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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species B (Figure 5), is acknowledged. The election was made with traverse in the reply filed November 13, 2024. No claims are withdrawn as a result of the election.
Applicant’s traversal is on the grounds that all inventions could be examined without a serious burden. This is found not persuasive because the entire application contains a number of species that are patentably distinct from one another and including divergent subject matter that separates the species. Such recognized divergent subject matter separating the species is a burden to examination.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed November 13, 2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature (NPL) publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the foreign patent document and the NPL publications referred to therein have not been considered.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following minor informalities: Paragraph 0015 recites “angels 111 and 112,” which upon information and belief should be amended to recite “angles 111 and 112.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 “first side leg is longer longitudinally than the second side leg” as recited in claim 11 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “107” has been used to designate both “section” and “line” (see paragraph 0018 of the specification).
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. 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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 6-7 recite the limitation “a horizontal bottom leg defining at least two notches and including a first and a second end.” However, for further clarity it is respectfully suggested that this limitation be amended to recite, for example, “a horizontal bottom leg defining at least two notches and including a first end and a second end.”
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 5 recites the limitation “the hook.” However, for purposes of proper antecedent basis, this limitation should be amended to recite “the at least one hook.”
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 9 recites the limitation “a second side leg having a first and a second end.” However, for further clarity it is respectfully suggested that this limitation be amended to recite, for example, “a second side leg having a first end and a second end.”
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 recites the limitation “the hook.” However, for purposes of proper antecedent basis, this limitation should be amended to recite “the at least one hook.”
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 recites the limitation “the hook.” However, for purposes of proper antecedent basis, this limitation should be amended to recite “the at least one hook.”
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 recites the limitation “the hook.” However, for purposes of proper antecedent basis, this limitation should be amended to recite “the at least one hook.”
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 recites the limitation “the hook.” However, for purposes of proper antecedent basis, this limitation should be amended to recite “the at least one hook.”
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2 recites the limitation “A t least one hook,” which should be amended to recite “at least one hook.”
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 3 recites the limitation “A first diagonal side leg,” which should be amended to recite “a first diagonal side leg.”
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 3-4 recite the limitation “each side leg having first and second ends.” However, for further clarity it is respectfully suggested that this limitation be amended to recite, for example, “the first side leg and the second side leg each having a first end and a second end.”
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 5 recites the limitation “the hook.” However, for purposes of proper antecedent basis, this limitation should be amended to recite “the at least one hook.”
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 7 recites the limitation “a first and a second end.” However, for further clarity it is respectfully suggested that this limitation be amended to recite, for example, “a first end and a second end.”
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 7-9 recite the limitation “wherein the bottom leg is converged at first and second ends of the bottom leg.” However, for further clarity it is respectfully suggested that this limitation be amended to recite, for example, “wherein the horizontal bottom leg is converged at a first end and a second end of the horizontal bottom leg.”
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 1-16 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the first diagonal leg” (line 8). This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it lacks proper antecedent basis and it is unclear whether it refers to the previously-recited first side leg or some other element.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the second side leg extending upward in the direction of the first side leg but not converging with the first side leg” (lines 10-12). This limitation renders the claim indefinite because the meaning of phrase “the direction of the first side leg” is not understood. For example, does the phrase “the direction of the first side leg” refer to a direction in which the first side leg itself extends, a direction toward the first side leg, or some other configuration. For purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as reciting “the second side leg extending upward in a direction toward the first side leg but not converging with the first side leg.”
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the … two diagonal side legs” (line 1). This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it lacks proper antecedent basis and it is unclear whether it refers to the previously-recited first side leg and second side leg, first diagonal leg, or some other leg(s).
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the hook, two diagonal side legs and the horizontal bottom leg converged with each other at their respective ends” (lines 1-2). This limitation renders the claim indefinite at least because, upon information and belief, it recites both the first end and the second end of the second side leg being converged with other end(s) of the hanger body when claim 1 recites the second side leg “extending upward in the direction of the first side leg but not converging with the first side leg.”
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the … two diagonal side legs” (line 1). This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it lacks proper antecedent basis and it is unclear whether it refers to the previously-recited first side leg and second side leg, first diagonal leg, or some other leg(s).
