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 .
The following correspondence is a non-final Office Action for application # 18890944, entitled: HANGING APPARATUS AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF, filed on 09/20/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-2 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mitchell (U.S. Pat. 5443238).
Regarding claim 1, Mitchell discloses a hanging apparatus comprising: a frame apparatus (as shown in Fig. 1) comprising a rear surface (as seen in Fig. 3 below); a hanging bracket 10 comprising a first portion 20 that is coupled to the rear surface of the frame apparatus (as seen in Fig. 3) and a second portion 18; a rear cover 12 attached to the rear surface of the frame apparatus and overlying the first portion 20 of the hanging bracket 10 (as seen in Fig. 1), the rear cover 12 comprising a cover slit 16; and the second portion 18 of the hanging bracket 10 extending through the cover slit 16 of the rear cover 12 and protruding from an exterior surface of the rear cover 12 (as shown in Fig. 1), the second portion 18 of the hanging bracket 10 being configured to engage a hanging member to hang the hanging apparatus (see nail in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 2, Mitchell discloses the hanging apparatus, where the second portion 18 of the hanging bracket 10 is not directly affixed to the rear surface of the frame apparatus (as seen in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 14, Mitchell discloses the hanging apparatus, where the second portion 18 of the hanging bracket 10 comprises an opening 22 that is configured to receive a portion of the hanging member (as seen in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 15, Mitchell discloses a hanging apparatus comprising: a frame apparatus comprising a rear surface (as seen in Fig. 3 below); a rear cover 12 attached to at least a portion of the rear surface of the frame apparatus, the rear cover 12 comprising a cover slit 16; and a hanging bracket 10 comprising a first portion 20 that is positioned between the rear cover 12 and the rear surface of the frame apparatus and a second portion 18 that extends through the cover slit 16 of the rear cover 12 and protrudes from an exterior surface of the rear cover 12, where the second portion 18 of the hanging bracket 10 is configured to engage a hanging member to hang the hanging apparatus from the hanging member (as seen in Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
547
304
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell in view of Hall (U.S. Pub. 20080164399).
Regarding claim 3, Mitchell is discussed above, and teaches the hanging apparatus as claimed where the hanging member comprises at least one of a fastener that is coupled to a support surface or an over-door hanger (see hanging nail shown in Fig. 3). However, Mitchell fails to teach where the second portion 18 of the hanging bracket 10 comprises a downward facing edge that is configured to engage the hanging member. Hall teaches a hanging bracket 27 having a downward facing edge (at 30) that is configured to engage the hanging member.
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 second portion of Mitchell’s bracket to have a downwardly facing edge in order to provide an alternate means for engaging a wall hook to hold the mounting device on a building wall for display, as taught to be desirable by Hall (see discussion in para. [0014], lines 13-16).
Claim(s) 8, 13, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell in view of Wassell (U.S. Pat. 4712761).
Regard claims 8 and 13, Mitchell is discussed above, and teaches the hanging apparatus, where the first portion 20 of the hanging bracket 10 is positioned between the interior surface of the rear cover 12 and the rear surface of the frame apparatus (as seen in Fig. 1). However, Mitchell fails to teach where at least one of: the rear surface of the frame apparatus is at least partially coated with an adhesive; or an interior surface of the rear cover 12 is at least partially coated with the adhesive; and where the rear cover 12 is coupled to the rear surface of the frame apparatus by the adhesive. Wassell teaches a wall hanging assembly that utilizes adhesives for his picture frame components.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use adhesives with the surfaces of the hanging assembly of Mitchell, in order to provide additional attachment means for use with the picture frame, as taught to be desirable by Wassell (see discussion in col. 3, lines 11-14).
Concerning method claims 16-17, in view of the structure disclosed by Mitchell and Wassell above, the method of making the device would have been obvious, since Mitchell and Wassell’s hanging apparatus provides the same structure as the device described in the specification. The Examiner submits that it can be assumed that the device of Mitchell and Wassell is capable of being made utilizing the claimed process.
