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 2/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant adds 112a, 112b, and not supported by drawings, subject matter, which is not supported in [0045]. The record is not clear as to applicant having support for this claimed subject matter; it is not clear to one of ordinary skill in the art how the functional limitations further limits the structure of the device claimed. Even if applicant intends to claim the deflection measurements and tensile force of [0056], this would satisfy 112a requirements, however, this would not alleviate the 112b requirements. If applicant intends to require the structural limitations of material and diameter wire in [0017], applicant is directed to claim that subject matter from [0017], because the original specification does not correlate the functional limitations of [0056] to the structure of [0017]. Applicant does not define how one of ordinary skill would understand how the claimed language would translate to structure at any point in the arguments. Examiner assumes that [0017] is intended, and this is what is rejected below.
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 “bent by at least 0.1 inch” of claims 7 and 18 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Applicant does not indicate the location, orientation, inflection, or the measurement, of the “bend” at any point in the specification nor drawings, and therefore cannot show how the “bend” is measured in inches.
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 7-8, 14-23, 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding independent claims 7 and 18, applicant claims “bending the keeper by 0.1 inches”. Applicant’s cited [0045] does not mention any measurement of force or distance. [0056] mentions “required deflection of 0.150” which is greater than applicant’s claimed “0.1 inches”. Applicant’s claimed measurement is less than applicant’s disclosed required measurement, and therefore, the claimed measurement is not originally disclosed. Examiner notes that even if applicant claims the measurement disclosed, that applicant must still deal with indefiniteness rejection below.
If applicant intends that the bending measurement and bending force as claimed are related to material and diameter of the keeper, this is not correlated by the specification. Neither are as precise as applicant’s claim language.
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 7-8, 14-17 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 claim 1, applicant’s newly added claim matter “keeper must be bent by at least 0.1 inch to install….wherein bending said keeper by 0.1 inch requires applying 5.00 +/- 0.45 lbf”, is incomplete for failing to recite sufficient structure to effect the cited claim function. The specification and the arguments do not supply enough information for one of ordinary skill in the art to avoid infringement. The record is not clear if this is a material requirement, a diameter requirement, a cross sectional shape requirement. Examiner notes that [0017] supplies sufficient structure; “stainless steel wire having a diameter of about 0.040 inches”. Perhaps the applicant intends to measure a distal relationship that is not disclosed or shown in the drawings. The record is not clear how to reject or avoid infringement of this claimed limitation.
Dependent claims inherit the same issues from parent claims and do not resolve any indefinite issues.
Regarding method claim 8, applicant claims the deflection measurement and the force of claim 1. Examiner notes that it is ASSUMED that the deflection and force are required by a material and diameter wire, and therefore by disclosing the wire assumed to be claimed by applicant, that the dimension and force are met. Examiner assumes that since this is present in a structural claim, that this phrase intends to limit the structure of the device; however, since claim 18 is a method claim, examiner notes that the method of installing the keeper requiring a certain measurement and force is the result of the particular choice of material, which examiner assumes in claim 1, as discussed below.
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) 7-8, 14-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 2004/0170471 Wadsworth, in view of 2017/0167655 Brock, in further view of 3695140 Noble, in further view of 4592689 Leitzke.
