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 .
The following correspondence is a non-final Office Action for application no. 19/068,281 for a J-HOOK BRACKET MOUNT LOCATION MARKERS, filed on 3/3/2025. Claims 1-19 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 18 is not further limiting as it is a duplicate of claim 16. 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 1-19 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.
Claims 1, 4, 8, 11, 13 and 15 recite the limitation "the same" therein. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-7, 9-12 and 14-19 are rejected for the same reasons as dependent on claims 1, 8 and 13.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the hook" therein. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
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) 1-6, 8-11, 13-15, 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goar (U.S. Pat. 1,113,001) in view of Gier (U.S. Pat. 6,473,983).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Goar teaches a device for supporting an object on a structure, the device comprising: a mounting member having a front face and a side face: a first mounting hole and a second mounting hole passing through the front face, wherein the first mounting hole is a first distance from the second mounting hole, and a hook on the front face; but does not teach a first positioning structure and a second positioning structure on the side face, wherein the first positioning structure is a second distance from the second positioning structure; wherein the first distance is the same as the second distance. Gier, however, teaches a first positioning structure (contact means, 26) and a second positioning structure (contact means, 36) on a face of a hanging device (10), wherein the first positioning structure is a second distance from the second positioning structure; wherein the first distance is the same as the second distance in order to provide a mark on the wall for indicating where to hang a nail for use with a picture frame (65). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to construct the device of Goar, with a reasonable expectation of success, comprising a first positioning structure and a second positioning structure on the side face, wherein the first positioning structure is a second distance from the second positioning structure; wherein the first distance is the same as the second distance in order to mark a location for the center point for hanging the device in a level manner.
[AltContent: textbox (1st mounting hole)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Mounting member )]
PNG
media_image1.png
352
526
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (1st end)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Retainment clip)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (3rd mounting hole )]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (Side face)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (Hook)]
[AltContent: textbox (Front face)][AltContent: textbox (2nd mounting hole )]
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, Goar and Gier teach the device of claim 1,wherein Goar teaches a retainment clip having a first end rotatably attached to the front face and a second end removably attachable to a hook.
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, Goar and Gier teach the device of claim 1, but do not teach that the first distance comprises a distance between a midpoint of the first mounting hole and a midpoint of the second mounting hole; and the second distance comprises a distance between a midpoint of the first positioning structure and the second positioning structure. Gier, however, teaches that the first distance comprises a distance between a midpoint of the first mounting notch and a midpoint of the second mounting notch; and the second distance comprises a distance between a midpoint of the first positioning structure and the second positioning structure (see Fig. 7, where distances are based on location of members 29 and 39 spaced apart from each other). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to construct the device of Goar, with a reasonable expectation of success, wherein the first distance comprises a distance between a midpoint of the first mounting hole and a midpoint of the second mounting hole; and the second distance comprises a distance between a midpoint of the first positioning structure and the second positioning structure in order to mark a precise location.
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, Goar and Gier teach the device of claim 1, wherein Goar teaches a third mounting hole passing through the front face between the first mounting hole and the second mounting hole (see figure above); but does not teach a third positioning structure on the side face between the first positioning structure and the second positioning structure; wherein a distance between the first mounting hole and the third mounting hole is the same as a distance between the first positioning structure and the third positioning structure. Gier teaches a positioning structure (contact means, 26) on a face of a hanging device (10) in order to provide a mark on the wall for indicating where to hang a nail for use with a picture frame (65). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to construct the device of Goar, with a reasonable expectation of success, comprising a third positioning structure on the side face between the first positioning structure and the second positioning structure; wherein a distance between the first mounting hole and the third mounting hole is the same as a distance between the first positioning structure and the third positioning structure in order to mark a location for the center point for hanging the device in a level manner.
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, Goar and Gier teach the device of claim 1, wherein Gier teaches that the first positioning structure comprises a protruding nub.
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Goar and Gier teach the device of claim 1, wherein the first positioning structure and the second positioning structure are configured to, when pressed to a surface by a user, leave a pair of indents on the surface.