Claim(s) 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell in view of Pyle et al. (U.S. Pat. 10681995).
Regarding claim 9, Mitchell is discussed above, and teaches the hanging apparatus, where the first portion 20 of the hanging bracket 10 is coupled to the back surface of the picture and the second portion 18 of the hanging bracket 10 protrudes from the back surface of the picture and through the cover slit 16 of the rear cover 12. However, Mitchell fails to teach where the frame member explicitly receives a mirror. Pyle teaches a hanging apparatus comprising: a frame member 209 that defines a display opening 203; and a mirror 210 coupled to the frame member 209 and located within the display opening 203, the mirror 210 having a mirrored front surface and a back surface, the back surface forming at least a portion of the rear surface of the frame apparatus.
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 hanger assembly of Mitchell to hold a mirror, in order to provide a frame apparatus that can support any type of article or media that is desired to be hung within a home or office, as taught to be desirable by Pyle (see discussion in col. 4, lines 40-45).
Regarding claim 10, Mitchell is discussed above, and teaches the hanging apparatus. However, Mitchell fails to teach where hanging member comprises: an elongated portion having a bottom end, a top end, a front surface, and a rear surface; at least one engagement member located on the front surface of the elongated portion, the at least one engagement member configured to engage the second portion of the hanging bracket to couple the hanging member to the frame apparatus; and an over-door bracket extending from the top end of the elongated portion and configured to engage a top edge of a door to hang the hanging member from the door. Pyle teaches a hanging apparatus 100 having a hanging member 400, where the hanging member 400 comprises: an elongated portion 494 having a bottom end 452, a top end 453, a front surface and a rear surface (as seen in Fig. 3A); at least one engagement member 461-463 located on the front surface of the elongated portion 494; and an over-door bracket 458 extending from the top end 453 of the elongated portion 494 and configured to engage a top edge of a door 500 to hang the hanging member 400 from the door 500 (as seen in Fig. 17).
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 hanging apparatus of Mitchell to comprise the hanging member of Pyle, in order to provide a means for detachably coupling an item for display to a door, as taught to be desirable by Pyle (see discussion in col. 4, lines 27-29).
Regarding claim 11, Pyle teaches the hanging apparatus, where the at least one engagement member 461-463 comprises a plurality of the engagement members 461-463 arranged on the front surface of the elongated portion 494 in a spaced apart manner in a direction between the bottom and top ends 452,453 of the elongated portion 494, each of the plurality of engagement members 461-463 being configured to engage the second portion of Mitchell’s hanging bracket to adjust a hanging height of the frame apparatus.
Regarding claim 12, Pyle teaches the hanging apparatus, where the plurality of engagement members 461-463 comprise hooks that protrude from the front surface of the elongated portion 494 of the hanging member 400 (as seen in Fig. 3A below).
PNG
media_image2.png
838
340
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7 and 18-20 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art fails to teach or disclose the hanging apparatus as defined in claim 1, further comprising a tape member having an adhesive surface that adhesively couples the first portion of the hanging bracket to the rear surface of the frame apparatus, the tape member comprising a tape slit; a reinforcement member positioned between the tape member and the rear cover, the reinforcement member comprising a reinforcement slit; and wherein the second portion of the hanging bracket extends through each of the tape slit, the reinforcement slit, and the cover slit.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In addition to the reference to Mitchell, Hall, Wassell, and Pyle et al. above, the Examiner submits the Notice of References Cited (PTO-892). The cited references listed teach hanging systems for supporting mirrors, pictures, and other displays within buildings.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL D MCDUFFIE whose telephone number is (571)272-3832. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8AM-4:30PM.
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.
/Michael McDuffie/Examiner, Art Unit 3632 9-Jan-26
/TERRELL L MCKINNON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3632