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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (claims 1-19) in the reply filed on 1/9/26 is acknowledged. Claim 20 is withdrawn.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the wave/spring washer, locking mechanism, lock nut, embossments, and multiple cavities in the body for attaching hooks, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the term “adapted.” Noting that it has been held that the recitation that an element is “adapted to” perform a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. In re Hutchinson, 69 USPQ 138.. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-19 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 "at least one bearing" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Is the recited “at least one bearing” the same as previously recited “a bearing” at line 6? The scope of the claim is unclear.
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) 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10,384,735 to Clark in view of US 6,719,158 to Goldberg.
Regarding claim 1, Clark ‘735 discloses a sliding hook system for hanging objects, comprising: a body 122; at least one insert (fig. 4 – annotated below) positioned in the body 122, and a smooth surface for accommodating a bearing 124 (noting that the surface would need to be smooth to support typical bearing functioning); a hook member 130 embedded within the body 122; at least one bearing 124 positioned on the smooth surface of the insert (as annotated below).
PNG
media_image1.png
324
513
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Clark ‘735 further indicates that structural configurations, materials and design choices may vary depending on cost, structural requirements, available materials and technological advances (col. 3, lines 58-64).
Goldberg ‘158 teaches an insert 36 positioned within the body 35 for supporting a bearing 33, where the components may be formed of metal, plastic, or other durable materials (col. 3, lines 14-18).
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 body and insert taught in Clark ‘735 with the body and insert that include plastic and/or metal components, as taught in Goldberg ‘158, in order to allow for enhanced structural support, durability, and bearing performance while utilizing known material selection.
Further, the examiner submits that it is well-known to use injection molding techniques for forming plastic bodies and insert molding techniques for integrally molding metallic parts within molded plastic components. It is further well known that metallic inserts used in molded plastic components include a textured surface, such as knurling or roughening, to improve mechanical interlock with a surrounding molded plastic body.
PNG
media_image2.png
523
864
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the body of Clark ‘735, as modified by the material selections and body configurations as taught in Goldberg ‘158, using a molding process to include a metallic insert integrally molded within the body via insert molding for supporting the bearing (the hook member would likewise be embedded within the body during the molding process as part of the same molding operation), wherein the metallic insert provides a load-bearing interface between the bearing and the surrounding molded body, consistent with the insert supported bearing arrangement of Clark ‘735 as modified by Goldberg ‘158, in order to improve structural support, durability, and bearing performance while utilizing known material selection and manufacturing techniques that achieve predictable improvements in structural integrity and bearing support.
Regarding claim 2, Clark ‘735, as modified, discloses, wherein the body 122 is made from a polymer material (as modified by Goldberg ‘158 - col. 3, lines 14-18).
Regarding claim 3, Clark ‘735, as modified, discloses, wherein the body 122 is made from a polymer material (as modified by Goldberg ‘ 158 – col. 3, lines 14-18 – “… plastic, or other durable material). Noting that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was made include a polymer material that is nylon with 33% glass-filled fiber, for durability, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. wherein the
Regarding claim 4, Clark ‘735, as modified, discloses, wherein the textured surface of the metallic insert comprises knurling, as modified above and note the included annotated industry standard insert molding process, included for reference.
Regarding claim 5, Clark ‘735, as modified, discloses, wherein the hook member 130 comprises raised features 146 selected from the group consisting of threads 146 and splines to enhance its securement within the body 122.
Regarding claim 6, Clark ‘735, as modified, discloses, further comprising a plurality of bearings 124 positioned on the smooth surface of the metallic insert (annotated in fig. 4 above and as modified).
Regarding claim 7, Clark ‘735, as modified, discloses, wherein the metallic insert is made from a material selected from the group consisting of aluminum, steel, and brass (as modified by Goldberg ‘148 (col. 3, lines 14-18) as supported the annotated industry standard insert molding process shown above).
Regarding claim 8, Clark ‘735, as modified, discloses, wherein the body 122 includes a recess for receiving a sticker or company logo (recess annotated below, which could receive a logo due to its configuration).
PNG
media_image3.png
324
513
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Clark ‘735, as modified, discloses, wherein the hook member 130 is interchangeable with various end effects, including hooks of different sizes and shapes (col. 5, lines 5-6 - “… allowing for different designed hooks to be utilized.)
Regarding claim 10, Clark ‘735, as modified, discloses, further comprising a locking mechanism 126 to fix the position of the hook member 130 relative to the body 122.
Regarding claim 11, Clark ‘735, as modified, discloses, wherein the locking mechanism comprises a threaded insert 126 embedded into the body 122 and a corresponding threaded portion 146 on the hook member 130.
Regarding claim 12, Clark ‘735, as modified, discloses, further comprising a lock nut 148 to secure the hook member 130 in place.
Regarding claim 13, Clark ‘735, as modified, discloses, further comprising a wave washer or spring washer 154 to provide controlled friction between the hook member 130 and the body 122 (noting that the washer 154 could be a wave or spring washer in that they are functional equivalents in providing controlled friction, in this instance)
Regarding claim 14, Clark ‘735, as modified, discloses, wherein the body 122 is adapted to include embossments or other decorative features formed during the injection molding process, as so modified. Noting it is well known to add features to a molded body during the injection molding process.
Regarding claim 15, Clark ‘735, as modified, discloses, wherein the body 122 is configured to mount to a rail 112 or strut channel system for adjustable positioning.
Regarding claim 16, Clark ‘735, as modified, discloses, wherein the body 122 could be modified to include multiple cavities to accommodate a multiplicity hook members (plurality of metallic inserts shown in fig. 4, as modified above). Noting that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was made to include multiple cavities to include multiple hooks, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St, Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 17, Clark ‘735, as modified, discloses, further comprising a means for ceiling or wall mounting 100, including brackets or mounting hardware 112 integrally formed with or attached to the body (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 18, Clark ‘735, as modified, where Goldberg ‘158 discloses, wherein the metallic insert 36 includes a flange or other feature 36a to prevent axial movement within the body 35 during use.
Regarding claim 19, Clark ‘735, as modified, discloses, further comprising a protective coating on the hook member 130 to prevent damage to hanging objects (col. 4, lines 46-47 – “ … a polyvinyl chloride (PVC) resin coating).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and will be used in subsequent office action rejections, as applicable.
The list of support is as follows: US-12371117-B2 OR US-5802889-A OR US-5183162-A OR US-10238212-B1 OR US-12065106-B2 OR US-12030574-B2 OR US-11654989-B2 OR US-11242100-B2 OR US-10864923-B2 OR US-7604131-B1 OR US-5165647-A OR US-9988118-B1 OR US-20040226899-A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONICA E MILLNER whose telephone number is (571)270-7507. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4:00pm.
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.
/MONICA E MILLNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632