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 with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
The rejection of Claim 1 under 35 USC 112 is withdrawn in light of the Amendments.
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) 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emain (US 4428094 A) in view of Wu (CN 206320171 U) and Gerard (FR 2808598 A1, See Attached Espacenet Machine Translation).
Re Claim 1, Emain discloses on Fig. 1, and 7-8, a hinge (Fig. 7-9 and 12) for pivotally connecting a temple bar and the rims (see Fig. 1, present embodiment is for a spectacles hinge between side 2 and frame 4) [Col 1, Lines 5-20] in an eyeglass frame or two sections of a temple bar, where the hinge comprises: in a distal end of a first part (element 3) is provided an upper flange (arm 3a) and a lower flange (arm 3b), where the flanges are spaced apart by the distance (x) (upper flange and lower flange are space apart by along the height of Fig. 7-8) , and where a first aperture is provided in the upper flange (3a has an aperture), the aperture having a diameter (y);
in a distal end of a second part (male tenon 1a) [Col 2-3, Lines 65-30] through-going second aperture is provided, the through-going aperture defining an inner cylindrical wall (male tenon 1a creates a through going second aperture wall), where the second aperture has a diameter (z) (distance between male tenons 1a), and where the distance (k) between an upper surface and a lower surface (distance between top and bottom of tenon 1a) of the second part is smaller than the distance (x) between the flanges (la fits between flanges 3a and 3b);
a bushing (Fig. 7-8: friction ring 12) made from a resilient polymer material (semi elastic plastic, all plastics are polymers) [Col 3, Lines 15-25] is arranged in the through-going second aperture (friction ring 12 is between tenon 1a), where the resilient polymer material is retained under compression and urges against the inner cylindrical wall of the through going second aperture (Fig. 7-8: friction ring 12 is pressed into tenon 1a by pin 13),
the bushing having an axis of symmetry (friction ring 12 is symmetrical about either side of pin 13),
and where the extent of the bushing along the axis of symmetry is equal to or larger than the distance (k) between an upper surface and a lower surface of the second part (length of friction ring 12 is equal to the length of tenon 1a) but smaller than the distance (x) between the flanges (friction ring 12 fits between flanges 3a and 3b), the bushing having an inner opening with a diameter (l) perpendicular to the axis of symmetry (friction ring 12 has an opening perpendicular to the axis of symmetrical which bisects and is along the length of pin 13);
a locking pin ( pin 13 in Fig. 7-9), the locking pin having a head section (Fig. 7: pin 13 has portion between flange 3a) and a cylindrical body section ( cylinder of pin 13 from 13a to 13b ) defining an axis of symmetry (axis of symmetry would bisect pin 13 vertically), where the head section in a cross section perpendicular to the axis of symmetry has a dimension such that the head section may be accommodated in the first aperture (Fig. 7: pin 13 fits in the aperture created by arm 3a),
and where the extend of the body section along the axis of symmetry is equal to or larger than the distance (x) between the flanges (cylinder of pin 13 extends from arm 3a down to arm 3b) , and where the diameter (n) of the body section perpendicular to the axis of symmetry is equal to or larger than the diameter (l) of the inner opening of the bushing (diameter of body of pin 13 is equal to aperture of friction ring 12); such that by inserting the bushing (12) in the second aperture the distal end of the second part (tenon 1a), and inserting the distal end of the second part (tenon 1a) in between the upper surface (arm 3a) and the lower surface (arm 3a) in the distal end of the first part (element 3), the aperture in the upper flange (3a) will be superposed the inner opening of the bushing (aperture in in arm 3a superimpose inner opening of friction ring 12),
whereby the locking pin's body section may be inserted inside the inner opening of the bushing (pin 13 is inserted in the opening of friction ring 12), and thereby pivotably connect the two parts (thus connection arm 3a and 3b to tenon 1a) [Col 4, Lines 25-60], wherein the head section (Fig. 7-8: top of pin 13) of the locking pin (pin 13) is press fitted into the first aperture provided in the upper flange (pin 13 presses against arm 3a in Fig. 7-8),
wherein the diameter (n) of the body section of the locking pin perpendicular to the axis of symmetry (diameter of pin 13) is larger than the diameter (l) of the inner opening of the bushing (diameter of pin 13 is wider than bore 15 of friction ring 12), and where the bushing may be deformed (Fig. 8: ring 12 is compressed), such that excessive material is squeezed into the space created by the differences in length between the distance (x) between the flanges and the distance (k) between the upper surface and the lower surface of the second part (Fig. 7: excess material of pin 13 is squeezed between arms 13a and 13b, and the top/bottom of tenon 1a), and thereby forming a resilient bearing between the first and second part and increasing the frictional engagement between the locking pin, the bushing, and the second part (pin 13 presses into friction ring 12 which presses into tenon 1a, See Fig. 8-9).
