DETAILED ACTION The earlier examination under regular examination p ractice by examiner L. Calve is vacated. This application for reissue is now being examined under reissue examination practice. This reissue was filed to broaden the scope of the claim which issued in D939,845. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, (a) and (b), as the claimed invention is not described in such full, clear, concise and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to make and use the same, and fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. The claim is indefinite and nonenabling because the amended drawing disclosure fails to convey the scope of the design in clear terms. Many aspects of the desig n are vacated in the amended drawings. While some components, such as the hooks , are completely and acceptably reduced to broken line form, other components such as the main body and the U-shaped hardware are only partially reduced to broken line form. N o boundary lines are disclosed across the surfaces of the main body where the claimed matter transitions to unclaimed matter , so any interpretation of the new scope is purely speculative . The description of the intended scope is confined to the points where the lines a t the corners transition from solid to broken lin e form . If the surfaces of the claimed design are intended to terminate alone straight lines connect ing the ends of the solid line s at the corners , boundary lines would be required across these boundaries (MPEP 1503.02 III ) . However, a s big of a problem as this is in regarding the front surface, it is even a bigger problem in regard to the side surfaces because the rear edge is completely unclaimed , thus it is impossible to connect the ends of two solid lines to create a boundary. Furthermore , if present, these new boundaries would not be located in places where boundaries existed when application 29/750,846 was originally filed , so they would fail to meet the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a). In other words, the addition of new boundary lines near the ends of the hanger on the front or side surfaces would not be a permissible response to this rejection . Per the standard established in In re Owens, No. 12-1261 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (MPEP 1502.03 III) regardless of whether boundaries are claimed or unclaimed, boundary lines only satisfy the written description requirement only if they make explicit a boundary that already exists, but was unclaimed, in the original disclosure. While the hooks and pivot component are ok to reduce to broken line form because they are entirely reduced to broken line form , there are no preexisting boundaries near the end s of the main structure so it is not permissible to introduce the new boundaries now . Similarly, there are no preexisting boundaries on the U-shaped components , it also is not possible to disclaim the curved center portions without the introduction of prohibited new matter. U nder 35 U.S.C. 251 a reissue may not be based upon new matter added to the patent for which reissue is sought. It is unclear why the lines defining the outer edge along the bottom of the main element are reduced to broken line form if the adjoining surfaces on either side of the lines remain claimed . N othing is perceivably accomplished by reducing this edge to broken line form unless portions of the surfaces are vacated in addition to the corner line . S ince the surface shading is spaced away from the outer edges, it is unclear whether the edges alone are disclaimed, or i f the space between the shading and the outer edge is also vacated . This change makes the scope of the claimed design indefinite. If the inten t is just to disclaim the edge lines , then the shade line s need to be reoriented and corrected so they traverse the width of entire surface from edge to edge , and thus make it clear that the full surfaces are claimed. Drawings I t is recommended that the shading on all of the surfaces be turned ninety degrees so that they align with the widths of the surface s , rather than align with the length. Shade lines traversing entire surfaces (as shown above) provide a clearer description of the appearance than small patches of shade lines floating in large space s . The “Amended” labels on the originally filed amended drawings are appropriate for reissue practice and should appear on any new drawings that are filed in this application. Specification The amendment s filed May 27, 2022 do not comply with 37 CFR. 1.173. The added matter must be underlined. 37 CFR 1.173: Any changes relative to the patent being reissued which are made to the specification, including the claims, upon filing, or by an amendment paper in the reissue application, must include the following markings: (1) The matter to be omitted by reissue must be enclosed in brackets; and (2) The matter to be added by reissue must be underlined, except for amendments submitted on compact discs (§§ 1.96 and 1.821(c)). Conclusion The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, (a) and (b). Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to PHILIP S. HYDER at telephone number (571)272-2621. 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 contact the examiner directly or 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, Justin Jonaitis can be reached on 571-270-5150. /Philip S. Hyder/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2917 March 11, 2026 psh