing limiter (30) (alternatively 31) that is received within a hole (20) formed in a hook receiving body portion (central raised upper portion of 12) and is attached to a hook (24) in a fixed manner (30 is integral with hook) (31 can be an integral flange or a separately attached washer) such that the hook swing limiter (30) is unable to move (since both element 30 and flanged version of 31 are integral with the hook 24, each of the element 30 and flanged version of 31 cannot move with respect to the hook) (additionally, note that both 30 and 31 are unable to move when a sufficient tightening force is applied to 32), the hook swing limiter (30) (alternatively 31) being configured (when 32 is sufficiently tightened) to also prevent movement of the hook (24) within the hole (20) and relative to a crossbar (lower portion of 12 and 14) of the hanger (Figures 1-2). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art at time the invention was made to have provided the hanger of GIBRON with a hook swing limiter, in light of the teachings of TREIMAN, in order to lock the hook from movement in order to allow the hanger to be more easily handled, shipped and stored.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20 and 24 are allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, as cited on attached PTO-892, and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Note that each of US 2022/0304490, GB 2240036 and US 4185768 disclose a hook swing limiter that prevents movement of a hanger hook.
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 NATHAN E DURHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-8642. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 4:00 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, Alissa J Tompkins can be reached at 571-272-3425. 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.
NED
/NATHAN E DURHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732