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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner notes that “claim 25 has been deleted” is stated in the remarks in line 5, but applicant’s claims of 11/18/2025 include claim 25. Examiner includes claim 25 in this office action and suggests that applicant be more accurate in claim listing.
Applicant asserts that “provide a second intermediate head 56 that is received in a second recess 40 in the hinge member 32b” is not obvious as taught by Newby in view of Kester for the following reasons:
-A second recess would be required in hinge member 32b, which increases cost of manufacture. Applicant does not correlate a second recess to “cost of manufacture”. Examiner notes that less material is required in the container of Newby with a second recess, and therefore at least the material costs are lower in the modification. Applicant does not refute this fact.
Applicant asserts “no suggestion… that positioning barbs within a hinge member would reduce theft”. Applicant does not disclose any structure in consideration of “reducing theft” in the original specification, but asserts in the remarks 7/18/2025 on the final page, “by ensuring that the barbs are positioned within respective hinge members, a thief is effectively prevented…”, therefore applicant himself states that the “positioning” of barbs within the hinge member prevents theft. Examiner contends that the prior art of Newby already teaches positioning barbs within the hinge member as taught by Newby, and therefore, it is known to duplicate the known structure (barb within a hinge member) for the identical reason of the first structure (barb within a hinge member).
Applicant asserts that the barbs of Kester are added verbatim to the pin 50 of Newby, and they “extend beyond the distal hinge member” based on Kester figure 2. The current modification changes the first barb of Newby to the structure of Kester figure 2. Further, the modification adds the barb of Kester figure 2 to the hinge pin of Newby, to engage a second recess in the same manner as the existing barb in Newby. Therefore, there is no part of the barbs of either Kester or Newby that extend beyond a hinge member to engage an exterior of a hinge member. All barbs engage of the modification engage a recess, as taught in Newby.
Applicant asserts “cantilever” and “gap” are shown; examiner notes that applicant claims barbs “comprises a detent formation the comprises a cantilever”. Applicant has previously claimed “barbs extending form the elongate member away from the distal end towards the proximal end”, and therefore, the “cantilever” and “barb” are identical in scope. Further, applicant does not defined nor show a “detent formation”. No part number or figure discloses “detent formation”. Applicant’s specification states “detent formation and a shoulder to engage that detent formation”. Therefore, it is unclear if the barb, the cantilever, and the “detent formation” are identical in scope, or not. Applicant’s specification also states “detent formation may comprise a projecting member”, which confuses if the detent formation is the same as a projecting member, barb, and cantilever, or something else. Applicant’s specification also states “the interacting securing formations 26 of the hinge pin 22 comprise two detent formations in the form of a first and second barbs 40”. Therefore, “detent formation” and “barbs” are considered the same thing, and therefore, this phrase is not further limiting.
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 “detent formation” 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.
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, 13-15, 17, 20-23, 25 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.
Regarding claims 1, 23, 25, applicant claims the use of barbs “extending from the elongate member away from the distal end towards the proximal end”, and then claims “barbs comprises a detent formation that comprises a cantilever”. Examiner notes that this just uses a series of different names for the same part, according to all recitations of the specification. Applicant has previously claimed “barbs extending form the elongate member away from the distal end towards the proximal end”, and therefore, the “cantilever” and “barb” are identical in scope. Further, applicant does not defined nor show a “detent formation”. No part number or figure discloses “detent formation”. Applicant’s specification states “detent formation and a shoulder to engage that detent formation”. Therefore, it is unclear if the barb, the cantilever, and the “detent formation” are identical in scope, or not. Applicant’s specification also states “detent formation may comprise a projecting member”, which confuses if the detent formation is the same as a projecting member, barb, and cantilever, or something else. Applicant’s specification also states “the interacting securing formations 26 of the hinge pin 22 comprise two detent formations in the form of a first and second barbs 40”. Therefore, “detent formation” and “barbs” are considered the same thing, and therefore, this phrase is not further limiting.
For purposes of examination, examiner notes that “cantilever” is the shape of the barb, the same shape as taught by prior art below. Examiner assumes that “barb and “detent formation” are identical in scope, and the term “detent formation” is not definite, but “barb” is definite.
Further, applicant has already required “barbs extending form the elongate member away from the distal end towards the proximal end”, therefore, repeating this phrase at the end of the claim is not further limiting.
Dependent claims inherit the same issues from parent claims and do not resolve any indefinite issues.