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Wadsworth discloses a hinge pin keeper comprising:
a shaft 54 having a first end and a second end, with said first end being opposite of said second end;
said first end of said shaft 54 having a hook 55, said hook having a first end connected to said first end of said shaft 54 and a second end having a tang 56 that returns downward toward said second end of said shaft 54;
PNG
media_image1.png
354
371
media_image1.png
Greyscale
said second end of said shaft 54 of said keeper having a coil 60 configured to positively capture a tip of an associated tip of an associated hinge pin (figure 3, “triangular ends 60 are then slid over the shanks” [0026]), said coil having a first straight section (perpendicular to the shaft 54) and a triangular portion 60, said first straight section (perpendicular to the shaft 54) is located between said triangular portion 60 and said second end of said shaft 54 of said keeper;
wherein said hook 55 is adapted to be removably captured in an associated eye (“fit through aperture 58” [0026], examiner contends that a post through a hole is “removably captured”, since this post rotates within the hole, and is not required to be of any tight/snap/friction fit within the hole. Additionally, the “wire” material of the keeper is capable of being unbent so that wire can be removed from the hole) of an associated hinge pin 44 of an associated hinge assembly, when said tang 56 is placed through said eye 58 of said hinge pin 44 and said keeper is rotated so that said associated shaft 54 of said keeper is parallel with a shaft of said associated hinge pin 44 (as shown in figures 1 and 3);
wherein said triangular portion 60 is configured to be placed onto and capture said associated tip of said associated hinge pin (as shown in figure 3, previously claimed, discussed in [0026]), when said associated shaft 54 of said keeper is parallel to said shaft of said associated hinge pin 44 and deflected (keeper is a “spring wire”; and
wherein said keeper
is adapted such that the coil and the hook may be installed with the hinge pin without the use of the tool (keeper is made of flexible wire that allows the coil to be applied to the pin without the use of a tool, and the hook is shaped so that it can be rotated into the hole of the head of the pin, as is old and well known in the art, please see cited reference Lesikar)
or
is adapted such that the coil and the hook may be “fully removed” from the associated hinge pin without the use of a tool (keeper is made of flexible wire that allows the coil to be removed from the pin without the use of a tool in the same manner as it is applied, and the hook is shaped so that it can be rotated out of the head of the pin, as is old and well known in the art, please see cited reference Lesikar).
Wadsworth is used with a “support frame” (title) rather than a “hinge assembly”, but is still inserted through apertures of two articles in order to connect the articles. Wadsworth discloses that the coil is “triangular” rather than “coil” shaped, but functions to engage the tip of the hinge pin in the same manner as applicant’s coil and hinge pin. Wadsworth discloses that the keeper is a “spring wire retainer 54” [0026] but does not disclose the material or diameter of the “spring wire”, which is assumed to be the structural result of the deflection measurement and the force measurement claimed by applicant.
Brock discloses a “hinge mechanism” (title) which is connected by a locking pin 7 (figure 15, similar to figure 1 Wadsworth) to be the pivot point for the hinge mechanism (figures 11-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the Wadsworth pin in a hinge mechanism, which is an obvious equivalent for the existing pin for hinges, as is old and well known, taught by Brock. 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”.
Noble discloses the use of a pin securing device (cottering device, title) which has a coil section 10 that extends around more than one full circle (figure 2), which engaged the end of a shaft 26 (as is showing in figures 3 and 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to change the shape of the triangularly shaped coil of Wadsworth with a circular shape that extends around more than one full rotation, as shown in Noble, which is an obvious change of shape which performs a similar function. 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”.
Leitzke discloses “ring spring cotter may be made of 0.035 inch stainless steel wire” (column 2 line 30). Wadsworth discloses “spring wire retainer” 54, but does not disclose material or diameter of the “spring wire retainer”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make the “Spring wire retainer” of Wadsworth using an old and well known material and size requirement of similar “spring wire retainers” such as that taught by Leitzke with “stainless steel wire” with a 0.035 inch diameter (which is “about 0.040 inches” disclosed by applicant in [0017]). 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”. Note that it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious engineering design choice. See MPEP 2144.07. Examiner contends that by having the material and the diameter of the keeper as disclosed by applicant, that the keeper therefore is bendable by the same dimension using the same force claimed by applicant, MPEP2112.01 (I) and (II).
Regarding claim 8, Wadsworth as modified discloses the hinge pin keeper of claim 7, wherein said coil (triangular in Wadsworth, circular in Noble) has at least 1 turn in both Wadsworth and Noble. Noble discloses the use of “slightly more than 360 degree” (column 2 line 19). Neither disclose the use of MORE than 1 turn to create the coil of the existing Wadsworth or Noble.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize more material in the coil Wadsworth in order to more securely attach the end of the keeper device of Wadsworth on the end of the pin of Wadsworth. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(a). 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”.