But Fig. 7-8, of Emain does not explicitly disclose,
Wherein the depression is located on an interior bottom surface of the lower flange and does not extend through a thickness of the lower flange,
wherein the surface roughness of the wall of the second aperture has a larger roughness value Ra than the roughness value Ra of the locking pin thereby having a higher friction between the bushing and the wall of the second aperture than between the inner opening in the bushing and the locking pin, and wherein a depression is formed on a side of the lower flange facing the upper flange , wherein the depression is a non-throughgoing recess , which head section has a diameter which is larger than the diameter of the cylindrical body section , thereby fixing the locking pin with respect to the first aperture such that the locking pin cannot rotate in the first aperture , and cannot rotate in relation to the first part, wherein the extent of the cylindrical body section is such that when the head section of the locking pin is press-fitted into the first aperture a distal end of the cylindrical body section of the locking pin will engage the depression formed in the lower flange, wherein the distal end of the cylindrical body section of the locking pin includes a bottom surface of the locking pin, wherein the depression is configured to accommodate the distal end of the locking pin including the bottom surface of the locking pin.
However, Fig. 12 and 14 of Emain teaches another embodiment wherein: a depression (Fig 12: depression in arm 3b where semi-elastic ring 19 is located) is formed on a side of the lower flange facing the upper flange (depression is formed in tendon 3b facing tendon 3a), wherein the depression is a non-throughgoing recess (depression where ring 19 is located terminates before the exit surface of tendon 3b), which head section (head) has a diameter which is larger than the diameter of the cylindrical body section (Fig. 12: head section 18a has a larger diameter than cylindrical body of pin 18, see Fig. 13), thereby fixing the locking pin with respect to the first aperture such that the locking pin cannot rotate in the first aperture (head 18a is rendered fast with tenon 1a) [Col 4, Lines 45-55], and cannot rotate in relation to the first part (head 18a is rendered fast with tenon 1a) [Col 4, Lines 45-55], wherein the extent of the cylindrical body section is such that when the head section of the locking pin is press-fitted into the first aperture (head 18a is rendered fast with tenon 1a) [Col 4, Lines 45-55] a distal end of the cylindrical body section of the locking pin will engage the depression formed in the lower flange (distal end of cylindrical body of pin 18 is pressed against semi-elastic ring 19 thus engaging the depression), wherein the depression is configured to accommodate the distal end of the locking pin (ring 19 is semi elastic and flush with ring tend 3b in Fig. 12, thus the distal end of pin 18 would at least partially be accommodated in the depression where ring 19 is provided).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to at the time of the invention [Col 4, Lines 55-60] to combine these two embodiments of Emain, in order to provide, the pin rendering fast with the upper flange [Par Col 4, Lines 50-55], or provide alternative arrangements of the hinge.
