DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final Office action in reply to the response filed 11/17/2025.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending;
Claims 1-16 are original; claims 17-20 have been withdrawn;
Claims 1-16 are rejected herein.
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 Species G (Figures 27A-27G) in the reply filed 11/17/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 17-20 have been withdrawn by the Examiner from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
In the response filed 11/17/2025, Applicant submits that claims 1-20 are readable on the elected Species G (Figures 27A-27G). The Examiner respectfully disagrees, since claims 17-20 are not readable on the elected Species G (Figures 27A-27G). In particular, claim 17 recites "a first channel formed through the retainer and connecting to the socket of the coupler between the first side and the second side" in lines 7 and 8, which characteristics are not disclosed by the elected Species G (Figures 27A-27G). On the other hand, the nonelected Species B (Figures 11-22) discloses "a first channel [261] formed through the retainer [210] and connecting to the socket [240] of the coupler [220] between the first side [226] and the second side [228]" (see paragraph 0074). Accordingly, claim 17 and claims dependent therefrom (i.e., claims 18-20) have been withdrawn by the Examiner from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted 10/14/2024 has been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-8, 10, and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 2-8 and 11, line 1, it is advised that "of Claim" be changed to ---of claim--- for consistency. See claims 9 and 12-16.
Claim 8, line 1, "the lower first wall" appears to be --the first lower wall--.
Claim 10, lines 6 and 7, "an opening and a first receptacle" appears to be --an opening, a first receptable-- to make clear that "defining a first width" in line 7 refers back to the "first receptacle."
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 1-16 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation "a display unit" in line 2 is indefinite. It is not clear as to whether the limitation "a display unit" in line 2 and the limitation "a display unit" in line 1 refer to the same display unit or different display units. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 9, the "hanger" is first introduced and functionally recited in the limitations "wherein the coupler is configured to receive a hanger" in line 1 as a functional element that is not a required structure within the scope of claim 9. However, the "hanger" and the components thereof (i.e., the "upper arm," the "lower arm," and the "connecting arm") are positively recited in the body of the claim, "the hanger comprising: an upper arm that, with the hanger received at the coupler, extends along the socket of the coupler; a lower arm that, with the hanger received at the coupler; extends below the bottom side of the coupler; and a connecting arm between the upper arm and the lower arm that, with the hanger received at the coupler, extends along the first channel and the slot and is partially received within the recess to align the upper arm above the lower arm" in lines 1-9, as required structures within the scope of claim 9. Note that claim 9 is claimed to be directed to the "bracket," which does not include any hanger. The positive recitations of the "hanger" and the components thereof in the body of claim 9, following the functional recitation of the "hanger" in the body of claim 9, with claim 9 being directed to the "bracket," renders the scope of claim 9 indefinite. It is not clear as to whether claim 9 is directed to a combination of the "bracket" and the "hanger" or directed to a subcombination of the "bracket" adapted to be used with the "hanger." Applicant is advised to clearly claim the combination in the preamble or properly place the "hanger" and the components thereof in intended use consistently throughout claim 9. For the purpose of examination, based on the positive recitations of the "hanger" and the components thereof in the body of claim 9 in lines 1-9, claim 9 is considered to be directed to a combination of the "bracket" and the "hanger." Similar rejection and similar interpretation apply to the limitations in each of claim 11-13, which further positively recite the "hanger." Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation "a display unit" in line 2 is indefinite. It is not clear as to whether the limitation "a display unit" in line 2 and the limitation "a display unit" in line 1 refer to the same display unit or different display units. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-8 and 14-16 are rejected as being dependent from a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1-4, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hollingsworth et al. (US 5,855,347), hereinafter Hollingsworth.
Regarding claim 1, Hollingsworth discloses a bracket (see Figure 57) for a display unit (7, fig 1), the bracket comprising: a retainer (5031, fig 57, see annotation) including a front surface (5032, fig 57, see annotation) and operable to selectively interface with a display unit (7, fig 1), a recess (5033, fig 57, see annotation) formed partially through the front surface (see Figure 57); and a coupler (5034, fig 57, see annotation, see boxed region) attached to the front surface of the retainer and including a socket (19, 513b, fig 57), the socket aligned with the recess (see Figure 57) and having: a first receptacle (513b, fig 57) defining a first width (see Figure 57); and a second receptacle (19, fig 57) defining a second width different than the first width (see Figure 57).
