Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
PNG
media_image1.png
685
613
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 1, 2, 10, 11, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bruxelle et al (US 12660810 B2).
With respect to claim 1, Bruxelle discloses a hanger, comprising: a support member (200); a standoff (202) pivotably coupled to the support member (200) and operable to pivot relative to the support member between a use position (figure 2) and a stowed position (figures 1 and 5) about a standoff pivot axis (A, SEE EXAMINER’S MARKUP ABOVE); and a hanger arm (the platform 50 or any of its frames 64, 66, figure 1) pivotably coupled to the support member and operable to pivot relative to the support member between an extended position (figure 2) and a retracted position (figure 5) about a hanger arm pivot axis (B, SEE EXAMINER’S MARKUP ABOVE).
With respect to claim 2, Bruxelle discloses the hanger of claim 1 as advanced above, wherein, with respect to the standoff pivot axis (A, see examiner’s markup above), the axial offset between the portion of the hanger defining the axial extreme of the hanger in a first axial direction and the portion of the hanger defining the axial extreme of the hanger in a second axial direction that is opposite the first axial direction is a first distance in the stowed position (figure 5) of the standoff and the retracted position of the hanger arm, and the axial offset between the portion of the hanger defining the axial extreme of the hanger in the first axial direction and the portion of the hanger defining the axial extreme of the hanger in the second axial direction is a second distance in the use position (figure 6) of the standoff and the extended position of the hanger arm, wherein the first distance is less than the second distance.
With respect to claim 10, Bruxelle discloses the hanger of claim 1 as advanced above, wherein the standoff pivot axis (A, SEE EXAMINER’S MARKUP ABOVE) is not parallel to the hanger arm pivot axis.
With respect to claim 11, Bruxelle discloses the hanger of claim 10 as advanced above, wherein the standoff pivot axis (A, SEE EXAMINER’S MARKUP ABOVE) is perpendicular to the hanger arm pivot axis (B, SEE EXAMINER’S MARKUP ABOVE).
With respect to claim 17, Bruxelle discloses a hanger, comprising: a support member (200); a standoff (202) pivotably coupled to the support member and operable to pivot relative to the support member between a use position (and a stowed position about a standoff pivot axis; and a hanger arm pivotably coupled to the support member and operable to pivot relative to the support member between an extended position and a retracted position about a hanger arm pivot axis, wherein an uppermost portion (P, see examiner’s markup above) of the support member (200) is the uppermost portion of the hanger in the use position of the standoff and the extended position of the hanger arm (figure 6), and the uppermost portion (P, see examiner’s markup above) of the support member (200) is lower than a portion (S, see examiner’s markup above) of the standoff in the stowed position of the standoff and lower than a portion (H, see examiner’s markup above) of the hanger arm in the retracted position of the hanger arm.
With respect to claim 18, Bruxelle discloses the hanger of claim 17 as advanced above, wherein the standoff pivot axis (A, SEE EXAMINER’S MARKUP ABOVE) is perpendicular to the hanger arm pivot axis (B, SEE EXAMINER’S MARKUP ABOVE).
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.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruxelle et al (US 12660810 B2).
With regard to claims 3-5, Bruxelle discloses the hanger of claim 2 as advanced above except for wherein the first distance is less than or equal to half of the second distance (per claim 3) or wherein the first distance is less than or equal to a third of the second distance (per claim 4) or wherein the first distance is less than or equal to a quarter of the second distance (per claim 5). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have provided a hanger such that the first distance of the stowed position is less than or equal to half of the second distance of the used position or wherein the first distance is less than or equal to a third of the second distance or wherein the first distance is less than or equal to a quarter of the second distance, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claims 15 and 16 are allowed.
Claims 6-9, 12-14, 19 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art of record demonstrate foldable support members of interest.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ko (Korie) H Chan whose telephone number is (571)272-6816. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday -Friday, 8:00 - 5:00 EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jonathan Liu can be reached on 571-272-8227. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Ko H Chan/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Khc
Prosecution Insights