But modified Emain does not explicitly disclose, wherein the surface roughness of the wall of the second aperture has a larger roughness value Ra than the roughness value Ra of the locking pin thereby having a higher friction between the bushing and the wall of the second aperture than between the inner opening in the bushing and the locking pin, wherein the depression is located on an interior bottom surface of the lower flange and does not extend through a thickness of the lower flange, wherein the distal end of the cylindrical body section of the locking pin includes a bottom surface of the locking pin, wherein the depression is configured to accommodate the distal end of the locking pin including the bottom surface of the locking pin.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Gerard teaches, on Fig. 3, that it is desirable in hinges for the depression (housing 18) to be located on an interior bottom surface of the lower flange (other ear 5’) and does not extend through a thickness of the lower flange (Fig. 3 shows that housing 18 only partially extends through ear 5’) [Par 8],
wherein the distal end of the cylindrical body section of the locking pin includes a bottom surface of the locking pin (Fig. 3 shows articulation axis 6 with a bottom surface that is a cylindrical body)[Par 8], wherein the depression is configured to accommodate the distal end of the locking pin including the bottom surface of the locking pin (Fig. 3 shows housing 18 accommodating the distal end of articulation axis 6) [Par 8].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Emain with Gerard in order to provide, tightening of the flangers or ears, as taught by Gerard [Par 8].
But Emain in view of Gerard, does not explicitly disclose, wherein the surface roughness of the wall of the second aperture has a larger roughness value Ra than the roughness value Ra of the locking pin thereby having a higher friction between the bushing and the wall of the second aperture than between the inner opening in the bushing and the locking pin.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103."KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2143(I)(E).
Emain and Wu are in the same field of endeavor: hinges. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art to solve the problem of hinge rotation emitting micro-metal dust, thus hindering a clean production environment [Wu: Page 2, Par 2]. There were a finite number of identified and predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem evidenced by Wu teaching the coefficient of friction between a shaft sleeve and bushing being less than the coefficient of friction between the pin and the bushing/sleeve [Par 2, Par 3-4]. The results would have been predictable, and since Wu teaches the relationship between friction forces, rotation, and micro-metal production, it is a solution with finite predictable outcomes; hinge rotation producing less micro-metal dust, more micro metal dust, etc. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to try, swapping which rotation point has a higher coefficient of friction, because the bushing and aperture contact point having a larger coefficient of friction than the pin and the bushing contact point, is one of the finite number of choices of which could have been pursued with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to reduce micro-metal dust.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try a device where the coefficient of friction between the bushing and the aperture wall is greater than the coefficient of friction between the pin and the bushing.
Re Claim 3, Emain in view of Gerard and Wu discloses, the hinge according to claim 1, and Emain further discloses on fig. 7-9, wherein the lower flange (arm 3b) is provided with a depression (bore 15 process through arm 3b), suitable to accommodate the distal end of the locking pin (tip 13a of pin 13 fits into the bore 15 in arm 3b), the depression being formed on the side of the lower flange facing the upper flange (bore 15 continues through the side of arm 3b facing arm 3a).
Re Claim 4, Emain in view of Gerard and Wu discloses, the hinge according to claim 1, and Emain further discloses on fig. 8, wherein the outer diameter of the bushing
I
2
(outer diameter of friction ring 12) perpendicular to the axis of symmetry when not arranged in the second aperture, is larger than the diameter (z), of the second aperture (outer diameter of friction ring 12, if removed from aperture of tenon 1a, is wider than the aperture of tenon 1a).
Re Claim 5, Emain in view of Gerard and Wu discloses, the hinge according to claim 1, and Emain further discloses, where the bushing (Friction rings 12) is made from a polymer material (friction rings 12 is a semi-elastic plastic and Plastics are a group of materials that are primarily comprised of polymers) ) [Col 3, Lines 15-25] are with a shore A hardness of 50 or more (semi-elastic plastics are measured on the Shore D hardness scale, which starts at Shore A 60).
But Emain in view of Wu does not explicitly disclose, wherein, the first and second parts are made of titanium.
However, Emain teaches wherein a friction component and thus friction forces are in contact with the first and second part, and hinge components are made of metal [Col 1, Lines 25-55]. Further, it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In re Leshin , 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (Selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious). MPEP §2144.07.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Emain in view of Wu, in order to control friction, seizing, and stress in hinge components [Col 1, Lines 15-40].
Re Claim 6, Emain in view of Gerard and Wu discloses, the hinge according to claim 1, and Emain further discloses, where the bushing (Friction rings 12) is made from a polymer material (friction rings 12 is a semi-elastic plastic and Plastics are a group of materials that are primarily comprised of polymers) ) [Col 3, Lines 15-25] are with a shore A hardness of 60 or more (semi-elastic plastics are measured on the Shore D hardness scale, which starts at Shore A 60).
