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 .
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 following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
hook coupled to one of the first and second elongate support members
latching mechanism
spring dampener
ratchet pawl system
spoke
through hole
pin
blind holes
spring based actuator
toggle
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 further objected to because of the following.
The details of Figures 4-1, 4-2, and 4-3 are difficult to discern. Applicant has also failed to provide detail numbers.
Figures 2, 3-1, 4-1, and 4-3 each appear to contain multiple drawings. Applicant should either bracket/group each as a single figure, or label the separate components as distinct figures.
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)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
214.
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.
The drawings are still further objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
202, 204L, 204R, 212.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph 31, the phrase “spring-biased actuator 116” is incorrect. Detail 116 should be a housing, as compared to Detail 216.
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 1-12 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.
In regards to Claims 1, 4, and 9, the phrase “latching mechanism” is unclear. The structure is not known, and its operation is not understood. The drawing fails to show the structure, and one of ordinary skill in the art, beyond just a general understanding of the term “latching”, would be unable to adequately understand the limitations as claimed. How does this function or operate?
In regards to Claim 6, the phrase “easy storage” is unclear, as the term “easy” is subjective. How is this measured or determined? To what degree is something considered easy, versus say moderately difficult?
In regards to Claim 7, the phrase “spring dampener” is unclear. The structure is not known, and its operation is not understood. The drawing fails to show the structure, and one of ordinary skill in the art, beyond just a general understanding of the term “dampen”, would be unable to adequately understand the limitations as claimed. How does this function or operate?
In regards to Claim 8, the phrase “ratchet-pawl system” is unclear. The structure is not known, and its operation is not understood. The drawing fails to show the structure, and one of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to adequately understand the limitations as claimed. How does this function or operate?
In regards to Claim 9, the term “spoke” is unclear. The structure is not known, and its operation is not understood. The drawing fails to show the structure, and one of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to adequately understand the limitations as claimed. How does this function or operate?
Further in regards to Claim 9, the phrase “inflexibly coupled” is unclear. The phrase is in relation to a spring mechanism, which must have an elastic property to operate. As such, how can a spring mechanism be inflexibly coupled?
In regards to Claims 10-12, the method is unclear since the structure is unclear. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to perform the method steps absent understanding of the device.
Further in regards to Claim 11, it is unclear how “reverting the hanger to the first closed position for storage or transport after use” further limits Claim 10, which is “A method of hanging a garment using the hanger of claim 9”. Nothing in reverting the hanger… for storage is part of hanging a garment using the hanger. Claim 11 literally states, “after use”. Claim 11 happens after the method of hanging a garment is ended.
The remaining claims inherit the rejection by dependency.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-8 is/are rejected, to the degree definite, under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lam (7036696).
In regards to Claim 1, Lam teaches a garment hanger comprising:
a hook (Detail 102) for suspending the hanger from a support member;
first and second elongate support members (104L, 104R) disposed in opposed orientation relative to one another, substantially 180 degrees apart about an axis (Figure 1),
wherein said first and second elongate support members coupled axially about a pivot configured for 90 degrees rotation between a first downward position (Figure 2) to a second extended position (Figure 1) to support the shoulder line of a garment;
wherein the hook coupled to one of the first and second elongate support members and a latching mechanism (Detail 350) operable to toggle the garment hanger between static and dynamic states.
In regards to Claim 2, Lam teaches a spring mechanism (Detail 320) immovably coupled to first and second elongate support members and configured to bias rotation of first and second elongate support members between the second extended position and the first downward position.
In regards to Claim 3, Lam teaches the first and second elongate support members configured to slide into a garment's neck hole without unhooking the hanger from the support member (intended use, capable of being hung on a support and placed into the neck hole of a garment).
In regards to Claim 4, Lam teaches the latching mechanism is operable to release the first and second elongate support members to swing into the extended position once the garment neckline is positioned relative to thereto (the latching mechanism does not prevent the return of the support members, so it is operable to release them).
In regards to Claim 6, Lam teaches the hanger is foldable for easy storage and portability (Figure 2).
In regards to Claim 7, Lam teaches a spring dampener for controlling the speed of energizing and discharging the spring mechanism (the weight of the elongate members would control the speed of energizing and discharging).
In regards to Claim 8, Lam teaches the latching mechanism further comprising a ratchet pawl system (in contact with Detail 315, acting as a ratchet/pawl) for providing additional control and incremental rotation over the movement of the first and second elongate support members.
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected, to the degree definite, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lam in view of Neighbors (20140061259).
In regards to Claim 5, while Lam essentially teaches the invention as detailed above, it fails to specifically teach padding on the first and second elongate support members. Neighbors, however, teaches that in the garment hanger art, it is well known to provide padding (Paragraph 22). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included padding as taught by Neighbors, so as to provide additional protection to the garments hung thereon.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected, to the degree definite, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lam in view of Landis et al (20040211797).
In regards to Claim 9, Lam teaches a garment hanger comprising:
a hook (Detail 102) for suspending the hanger from a support member;
a base (Detail 302) having a spoke (Detail 318) extending axially therefrom and configured to limit rotation of first and second elongate support members, wherein the hook movably coupled to the base;
first and second elongate support members (Details 104L, 104R) disposed in opposed orientation relative to one another, substantially 180 degrees apart about an axis (Figure 1), coupled axially to the spoke at a through hole (Detail 310), configured to rotate 90 degrees about the spoke between a first extended position (Figure 1) and a second closed position (Figure 2),
a spring mechanism (Detail 320) inflexibly coupled to the first and second elongate support members, configured to bias rotation of first and second elongate support members; and
a latching mechanism (Detail 350) wherein a spring-biased actuator operable to toggle between a first and second elongate support member engaged state and disengaged state.
While Lam essentially teaches the invention as detailed, it fails to specifically teach a pin disposed on the first elongate support member about the circumference of the through hole, and a plurality of blind holes disposed on the second elongate support about the circumference of the through hole. Landis, however, teaches that it is well known in the hanger art that when dealing with contacting components, it is well known to provide a pin and blind holes (Paragraph 64; bumps and depressions). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a pin and blind holes, so as to allow for the partial adjustment of the elongate support members without fully folding them downward.
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected, to the degree definite, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lam in view of Landis et al as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Groot et al (NL 1016462).
In regards to Claims 10-12, while the combination of Lam and Landis essentially teaches the invention as detailed, it fails to specifically teach the myriad ways by which to use the hanger. Groot, however, teaches that it is well known to operate the hanger, to insert into the neck hole of a garment, while on a support (Support 2; Figures 5 and 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have utilized the hanger of the combination, as taught by Groot, so as to save time by allowing automation while not stretching out the garment. The step of releasing would involve operating the latching mechanism, or the hanger could not be unfolded. Figure 3 shows the hanger is folded for storage when not in use.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See of Record.
Specifically, at least Mechaouat (WO 2025120680) Figure 1 and Park (KR 102447916) Figure 2 teach elements similar to those as currently claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shaun R Hurley whose telephone number is (571)272-4986. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday, 8:00am - 3:00pm.
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, Clinton T Ostrup can be reached at (571) 272-5559. 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.
/SHAUN R HURLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732