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 with traverse of Species I, FIGS. 1-4 in the reply filed on 8/27/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that Applicant believes that examining claims directed to the many different species would not present a “serious burden”. This is not found persuasive because no evidence is provided by Applicant to support this position; Examiner maintains that it would be a serious burden to spend the extra time needed to consider each piece of prior art and whether that piece of prior art discloses or renders obvious each of the many different claimed species, particularly in view of the many different ways in which each of the pieces of prior art could be claimed. It is noted that Applicant has not suggested that the myriad species are not patentably distinct, and also has not suggested that they would not require different search terms/queries and/or searching different art areas, and so has provided no evidence whatsoever for the unsupported assertion that there would not be a “serious burden” in searching for 11 different species with many and varied differences between them.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim 11 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 8/27/25. Examiner notes that Applicant indicated that claim 11 was drawn to the elected embodiment, but FIGS. 1-4 do not show the clamping structure as a clip having a torsion spring (the FIG. 8 embodiment has the torsion spring).
Specification
The application filed 2/18/25 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: this application is a “Continuation” of Application #18/675,053, which means that it cannot contain any disclosure that is not present in that application, but the specification of this application discloses many features which are not supported by the disclosure of the previous application and so introduce new matter.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because they introduce new matter into the disclosure, noting that the drawings show many features which are not supported by the disclosure of Application #18/675,053, of which this application is a “Continuation”. 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.
Claims 1, 9, and 21-27 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.
With Respect to Claim 1
The scope of the phrases “hanging body” and “hanging hook” are unclear, as it is unclear whether they require a structure capable of being hung, capable of having another structure hung on it, if it encompasses either, or if it has some other scope.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “clip” (as part of the phrase “clip body”) in claims 1, 9, 22-23, and 25 is used by the claim to mean “a fastener” or some other similarly broad term (for clarity, the inventive “clip body” is a flexible strap for forming a loop for hanging, and so does not meet the normal definition, but it is unclear how broad of a scope this phrase should be given to encompass the claimed structure) while the accepted meaning is “a device that grips and holds tightly” or “a metal or plastic clasp for holding together papers, letters, etc.” (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/clip, retrieved 12/4/25) The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “clamping structure” in claims 1, 21, and 26-27 is used by the claim to mean “a fastener” or some other similarly broad term (for clarity, the inventive “clamping body” of the elected embodiment is a flexible strap for forming a loop for hanging, and so does not meet the normal definition, but it is unclear how broad of a scope this phrase should be given to encompass the claimed structure) while the accepted meaning is “a device designed to bind or constrict or to press two or more parts together so as to hold them firmly” (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/clamp, retrieved 12/4/25) The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
The remainder of this office action is based on the invention as best understood by Examiner.
With Respect to Claim 21
The phrase “to which the clamping structure and the hanging body are both coupled” is unclear, noting that the clamping structure is part of the hanging body, and so it is unclear whether the phrase is met by a structure being coupled to the clamping structure but not to other parts of the hanging body (as it is then inherently coupled to the hanging body), being coupled to the other portions of the hanging body and to the clamping structure only indirectly via attachment to the hanging body which inherently couples to the clamping structure which is part of it, if it requires coupling to the clamping structure and also to some other portion of the hanging body, or if it has some other scope.
The remainder of this office action is based on the invention as best understood by Examiner.
With Respect to Claims 9 and 21-27
These claims are rejected as they depend from a rejected claim and so incorporate its indefinite scope.
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 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication #2022/0312941 to Rossman (Rossman). Rossman discloses:
With Respect to Claim 1
A storage clip, comprising: a hanging hook (121) configured to be connected to a hanging carrier (capable of this use which is also the intended use); a hanging body (11 in combination with the lower 131-132) coupled to the hanging hook, the hanging body comprising a clamping structure (132); a clip body (the upper 131-132) connected to the hanging body, the clip body constituting a first closed structure (either 131 or 132 are a first closed structure).
With Respect to Claim 21
The storage clip according to claim 1 further comprising: a connecting ring (131), to which the clamping structure and the hanging body are both coupled.
