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 § 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.
Claim 1 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 1 is objected to because of the indefinite wording of the following limitation: “at least one of the thread engagers extending outwardly from the central body towards the threaded rod” (lines 13-15). The specification and drawings teach that the threaded rod is threaded through the thread engagers so that it is held within them. Thus, the threaded rod is positioned in line with, and at the center of, the central body. Given this orientation, it is not clear how a thread engager could “extend outward from the central body” (away from), while also extending “towards the threaded rod" (collocated with the central body). This ambiguity renders claim 1 indefinite, as the metes and bounds of the limitations on “at least one of the thread engagers” are unclear.
For the purposes of examining, the Examiner interprets “extended outwardly from the central body towards the threaded rod” to mean that the thread engager(s) separates from the central body as it curves around and engages the threaded rod.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-7, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furer (US 3,266,202) in view of Thompson (US 10,520,113 B1). For clarity, bolded text indicates claim language, and bolded and underlined text indicates amended claim language. Further, claim 1 has been examined consistent with the interpretation discussed in the 112(b) rejection above.
[Claim 1] Furer teaches: A threaded rod hanger (Furer, Fig. 8; col. 3, lines 32-33, 70) comprising:
a combined supporter (Furer, Fig. 8, element 34) and first threaded rod receiver (Furer, Fig. 8, elements 38 and 39) including a support plate (Furer, Fig. 8, element 33) including:
a central body (Furer, Fig. 8, element 35), and
at least two thread engagers (Furer, Fig. 8, elements 38 and 39), at least one of the thread engagers including inner threads (Furer, Fig. 8, element 40) configured to engage outer threads of a threaded rod (Furer, col. 3, lines 70-72), and positioned to co-act to receive, threadably engage, and hold the threaded rod (Furer, col. 4, claim 6), and at least one of the thread engagers extends outwardly from the central body (Furer, col. 3, lines 55-59) towards the threaded rod (Furer, col. 3, lines 68-72) and is configured to limit upward movement of the threaded rod (Furer, Fig. 8, the top of the thread engager 38 closest to the slot 37 abuts part of the plate 33, preventing upward movement).
This embodiment of Furer does not teach a first or second arm extending from the central body. However, in a different embodiment (Furer, Fig. 6 and Fig. 7), Furer teaches a hanger “adapted to enter and to lock within [a] cooperating ceiling channel” (Furer, col. 2, lines 65-66). In this second embodiment, Furer teaches a supporter (Furer, Fig. 6, element 21) including a support plate (Furer, Fig. 6, element 25) including:
a central body (Furer, Fig. 6, element 22),
a first arm (Furer, Fig. 6, element 23 on the left side of the hanger 21) extending from a first end of the central body (Furer, col. 2, lines 61-62), and
a second arm (Furer, Fig. 6, element 23 on the right side of the hanger 21) extending from a second end of the central body (Furer, col. 2, lines 61-62)
Furer does not teach a second threaded rod receiver. Thompson teaches a threaded rod receiver for use with overhead structures (Thompson, Abstract) comprising:
a push button configured to engage the threaded rod (Thompson, Fig. 14, elements 36 and 37; col. 5, lines 16-20);
a push button receiver configured to receive the push button (Thompson, Fig. 13-15, elements 33, 34, 35, and 40; col. 5, lines 57-62); and
a biasing member in the push button receiver and configured to bias the push button (Thompson, Fig. 14, element 51; col. 5, line 67 – col. 6, line 2).
Furer is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both teach a hanger for use with a threaded rod. Thompson is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both teach push button mechanisms designed to increase ease and speed of connecting a nut to a threaded rod. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the two embodiments of hangers taught by Furer to create a combined supporter and first threaded rod receiver including a central body, first and second arms extending away from the central body, and thread engagers, at least one of which extends away from the central body toward the threaded rod and is configured to limit upward movement of the threaded rod. This combination would be beneficial as it would allow a user to hang a threaded rod from in between two supports, or within a notched channel. Additionally, having at least one thread engagers would ensure that the threaded rod was fully received by the threaded rod hanger, increasing the security of the connection.
It would have been further obvious to add the second threaded rod receiver of Thompson to the threaded rod hanger of Furer. This addition would be advantageous as it would provide additional stability to the threaded rod, as it would prevent rotational and horizontal movement while the first threaded rod receiver prevented vertical movement. Additionally, the push button assembly of Thompson would increase installation speeds and allow hangers to be easily adjusted after installation, thereby simplifying and accelerating building processes.
[Claim 2] Furer in view of Thompson further teaches: The threaded rod hanger of Claim 1, wherein the combined supporter (Furer, Fig. 8, element 34) and first threaded rod receiver (Furer, Fig. 8, elements 38 and 39) is formed from a single metal sheet (Furer, col. 2, lines 7-10; col. 3, lines 38-40).
[Claim 3] Furer in view of Thompson further teaches: The threaded rod hanger of Claim 1, wherein each of the first arm (Furer, Fig. 6, element 23 on the left side of the hanger 21) and the second arm (Furer, Fig. 6, element 23 on the right side of the hanger 21) includes a curved section (Furer, Fig. 6 and 7, element 24) connected to the central body (Furer, Fig. 6 and 7, element 22) and a straight section connected to the curved section (Furer, Fig. 6 and 7, element 23; col. 2, lines 61-62).
[Claim 4] Furer in view of Thompson further teaches: The threaded rod hanger of Claim 1, wherein each of the thread engagers is connected to and extends outwardly from the central body (Furer, col. 3, lines 55-59).
[Claim 5] Furer in view of Thompson further teaches: The threaded rod hanger of Claim 4, which includes at least two offset thread engagers (Furer, Fig. 8, elements 38-39).
[Claim 6] Furer in view of Thompson further teaches: The threaded rod hanger of Claim 1, which includes at least two offset thread engagers (Furer, Fig. 8, elements 38-39).
[Claim 7] Furer in view of Thompson further teaches: The threaded rod hanger of Claim 1, which includes three (Furer, Fig. 8, elements 38-39) spaced-apart offset thread engagers (Furer, col. 3, lines 56-61).
[Claim 9] Furer in view of Thompson teaches the threaded rod hanger of Claim 1. Further, Thompson teaches that the push button includes internal threads configured to engage the thread of the threaded rod (Thompson, Fig. 14, element 53; col. 6, lines 2-3).
[Claim 10] Furer in view of Thompson teaches the threaded rod hanger of Claim 1. Further, Thompson teaches that the push button has partial internal threads (Thompson, Fig. 14, elements 53 and 54; col. 6, lines 3-6), and the biasing member is configured to cause the internal thread to engage the threads of the threaded rod (Thompson, col. 6, lines 13-17).
[Claim 11] Furer in view of Thompson teaches the threaded rod hanger of Claim 1. Further, Thompson teaches that the push button includes a retaining tab configured to prevent the push button from fully exiting the push button receiver (Thompson, Fig. 15 and 19, elements 49 and 50; claim 5: col. 7, lines 49-55).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furer (US 3,266,202) in view of Thompson (US 10,520,113 B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Morgan (U.S. 11,181,211 B1).
[Claim 8] Furer in view of Thompson teaches the threaded rod hanger of Claim 1, but does not teach that the support plate includes a downwardly extending anti-rotation foot. Morgan, however, teaches a T-bar hanger support (Morgan, Abstract) wherein the hanger includes a downwardly extending anti-rotation foot (Morgan, Fig. 5 and 6, element 31; col. 7, lines 47-50) defining an opening (Morgan, Fig. 5, element 35) that the threaded rod can extend through (Morgan, Fig. 5, elements 35 and 37).
Morgan is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of invention of hanging supports for pipes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the support plate of Furer by adding an anti-rotational foot, though which the threaded rod would extend, connected downward from the central body, as taught by Morgan. This modification would be advantageous as it would add stability to the threaded rod hanger, preventing the hanger from twisting or wiggling about its central axis.
Claims 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panasik et al. (US 7,819,371 B2) in view of Thompson (US 10,520,113 B1). For clarity, bolded text indicates claim language.
[Claim 12] Panasik et al. teaches: A threaded rod hanger (Panasik et al., Abstract) comprising:
a support plate (Panasik et al., Fig. 2, element 12);
a first threaded rod receiver (Panasik et al., Fig. 2, element 14) secured in a recess of the support plate (Panasik et al., Fig. 2; col. 3, lines 3-6), the first threaded rod receiver including inner threads (Panasik et al., col. 2, line 63) configured to engage outer threads of a threaded rod (Panasik et al., col. 1, lines 66-67), and configured to receive, threadably engage, and hold the threaded rod (Panasik et al., Fig. 3, elements 14 and 30; col. 3, line 25); and
a second threaded rod receiver (Panasik et al., Fig. 3, elements 40 and 42) configured to engage the threaded rod (Panasik et al., col. 3, lines 54-58).
Panasik et al. does not teach that the second threaded rod receiver includes a push button assembly. Thompson teaches a threaded rod receiver for use with overhead structures (Thompson, Abstract) comprising:
a push button configured to engage the threaded rod (Thompson, Fig. 14, elements 36 and 37; col. 5, lines 16-20);
a push button receiver configured to receive the push button (Thompson, Fig. 13-15, elements 33, 34, 35, and 40; col. 5, lines 57-62); and
a biasing member in the push button receiver and configured to bias the push button (Thompson, Fig. 14, element 51; col. 5, line 67 – col. 6, line 2).
Panasik is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of hanging assemblies for attaching to overhead structures. Thompson is analogous to the claimed invention because both teach push button mechanisms designed to increase ease and speed of connecting a nut to a threaded rod. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the second threaded rod receiver of the threaded rod hanger of Panasik et al. with the push button threaded rod receiver of Thompson This substitution would be advantageous, as it would increase installation speeds and allow hangers to be easily adjusted after installation, thereby simplifying and accelerating building processes.
[Claim 13] Panasik et al. in view of Thompson further teaches: the threaded rod hanger of Claim 12 wherein the support plate (Panasik et al., Fig. 2, element 12) is formed from a single metal sheet (Panasik et al., col. 2, line 66).
[Claim 17] Panasik et al. in view of Thompson further teaches: The threaded rod hanger of Claim 12, wherein the recess (Panasik et al., Fig. 2; col. 3, lines 3-6) prevents rotation of the first threaded rod receiver (Panasik et al., Fig. 2, support plate 12 flanks opposite flat sides of square-based element 14, preventing rotation along the long axis of the threaded rod).
[Claim 14] Panasik et al. in view of Thompson teaches the threaded rod hanger of claim 12. Further, Thompson teaches that the push button includes internal threads configured to engage the outer threads of the threaded rod (Thompson, Fig. 14, element 53; col. 6, lines 2-3).
[Claim 15] Panasik et al. in view of Thompson teaches the threaded rod hanger of Claim 12. Further, Thompson teaches that the push button has partial internal threads (Thompson, Fig. 14, elements 53 and 54; col. 6, lines 3-6), and the biasing member is configured to cause the internal thread to engage the outer threads of the threaded rod (Thompson, col. 6, lines 13-17).
[Claim 16] Panasik et al. in view of Thompson teaches the threaded rod hanger of Claim 12. Further, Thompson teaches that the push button includes a retaining tab configured to prevent the push button from fully exiting the push button receiver (Thompson, Fig. 15 and 19, elements 49 and 50; claim 5: col. 7, lines 49-55).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-11 and 12-16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Perrault (US 6,452,095 B1) teaches a threaded cable hanger with a dimpled upper stop for controlling the movement of a threaded rod.
Bugeia et al. (EP 0223680 A2) teaches a hanger for receiving a threaded rod with a recess in the middle to receive a nut.
Ford (DE 810545 C) teaches a threaded sleeve for fastening threaded rods to a metal profile support and includes multiple offset thread engagers.
Splawn (US 4,127,252) teaches a threaded suspension support with a top that stops a threaded rod from advancing.
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 Emily M Culley whose telephone number is 571-270-0560. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:00 am to 5:00 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, 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.
/EMC/Examiner,
Art Unit 3632
/TERRELL L MCKINNON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3632
Prosecution Insights