PNG
media_image1.png
538
338
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
[AltContent: textbox (5031 -- Retainer)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (5033 -- Recess)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (5034 -- Coupler)][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: connector]
[AltContent: textbox (5032 – Front Surface)][AltContent: connector]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (5037 – Opening)][AltContent: textbox (5035 – Top Side)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
538
338
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (5036 –Bottom Side)]
Regarding claim 2, wherein: the coupler includes a top side (5035, fig 57, see annotation) and a bottom side (5036, fig 57, see annotation) disposed on an opposite side from the top side (see Figure 57); and the socket extends from the top side of the coupler (see Figure 57).
Regarding claim 3, wherein: the first receptacle extends from an opening (5037, fig 57, see annotation) in the top side of the coupler (see Figure 57); and the second receptacle extends from the first receptacle (see Figure 57).
Regarding claim 4, wherein the first width is greater than the second width (see Figure 57).
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.
Claims 1-4, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ziegler (US 4,026,508) in view of Hollingsworth et al. (US 5,855,347), hereinafter Hollingsworth.
Regarding claim 1, Ziegler discloses a bracket (see Figure 1) for a display unit (50, fig 3), the bracket comprising: a retainer (12, fig 1) including a front surface (12a, fig 1, see annotation) and operable to selectively interface with a display unit (50, fig 3); and a coupler (15, fig 1) attached to the front surface of the retainer (see Figure 1) and including a socket (25, fig 1), the socket having: a first receptacle (20, fig 2) defining a first width (see Figure 2); and a second receptacle (30, fig 2) defining a second width different than the first width (see Figure 2).
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (25a – Opening)]
PNG
media_image2.png
308
310
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
294
216
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: connector]
[AltContent: textbox (12a – Front Surface)]
Ziegler does not disclose the bracket, wherein a recess is formed partially through the front surface, and the socket is aligned with the recess.
Hollingsworth teaches a bracket (see Figure 57) for a display unit (7, fig 1), the bracket comprising: a retainer (503e, fig 57, see annotation) including a front surface (503f, fig 57, see annotation) and operable to selectively interface with a display unit (7, fig 1), a recess (503g, fig 57, see annotation) formed partially through the front surface (see Figure 57); and a coupler (503a, fig 57, see the boxed region in the annotation) attached to the front surface of the retainer and including a socket (503h, fig 57), the socket aligned with the recess (see Figure 57).
[AltContent: textbox (503h -- Socket)]
PNG
media_image1.png
538
338
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: rect]
[AltContent: textbox (503e -- Retainer)]
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (503g -- Recess)][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (503f – Front Surface)]
Ziegler and Hollingsworth are analogous art because they are at least from the same filed of endeavor, i.e., brackets. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the bracket (Ziegler: see Figure 1) with a recess (Hollingsworth: 503g, fig 57, see annotation) formed partially through the front surface (Ziegler: 12a, fig 1, see annotation; Hollingsworth: see Figure 57), with the socket (Ziegler: 25, fig 1) being aligned with the recess (Hollingsworth: see Figure 57), as taught by Hollingsworth, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation would have been to accommodate wire hangers of larger diameters, thereby allowing the bracket of Ziegler to be usable with wire hangers of larger diameters. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Ziegler and Hollingsworth to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, wherein: the coupler includes a top side (Ziegler: 16, fig 1) and a bottom side (Ziegler: 17, fig 4) disposed on an opposite side from the top side (Ziegler: see Figures 1-5); and the socket extends from the top side of the coupler (Ziegler: see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 3, wherein: the first receptacle extends from an opening (Ziegler: 25a, fig 2, see annotation) in the top side of the coupler (Ziegler: see Figures 1 and 2); and the second receptacle extends from the first receptacle (Ziegler: see Figures 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 4, wherein the first width is greater than the second width (Ziegler: see Figure 2).
Claims 1-16, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barkdoll et al. (US 2012/0228447 A1), hereinafter Barkdoll, in view of Hollingsworth et al. (US 5,855,347), hereinafter Hollingsworth, and Ziegler (US 4,026,508).
Regarding claim 1, Barkdoll discloses a bracket (202, fig 2) for a display unit (402, 406, fig 5), the bracket comprising: a retainer (2021, fig 2, see annotation) including a front surface (2021a, fig 2, see annotation) and operable to selectively interface with a display unit (402, 406, fig 5); and a coupler (2022, fig 2, see annotation) attached to the front surface of the retainer (see Figures 2 and 5) and including a socket (204, fig 2), the socket having: a first receptacle (204a, fig 2, see annotation) defining a first width (see Figure 2).