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.
Claims 1, 9, 22, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent #5,511,756 to Spradling (Spradling) in view of U.S. Patent #8,146,209 to Carnate (Carnate).
With Respect to Claim 1
Spradling discloses a storage clip, comprising: a hanging fastener (12 or 102) configured to be connected to a hanging carrier (capable of this use which is also the intended use); a hanging body (20, 50, 60) coupled to the hanging hook, the hanging body comprising a clamping structure (60); a clip body (30) connected to the hanging body, the clip body constituting a first closed structure (FIG. 2, noting that it is closed when the hook and loop fastener attaches together); and that other fasteners could be used in place of the disclosed hanging fastener(s) (Col. 5 lines 13-15), but does not disclose that the hanging fastener is a hook.
However, Carnate discloses a similar hanging fastener for hanging a glove and other items and the use of a hanging hook (14) to attach the hanging fastener to any of various structures.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Spradling to provide alternate fasteners and the disclosure of Carnate of a hook as a fastener for a similar structure, to provide a hook (e.g. 14, although the combination encompasses using other hook structures such as a carabiner or the like) as the hanging structure, in order to allow for detachable attachment to a belt similar to the belt (102) of Spradling, to allow for faster attachment and detachment, and/or as a mere substitution of one art known fastening structure for another.
With Respect to Claim 9
The storage clip according to claim 1, wherein the clip body is a structure made of any one of a flexible material, an elastic material, a chain, and a bead string (it is at least a flexible material).
With Respect to Claim 22
The storage clip according to claim 1, wherein the clip body comprising a first end and a second end arranged opposite to each other (noting opposite ends having 40A and 40B, FIGS. 1B and 2), the first end of the clip body (end having 40B) being connected to the hanging body (FIGS. 1B and 2), and the second end of the clip body (end having 40A) being movable toward or away from the first end of the clip body (see, e.g. FIGS. 1B, 2 and description); a first engagement body (40B) arranged on the first end of the clip body; and a second engagement body (40A) arranged on the second end of the clip body, the second engagement body and the first engagement body being removably connected together (FIGS. 1B, 2, and description).
With Respect to Claim 27
The storage clip according to claim 22, wherein the hanging body (20, 50, 60) comprising a first hanging portion (20 alone or in combination with 12 or other structure used to attach the hook per the combination with Carnate) and a second hanging portion (50, 60), one end of the first hanging portion being coupled to the hanging hook, and the second hanging portion being provided with the clamping structure (60).
Claims 23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent #5,511,756 to Spradling (Spradling) in view of U.S. Patent #8,146,209 to Carnate (Carnate) as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent #5,979,851 to Purdy (Purdy).
With Respect to Claim 23
The storage clip according to claim 22, but does not disclose wherein the first engagement body comprises: a first connecting portion, one end of the first connecting portion being connected to the first end of the clip body; and a first limiting portion arranged on the other opposite end of the first connecting portion, the outer diameter of the first limiting portion being greater than the outer diameter of the first connecting portion; and the second engagement body comprises a plurality of second connecting holes cooperating with the first connecting portion, and the first limiting portion is capable of passing through the second connecting hole.
However, Purdy discloses forming a similar hanging carrier with a similar clip body (noting particularly the FIG. 6 embodiment with a hanging strap structure with mating hook and loop fastener (45/47) on each end to form a loop) and an alternative/substitute first engagement body comprising a first connecting portion (thinner central connecting portion of 11, designated 11a for ease of reference), one end of the first connecting portion being connected to the first end of the clip body (FIG. 3); and a first limiting portion (noting enlarged head at the end of 11 opposite the connection to 13, FIG. 3, designated 11b for ease of reference) arranged on the other opposite end of the first connecting portion, the outer diameter of the first limiting portion being greater than the outer diameter of the first connecting portion (FIG. 3); and the second engagement body (23) comprises a plurality of second connecting holes cooperating with the first connecting portion, and the first limiting portion is capable of passing through the second connecting hole (inherent in the use of this structure, see FIG. 3 and description).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Purdy, to replace the hook and loop fastener (40A/40B) of Spradling/the combination with first and second engagement bodies as taught by Purdy/as claimed, in order to allow for better securement of the loop at particular discrete sizes, to prevent inadvertent removal, and/or as a mere substitution of one art known fastener for another.
