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 replacement drawings were received on 20 July 2026. These drawings are unacceptable.
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 hook integrated into one of the first and second elongate support members 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 because of the following.
Figure 3C contains at least two separate figures, which is improper. The figures should either be labeled as separate and distinct, or be grouped together to present as a single figure.
Applicant has provided figures with greater detail than previously provided (at least Figures 2, 3A, 3B, 4B, 4C). This detail shows new elements which were not previously discernible. The drawings have added details such as a tooth, and cavities, the interaction and structure of which were not previously shown where one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to discern their properties. The new details are considered new matter.
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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is not provided on a separate sheet. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The amendment filed 20 July 2026 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: tooth, cavities, and their interaction/function. The original drawings do not show this interaction due to their admitted poor quality, and the “latching mechanism” does not detail this interaction in the specification. One of ordinary skill in the art, presented with the originally filed specification and drawings, would not be able to discern their structure.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The amendment filed 20 July 2026 contains separate amendments which are not proper, as it makes it difficult to discern changes and added matter by Applicant. Attention to at least:
Paragraph 31, line 4 discusses 204L and 204R, which do not appear in the original paragraph and are not marked as amendments.
Further, Detail 218 does not appear in the original specification, but appears in the amendments without being properly marked.
Appropriate correction is required. Applicant should ensure all amendments are properly made and documented.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“operable ,” is improperly spaced.
“a a spring-biased actuator” reads awkwardly.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 1, the phrase “at least a first locking tooth” does not find support in the original specification as filed.
Further regarding Claim 1, the phrase “a plurality of cavities” does not find support in the original specification as filed.
Still further regarding Claim 1, the phrase “a compressive force” does not find support in the original specification as filed.
Regarding Claim 4, the phrase “the at least a first locking tooth” does not find support in the original specification as filed.
Further regarding Claim 4, the phrase “said cavity” does not find support in the original specification as filed.
Regarding Claim 8, the phrase “a second locking tooth” does not find support in the original specification as filed.
Further regarding Claim 8, the phrase “the at least a first locking tooth” does not find support in the original specification as filed.
Regarding Claim 9, the phrase “at least a first locking tooth” does not find support in the original specification as filed.
Further regarding Claim 9, the phrase “a plurality of complementary cavities” does not find support in the original specification as filed.
Still further regarding Claim 9, the phrase “a compressive force” does not find support in the original specification as filed.
Still further regarding Claim 9, the phrase “the first and second elongate support members are free to rotate” does not find support in the original specification as filed.
Regarding Claim 10, the phrase “the at least a first locking tooth” does not find support in the original specification as filed.
Further regarding Claim 10, the phrase “a compressive force” does not find support in the original specification as filed.
Regarding Claim 12, the phrase “the at least a first locking tooth” does not find support in the original specification as filed.
Further regarding Claim 12, the phrase “said cavity” does not find support in the original specification as filed.
Still further regarding Claim 12, the phrase “a compressive force” does not find support in the original specification as filed.
Regarding Claim 15, the phrase “spring disc” does not find support in the original specification as filed.
Regarding Claim 16, the phrase “button cover” does not find support in the original specification as filed.
Further regarding Claim 16, the phrase “a compressive force” does not find support in the original specification as filed.
Regarding Claim 18, the phrase “the compressive force” does not find support in the original specification as filed.
The remaining claims inherit the rejection by dependency.
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 1-6, 8-13, (14?) and 15-19 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.
Specifically, the interaction between the tooth and cavities is not understood. The original drawings and specification do not explain the operation of this structure. How can the tooth remain in the cavity when the spring mechanism wants to urge the arms back to their original orientation? This is never explained.
Further, what is Applicant’s intent regarding Claim 14. Claim 14 is newly introduced, but also currently canceled. Why is this even present? How is this supposed to be interpreted?
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, 6, 8, 9, 13, and 15-19 is/are rejected, to the degree definite, under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang (WO 2021073560).