Regarding claims 14-17, Wadsworth figures 1 and 3 indicate that the hinge pin/keeper combination is sized to be used with the frame; Wadsworth as used in a hinge device such as Brock would also be appropriately sized to use in the hinge device. Wadsworth claim 10 states that the pintles “have an external size which complements the internal size of the square openings in the sockets”. Therefore, the size of the Wadsworth device and all components thereof, depends on the device with which the locking pin of Wadsworth is used in. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(a).
Regarding claim 18, Wadsworth discloses a method of securing a hinge pin in a hinge assembly comprising:
providing an assembly (frame) having a first part 12 and a second part 14;
providing a hinge pin (as shown above in annotated in figure 1 again), the hinge pin having a shaft 44 with a head (with eye 58) on a first end opposite a distal second end, the head having an eye 58, the second end having a tip (as shown in annotated figure 1 above);
inserting the hinge pin 44 inserted into the assembly (along the dotted lines, shown in figure 1);
providing a hinge pin keeper (attachment on the hinge pin 44, as shown in annotated figure 1 above), the hinge pin keeper having, a shaft 54 having a first end and a second end, with said first end being opposite of said second end, said first end of said shaft 54 having a hook 55, said hook 55 having a first end connected to said first end of said shaft 54 and a second end having a tang 56 that returns downward toward said second end of said shaft (turns inward, as shown above in figure 1), said second end of said shaft of said keeper having a coil 60 configured to positively capture a tip of a hinge pin (as it does in figure 3, and discussed in [0026]), said coil 60 having a first straight section (annotated above) and a triangular portion 60, said first straight section is located between said triangular portion 60 and said second end of said shaft of said keeper;
capturing the hook 55 in the eye by placing the tang through the eye 58 (as shown in figure 1); and
placing the coil 60 onto the tip (of the shaft as shown in figure 3, discussed in [0026]) so that the tip is captured by the coil 60;
wherein said hook 55 is adapted to be removably captured in an eye 58 of a hinge pin of a hinge assembly (as discussed in claim 1, it is fit within the eye), when said tang 56 is placed through said eye of said hinge pin (in [0026] “triangular portion 56 which fit through apertures 58 in the heads 50 of the pins 41-44”) and said keeper is rotated so that the shaft of said keeper is parallel with a shaft of the hinge pin (as shown in Wadsworth figures 2, 3, 6);
wherein said coil 60 is configured to be placed onto and capture said tip of said hinge pin (as shown in figures 2, 3, 6), when said shaft of said keeper is parallel to said shaft of said hinge pin and deflected (“flexed … to clear the shanks 51 of the pins and the triangular ends 60 are then slid over the shanks” [0026]);
wherein said keeper
is adapted such that the coil and the hook may be installed with the hinge pin without the use of the tool (keeper is made of flexible wire that allows the coil to be applied to the pin without the use of a tool, and the hook is shaped so that it can be rotated into the hole of the head of the pin, as is old and well known in the art, please see cited reference Lesikar)
or
is adapted such that the coil and the hook may be “fully removed” from the associated hinge pin without the use of a tool (keeper is made of flexible wire that allows the coil to be removed from the pin without the use of a tool in the same manner as it is applied, and the hook is shaped so that it can be rotated out of the head of the pin, as is old and well known in the art, please see cited reference Lesikar); and
capturing the hook in the eye [0026] by placing the tang through the eye [0026]; and
bending the keeper; and
placing the coil 60 onto the tip so that the tip is captured in the coil.
