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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-18, and Species 1, Figures 1-3, in the reply filed on March 9, 2026, is acknowledged. Claims 19 and 20 are withdrawn by Applicant and Claims 3, 6 and 12-18 are withdrawn by Examiner as being drawn to non-elected subject matter. Claims 3 and 6 are drawn to subject matter discussed in the description of non-elected Figure 4. Claim 12 recites subject matter (pin adhered to a top surface of the duct) that is neither discussed or shown in the elected embodiment. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7-11 are pending.
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 “hole formed in the film layer” of Claim 5; and “the locking pin is adhered to a top surface of the duct” from Claim 12 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 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 5 is 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 5 recites “wherein the locking pin is inserted within a hole formed in the film layer of the duct.” This recitation is unclear because the recitation reads similar to a method step. The apparatus (i.e. the hanger assembly) claims and discloses a pin that does not appear to be positioned within a hole. Rather, this claim appears to recite an assembly step, namely the insertion of the pin through a hole in order to eventually coupled the pin to the hanger bracket. However, Claim 1 is an apparatus claim set and not a method claim set, and therefore the claims should be drawn to what the assembly is and how the assembly functions, rather than the steps of how the assembly is assembled. Appropriate correction is required.
For the purposes of examination, the end assembly will be examined rather than the steps to assemble the assembly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent No. 9,855,696 to Morrow (Morrow).
PNG
media_image1.png
406
406
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1: Morrow discloses a hanger assembly for hanging a duct, the hanger assembly comprising: a locking pin (See Annotated Fig. A); and a hanging bracket (See Annotated Fig. A) having an opening (See Annotated Fig. A) formed on a first side of the hanging bracket and a coupler (See Annotated Fig. A) disposed on a second side of the hanging bracket; wherein the locking pin (See Annotated Fig. A) is coupled to the duct (See Annotated Fig. A) and the hanging bracket (See Annotated Fig. A) is coupled to both a film layer (See Annotated Fig. A) of the duct and the locking pin by securing the locking pin (See Annotated Fig. A) to the hanging bracket (See Annotated Fig. A).
Regarding Claim 2: Morrow discloses a hanger assembly of claim 1, wherein the coupler (See Annotated Fig. A) comprises a handle (See Annotated Fig. A) configured to receive a strap used to hang the duct from a structure.
Regarding Claim 9: Morrow discloses a hanger assembly of claim 1, wherein the duct (See Annotated Fig. A) further comprises an insulation layer (See Col. 6, lines 29-32 discussing a coating), the film layer (See Annotated Fig. A) of the duct is disposed about the insulation layer, and the locking pin (See Annotated Fig. A) is disposed between the film layer and the insulation layer of the duct. Note that Morrow discusses that the pins can be torn through the film layer, thus creating a hole for the pin to be disposed between the film layer and the insulation layer. (See Col. 7, lines 57-61)
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.
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) 4, 5, 7, 8, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morrow.
Regarding Claim 4: Notably, the claim does not recite the particular material but only that the hanging bracket it “elastically deformable.” Regardless of whether the hanging bracket of Morrow is made of metal or plastic, the material will have some degree of elastically deformability such that the hanging device of Morrow is capable of being elastically deformed. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective date of the claimed invention to understand that whatever the material of Morrow is, such a material would have some degree of elasticity to make it capable of elastically deforming to at least some degree. Moreover, doing so would enable a user to use the internal clamping forces generated by the elastic deformability to more securely clamp the duct.
Regarding Claim 5: Morrow discloses a hanger assembly of claim 1, wherein the locking pin (See Annotated Fig. A) is inserted within a hole formed in the film layer (See Annotated Fig. A) of the duct. Note that Morrow discusses that the pins can be torn through the film layer, thus creating a hole in the layer and inserting the pin within a hole of the film layer. (See Col. 7, lines 57-61)
Regarding Claim 7: Morrow does not disclose that the film layer comprises Mylar; however, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art and a time before the effective date of invention to make the film layer of Mylar. Courts have held that it is 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.1 Here, the intended use of the material is to cover the duct. A mylar layer would be durable enough to provide such a cover of the duct. In addition, Mylar is well-known and commercially available at a time before the effective date of the invention. Moreover, it is well-within the level of skill in the art to utilize the known and commercially available materials to produce a part suited for the intended use thereof. The use of mylar would not produce any new unexpected results. Therefore, it would be obvious for a person skilled in the art at a time before the effective date of the instant invention to choose mylar to construct the film layer out of and doing so would enable the layer to cover and protect the duct.
Regarding Claim 8: Morrow discloses a coupler but not a plurality of couplers. Nonetheless, duplicating the coupler would have been obvious. Here’s why. Courts have held that “mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.”2 Here, Morrow discloses a hanger that includes a coupler (See Annotated Fig. A) that is to be ultimately attached to a support. Duplicating the essential working part of the coupler to provide additional supporting points would provide additional strength and stability of the hanger without producing any new and unexpected results. As such, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective date of invention to duplicate the essential working cable to provide a second coupler which would improve the stability of the hanger and the stability of the duct.
Regarding Claim 10: Morrow discloses a locking pin but does not explicitly disclose the diameter of the locking pin. Nonetheless, the specifically claimed diameter of the locking pin is not patentably distinct over the prior art and is an obvious matter of design choice. Here’s why.
First, Courts have held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.”3 Here, discloses a locking pin that has some undefined diameter. Applicant has not disclosed that having a locking pin having the specific claimed range would perform differently than other diameters. Rather, Applicant has stated that “it should be appreciated that the locking pin 510 may have any length and any diameter without departing from the scope of the present disclosure.”4
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Morrow by using a diameter of about .2 inches to about .5 inches to help support ducts of large size a heavy weights. Such modifications would not cause any unexpected results. Moreover, doing so would enable a user to suspend large and heavy ducts.
Regarding Claim 11: Morrow discloses a hanging bracket but does not explicitly disclose the length of the hanging bracket. Nonetheless, the specifically claimed diameter of the locking pin is not patentably distinct over the prior art and is an obvious matter of design choice. Here’s why.
First, Courts have held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.”5 Here, discloses a hanging bracket that has some undefined length. Applicant has not disclosed that having a locking pin having the specific claimed length range would perform differently than other lengths. Rather, Applicant has stated that “it should be appreciated that the locking pin 510 may have any length and any diameter without departing from the scope of the present disclosure.”6
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Morrow by using a length range of about 4 inches to about 12 inches to help support ducts of large size a heavy weights. Such modifications would not cause any unexpected results. Moreover, doing so would enable a user to suspend large and heavy ducts.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In addition to the references used in this rejection and those cited in the PTO-892, the following references are very relevant to the claimed invention: US 5921517, 5845037, 1596418, 0890366.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERET C MCNICHOLS whose telephone number is (571)270-7363. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00 - 5:00 (Eastern).
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.
ERET C. MCNICHOLS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3632
/ERET C MCNICHOLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632
1 See MPEP 2144.07.
2 See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
3 See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
4 See para. 0042, last sentence of Specification.
5 See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
6 See para. 0042, last sentence of Specification.