Claim 4 recites the limitation “a horizontal bottom leg comprising a plurality of notches” (line 1). This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how it relates to the previously-recited “a horizontal bottom leg defining at least two notches” (claim 1, line 6).
Claim 5 recites the limitations “further including areas of intersection at the points of conversion between the side legs and the horizontal bottom leg forming vertices, wherein the hanger body adjacent the vertices has a larger width compared to that of the side and horizontal bottom legs” (lines 1-3). These limitations render the claim indefinite at least because, upon information and belief, “points of conversion” should recite “points of convergence,” and the phrase “further including areas of intersection at the points of conversion between the side legs and the horizontal bottom leg forming vertices” appears to include drafting error(s).
Claim 6 recites the limitations “wherein the second side leg includes one or more sections having varying slopes and wherein at least one section has a negative slope that defines an inwardly curved neck.” (lines 1-2). These limitations render the claim indefinite at least because the meaning of the phrase “a negative slope” is not understood (i.e., a slope that is negative relative to what?). These limitations further render the claim indefinite at least because they recite the relative term “inward” without providing any point of reference (i.e., inward in which direction and/or relative to what?).
Claim 7 recites the limitations “wherein the first side leg includes a first section having a negative slope that transitions at a second outwardly curved radius that transitions to a second section having a negative slope, wherein second section transitions to a third inwardly curved radius and the third radius converges with the horizontal bottom leg to form an angle” (lines 1-4). These limitations render the claim indefinite at least because it is unclear whether it is the first side leg or the first section that is recited as having a negative slope that transitions at a second outwardly curved radius and upon information and belief, the repetition of the phrase “that transitions” is the result of drafting error(s). These limitations further render the claim indefinite at least because the meaning of the phrase “a negative slope” is not understood (i.e., a slope that is negative relative to what?) and they recite the relative term “inward” without providing any point of reference (i.e., inward in which direction and/or relative to what?).
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the second side leg is rounded inward at the second end of the second side leg” (line 6). This limitation renders the claim indefinite at least because it recites the relative term “inward” without providing any point of reference (i.e., inward in which direction and/or relative to what?).
Claim 11 recites the limitations “a horizontal bottom leg having at least two notches and a first and a second end, wherein the bottom leg is converged at first and second ends of the bottom leg with the second end of the first side leg and the first end of the second side leg, forming two vertices” (lines 7-9). These limitations render the claim indefinite at least because it is unclear how the “a first and a second end” recited on line 8 relate to the “first and second ends of the bottom leg” recited on line 7. It is also unclear whether recitations of “the bottom leg” on line 8 refer to the previously-recited “a horizontal bottom leg” recited on line 7, especially given that claims 12-15 each subsequently recite “horizontal bottom leg(s).” For purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as reciting “a horizontal bottom leg having at least two notches and a first end and a second end, wherein the horizontal bottom leg is converged at the first end of the horizontal bottom leg with the second end of the first side leg forming a vertex and wherein the second end of the horizontal bottom leg is converged with the first end of the second side leg forming another vertex.”
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the … two diagonal side legs” (line 1). This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it lacks proper antecedent basis and it is unclear whether it refers to the previously-recited first side leg and second side leg or some other leg(s).
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the … two diagonal side legs” (line 1). This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it lacks proper antecedent basis and it is unclear whether it refers to the previously-recited first side leg and second side leg or some other leg(s).
Claim 14 recites the limitation “wherein the horizontal bottom leg includes a plurality of notches” (line 1). This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how it relates to the previously-recited “a horizontal bottom leg having at least two notches” (claim 11, line 7).
Claim 15 recites the limitation “wherein the vertices have larger width compared to that of the side and horizontal bottom legs.” (lines 1-2). This limitation renders the claim indefinite at least because meaning of the phrase that the vertices have “larger width compared to that of the side and horizontal bottom legs” is not understood.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “wherein the second end of the second diagonal leg is not connected to the body of the hanger and is oriented, tilted or twisted inward” (lines 1-2). This limitation renders the claim indefinite at least because the limitation “the second diagonal leg” lacks proper antecedent basis and it is unclear to which previously-recited leg it refers. It is further unclear how the second end of the second diagonal leg is capable of being “not connected” to the body of the hanger when, upon information and belief, the second side/diagonal leg forms a portion of the hanger body. This limitation further renders the claim indefinite at least because it recites the relative term “inward” without providing any point of reference (i.e., inward in which direction and/or relative to what?).