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Goar teaches a device (see figure above) for supporting an object on a structure, the device comprising: a mounting member; a first mounting hole and a second mounting hole passing through the mounting member, wherein the first mounting hole is a first distance from the second mounting hole; and a hook on the front face; but does not teach a first positioning structure and a second positioning structure on the mounting member, wherein the first positioning structure is a second distance from the second positioning structure; wherein the first distance is the same as the second distance; and wherein the first positioning structure and the second positioning structure protrude from the mounting member such that, when pressed to a surface, the first positioning structure and the second positioning structure leave a pair of indication marks indented onto the surface. Gier, however, teaches a first positioning structure (contact means, 26) and a second positioning structure (contact means, 36) on a hanging device (10), wherein the first positioning structure is a second distance from the second positioning structure; wherein the first distance is the same as the second distance; and wherein the first positioning structure and the second positioning structure protrude such that, when pressed to a surface, the first positioning structure and the second positioning structure leave a pair of indication marks indented onto the surface in order to provide a mark on the wall for indicating where to hang a nail for use with a picture frame (65). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to construct the device of Goar, with a reasonable expectation of success, comprising a first positioning structure and a second positioning structure on the mounting member, wherein the first positioning structure is a second distance from the second positioning structure; wherein the first distance is the same as the second distance; and wherein the first positioning structure and the second positioning structure protrude from the mounting member such that, when pressed to a surface, the first positioning structure and the second positioning structure leave a pair of indication marks indented onto the surface in order to mark a location for the center point for hanging the device in a level manner.
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, Goar and Gier teach the device of claim 8, further comprising a retainment clip having a first end rotatably attached to the mounting member and a second end removably attachable to the hook (see figure above).
Regarding claim 10, as best understood, Goar and Gier teach the device of claim 8, but do not teach that the first distance comprises a distance between a midpoint of the first mounting hole and a midpoint of the second mounting hole; and the second distance comprises a distance between a midpoint of the first positioning structure and the second positioning structure. Gier, however, teaches that the first distance comprises a distance between a midpoint of the first mounting notch and a midpoint of the second mounting notch; and the second distance comprises a distance between a midpoint of the first positioning structure and the second positioning structure (see Fig. 7, where distances are based on location of members 29 and 39 spaced apart from each other). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to construct the device of Goar, with a reasonable expectation of success, wherein the first distance comprises a distance between a midpoint of the first mounting hole and a midpoint of the second mounting hole; and the second distance comprises a distance between a midpoint of the first positioning structure and the second positioning structure in order to mark a precise location.
Regarding claim 11, as best understood, Goar and Gier teach the device of claim 8, wherein Goar teaches a third mounting hole passing through the mounting member between the first mounting hole and the second mounting hole (see figure above); but does not teach a third positioning structure on the mounting member between the first positioning structure and the second positioning structure; wherein a distance between the first mounting hole and the third mounting hole is the same as a distance between the first positioning structure and the third positioning structure. Gier teaches a positioning structure (contact means, 26) on a face of a hanging device (10) in order to provide a mark on the wall for indicating where to hang a nail for use with a picture frame (65). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to construct the device of Goar, with a reasonable expectation of success, comprising a third positioning structure on the mounting member between the first positioning structure and the second positioning structure; wherein a distance between the first mounting hole and the third mounting hole is the same as a distance between the first positioning structure and the third positioning structure in order to mark a location for the center point for hanging the device in a level manner.
Regarding claim 13, as best understood, Goar teaches a device for supporting an object on a structure, the device comprising: a mounting member; a first mounting hole and a second mounting hole, wherein the first mounting hole is a first distance from the second mounting hole; but does not teach a first positioning structure and a second positioning structure, wherein the first positioning structure is a second distance from the second positioning structure; wherein the first distance is the same as the second distance; and wherein the first positioning structure and the second positioning structure protrude such that, when pressed to a surface, the first positioning structure and the second positioning structure leave a pair of indication marks indented onto the surface. Gier, however, teaches a first positioning structure (contact means, 26) and a second positioning structure (contact means, 36) on a hanging device (10), wherein the first positioning structure is a second distance from the second positioning structure; wherein the first distance is the same as the second distance; and wherein the first positioning structure and the second positioning structure protrude such that, when pressed to a surface, the first positioning structure and the second positioning structure leave a pair of indication marks indented onto the surface in order to provide a mark on the wall for indicating where to hang a nail for use with a picture frame (65). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to construct the device of Goar, with a reasonable expectation of success, comprising a first positioning structure and a second positioning structure on the mounting member, wherein the first positioning structure is a second distance from the second positioning structure; wherein the first distance is the same as the second distance; and wherein the first positioning structure and the second positioning structure protrude from the mounting member such that, when pressed to a surface, the first positioning structure and the second positioning structure leave a pair of indication marks indented onto the surface in order to mark a location for the center point for hanging the device in a level manner.
