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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the anchoring cavity on Fig.2 and Fig.3 as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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 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(s) 1, 10 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.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear what the applicant intends to claim, “the hook section extends from an end of the anti-ligature section, wherein the hook section extends in an extension direction”. It is unclear in what direction the hook is meant to be extended towards. The application is being examined by examiner as best as can be seen by the drawings and specification.
Regarding claim 10, it is unclear whether all the structure of claim 1 is required to meet the claim (method of manufacturing) since only 2 steps are positively recited. For purposes of examining, the structure/hook of claim 1 is not required.
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) 1,4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spoto WO 0112508 A1 in view of Parsons GB 2570179 A.
Regarding claim 1, Spoto teaches an anti-ligature hook for supporting an article comprising: a base portion for mounting the anti-ligature hook to a supporting surface (Spoto: Abstract); and a hook portion being integral with a first surface of the base portion, wherein the hook portion and the base portion comprises a flexible material (Spoto Page 2 Lines19-22); wherein the hook portion comprises an anti-ligature section and a hook section (Spoto: Abstract); wherein the hook section extends from an end of the anti-ligature section and wherein the hook section extends in an extension direction (Spoto: abstract, Fig.3 #14).
However, Spoto does not teach, wherein the anti-ligature section comprises a circumferentially tapered extension, extending outwardly away from the first surface of the base portion.
Regarding claim 1, Parsons teaches the anti-ligature section comprises a circumferentially tapered extension, extending outwardly away from the first surface of the base portion (Parsons: Page 4 lines 16-18, Fig.4 #32).
Spoto and Parsons are all designed to minimize injury. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Spoto in view Parsons to incorporate the teachings of Parsons to have the anti-ligature section comprises a circumferentially tapered extension, extending outwardly away from the first surface of the base portion. Doing so would reduce the risk of the device harming a individual from an extended point and give the hook less length for when weight is applied to the device, reducing the time needed for a rope or other means or methods to flex of the device.
Regarding claim 4, Spoto teaches all the elements of the current invention as stated above, except the anti-ligature hook according to claim 1, wherein the anti-ligature section extends in the form of a frustum. and wherein the hook section extends from an end of the frustum.
Regarding claim 4, Parsons teaches the anti-ligature hook according to claim 1, wherein the anti-ligature section extends in the form of a frustum. And wherein the hook section extends from an end of the frustum (Parsons: Page 4 Lines 16-18).
Spoto and Parsons are all designed to minimize injury. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Spoto in view of Parsons to incorporate a frustum at the end of the hook and have the anti-ligature section extend into the form of a frustum. Doing so provides structural stability and strength; due the shapes weight distribution is spread out more evenly than other shapes seen on hangers. This increases the durability of the device, making it more ideal for the consumer.
Claim(s) 2-3,11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spoto WO 0112508 A1 in view of Parsons GB 2570179 A further in view of Neagoe US 2011/0315245 A1.
Regarding claim 2 and 11, Spoto modified in view of Parsons teach all the elements of the current invention as stated above, except the anti-ligature hook according to claim 1, wherein the flexible materials is a thermoplastic elastomer.
Regarding claim 2 and 11, Neagoe teaches an anti-ligature hook made from various thermoplastics (Neagoe: ¶39). But doesn’t explicitly teach thermoplastic elastomer however it would be obvious to choose thermoplastic elastomer for the material due to the strength and flexibility it provides.
Spoto, Parsons and Neagoe are all designed to minimize injury. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Spoto in view of Franz further modified by Neagoe to have the flexible material be a thermoplastic elastomer. Thermoplastic elastomers (TPEs) are very flexible, they stretch under stress and return to their original state/shape ounce pressure is relieved, this is an obvious choice of material for an anti-ligature device.
Regarding claim 3, Spoto modified in view of Franz teach all the elements of the current invention as stated above, except the anti-ligature hook according to claim 1, wherein the extension direction is non-parallel with the first surface.