Dependent claims are rejected at least for depending from a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1-16 are rejected, insofar as definite and as best understood by the Examiner, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPN 6,230,945 Licari et al. in view of US Pub No. 2004/0159686 Huang.
To claim 1, Licari discloses a hanger (10) (see Figures 1-8B; col. 3, line 11 – col. 5, line 34) comprising:
a continuous body (see Figures 1-2B and 4A-8B), including:
at least one hook (16,18) (see for example Figure 1; col. 3, lines 11-28);
a first side leg (12) having a first end and a second end, wherein the first side leg converges with the at least one hook at the first side leg’s first end to form one continuous body (see for example Figure 1; col. 3, lines 11-28);
a horizontal bottom leg (11) including a first end and a second end, wherein the horizontal bottom leg first end converges with the second end of the first side leg forming a vertex (see for example Figure 1; col. 3, lines 11-28); and
a second side leg (14) having a first end and a second end, wherein the first end of the second side leg converges with the second end of the horizontal bottom leg to form a vertex, the second side leg extending upward in a direction toward the first side leg but not converging with the first side leg (see for example Figure 1; col. 3, lines 11-28),
wherein the first side leg, second side leg, and the horizontal bottom leg define an open space (see Figures 1-2B and 4A-8B).
The horizontal bottom leg (11) of Licari does not define at least two notches.
However, Huang teaches a hanger (see for example Figures 1 and 7-8) comprising a horizontal bottom leg defining at least two notches (81,81’) (see for example Figure 1; para. 0029).
Licari and Huang teach analogous inventions in the field of hangers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the horizontal bottom leg of Licari to include notches as taught by Huang because Huang teaches that this configuration is known in the art and beneficial for hanging trousers (see Figures 7-8; para. 0027).
To claim 2, the modified invention of Licari (i.e., Licari in view of Huang, as detailed above) further teaches a hanger further including the at least one hook, the first side leg, the second side leg, and the horizontal bottom leg all converged with each other at their respective ends (see Figures 1-2B and 4A-8B of Licari).
To the limitation “using molding, welding, or adhesion techniques,” it is respectfully noted that claim 2 is being treated as a product-by-process claim. Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps (see MPEP 2113).
To claim 3, the modified invention of Licari (i.e., Licari in view of Huang, as detailed above) further teaches a hanger further including the at least one hook, the first side leg, the second side leg, and the horizontal bottom leg being formed as one continuous body (see Figures 1-2B and 4A-8B of Licari).
To the limitation “using means for laser cutting, molding, stamping, or three-dimensional printing,” it is respectfully noted that claim 3 is being treated as a product-by-process claim. Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps (see MPEP 2113).
To claim 4, the modified invention of Licari (i.e., Licari in view of Huang, as detailed above) further teaches a hanger further including a horizontal bottom leg comprising a plurality of notches (see for example Figures 1 and 7-8 of Huang).
To claim 5, the modified invention of Licari (i.e., Licari in view of Huang, as detailed above) further teaches a hanger further including areas of intersection at the points of conversion between the side legs and the horizontal bottom leg forming vertices, wherein the hanger body adjacent the vertices has a larger width compared to that of the side and horizontal bottom legs (see Figures 1-2B and 4A-8B of Licari and Figures 1 and 7-8 of Huang).
To claim 6, the modified invention of Licari (i.e., Licari in view of Huang, as detailed above) further teaches a hanger wherein the second side leg includes one or more sections having varying slopes and wherein at least one section has a negative slope that defines an inwardly curved neck (see for example Figures 5A and 6 of Licari).
To claim 7, the modified invention of Licari (i.e., Licari in view of Huang, as detailed above) further teaches a hanger wherein the first side leg includes a first section having a negative slope that transitions at a second outwardly curved radius that transitions to a second section having a negative slope, wherein second section transitions to a third inwardly curved radius and the third radius converges with the horizontal bottom leg to form an angle (see Figures 1-2B and 4A-8B of Licari).
