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 2/4/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Arguments directed toward whether or not KR ‘819 teaches a damper are traversed. KR ‘819 sets forth the Background Art section a conventional tailgate glass structure (Figs. 1A-b) which involves a glass hinge (10) and a separate tail gate damper stay. The device set forth in the remainder of publication presents “a pop-up and limit function to the glass hinge of the tailgate glass to easily open and close the tailgate glass without the use of a separate glass damper stay”. The limit function of element 20 is what allows the separate glass damper stay to be eliminated…because element 20 provides enough damping effect. Although the spring does store energy it is readily apparent to those of ordinary skill in the art that the energy storage is not perfect and therefore some energy is dissipated and thus damped. Furthermore, air friction and air pressure between elements 27 and 25 will provide further energy dissipation and damping. Examiner contends that KR ‘819 does teach a damper, but does not teach a hydraulic damper. Although CN ‘912 clearly teaches a hydraulic damper.
The remaining arguments are addressed by the newly applied prior art provided to teach the amended limitations.
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) 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 2019106877912 in view of KR 100410819 and Yoo, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0107867.
Regarding Claim 10, CN ‘912 teaches:
a first hinge portion (4);
a second hinge portion (5);
a biasing member (63); and
two dampers (see below), wherein:
the first hinge portion and the second hinge portion are connected together via
the biasing member, the biasing member defining a hinge axis about which the first hinge portion and the second hinge portion are rotatable relative to one another between an open condition and a closed condition;
the biasing member is connected to the first hinge portion such that rotation of
the first hinge portion relative to the second hinge portion toward the open condition generates a rotation al force toward the closed condition;
the at least one hydraulic damper is connected to the first hinge portion such
that rotation of the first hinge portion relative to the second hinge portion toward the closed condition compresses the at least one hydraulic damper from an extended condition to a retracted condition (see Examiner’s Note);
the first hinge portion includes a first hinge member, and a first clamping
member (see fig. 1, see below);
the first hinge portion is attached to a glass panel via the first hinge
member and the first clamping member, the first hinge member and the first clamping member are on opposing side of an edge recess in a surface of the glass panel and secured together sandwiching the glass panel between the first hinge member and the first clamping member; and (see Examiner’s Note);
the glass panel has front and rear large area parallel planar surfaces;
the front and rear planar surfaces lie in planes that define a space between the
planes (see fig. 13);…
… two hydraulic dampers (33)
CN ‘912 does not teach:
only one hydraulic damper (33) is located outside of the space between the planes of the planar surfaces and is located inside the first hinge member of the first hinge portion (see Examiner’s Note)
KR ‘819 teaches a hinge which sandwiches a glass panel with front and rear large area parallel planar surfaces (see element 3), first and second hinge portions (12a, 12b) and a damper located outside a space between the planes of the planar surfaces (see figs. 3-4, elements 26, 27) and inside a hinge member of a hinge portion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the teachings of KR ‘819 in the device of CN ‘912 such that the limitations as claimed would be satisfied because that would allow the damper to replaced or serviced without having to remove the entire hinge assembly from the glass panel to gain access to the damper.
Yoo teach a single hydraulic damper with two connectors (320, 520) and two rods (340, 540).
It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide CN ‘912-KR ‘819 with the teachings of Yoo such that the two dampers of CN ‘912 would be replaced by a single double ended damper that would reduce the number of parts which would reduce the cost of assembly and manufacture of the device.
Examiner’s Note: Examiner notes that the above claim contains the claim language “such that rotation…the closed condition” and “such that rotation…a retracted condition”, which does not constitute a recitation of positively claimed structural elements, but a recitation of function which the claimed device must be capable. The prior art of CN ‘912, in the instant combination, is interpreted as capable of these functions. See MPEP 2111.04 [R-3], see Ex Parte Marsham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
PNG
media_image1.png
507
583
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 11, see fig. 2 and drawing selection above.
Regarding Claim 12, see above and see fig. 2.
Regarding Claims 13-14, see above and see fig. 2 for sloped surfaces which are clearly associated with the hydraulic dampers and two hydraulic dampers comprise “at least one hydraulic damper”
Claim(s) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN ‘912-KR ‘819-Yoo as applied to claims 10-14 above, and further in view of Svara, U.S. Patent 10,934,757.
Regarding Claims 15-17, the instant combination is silent with regard to the limitations of this claim.
Svara teaches a hinge with camming surfaces 30 and 23 with camming surface 23 being generally helical and the lever 21 further comprising rollers 26.
At the time the invention was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the instant combination with the features taught by Svara because the rollers would reduce friction and the helical sloped surface could be designed with the most appropriate pitch to result in ideal hinge performance.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN ‘912-KR ‘819-Yoo as applied to claims 10-14 above, and further in view of Svestopoulos, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0048634.
Regarding Claim 18, the instant combination teaches all the aspects of the instant claim, but for the limitation directed toward the gate.
Svestopoulos teaches a hinge device similar to that of the instant combination that is used in a gate application (see paragraphs [0002] – [0005])
At the time the invention was filed it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art to provide the instant combination in a gate application as taught by Svestopoulos because that would increase the marketability of the device.
Claim(s) 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN ‘912 – KR ‘819-Yoo-Svestopoulos ‘634 as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Svara ‘757.
Regarding Claims 19-21, the instant combination does teach the limitations as claimed. However, when combined, CN ‘912-KR ‘819-Yoo-Svestopoulos and Svara teach the combined limitations, see rejections above.
At the time the invention was filed it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art to provide the instant combination with the features of Svara ‘757 because the rollers would reduce friction and the helical sloped surface could be designed with the most appropriate pitch to result in ideal hinge performance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5218. The examiner can normally be reached IFP, Typically M-Th, 8:00-6:00, regular Fr availability.
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.
/M.J.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3677
/JASON W SAN/SPE, Art Unit 3677