PNG
media_image4.png
558
834
media_image4.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (206a – Connecting Arm)]
[AltContent: textbox (204b – Opening)][AltContent: connector]
[AltContent: textbox (2022a – Top Side)]
PNG
media_image5.png
504
552
media_image5.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (2022f – First Channel)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (2022 – Coupler)]
[AltContent: textbox (2022c – First Side)][AltContent: textbox (2021 – Retainer)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector]
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (2021a – Front Surface)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (204a – First Receptacle)]
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (2022d – Second Side)]
[AltContent: textbox (2022i – Second Channel)][AltContent: textbox (2022b – Bottom Side)]
[AltContent: textbox (2022h – Second Lower Wall / Lower Portion)][AltContent: textbox (2022g – Slot / Third Channel)]
Barkdoll does not disclose the bracket, (1) wherein a recess is formed partially through the front surface, and the socket is aligned with the recess; (2) wherein the socket has a second receptacle defining a second width different than the first width.
With respect to the missing limitations (1) above, Hollingsworth teaches a bracket (see Figure 57) for a display unit (7, fig 1), the bracket comprising: a retainer (503e, fig 57, see annotation) including a front surface (503f, fig 57, see annotation) and operable to selectively interface with a display unit (7, fig 1), a recess (503g, fig 57, see annotation) formed partially through the front surface (see Figure 57); and a coupler (503a, fig 57, see the boxed region in the annotation) attached to the front surface of the retainer and including a socket (503h, fig 57), the socket aligned with the recess (see Figure 57).
[AltContent: textbox (503h -- Socket)]
PNG
media_image1.png
538
338
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: rect]
[AltContent: textbox (503e -- Retainer)]
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (503g -- Recess)][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (503f – Front Surface)]
Barkdoll and Hollingsworth are analogous art because they are at least from the same filed of endeavor, i.e., brackets. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the bracket (Barkdoll: 202, fig 2) with a recess (Hollingsworth: 503g, fig 57, see annotation) formed partially through the front surface (Barkdoll: 2021a, fig 2, see annotation; Hollingsworth: see Figure 57), with the socket (Barkdoll: 204, fig 2) being aligned with the recess (Hollingsworth: see Figure 57), as taught by Hollingsworth, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation would have been to accommodate wire hangers of larger diameters, thereby allowing the bracket of Barkdoll to be usable with wire hangers of larger diameters.
With respect to the missing limitations (2) above, Ziegler discloses a bracket (see Figure 1) for a display unit (50, fig 3), the bracket comprising: a retainer (12, fig 1) including a front surface (12a, fig 1, see annotation) and operable to selectively interface with a display unit (50, fig 3); and a coupler (15, fig 1) attached to the front surface of the retainer (see Figure 1) and including a socket (25, fig 1), the socket having: a first receptacle (20, fig 2) defining a first width (see Figure 2); and a second receptacle (30, fig 2) extending from the first receptacle (see Figure 2) and defining a second width different than the first width (see Figure 2).
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (25a – Opening)]
PNG
media_image2.png
308
310
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
294
216
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: connector]
[AltContent: textbox (12a – Front Surface)]
Ziegler is analogous art because it is at least from the same filed of endeavor, i.e., brackets. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the socket (Barkdoll: 204, fig 2) with a second receptacle (Ziegler: 30, fig 2) extending from the first receptacle (Barkdoll: 204a, fig 2, see annotation; Ziegler: see Figure 2) and defining a second width different than the first width (Ziegler: see Figure 2), as taught by Ziegler, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation would have been to accommodate wire hangers of various diameters, thereby allowing the bracket of Barkdoll to be usable with wire hangers of various diameters. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Barkdoll, Hollingsworth, and Ziegler to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, wherein: the coupler includes a top side (Barkdoll: 2022a, fig 2, see annotation) and a bottom side (Barkdoll: 2022b, fig 2, see annotation) disposed on an opposite side from the top side (Barkdoll: see Figures 2 and 5); and the socket extends from the top side of the coupler (Barkdoll: see Figure 2).
Regarding claim 3, wherein: the first receptacle extends from an opening (Barkdoll: 204b, fig 2, see annotation; Ziegler: 25a, fig 2, see annotation) in the top side of the coupler (Barkdoll: see Figure 2; Ziegler: see Figures 1 and 2); and the second receptacle extends from the first receptacle (Ziegler: see Figures 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 4, wherein the first width is greater than the second width (Ziegler: see Figure 2).