Regarding claim 3, Neagoe does not explicitly teach the anti-ligature hook according to claim 1, wherein the extension direction is non-parallel with the first surface, however teaches a anti-ligature fixture that the extension direction is non-parallel with the first surface (Neagoe: Fig.3 #10 ¶34).
Spoto, Parsons and Neagoe are all designed to minimize injury. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Spoto in view of Franz further modified by Neagoe to have the extension of the hook be non-parallel with the first surface. Having the hook be extended in a direction that is non-parallel direction would be optimal for the life of the device, thus giving the device more flexibility under pressure rather than snapping and breaking the device. This also provides safety if an abundance amount of weight is put onto the device in case of individual tried to harm themselves.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spoto WO 0112508 A1 in view of Parsons GB 2570179 A further in view of Burley US 4281802 A.
Regarding claim 5, Spoto modified in view of Parsons teach all the elements of the current invention as stated above, except the anti-ligature hook according to claim1, further comprising a rigid reinforcing base arranged in a cavity formed on a second surface opposite to the first surface of the base portion.
Regarding claim 5, Burley teaches an anti-ligature hook comprising a rigid reinforcing base arranged in a cavity formed on a second surface opposite to the first surface of the base portion (Burley: Fig.3 #30 Col. 3 Lines 37-40).
Spoto, and Burley are in the same field of endeavor, technical subjects covered by former uspc. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Spoto in view of Parsons further modified by Burley to have a rigid reinforcing base arranged in a cavity formed on a second surface opposite to the first surface of said base portion, replacing said base with a reinforced base. Doing so would increase the rigidity of the device, resistant to forces applied on the device and life of the device.
Claim 6 is /are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spoto WO 0112508 A1 in view of Parsons GB 2570179 A further in view of Burley US 4281802 A further in Maclaren-Taylor US 201909374057 A1.
Regarding claim 6, Spoto modified in view of Parsons teach all the elements of the current invention as stated above, except the anti-ligature hook according to claim 5, wherein a surrounding portion of the base portion covers an edge area of the rigid reinforcing base.
Regarding claim 6, Maclaren-Taylor does not explicitly disclose a surrounding portion of the base portion covers an edge area of the rigid reinforcing base. Maclaren-Taylor does teach a mount plate (Maclaren-Taylor Fig.9#22) is fully encased by the cover plate (Maclaren-Taylor Fig.9#36). The mounting plate serves as the reinforced base of the device and the cover plate would serve as the surrounding portion of the base portion.
Spoto, Maclaren-Taylor are both made to hang objects. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Spoto in view of Parsons, Bruley and further modified by Maclaren-Taylor to have the anti-ligature hook surrounding portion of the base portion covers an edge area of the rigid reinforcing base, fully encapsulating the reinforced base edges. Doing so makes the device more structural secure, reducing the ability of the device to be removed from a wall, be used in an event of self-harm by hanging.
Claim 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spoto WO 0112508 A1 in view of Parsons GB 2570179 A further in view of Burley US 4281802 A further in view of Franz WO2013043116 A1.
Regarding claim 7, Spoto modified in view of Parsons, and Burley teach all the elements of the current invention as stated above, except the anti-ligature hook according to claim 5, wherein the anti-ligature hook further comprises at least one attachment hole on the base portion, the at least one attachment hole being axially aligned with mating attachment holes on the rigid reinforcing base.
Regarding claim 7, Franz teaches an anti-ligature hook according to claim 5, wherein the anti-ligature hook further comprises at least one attachment hole on the base portion, the at least one attachment hole being axially aligned with mating attachment holes on the rigid reinforcing base (Page 3 Lines -31-32, Page 4 Lines 1-3).
Spoto, Franz and are all designed to minimize injury. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Spoto in view of Parsons, Burley, and Franz to incorporate at least one attachment hole on the base portion, and at least one attachment hole being axially aligned with mating attachment holes on the rigid reinforcing base. These holes would be used for attaching the device to a wall/fixture, allowing fasteners to secure the device to the wall/fixture so that the device can be used to hang an article of goods.