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) 1, 13-14, 20-23, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
6315154 Newby in view of NL2000207 Kester, in further view of 2014/0173852 Heninger.
PNG
media_image1.png
434
631
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 1 and 23, Newby discloses a container comprising a wall 22, a lid 24 and a hinge (detailed in figures 4-5), the hinge comprising a plurality of hinge members (members 36a, 38, 36b attached to lid 24, members 32a, 34, 32b attached to wall 22, shown in figures 4 and 5):
a hinge pin 50 having a proximal end region and a distal end region (having a length), the hinge extending through the hinge (as shown in figure 6), thereby pivotally attaching the second part/lid to the first part/wall (column 6 line 5);
wherein the hinge pin comprises an elongate member 52;
wherein one of the hinge members (knuckles of lid) includes an end opening (at knuckle 36a), the proximal region being disposed at said end opening (as shown in figure 4);
wherein the hinge pin 50 includes a stop formation member 54 which is adapted to engage the hinge at said end opening (as shown in figure 4), the stop formation and the end opening being correspondingly shaped (both are circular in cross section);
wherein the hinge pin 50 comprises first barb 58 extending from the elongate member 52 away from the distal end (taper extends towards the proximal end, as shown in figure 4) towards the proximal end, and the hinge comprises shoulder 40 for engaging the first barb, the barb being disposed within a hinge member (within hinge member 36a), the barb interacting with the shoulder (figure 6) to inhibit extraction of the hinge pin from the hinge (abstract); and
wherein the first barb 58 is provided at the proximal end region of the hinge pin (as shown in figures 4 and 6). Newby’s tapered section 58 forces the knuckle 36a to “open” during insertion of pin 50, and then to expand within recess 40 within the knuckle 36a, making the pin “retained in the pin channel 42” (column 5 line 64 to column 6 line 6).
Newby discloses the barbs are a “detent formation” (please see 112b rejection above), that has an end that is spaced away from a surface of the hinge pin to provide a gap (creating the surface that abuts the surface of the recess 40), the barbs extend away from the distal end of the hinge pin (angled in the manner of figures 4 and 5).
PNG
media_image2.png
643
298
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Newby does not disclose that the hinge pin includes a second barb provided at the distal end region, with a second shoulder for engaging the second barb, the second barb also is “disposed within a respective hinge member”. Newby does not disclose that the shapes of the stop formation member 54 is correspondingly shaped to the end opening “to prevent rotation of the hinge pin”. Newby does not disclose that the barb is “cantilevered” shape.
Kester discloses a hinge pin 19 (abstract, figure 3) having an elongated body 23 with a proximal region having a head/stopping formation 24, and distal end region 25 having multiple barbs 27. Pin 19 of Kester is inserted into through holes of hinge knuckles of parts 18 and 16, as shown in figure 2. Barbs 27 engage the exterior end surface of the knuckle of first part 16. These barbs are used to create a “one way connection”. In conjunction with stop 24, or the lips 26 in figure 3, this one way connection therefore retains the hinge pin of Kester within the pin channel of the hinge of Kester (as shown in figure 2). Kester discloses the barbs are a “detent formation” (see 112b rejection above) that comprises a cantilever (figure 3) that has an end spaced away from the surface of the hinge pin to provide a gap, and the cantilever extends away from the distal end of the hinge pin. The end surface of the cantilever shaped barb 27 engages the abutting surface of Kester.
PNG
media_image3.png
362
585
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize a second barb 56 and shoulder 40 of Newby on the Newby hinge pin 52 and hinge member 32b, in the distal hinge pin location shown by the Kester barb 27 on the Kester hinge pin 19, as both locations are known to perform the same function (retain the pin of Newby/Kester within the pin channel with a one way attachment) with the same structure (barbs). Examiner contends that multiple barb/shoulder combination of Newby in multiple places add redundancy and ensures the hinge pin stays in place. Examiner notes that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI) (b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to change the shape of the barb 58 of Newby to be an old and well known cantilevered shape shown in figure 3 of Kester, as these shapes are old and well known equivalents to each other. A change of shape is considered a matter of choice. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV) (b). Examiner contends that these are known equivalents and are used for the same purpose within the ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144 (I): “rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art…it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art”.
Heninger discloses a hinge having a hinge pin 42 having a stop formation 56 having a particular shape with splines 54 which is used to engage the inside splines 28 of the knuckle 22, which are used to prevent rotation and prevent the falling out of the hinge [0046] [0051].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include a shape of the stop formation of Newby in the manner of Heninger, in order to prevent rotation of the hinge pin as suggested to be old and well known in the art taught by Newby. Examiner notes that Newby discloses it is known for hinges to “retaining the pin in position” through the use of interference fit (column 2, lines 40-56). Therefore, Newby teaches that it is old and well known to make the hinge pin stationary, in a manner that is old and well known in the art, to at least one of the container or lid without affecting the use of the hinge pin of Newby.
