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 .
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-6,12,13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman et al.(US20210298497) in view of Cox(US11466795).
[claim 1] Referring to figures 14-17, Hoffman teaches an apparatus and associated method of suspending an item from a wall using a base plate(410) and first and second prong-bearing insert plates(440,430), the method comprising: positioning the base plate at a desired location on the wall and holding the base plate against the wall so that an upward major surface of the base plate closely abuts the wall and so that a longitudinal axis and a transverse axis of the base plate are oriented at least substantially parallel to the wall and a normal axis of the base plate is oriented at least substantially perpendicular to the wall; then, urging a prong-bearing longitudinal end of the first insert plate upward so that curved prongs of the first insert plate penetrate into the wall along arcuate penetration paths so that the first insert plate is attached to the wall by way of the prongs; and, urging a prong- bearing longitudinal end of the second insert plate upward so that curved prongs of the second insert plate penetrate into the wall along arcuate penetration paths, so that the second insert plate is attached to the wall by way of the prongs, with the first and second insert plates, as attached to the wall, collectively pinning the base plate against the wall(fig 17); then, connecting the item to at least one load-bearing connector(470) that extends at least generally downward from the base plate so that a load that is applied to the base plate as a result of the mass of the item produces a force vector that is at least generally aligned with the normal axis of the base plate.
Hoffman however may not teach that the method is for suspending an item from a ceiling, as opposed to a wall surface. Cox teaches a similar suspension device, and further teaches it can be used on either a wall surface, or a ceiling surface(C3 L6-11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to use the method of Hoffman to attach the suspension device from a ceiling surface, as taught by Cox, as this would allow a user to attach and suspend items from a ceiling.
[claim 2] when arranged as above, wherein the first insert plate comprises two curved prongs(450) that extend integrally from opposing transverse edges of the prong-bearing longitudinal end of the first insert plate and wherein the second insert plate comprises two curved prongs(460) that extend integrally from opposing transverse edges of the prong-bearing longitudinal end of the second insert plate, the first and second insert plates and their curved prongs being configured so that when the curved prongs penetrate upward into the ceiling along their arcuate penetration paths, the curved prongs of the first and second insert plates are in a converging, spreading arrangement(fig 14,17).
[claim 3] when arranged as above, wherein the at least one load-bearing connector extends at least generally downward from a longitudinally central portion of the base plate(fig 17).
[claim 4] when arranged as above, wherein the at least one load-bearing connector extends at least generally downward from a longitudinally centermost portion of the base plate(fig 17).
[claim 5] when arranged as above, wherein the at least one load-bearing connector extends at least substantially downward from the base plate so that a load that is applied to the base plate as a result of the mass of the item produces a force vector that is at least substantially aligned with the normal axis of the base plate(fig 17).
[claim 6] wherein the first insert plate and second insert plates are permanently connected to the base plate(by hinges 428,429).
[claim 12] wherein the at least one load-bearing connector(470) integrally extends from the base plate(through the insert plates, fig 17).
[claim 13] when arranged as above, wherein the item to be suspended from the ceiling is connected directly to the at least one load-bearing connector of the base plate(see para[0055]).
[claim 16] In the embodiment of figs 14-17, Hoffman may not teach that the base plate comprises at least two straight spikes that extend at least essentially upward from the base plate, and wherein the method includes a step of urging the base plate upward against the ceiling so that the straight spikes penetrate into the ceiling along linear penetration paths to hold the base plate against the ceiling so that an upward major surface of the base plate closely abuts the ceiling. Hoffman further teaches another embodiment of a suspension device, which uses two straight spikes(160, fig 1-5) extending from the base plate and used by being urged into a supporting surface(fig 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to use the straight spike of the embodiment of figures 1-5, with the embodiment shown in figures 14-17, as this would have the predictable result of increasing the connection between the suspension device and the supporting surface.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman et al. in view of Cox as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Hoffman et al.(US20220279945).
[claim 7] Hoffman(’97) in view of Cox teach a method as detailed above, where the first and second insert plates are permanently pivotally connected to the longitudinal ends of the base plate by hinges(428,429). Hoffman(’97) however may not teach that the first insert plate is permanently, pivotally connected to a first longitudinal end of the base plate by way of a first pair of hinge- posts at a non-prong-bearing end of the first insert plate being seated into orifices of a first pair of hinge-guides that extend generally downward from transverse edges of the first longitudinal end of the base plate; and, wherein the second insert plate is permanently, pivotally connected to a second, opposing longitudinal end of the base plate by way of a second pair of hinge-posts at a non-prong-bearing end of the second insert plate being seated into orifices of a second pair of hinge-guides that extend generally downward from transverse edges of the second, opposing longitudinal end of the base plate; so that the prong-bearing end of the first insert plate is urgable upward by way of the first insert plate being pivoted about a transverse axis of rotation that is aligned with the first pair of hinge-posts of the first insert plate and that is aligned with the orifices of the first pair of hinge- guides of the base plate, and so that the prong-bearing end of the second insert plate is urgable upward by way of the second insert plate being pivoted about a transverse axis of rotation that is aligned with the second pair of hinge-posts of the second insert plate and that is aligned with the orifices of the second pair of hinge-guides of the base plate.
Hoffman(’45) teaches a similar suspension device and method, and further teaches an insert plate(330) is permanently, pivotally connected to a first longitudinal end of the base plate(310) by way of a first pair of hinge- posts(337) at a non-prong-bearing end of the first insert plate being seated into orifices(in 305) of a first pair of hinge-guides(305) that extend generally downward from transverse edges of the first longitudinal end of the base plate; so that the prong-bearing end of the insert plate is urgable upward by way of the insert plate being pivoted about a transverse axis of rotation that is aligned with the pair of hinge-posts of the insert plate and that is aligned with the orifices of the pair of hinge- guides of the base plate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to use the hinge posts and hinge guide arrangement of Hoffman(’45) in place of the hinges of Hoffman(’97), as the two are the obvious functional equivalents of one another, as they perform substantially the same function in substantially the same manner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/10/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. 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). Applicant argues that one skilled in the art would understand that Hoffman et al.(US20210298497) is entirely directed to wall anchors with no disclosure of the anchor being used on a ceiling(see remarks filed 8/10/26). While Hoffman may not teach the anchor being used on a ceiling, Hoffman does teach that the anchors can be used to mount objects to painted drywall(para[0095]) which is a common ceiling material. Further Cox(US11466795) teaches a similar anchor device and teaches the use of the anchor on walls as well as ceilings(C3 L6-11). Given the teachings of Cox, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify the method of use the wall anchor of Hoffman to be used on a ceiling, as taught by Cox, as this would provide additional utility to the anchor of Hoffman, as detailed above.
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 BRADLEY H DUCKWORTH whose telephone number is (571)272-2304. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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 5712724979. 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.
/BRADLEY DUCKWORTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632