Claim 8 is /are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spoto WO 0112508 A1 in view of Parsons GB 2570179 A further in view of Burley US 4281802 A further in Neagoe US 2011/0315245 A1.
Regarding claim 8, Spoto modified in view of Parsons further modified by Bruley teach all the elements of the current invention as stated above, except the ant-ligature hook according to claim 5, wherein the rigid reinforcing base comprises at least one anchoring cavity, and wherein the base portion comprises anchoring elements filling the at least one anchoring cavity.
Regarding claim 8, Neagoe teaches the ant-ligature hook according to claim 5, wherein the rigid reinforcing base comprises at least one anchoring cavity, and wherein the base portion comprises anchoring elements filling the at least one anchoring cavity (Neagoe ¶32).
Spoto, Franz and Neagoe are all designed to minimize injury. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Spoto in view of Parsons, Bruley and further modified by Neagoe to add and anchoring cavity to the base portion. Doing so provides another way to secure the device to a wall, some surfaces require an anchor to secure to since not all walls have studs or other points of structure that screws would be enough to secure the device.
Claim(s) 9,12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spoto WO 0112508 A1 in view of Parsons GB 2570179 A further in view of Franz WO2013043116 A1.
Regarding claim 9, Franz teaches wherein a maximum thickness of the hook section is 5-20% of a maximum thickness of the anti-ligature section (Page 2 Lines 21-24, 27-30). It would be obvious that hook would be smaller than 20% it is known within the art that the range for a hook is between 10%-20% of the base plate, in this case the anti-ligature section.
Spoto and Franz are designed to minimize injury to people and support articles. Along with Spoto, Franz and Parsons are all designed to minimize injury. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Spoto in view of parsons further in view of Franz to incorporate the teachings of Franz to reduce the size of hook to be have a maximum thickness of the hook section is 5-20%. Doing so provides a smaller footprint for the hook while still allowing it to function for hanging items.
Regarding claim 12, Franz teaches wherein the maximum thickness of the hook section is 8-13% of the maximum thickness of the anti-ligature section (Page 2 Lines 21-24, 27-30). It would be obvious that hook would be smaller, it is known within the art that the range for a hook is between 10%-20% of the base plate, in this case the anti-ligature section. To further reduce the maximum thickness to 8-13% would be still fall in the range of obvious.
Spoto and Franz are designed to minimize injury to people and support articles. Along with Spoto, Franz and Parsons are all designed to minimize injury. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Spoto in view of Parsons further in view of Franz to incorporate the teachings of Franz to further reduce the size of hook to be less than the size of the anti-ligature section. Doing so provides a smaller footprint for the hook while still allowing it to function for hanging items.
Claim 10 is /are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spoto WO 0112508 A1 in view of Parsons GB 2570179 A further in view of Dellock US 20210022274 A1.
Regarding claim 10 Spoto modified in view of Parsons teach all the elements of the current invention as stated above, except A method for manufacturing the anti-ligature hook according to claim 1, the method comprising the steps of: providing a first and a second material, and performing a two-shot injection molding of the first and the second material to form the anti-ligature hook.
Regarding claim 10, Dellock teaches A method for manufacturing comprising the steps of: providing a first and a second material, and performing a two-shot injection molding of the first and the second material(Dellock: ¶19).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Spoto in view of Parsons further in view Dellock to incorporate the teachings of Dellock to manufacture the ant-ligature hook using two-shot injection molding. Doing so would produce stronger material bonding, efficient for higher scale production and allows for the design of the hook to have complex designs, along with more ways to make it aesthetically pleasing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE JONATHAN PEAZEL whose telephone number is (571)270-0816. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Friday, 8 a.m. 5 p.m. ET..
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 5712728227. 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.
K.J.P.
/JONATHAN LIU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Prosecution Insights