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 .
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
This application is a CON of 18/616,495 filed on 03/26/2024 now PAT 12,393,804 which has PRO 63/454,980 filed on 03/28/2023.
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,393,804 (hereinafter referred as '804). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the claims are expressly found in the claimed application. For instance, claim 1 of the present application recites the following limitations:
A system for processing a plurality of garments each of which is suspended on one of a plurality of hangers, each of the plurality of hangers having a hook and a neck region subjacent to the hook, the system comprising: a plurality of garment identification members each of which is in contacting engagement with one of the hangers proximate the neck region; a plurality of indicium each of which is on one of the plurality of garment identification members and located proximate the neck region of the associated hanger, wherein each of the plurality of indicium includes identification data to uniquely identify the associated garment on the associated hanger, wherein each of the plurality of indicium is unique in the system such that no two of the plurality of indicium in the system has the same identification data; and at least one reader positioned and adapted for reading the plurality of indicium on the plurality of garment identification members; wherein each of the plurality of garments is suspended subjacent to the neck region of the associated one of the plurality of hangers to allow for the reader to read the plurality of indicium on the plurality of garment identification members
Whereas claim 1 of '804 application, the applicant claims:
A system for processing a plurality of garments each of which is suspended on one of a plurality of hangers, each of the plurality of hangers having a hook and a neck region subjacent to the hook, the system comprising: a plurality of garment identification members each of which is positioned on one of the hangers proximate the neck region; a plurality of indicium each of which is on one of the plurality of garment identification members and located proximate the neck region of the associated hanger, wherein each of the plurality of indicium includes identification data to uniquely identify the associated garment on the associated hanger, wherein each of the plurality of indicium is unique in the system such that no two of the plurality of indicium in the system has the same identification data; and at least one reader positioned and adapted for reading the plurality of indicium on the plurality of garment identification members; wherein each of the plurality of garments is suspended subjacent to the neck region of the associated one of the plurality of hangers to allow for the reader to read the plurality of indicium on the plurality of garment identification members; and wherein each of the plurality of garment identification members further comprises one of: a hanger neck sleeve member mounted onto the neck region of the associated hanger, each hanger neck sleeve member having a generally U-shaped cross-section with a pair of spaced flanges generally parallel to each other and joined together at an arcuate bight portion of the hanger neck sleeve member, the neck region of the associated hanger being positioned between the spaced flanges, an outer face of the hanger neck sleeve member bearing the indicium; and a hanger neck sticker having first and second faces, the first face being wrapped around and secured to the neck region of the hanger and a first portion of the first face being adhered to a second portion of the first face, the second face bearing the indicium.
The instant claims obviously encompass the claimed invention of '804 patent and differ only by terminology. To the extent that the present claims are generic to the claimed invention of '804 patent, In re Goodman 29 USPQ 2d 2010 CAFC 1993.
The obviousness-type double patenting rejection is a judicially established doctrine based upon public policy and is primarily intended to prevent prolongation of the application term by prohibiting claims in a second application not patentably distinct from claims of a first application. In re Vogel, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970).
Claim 2 limitations are enclosed in claim 1 of '804 patent.
Claims 3-10 recite exact limitations as of claims 2-9 of '804 patent respectively.
Claim 11 is rejected under double patent in view of claim 10 of '804 patent and recites similar limitations with different terminology.
Claims 12-13 recite exact limitations as of claims 11-12 of '804 patent.
Claim 14 is rejected under double patent in view of claim 13 of '804 patent and recites similar limitations with different terminology.
Claims 15-16 limitations are enclosed in claim 13 of '804 patent.
Claims 17-20 recite exact limitations as of claims 14-18 of '804 patent with different terminology.
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, 7-10, 14-15 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Skinner (US 5,964,354).