Regarding claim 5, wherein the coupler includes: a first side (Barkdoll: 2022c, fig 2, see annotation) attached to the front surface of the retainer (Barkdoll: see Figure 2); and an opposite second side (Barkdoll: 2022d, fig 2, see annotation) spaced apart from the front surface of the retainer by a first channel (Barkdoll: 2022f, fig 2, see annotation) extending from the top side to the bottom side (Barkdoll: see Figure 2).
Regarding claim 6, further comprising a slot (Barkdoll: 2022g, fig 2, see annotation) extending from the bottom side of the coupler and aligned with the socket (Barkdoll: see Figure 2).
Regarding claim 7, wherein the slot is defined by a first lower wall (Barkdoll: 208, fig 2) and a second lower wall (Barkdoll: 2022h, fig 2, see annotation) disposed adjacent to the bottom side of the coupler (Barkdoll: see Figure 2).
Regarding claim 8, wherein the lower first wall is spaced apart from the bottom side of the coupler on the first side to define a second channel (Barkdoll: 2022i, fig 2, see annotation).
Regarding claim 9, wherein the coupler is configured to receive a hanger (Barkdoll: 206, fig 2), the hanger comprising: an upper arm (Barkdoll: 205, fig 2) that, with the hanger received at the coupler, extends along the socket of the coupler (Barkdoll: see Figure 2); a lower arm (Barkdoll: 207, fig 2) that, with the hanger received at the coupler; extends below the bottom side of the coupler (Barkdoll: see Figure 2); and a connecting arm (Barkdoll: 206a, fig 2, see annotation) between the upper arm and the lower arm that, with the hanger received at the coupler, extends along the first channel and the slot (Barkdoll: see Figure 2) and is partially received within the recess to align the upper arm above the lower arm (Hollingsworth: see Figure 57; Barkdoll: see Figure 2).
Regarding claim 10, Barkdoll, as modified by Hollingsworth and Ziegler (see above discussions with respect to claim 1), teaches a bracket (Barkdoll: 202, fig 2) for a display unit (Barkdoll: 402, 406, fig 5), the bracket comprising: a retainer (Barkdoll: 2021, fig 2, see annotation) including a front surface (Barkdoll: 2021a, fig 2, see annotation) and operable to selectively interface with a display unit (Barkdoll: 402, 406, fig 5), a recess (Hollingsworth: 503g, fig 57, see annotation) formed partially through the front surface (Hollingsworth: see Figure 57; Barkdoll: see Figure 2); and a coupler (Barkdoll: 2022, fig 2, see annotation) attached to the retainer (Barkdoll: see Figure 2) and having: a bottom side (Barkdoll: 2022b, fig 2, see annotation); a top side (Barkdoll: 2022a, fig 2, see annotation) opposite the bottom side (Barkdoll: see Figure 2), the top side including an opening (Barkdoll: 204b, fig 2, see annotation) and a first receptacle (Barkdoll: 204a, fig 2, see annotation; Ziegler: 20, fig 2) extending from the opening toward the bottom side and defining a first width (Barkdoll: see Figure 2; Ziegler: see Figure 2), and a second receptacle (Ziegler: 30, fig 2) extending from the first receptacle toward the bottom side and defining a second width less than the first width (Ziegler: see Figure 2), the first receptacle and the second receptacle aligned with the recess (Hollingsworth: see Figure 57; Barkdoll: see Figure 2; Ziegler: see Figure 2); a first side (Barkdoll: 2022c, fig 2, see annotation) attached to the front surface of the retainer (Barkdoll: see Figure 2), a lower portion (Barkdoll: 2022h, fig 2, see annotation) of the first side extending below the bottom side of the coupler (Barkdoll: see Figure 2); a second side (Barkdoll: 2022d, fig 2, see annotation) opposite the first side and spaced from the front surface of the retainer by a first channel (Barkdoll: 2022f, fig 2, see annotation) extending from the top side of the coupler to the bottom side of the coupler (Barkdoll: see Figure 2); and an abutment (Barkdoll: 208, fig 2) spaced from the bottom side by a second channel (Barkdoll: 2022i, fig 2, see annotation).