With Respect to Claim 25
The storage clip according to claim 23, wherein at least two second connecting holes are provided, which are arranged at intervals in a length direction of the clip body, and each second connecting hole is capable of cooperating with the first connecting portion (per Purdy, see FIG. 3).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent #5,511,756 to Spradling (Spradling) in view of U.S. Patent #8,146,209 to Carnate (Carnate) and U.S. Patent #5,979,851 to Purdy (Purdy) as applied to claim 23 above, either alone or further in view of U.S. Patent Publication #2017/0064854 to Hayes (Hayes).
With Respect to Claim 24
The storage clip according to claim 23, wherein the second connecting hole has an expanded diameter state in which the diameter is increased to enable the first limiting portion to pass, and a reduced diameter state in which the diameter is decreased to be less than the outer diameter of the first limiting portion (Purdy FIG. 3 shows the enlarged head of 11 significantly larger than the opening, noting also the slot attached to the opening which a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand has the purpose of allowing the opening to expand as claimed).
Alternately, to the degree that the drawings of Purdy might not be to scale and the particulars of operation of the Purdy structure are not detailed, Hayes discloses a similar connecting structure on a flexible strap wherein the second connecting hole has an expanded diameter state in which the diameter is increased to enable the first limiting portion to pass, and a reduced diameter state in which the diameter is decreased to be less than the outer diameter of the first limiting portion ([0030-0031]), which provides sufficient motivation for and/or evidence of the obviousness of forming the structure of the combination in this fashion.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent #5,511,756 to Spradling (Spradling) in view of U.S. Patent #8,146,209 to Carnate (Carnate) as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent #9,249,814 to Tsai (Tsai), either alone or also in view of U.S. Patent #6,382,481 to McIlmoil (McIlmoil).
With Respect to Claim 26
The storage clip according to claim 22, but does not disclose wherein the clamping structure comprises: a second connecting portion, a third engagement body being provided at one end of the second connecting portion, and a fourth engagement body being provided at the other opposite end of the second connecting portion, the third engagement body and the fourth engagement body being removably connected together; and when the third engagement body and the fourth engagement body are connected to each other, the second connecting portion forms a second enclosed structure.
However, Tsai discloses a similar hanging storage structure comprising a clamping structure (suspension clasp 9 as shown in FIGS. 1 and 4-5) comprising a second connecting portion (noting strap portion), a third engagement body (fastener adjacent the free end) being provided at one end of the second connecting portion, and a fourth engagement body (fastener adjacent the end having the opening) being provided at the other opposite end of the second connecting portion, the third engagement body and the fourth engagement body being removably connected together (although not described in detail, it is Examiner’s position that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand from the fact that it is a clasp to indicate that the ends are detachable and re-attachable in order to form a clasp, i.e. removable connection is inherent in it being a clasp; alternately to the degree that some other construction might be possible, removably attaching the ends together would be obvious in order to allow for separation to make it easier to attach and detach objects from the clasp and/or as doing so constitutes at most merely making separable which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04)); and when the third engagement body and the fourth engagement body are connected to each other, the second connecting portion forms a second enclosed structure (see, e.g. FIGS. 1 and 4-5), and also discloses that this structure is an art known substitute for a ring similar to a ring (50) similar to that of Spradling.
Alternately, although Examiner maintains that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the Tsai structure to be as claimed, McIlmoil discloses forming a similar hanging connector/clasp structure comprising a second connecting portion (13) and third and fourth engagement bodies removably connected together (noting 24) to allow for attachment and removal, which provides additional motivation for and/or evidence of the obviousness of forming the structure of the combination in this fashion.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM J WAGGENSPACK whose telephone number is (571)270-7418. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30.
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, Nathan Newhouse can be reached at (571)272-4544. 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.
/ADAM J WAGGENSPACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734