To claim 8, the modified invention of Licari (i.e., Licari in view of Huang, as detailed above) further teaches a hanger wherein the third radius and the bottom horizontal leg define a third section defining a width greater than the width of horizontal bottom leg and the width of second section (see Figures 1-2B and 4A-8B of Licari).
To claim 9, the modified invention of Licari (i.e., Licari in view of Huang, as detailed above) further teaches a hanger wherein the at least one hook includes a top horizontal portion (see Figures 1-2B and 4A-8B of Licari).
To claim 10, the modified invention of Licari (i.e., Licari in view of Huang, as detailed above) further teaches a hanger wherein the at least one hook includes an inwardly rounded surface (see Figures 1-2B and 4A-8B of Licari).
To claim 11, Licari discloses a hanger (10) (see Figures 1-8B; col. 3, line 11 – col. 5, line 34) comprising:
at least one hook (16,18) (see for example Figure 1; col. 3, lines 11-28);
a first diagonal side leg (12) and a second diagonal side leg (14), each side leg having first and second ends, wherein the first side leg is longer longitudinally than the second side leg (see for example Figure 1; col. 3, lines 11-28), the first side leg is converged with the hook at the first end of the first side leg to form one continuous body (see for example Figure 1; col. 3, lines 11-28), and the second side leg is rounded inward at the second end of the second side leg (see for example Figures 5A and 6);
a horizontal bottom leg having a first end and a second end, wherein the horizontal bottom leg is converged at the first end of the horizontal bottom leg with the second end of the first side leg forming a vertex and wherein the second end of the horizontal bottom leg is converged with the first end of the second side leg forming another vertex (see for example Figure 1; col. 3, lines 11-28).
The horizontal bottom leg (11) of Licari does not have at least two notches.
However, Huang teaches a hanger (see for example Figures 1 and 7-8) comprising a horizontal bottom leg having at least two notches (81,81’) (see for example Figure 1; para. 0029).
Licari and Huang teach analogous inventions in the field of hangers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the horizontal bottom leg of Licari to include notches as taught by Huang because Huang teaches that this configuration is known in the art and beneficial for hanging trousers (see Figures 7-8; para. 0027).
To claim 12, the modified invention of Licari (i.e., Licari in view of Huang, as detailed above) further teaches a hanger wherein the at least one hook, the two diagonal side legs, and the horizontal bottom leg are converged with each other at their respective ends (see Figures 1-2B and 4A-8B of Licari).
To the limitation “using molding, welding, or adhesion techniques,” it is respectfully noted that claim 12 is being treated as a product-by-process claim. Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps (see MPEP 2113).
To claim 13, the modified invention of Licari (i.e., Licari in view of Huang, as detailed above) further teaches a hanger wherein, the at least one hook, the two diagonal side legs, and the horizontal bottom leg are formed as one continuous body (see Figures 1-2B and 4A-8B of Licari).
To the limitation “using laser cutting, molding, stamping, or three-dimensional printing techniques,” it is respectfully noted that claim 13 is being treated as a product-by-process claim. Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps (see MPEP 2113).
To claim 14, the modified invention of Licari (i.e., Licari in view of Huang, as detailed above) further teaches a hanger wherein the horizontal bottom leg includes a plurality of notches (see for example Figures 1 and 7-8 of Huang).
To claim 15, the modified invention of Licari (i.e., Licari in view of Huang, as detailed above) further teaches a hanger wherein the vertices have larger width compared to that of the side and horizontal bottom legs (see Figures 1-2B and 4A-8B of Licari).
To claim 16, the modified invention of Licari (i.e., Licari in view of Huang, as detailed above) further teaches a hanger wherein the second end of the second diagonal leg is not connected to the body of the hanger and is oriented, tilted or twisted inward (see for example Figures 5A and 6 of Licari).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Additional garment hangers analogous to the instant invention (see form PTO-892 “Notice of References Cited).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRIFFIN HALL whose telephone number is (571)270-0546. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 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, Alissa Tompkins can be reached at (571) 272-3425. 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.
/F Griffin Hall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732