Note that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. MPEP 2114. Examiner notes the phrases in italics above, and throughout the action, are considered intended use. Examiner contends that the structure capable of performing the intended use is met in the prior art, and is described how the structure disclosed performs the claimed functions in the parentheses; therefore, all italicized language is considered and shown in the prior art. Further, examiner notes that the disclosed structure is capable of performing the intended use claimed by applicant.
Regarding claim 13, Newby as modified discloses the container according to claim 1, wherein the stop formation member 54 is provided at the proximal end region of the elongate member (as shown in figure 4 of Newby).
Regarding claim 14, Newby as modified discloses container according to claim 1, wherein the hinge (as shown above) has a proximal hinge member 36a at which the proximal end region of the elongate member 52 is disposed when the hinge pin is received by the hinge (as shown in figure 6), and the hinge has a distal hinge member 32b at which the distal end region of the elongate member 52 is disposed when the hinge pin is received by the hinge (as shown in figure 6), and the hinge has opposite ends, the end opening being defined in the proximal hinge member 63a (as shown in figure 6).
Regarding claim 20, Newby as modified discloses the container of claim 1, wherein a first of the shoulders 40 of Newby (engaging first barb 58 of Newby) is provided at one end of the hinge (in order to engage the first barb 58 of Newby), and a second of the shoulders (exterior surface of 32b already existing in Newby, but performing the function of “shoulder” by the modification of the hinge pin with Kester) is provided at the opposite end of the hinge (as shown in Newby figures 4 and 6).
Regarding claim 21, Newby as modified discloses the container according to claim 1, wherein the first and second hinge members (hinge knuckles of both container 22 and lid 24) are aligned to receive the hinge pin (as shown in figures 4, 5, 6), each of the first hinge members and each of the second hinge members defines a respective channel (through hole) through which the hinge pin extends (as shown in figure 6).
Regarding claim 22, Newby as modified discloses the container according to claim 1, wherein the first part (container 22) comprises a plurality of the first hinge members (shown in figures 4, 5, 6), and the second part (lid 24) comprises a plurality of the second hinge members (shown in figures 4, 5, 6), the first and second hinge members alternating with respect to one another to form the hinge (as shown in figure 6).
Regarding claim 25, applicant claims only the hinge pin used in claims 1 and 23, which is Newby hinge pin with a second barb 56 and shoulder 40 in the proximal position, as taught by Kester’s barb in the distal position, both of which interact with shoulders, as discussed above. Claim 25 is narrower than claim 1. Claims 1 and 25 are both shown and obvious, as discussed in the rejection of claim 23, above.
Claim(s) 15, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newby modified by Kester as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of 3188686 Orcutt.
Regarding claims 15 and 17, Newby as modified (only the hinge pin of Newby is modified in the rejection above) discloses a container according to claims 1 and 14, wherein each of the proximal hinge member (36a of Newby, having first shoulder 40) and distal hinge member (32b of Newby having second shoulder “exterior surface”) are not on the same hinge member. 36a is on the lid of Newby, and 32b is on the container of Newby. Newby discloses the use of three alternating knuckles on each side, forcing the proximal end of the hinge to be a knuckle from the lid, and the distal end of the hinge to be a knuckle from the container.
Orcutt discloses a hinge with a barbed hinge pin, having one half of the hinge with three knuckles, and the second half of the hinge with two knuckles. This forces the alternating knuckles of Orcutt to have the proximal AND distal knuckles of the hinge of Orcutt on the same side of the hinge.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to remove the last knuckle 32b of Newby to create a hinge having three knuckles on the lid and two knuckles on the container of Newby, as this is an old and well known arrangement of hinge knuckles, shown in Orcutt. Examiner notes it is obvious to omit a feature if the function of the feature is not desired. Please see MPEP2144.04(II)a. Examiner notes that the removal of knuckle 32b does NOT remove the “shoulder” required for the second barb of Kester, since the exterior side of knuckle 36b will serve this function. This modification only requires removing knuckle 32b of Newby and shortening the modified hinge pin 50 of Newby. Examiner contends that these are known equivalents and are used for the same purpose within the ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144 (I): “rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art…it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art”.
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 EMILY M MORGAN whose telephone number is (303)297-4260. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8-5 MST.
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, Jason San can be reached at (571)272-6531. 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.
/EMILY M MORGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3677