But Emain in view of Wu does not explicitly disclose, wherein, the first and second parts are made of titanium.
However, Emain teaches wherein a friction component and thus friction forces are in contact with the first and second part, and hinge components are made of metal [Col 1, Lines 25-55]. Further, it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In re Leshin , 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (Selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious). MPEP §2144.07.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Emain in view of Wu, in order to control friction, seizing, and stress in hinge components [Col 1, Lines 15-40].
Claim(s) 5-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emain in view of Gerard and Wu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim (WO 2011132936 A2).
Re Claim 5, Emain in view of Wu discloses, the hinge according to claim 1, and Emain further discloses wherein the bushing is made from polymer (semi-elastic plastic), where the bushing is made from a material with a shore A hardness of 50 or more (semi-elastic plastics are measured on the Shore D hardness scale, which starts at Shore A 60).
But Emain in view of Wu does not explicitly disclose, wherein the first and second parts are made from titanium.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Kim teaches, on Fig. 1, that it is desirable in spectacle hinges for the first and second parts to be made from titanium (contact member 9 and snap member 10 are made of beta-titanium) [Page 3, Par 6].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Emain in view of Wu, with Kim in order to provide a high frictional force for smooth rotation, as taught by Kim [Page 2, Par 2].
Re Claim 6, Emain in view of Wu discloses, the hinge according to claim 1, and Emain further discloses wherein the bushing is made from polymer (semi-elastic plastic), where the bushing is made from a material with a shore A hardness of 60 or more (semi-elastic plastics are measured on the Shore D hardness scale, which starts at Shore A 60).
But Emain in view of Wu does not explicitly disclose, wherein the first and second parts are made from titanium.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Kim teaches, on Fig. 1, that it is desirable in spectacle hinges for the first and second parts to be made from titanium (contact member 9 and snap member 10 are made of beta-titanium) [Page 3, Par 6].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Emain in view of Wu, with Kim in order to provide a high frictional force for smooth rotation, as taught by Kim [Page 2, Par 2].
Re claim 8, Emain in view of Gerard and Wu discloses, the hinge according to claim 1, and Emain further discloses on Fig. 1, a rim or rimless eyeglass frames (Fig. 1: face 4), the frames comprising rims suitable to receive lenses or being mounted in the lenses, and two temple bars arranged on either side of the rims (Fig. 1: sides 2 are connected to face 4 by the taught hinge), where the temple bars either are connected to the rims or lenses by two hinges according to claim 1 or where each temple bar incorporates the hinge according to claim 1.
The teaching of Emain would inherently comprise, rims suitable to receive lenses, this being reasonably assumed from the disclosure of hinges for spectacles [Col 1-2, Lines 60-10].
But Emain in view of Gerard and Wu does not explicitly disclose, wherein frames are made from a resilient metal material.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Kim teaches, on Fig. 1, that it is desirable in spectacles, for frames to be made from a resilient metal material (frame 1 is made of a nickel-based metal) [Page 3, Par 6].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Emain with Kim in order to provide improved lubrication as taught by Kim [Page 3, Par 6]
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emain, Gerard, Wu, and Kim, as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Ohba (US 4978209 A).
Re Claim 7, Emain in view of Wu and Kim, disclose, the hinge according to claim 6.
But modified Emain does not explicitly disclose, wherein the polymer material is a polyamide: PA6 or PA11.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Ohba teaches, on Fig. 1, that it is desirable in spectacle hinges for the polymer material to be a polyamide: PA6 or PA11 (bearing member 20 can be made of 6-nylon, otherwise known as PA6) [Col 2, Lines 10-25].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Emain in view of Gerard, Wu, and Kim, with Ohba in order to facilitate production, minimize weight, and reduce cost, as taught by Ohba [Col 2, Lines 10-25].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Beyer (US 4256388 A) teaches a hinge with flanges.
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 RAY ALEXANDER DEAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571)-272-2713. 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.
/RAY ALEXANDER DEAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BALRAM T PARBADIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights