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 .
Response to Amendment
Claim 5 has been amended. Claim 4 has been cancelled. Therefore, claims 1-3, 5, and 19-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Drawings and Specification have overcome some of the objections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed October 17, 2025. However, the Specification objection and 112(a) rejection with respect to new matter and written description requirement, respectively, are maintained and are as set forth below.
Specification
The amendment filed July 7, 2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: The amendment to the disclosure, specifically, Figs 10A and 11 of the amended Drawings and Paragraph 0032 of the amended Specification both filed July 7, 2025, of "the hook screws may have a closed O-shaped finger engagement element 18a (Fig. 10A) and a closed triangle-shaped finger engagement element 119a (Fig. 11), thereby eliminating small gap 2 (Figs. 1A, 1B)" appears to introduce new matter into the disclosure. The Examiner respectfully notes that Figs 8-10 of the originally filed Drawings and Specification appears to provide support for a hook nail hanger, as non-elected by Applicant in the Response to Restriction dated May 6, 2025, having an O-shaped finger or thumb engaging element and a triangle-type finger or thumb engaging element attached to the shaft at least to a midsectional point, however, the originally filed Drawings and Specification does not appear to provide support of such embodiments of the elected hook screw hanger.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, the originally filed Drawings and Specification do not appear to provide support for Claims 19-20, i.e., the claimed subject matter of "The hook screw hanger... attached to the shaft at a midsectional point between the top terminal screw end and the screw thread thereby forming an entirely closed...".
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karahan (DE20011312U1), hereinafter "Karahan", in view of Reinhard (US5207404A) and Soltmann (USD018973S), hereinafter "Reinhard" and "Soltmann", respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Karahan teaches a hook screw hanger (see Fig 1, Examiner notes screw 5 with hooks 8 as a hook screw hanger) comprising:
an elongated shaft (see Fig 1, Examiner notes a shaft of screw 5 with hooks 8 as an elongated shaft) having screw thread (see Fig 1) partly extending up (see Fig 1) the shaft (see Fig 1) from a terminal shaft end (see Fig 1, Examiner notes an end of screw 5 with hooks 8 distal from a head, i.e. threaded end of screw 5 with hooks 8, as a terminal shaft end);
the shaft (see Fig 1) having a top terminal screw end (see Fig 1, Examiner notes an of screw 5 with hooks 8 adjacent the head, i.e. an end opposite of the threaded end of screw 5 with hooks 8, as having a top terminal screw end) formed as a conical shaped element (see Fig 1); and
either an O-shaped finger or a thumb engaging element (see Fig 1, Examiner notes an upper hook 8 of screw 5 with hooks 8 as an O-shaped finger or a thumb engaging element) or a lateral triangle-type finger or a thumb engaging element laterally extending opposite (see Fig 1) the hanger bar (see Fig 1, Examiner notes a lower hook 8 of screw 5 with hooks 8 as the hanger bar) on the shaft (see Fig 1).
Karahan fails to teach either a lateral channel adapted to coact with a straight edge screwdriver or an X-shaped head screwdriver channel adapted to coact with a X-shaped head screwdriver; an inverted L-shaped hanger bar formed by a lateral hanger leg and a base leg, the lateral hanger leg laterally extending from the conical shaped element and laterally extending away from the shaft, the base leg extending parallel with the shaft and the inverted L-shaped hanger bar longitudinally disposed in a same longitudinal direction as the shaft; and either an O-shaped finger or a thumb engaging element or a lateral triangle-type finger or a thumb engaging element laterally extending opposite the L-shaped hanger bar from the conical shaped element on the shaft opposite the lateral hanger leg.
Reinhard teaches either a lateral channel adapted to coact with a straight edge screwdriver or an X-shaped head screwdriver channel (Fig 20, torquing cavity means 240, Col 4, lines 31-49, Reinhard indicates a Phillips head) adapted to coact (capable of coacting, i.e. this is a functional recitation) with a X-shaped head screwdriver (Col 5, lines 19-27, Examiner notes a conventional rotating drive means such as a screw driver or mechanically rotating bit as with a X-shaped head screwdriver); an inverted L-shaped hanger bar (Fig 20, closed square hook portion 225) formed by a lateral hanger leg (see Fig 20, Examiner notes a leg of closed square hook portion 225 extending perpendicular to shank portion 220 and adjacent torquing cavity means 240 as formed by a lateral hanger leg) and a base leg (see Fig 20, Examiner notes a leg of closed square hook portion 225 extending parallel to shank portion 220 as a base leg), the lateral hanger leg (see Fig 20) laterally extending (see Fig 20) away from the shaft (Fig 20, shank 220), the base leg (see Fig 20) extending parallel (see Fig 20) with the shaft (220) and the inverted L-shaped hanger bar (225) longitudinally disposed (see Fig 20) in a same longitudinal direction (see Fig 20) as the shaft (220).
Therefore, as evidenced by Reinhard, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine an adequately sized and shaped lateral channel adapted to coact with a straight edge screwdriver or an X-shaped head screwdriver channel adapted to coact with a X-shaped head screwdriver as taught by Reinhard to Karahan as well as modify the lower hook of Karahan to be an adequately sized and shaped inverted L-shaped hanger bar formed by a lateral hanger leg and a base leg, the lateral hanger laterally extending away from the shaft, the base leg extending parallel with the shaft and the inverted L-shaped hanger bar longitudinally disposed in a same longitudinal direction as the shaft as taught by Reinhard. The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to obviate the need of a makeshift method of rotating the fastener by providing a conventional rotating drive means (Reinhard, Col 5, lines 19-27 and Col 6, lines 38-55) as well as providing a desired shape of the hook based on application and requirements, e.g. attaching components of varying sizes, orientations, etc.
Karahan, in view of Reinhard fails to teach the lateral hanger leg laterally extending from the conical shaped element and either an O-shaped finger or a thumb engaging element or a lateral triangle-type finger or a thumb engaging element laterally extending opposite the L-shaped hanger bar from the conical shaped element on the shaft opposite the lateral hanger leg.
However, Soltmann teaches it is known in the art of screw-heads to provide extensions projecting from the head in the same vertical plane and directly opposite each other (see Fig, lines 8-26).
Therefore, as evidenced by Soltmann, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the upper hook and the closed square hook portion of modified Karahan to have the lateral hanger leg laterally extending from the conical shaped element and either an O-shaped finger or a thumb engaging element or a lateral triangle-type finger or a thumb engaging element laterally extending opposite the L-shaped hanger bar from the conical shaped element on the shaft opposite the lateral hanger leg as taught by Soltmann. Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the lateral hanger leg laterally extending from the conical shaped element and either an O-shaped finger or a thumb engaging element or a lateral triangle-type finger or a thumb engaging element laterally extending opposite the L-shaped hanger bar from the conical shaped element on the shaft opposite the lateral hanger leg, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(C). The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness to facilitate use of the screw based on application and requirements, e.g. providing a common screw to be used in varying environments such as differing substrate compositions, differing substrate thicknesses, etc.
Regarding claim 2, modified Karahan teaches the hook screw hanger (see Fig 1) as claimed in claim 1 and further teaches wherein the screw thread (see Fig 1) is self-tapping screw thread (see Fig 1, Examiner notes the screw thread of screw 5 with hooks as is self-tapping screw thread).
Regarding claim 3, modified Karahan teaches the hook screw hanger (see Fig 1) as claimed in claim 2 and further teaches wherein either the O-shaped finger or thumb engaging element (see Fig 1) or the lateral triangle-type finger or thumb engaging element extends both laterally (see Fig 1) from the shaft (see Fig 1) and partially longitudinally (see Fig 1) in a same longitudinal direction (see Fig 1) as the shaft (see Fig 1).
Regarding claim 5, modified Karahan teaches the hook screw hanger (see Fig 1) as claimed in claim 3 and further teaches wherein a terminal end (Reinhard, see Fig 20, Examiner notes an end of closed square hook portion 225 distal from torquing cavity means 240 as a terminal end) of the inverted L-shaped hanger bar (225) has a foreshortened lateral tail (Reinhard, see Fig 20, Examiner notes a tail of closed square hook portion 225 extending towards shaft portion 220 distal from torquing cavity means 240 as has a foreshortened lateral tail) extending inboard towards (Reinhard, see Fig 20) the shaft (see Fig 1).
Regarding claim 19, modified Karahan teaches the hook screw hanger (see Fig 1) as claimed in claim 1 and further teaches wherein the O-shaped finger or thumb engaging element (see Fig 1) has a first end (see Fig 1) and a second end (see Fig 1), the first end (see Fig 1) is attached (Soltmann, see Fig) to the conical shaped element (see Fig 1) on the shaft (see Fig 1) and an opposing second end (see Fig 1) attached (see Fig 1) to the shaft (see Fig 1) at a midsectional point (see Fig 1) between the top terminal screw end (see Fig 1) and the screw thread (see Fig 1) thereby forming (see Fig 1) an entirely closed O-shaped finger or thumb engaging element (see Fig 1).
Regarding claim 20, modified Karahan teaches the hook screw hanger (see Fig 1) as claimed in claim 1 but fails to teach wherein the triangle-type finger or thumb engaging element has a first and a second and a third vertex, the first vertex is attached to the conical shaped element on the shaft, the second vertex is spaced away from the shaft, and the third vertex is attached to the shaft at a midsectional point between the top terminal screw end and the screw thread thereby forming an entirely closed triangle-type finger or thumb engaging element.
However, in an alternative embodiment in Fig 1 of Karahan, Karahan teaches wherein the triangle-type finger or thumb engaging element (see Fig 1, Examiner notes hook 11 of nail 6 as the triangle-type finger or thumb engaging element) has a first (see Fig 1) and a second (see Fig 1) and a third vertex (see Fig 1), the first vertex (see Fig 1) is attached (see Fig 1) to the shaft (see Fig 1), the second vertex (see Fig 1) is spaced away (see Fig 1) from the shaft (see Fig 1), and the third vertex (see Fig 1) is attached (see Fig 1) to the shaft (see Fig 1) at a midsectional point (see Fig 1) between the top terminal screw end (see Fig 1) and the screw thread (see Fig 1) thereby forming (see Fig 1) an entirely closed triangle-type finger or thumb engaging element (see Fig 1).
Therefore, as evidenced by the alternative embodiment in Fig 1 of Karahan, 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 upper hook attached to the conical shaped element on the shaft of modified Karahan to include the triangle-type finger or thumb engaging element has a first and a second and a third vertex, the first vertex is attached to the conical shaped element on the shaft, the second vertex is spaced away from the shaft, and the third vertex is attached to the shaft at a midsectional point between the top terminal screw end and the screw thread thereby forming an entirely closed triangle-type finger or thumb engaging element as taught by the alternative embodiment in Fig 1 of Karahan. The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to provide a shape depending on the purpose (Karahan, Pg 1, lines 15-19).
Response to Arguments
With respect to “NEW MATTER REJECTION” on Pgs 5-7 of Applicant’s Remarks filed January 15, 2026, Applicant argues Paragraphs 0008-0009 and original claim 1 supports and suggests, respectively, a closed O-shaped structure and a closed triangle-shaped structure. Applicant also argues, dependent claim 4 referred to a small gapped O and triangle shaped elements to distinguish from independent claim 1. Applicant indicates Figs 10A and 11 were submitted to show the closed O-shaped structure and a closed triangle-shaped structure described in Paragraphs 0008 and 0009. Further, Applicant indicates that Applicant is entitled to show, and possibly claim, various embodiments which were disclosed in the originally filed papers. The Examiner agrees with Applicant that Applicant is entitled to show, and possibly claim, various embodiments which were disclosed in the originally filed papers, however, the Examiner respectfully disagrees that such embodiments, i.e. closed O-shaped structure and closed triangle-shaped structure hook screw hanger, were disclosed in the originally filed papers. The Examiner notes that Paragraphs 0008-0009 as cited in the chart of Applicant’s Remarks merely indicates O-shaped or lateral triangle-type finger or thumb engaging elements and in view of at least Figs 1A-1B of Applicant’s originally filed Drawings does not appear to support or suggest a closed O-shaped structure and a closed triangle-shaped structure of a hook screw hanger as argued by the Applicant. As previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed October 17, 2025 and as set forth above, Figs 8-10 of the originally filed Drawings and Specification appears to provide support for a hook nail hanger, as non-elected by Applicant in the Response to Restriction dated May 6, 2025, having an O-shaped finger or thumb engaging element and a triangle-type finger or thumb engaging element attached to the shaft at least to a midsectional point, however, the originally filed Drawings and Specification does not appear to provide support of such embodiments of the elected hook screw hanger. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the Specification objection is maintained as set forth above.
With respect to “SECTION 112” on Pgs 7-8 of Applicant’s Remarks filed January 15, 2026, Applicant argues the chart and Paragraphs 0008-0009 support the concept of a closed O-shaped structure and a closed triangle-shaped structure as set forth above. The Examiner respectfully disagrees as set forth above. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the 112(a) rejection is maintained as set forth above.
Applicant's arguments filed January 15, 2026 with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to Pgs 8-11, Applicant argues neither Karahan and Reinhard shows the inventive O/Triangle finger engagement element attached to a conical screw head and Soltmann’s “globe head” is not a conical head claimed in the invention and Soltmann’s global head cannot form the straight-edged screwdriver nor the Phillips-type head screwdriver. Further, Applicant argues Reinhard’s design shows a cylinder and not a conical head. The Examiner respectfully notes Applicant has included embodiments of Karahan and Reinhard which have not been cited in the rejection of claim 1. In response to Applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
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 JOCK WONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1349. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30am - 5:00pm (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, Kristina Fulton can be reached at (571)272-7376. 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.
/J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3675 /KRISTINA R FULTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675