Re Claim 1 and 14: Skinner teaches garment sorter, which includes a plurality of garment identification members each of which is positioned on one of the hangers 41 proximate the neck region (see fig.# 3); a plurality of indicium each of which is on one of the plurality of garment identification members {herein each shirt 47 has a tag or label 51} and located proximate the neck region of the associated hanger, wherein each of the plurality of indicium includes identification data to uniquely identify the associated garment on the associated hanger, wherein each of the plurality of indicium is unique in the system such that no two of the plurality of indicium in the system has the same identification data (col.2, lines 64+); and at least one reader 61a/b positioned and adapted for reading the plurality of indicium on the plurality of garment identification members (col.3, lines 10+); wherein each of the plurality of garments is suspended subjacent to the neck region of the associated one of the plurality of hangers to allow for the reader to read the plurality of indicium on the plurality of garment identification members (see fig.# 3).
Re Claim 7: Skinner teaches apparatus and method, which includes a conveyor 13 upon which each of the plurality of hangers and associated garments is suspended for movement about the system (col.2, lines 45+).
Re Claim 8: Skinner teaches apparatus and method, comprising a plurality of garment tags {herein each shirt/pant 47/49 has a tag/label 51/55} each of which is on one of the plurality of garments; and a plurality of garment indicium each of which is on one of the plurality of garment tags, wherein each of the plurality of garment indicium includes garment identification data to uniquely identify the associated garment (col.2, lines 64+).
Re Claims 9 and 19: Skinner teaches apparatus and method, wherein the at least one reader further comprises: a registration device {herein computer 33} located upstream within the system to read both the garment identification data on each of the garment tags and the identification data on each of the plurality of garment identification members to thereby associate the garment identification data with the identification data for the associated garment in the system (see col.3, lines 8+).
Re Claims 10 and 20: Skinner teaches apparatus and method, wherein each of the at least one readers {herein readers 61a, 61b} positioned in the system downstream from the registration device reads only the identification data on the garment identification members for each of the plurality of garments in that the garment identification data for each of the plurality of garments is associated with the identification data for the respective garment in the system (see col.3, lines 10+).
Re Claim 15: Skinner teaches apparatus and method, wherein each of the plurality of garments is suspended subjacent to the neck region of the associated one of the plurality of hangers to help facilitate the reading step (see fig.# 3).
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.
Claim(s) 6 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skinner (US 5,964,354) in view of Lawson (US 2018/0332990).
The teachings of Skinner have been discussed above.
Skinner fails to specifically teach a cartridge containing a first set of the plurality of garment identification members arranged serially.
Lawson teaches aroma hanger, which includes a cartridge {herein cartridge 28} containing a first set of the plurality of garment identification members arranged serially (¶ 27+).
In view of Lawson’s teachings, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to employ into the teachings of Skinner a cartridge containing a first set of the plurality of garment identification members arranged serially so as to provide a container attached to the hanger for securing customized items/materials to a specific garment or piece of clothing.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-13 are allowed.
Claims 2-5 and 16-17 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record fails to specifically teach one of (a) a hanger neck sleeve member mounted onto the neck region of the associated hanger, each hanger neck sleeve member having a generally U-shaped cross-section with a pair of spaced flanges generally parallel to each other and joined together at an arcuate bight portion of the hanger neck sleeve member, the neck region of the associated hanger being positioned between the spaced flanges, an outer face of the hanger neck sleeve member bearing the indicium; and (b) a hanger neck sticker having first and second faces, the first face being wrapped around and secured to the neck region of the hanger and a first portion of the first face being adhered to a second portion of the first face, the second face bearing the indicium. These limitations in conjunction with other limitations in the claimed invention were not shown by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fanaian et al. (US 2018/0111165) teaches electronic and digital assembly system for dry cleaning.
Warren (US 2019/0174940) teaches garment hangers and sizers and method for reusing the same.
Johnson (US 9,717,357) teaches managing a condition of a selection of clothing items.
Stenson et al. (US 7,133,740) teaches automated closet system and method.
Levy (CN 205338515 U) teaches system for hanging clothes.
Park (KR 20200101718 A) teaches hanger system and method for operating store using the same.
Eom (KR 101257908 B1) teaches smart hanger, system and method for operating store using the same.
Tudosescu (WO 2019096577 A1) teaches device for hanging an article on a display stand, and computer system for managing a stock of clothes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWYN LABAZE whose telephone number is (571)272-2395. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Mr. STEVE PAIK can be reached at 571-272-2404. 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.
/EDWYN LABAZE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876