Regarding claim 11, wherein the coupler is configured to receive a hanger (Barkdoll: 206, fig 2), the hanger comprising: an upper arm (Barkdoll: 205, fig 2) that, with the hanger received at the coupler, extends along one of the first receptacle or the second receptacle (Barkdoll: see Figure 2); a lower arm (Barkdoll: 207, fig 2) that, with the hanger received at the coupler, extends below the bottom side (Barkdoll: see Figure 2); and a connecting arm (Barkdoll: 206a, fig 2, see annotation) between the upper arm and the lower arm that, with the hanger received at the coupler, extends along the first channel and between the abutment and the lower portion of the first side (Barkdoll: see Figure 2) and is partially received within the recess to align the upper arm above the lower arm (Hollingsworth: see Figure 57; Barkdoll: see Figure 2).
Regarding claim 12, wherein: the upper arm of the hanger defines a width that is greater than the second width and less than or equal to the first width (Barkdoll: see Figure 2; Ziegler: see Figure 3); and the upper arm of the hanger extends along the first receptacle (Barkdoll: see Figure 2).
Regarding claim 13, wherein: the upper arm of the hanger defines a width that is less than or equal to the second width (Barkdoll: see Figure 2; Ziegler: see Figure 5); and the upper arm of the hanger extends along the second receptacle (Barkdoll: see Figure 2).
Regarding claim 14, wherein the first receptacle and the second receptacle are connected (Barkdoll: see Figure 2; Ziegler: see Figure 2).
Regarding claim 15, Barkdoll, as modified by Hollingsworth and Ziegler (see above discussions with respect to claim 1), teaches the bracket, wherein the first receptacle includes a first set of protrusions (Barkdoll: 208, fig 2, also see Figure 5, which shows the other protrusion 208) extending from opposing side surfaces of the first receptacle (Barkdoll: see Figures 2 and 5).
Barkdoll, as modified by Hollingsworth and Ziegler (see above discussions with respect to claim 1), does not teach the bracket, wherein the second receptacle includes a second set of protrusions extending from opposing side surfaces of the second receptacle.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the second receptacle (Ziegler: 30, fig 2) with a second set of protrusions (Barkdoll: 208, fig 2, also see Figure 5, which shows the other protrusion 208) extending from opposing side surfaces of the second receptacle, as taught by Barkdoll, with a reasonable expectation. The motivation would have been to offer resistance to prevent the wire hook placed within the second receptacle from being removed from the bracket of Barkdoll. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Barkdoll, Hollingsworth, and Ziegler to obtain the invention as specified in claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, wherein the abutment cooperates with the lower portion of the first side to define a third channel (Barkdoll: 2022g, fig 2, see annotation) aligned with and vertically spaced from the first receptacle and the second receptacle (Barkdoll: see Figure 2; Ziegler: see Figure 2).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-16 of the present application, as best understood, are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8, 10, 14-16, and 21-24 of copending Application No. 18/447,277 in view of Hollingsworth et al. (US 5,855,347), hereinafter Hollingsworth. In particular, all limitations of claims 1-16 of the present application can be found in claims 1-8, 10, 14-16, and 21-24 of copending Application No. 18/447,277 except for a recess as recited in claims 1 and 9-11 of the present application. However, Hollingsworth teaches a bracket (see Figure 57) for a display unit (7, fig 1), the bracket comprising: a retainer (503e, fig 57, see annotation) including a front surface (503f, fig 57, see annotation) and operable to selectively interface with a display unit (7, fig 1), a recess (503g, fig 57, see annotation) formed partially through the front surface (see Figure 57); and a coupler (503a, fig 57, see the boxed region in the annotation) attached to the front surface of the retainer and including a socket (503h, fig 57), the socket aligned with the recess (see Figure 57). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the bracket in claims 1-8, 10, 14-16, and 21-24 of copending Application No. 18/447,277 with a recess (Hollingsworth: 503g, fig 57, see annotation) formed partially through the front surface (Hollingsworth: see Figure 57), with the socket being aligned with the recess (Hollingsworth: see Figure 57), as taught by Hollingsworth, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation would have been to accommodate wire hangers of larger diameters, thereby allowing the bracket to be usable with wire hangers of larger diameters. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine claims 1-8, 10, 14-16, and 21-24 of copending Application No. 18/447,277 and Hollingsworth to obtain the inventions as specified in claims 1-16 of the present application.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. See the attached PTO-892 for various brackets.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Guang H Guan whose telephone number is (571) 272-7828. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays (10:00 AM - 6:00 PM).
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 (571) 272-8227. 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.
/G. H. G./Examiner, Art Unit 3631
/JONATHAN LIU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3631