Regarding claim 14, as best understood, Goar and Gier teach the device of claim 13, but do not teach that the first distance comprises a distance between a midpoint of the first mounting hole and a midpoint of the second mounting hole; and the second distance comprises a distance between a midpoint of the first positioning structure and the second positioning structure. Gier, however, teaches that the first distance comprises a distance between a midpoint of the first mounting notch and a midpoint of the second mounting notch; and the second distance comprises a distance between a midpoint of the first positioning structure and the second positioning structure (see Fig. 7, where distances are based on location of members 29 and 39 spaced apart from each other). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to construct the device of Goar, with a reasonable expectation of success, wherein the first distance comprises a distance between a midpoint of the first mounting hole and a midpoint of the second mounting hole; and the second distance comprises a distance between a midpoint of the first positioning structure and the second positioning structure in order to mark a precise location.
Regarding claim 15, as best understood, Goar and Gier teach the device of claim 13, wherein Goar teaches a third mounting hole passing through the mounting member between the first mounting hole and the second mounting hole (see figure above); but does not teach a third positioning structure on the mounting member between the first positioning structure and the second positioning structure; wherein a distance between the first mounting hole and the third mounting hole is the same as a distance between the first positioning structure and the third positioning structure. Gier teaches a positioning structure (contact means, 26) on a face of a hanging device (10) in order to provide a mark on the wall for indicating where to hang a nail for use with a picture frame (65). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to construct the device of Goar, with a reasonable expectation of success, comprising a third positioning structure on the mounting member between the first positioning structure and the second positioning structure; wherein a distance between the first mounting hole and the third mounting hole is the same as a distance between the first positioning structure and the third positioning structure in order to mark a location for the center point for hanging the device in a level manner.
Regarding claim 17, as best understood, Goar and Gier teach the device of claim 13, wherein Goar teaches that the mounting member comprises a hook, the device further comprising a retainment clip having a first end rotatably attached to the mounting member and a second end removably attachable to the hook (see figure above).
Regarding claim 19, as best understood, Goar and Gier teach the device of claim 13, wherein Gier teaches that the pair of indication marks are indentations on the surface.
Claim(s) 7, 12, 16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goar (U.S. Pat. 1,113,001) in view of Gier (U.S. Pat. 6,473,983) in further view of Karaaslan (U.S. 11,047,526).
Regarding claims 7, 12, 16 and 18, as best understood, Goar and Gier teach the device of claims 1, 8 and 13, but do not teach that at least one of the first mounting hole or the second mounting hole is a keyhole. Karaaslan, however teaches a mounting bracket with a mounting hole being a keyhole (130) in order to accommodate larger fastening devices such as a screw. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to construct the device of Goar and Gier, with a reasonable expectation of success, wherein at least one of the first mounting hole or the second mounting hole is a keyhole in order to provide a larger fastening device to support a heavier weighted object for additional support.
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.
Claims 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,241,585. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the prior art teaches the exact same structure of the device comprising the mounting member, first mounting hole, second mounting hole, third mounting hole, first positioning structure, second positioning structure, third positioning structure, hook, and retainment clip.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USP 11788678, 8113476 (mounting devices).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NKEISHA J. SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-5781. The examiner can normally be reached Normal hours: M/Th 7-4; T 9-5; W 7-3; F 7-4.
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 on 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.
/NKEISHA SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632 June 5, 2026
Prosecution Insights