Regarding Claim 1, Wang teaches a garment hanger (Figures) comprising:
a hook (Detail 11) for suspending the hanger from a support member;
first and second elongate support members (Details 21, 22) disposed in opposed orientation relative to one another, substantially 180 degrees apart about an axis (Figure 5),
wherein said first and second elongate support members are coupled axially about a pivot and configured for 90 degrees rotation between a first downward position (Figure 1) and to a second extended position to support the shoulder line of a garment (Figure 5);
the first elongate support member comprising at least a first locking tooth (left side of Figure 4) and the second elongate support member comprising a plurality of cavities (right side of Figure 4), the at least a first locking tooth being seated in one of the plurality of cavities to releasably retain the garment hanger in a selected one of the first downward position and the second extended position, and being withdrawn from said cavity upon application of a compressive force to permit rotation of the first and second elongate support members (press Detail 5 in Figure 3).
Regarding Claim 2, Wang teaches a spring mechanism immovably coupled to the first and second elongate support members and configured to bias rotation of the first and second elongate support members from the first downward position toward the second extended position (Detail 4).
Regarding Claim 3, Wang 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 this function).
Regarding Claim 4, Wang teaches the at least a first locking tooth, when withdrawn from said cavity, is operable to release the first and second elongate support members to swing into the extended position once the garment neckline is positioned relative thereto (Figures 1, 5).
Regarding Claim 6, Wang teaches the hanger is foldable to a collapsed position for storage and portability (Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 8, Wang teaches a second locking tooth on the first elongate support member spaced from the at least a first locking tooth (left side of Figure 4).
Regarding Claim 9, Wang teaches a garment hanger (Figures) comprising:
a hook (Detail 11) for suspending the hanger from a support member;
a base (Details 121, 122) having a spoke (Detail 33) extending axially therefrom, wherein the hook is movably coupled to the base (Figure 3);
first and second elongate support members disposed in opposed orientation relative to one another, substantially 180 degrees apart about an axis, coupled axially to the spoke (Figure 3), configured to rotate 90 degrees about the spoke between a first extended position (Figure 5) and a second closed position (Figure 1);
a torsion spring (Detail 4) coupled at opposite ends to the first and second elongate support members, configured to bias rotation of the first and second elongate support members toward the first extended position;
at least a first locking tooth (left side of Figure 4) on the first elongate support member and a plurality of complementary cavities (right side of Figure 4) on the second elongate support member; and
a spring-biased actuator operable (Detail 5), upon application of a compressive force, to withdraw the at least a first locking tooth from one of the plurality of complementary cavities, thereby moving the first and second elongate support members from an engaged state to a disengaged state in which the first and second elongate support members are free to rotate.
Regarding Claim 13, Wang teaches a base (Details 121, 122) having a spoke (Detail 33) extending axially therefrom for axially coupling the first and second elongate support members, wherein the hook is coupled to the base (Figure 3).
Regarding Claim 15, Wang teaches a spring disc (Detail 223) held against rotation and carrying at least one compression spring that biases the at least a first locking tooth toward seated engagement in one of the plurality of cavities.
Regarding Claim 16, Wang teaches a button cover (Detail 5) coupled to one of the first and second elongate support members and arranged to receive the compressive force.
Regarding Claim 17, Wang teaches the spring mechanism comprises a torsion spring (Detail 4).
Regarding Claim 18, Wang teaches the compressive force is applied axially to a spring-biased actuator disposed on the axis about which the first and second elongate support members rotate (Figure 3, Detail 5 is compressed).
Regarding Claim 19, Wang teaches the hook is integrated into one of the first and second elongate support members (by means of Details 121, 122).
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 Wang in view of Neighbors (20140061259).
Regarding Claim 5, while Wang 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) 10-12 is/are rejected, to the degree definite, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Groot et al (NL 1016462).
Regarding Claims 10-12, while Wang 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 Wang, 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 tooth/cavity/compressive force as taught, or the hanger could not be unfolded. Figure 3 shows the hanger is folded for storage when not in use.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 20 July 2026 have been fully considered. These arguments are based on elements which are not present in the specification and drawings as originally filed. To the degree definite, Wang teaches the invention as detailed above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 through 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
Prosecution Insights