Wadsworth is used with a “support frame” (title) rather than a “hinge assembly”, but is still inserted through apertures of two articles in order to connect the articles. Wadsworth discloses that the coil is “triangular” rather than “coil” shaped, but functions to engage the tip of the hinge pin in the same manner as applicant’s coil and hinge pin. Wadsworth discloses the keeper is inserted within the eye 58 in the manner of “flexing” to spread ends 55 and 56 to attach the keeper within the eye 58 [0026]. Wadsworth discloses structure which is capable of being removable, by “flexing” the wire keeper 54 in the reverse manner of attaching in [0026].
Brock discloses a “hinge mechanism” (title) which is connected by a locking pin 7 (figure 15, similar to figure 1 Wadsworth) to be the pivot point for the hinge mechanism (figures 11-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the Wadsworth pin in a hinge mechanism, which is an obvious equivalent for the existing pin for hinges, as is old and well known, taught by Brock. 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”.
Noble discloses the use of a pin securing device (cottering device, title) which has a coil section 10 that extends around more than one full circle (figure 2), which engaged the end of a shaft 26 (as is showing in figures 3 and 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to change the shape of the triangularly shaped coil of Wadsworth with a circular shape that extends around more than one full rotation, as shown in Noble, which is an obvious change of shape which performs a similar function. 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”.
Regarding “bending the keeper”, this is already known in the prior art in Wadsworth and is common in the art of cotter pins. The distance required and the force required to bend that distance is considered to be a material requirement as discussed in claim 1 above. Leitzke discloses “ring spring cotter may be made of 0.035 inch stainless steel wire” (column 2 line 30). Wadsworth discloses “spring wire retainer” 54, but does not disclose material or diameter of the “spring wire retainer”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make the “Spring wire retainer” of Wadsworth using an old and well known material and size requirement of similar “spring wire retainers” such as that taught by Leitzke with “stainless steel wire” with a 0.035 inch diameter (which is “about 0.040 inches” disclosed by applicant in [0017]). 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”. Note that it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious engineering design choice. See MPEP 2144.07. Examiner contends that by having the material and the diameter of the keeper as disclosed by applicant, that the keeper therefore is bendable by the same dimension using the same force claimed by applicant, MPEP2112.01 (I) and (II).
Regarding claim 19, Wadsworth as modified discloses the method of securing a hinge pin of a hinge assembly of claim 18, wherein capturing the hook 55 in the eye 58 further comprises rotating the hinge pin keeper such that the shaft of the keeper runs parallel to the shaft of the hinge pin (as the keeper is parallel to the shaft in figures 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 20, Wadsworth as modified discloses the method of securing a hinge pin in a hinge assembly of claim 19, further comprising applying a bending force to the hinge pin keeper (“flexed” [0026]), the bending force being sufficient to deflect the shaft of the hinge pin keeper sufficiently to angle the coil to fit over the tip (as is discussed in [0026]).
Regarding claim 21, Wadsworth as modified discloses the method of securing a hinge pin in a hinge assembly of claim 20, further comprising permitting the coil 60 (triangular of Wadsworth, circular in Noble) to descend and surround the tip by removing the bending force (removal of the keeper also requires “flexing”).
Regarding claims 22 and 23, Wadsworth as modified discloses the method of securing a hinge pin in a hinge assembly of claim 21, wherein the bending force (“flexing” in [0026]) is sufficient to flex the “spring wire” keeper in a sufficient amount to attach and detach the keeper to the hinge pin. Examiner contends that the measurement of the force (in order to create the flexing) is not particularly mentioned, because “spring wire” is generic. Further, the amount of force used is greatly dependent on the user’s capabilities. For that reason, the material or the user are the variables for the measurement of the force (either in pounds, or “does not induce plastic deformation”) is an obvious choice based on either the user or the material of the keeper. Note that it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious engineering design choice. See MPEP 2144.07. A change in size (force) is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(a). Examiner notes that a force is required to flex the keeper in Wadsworth, as well as in Noble, and therefore the amount of force that is sufficient to apply the device of Wadsworth, or Wadsworth as modified, is an obvious equivalent to whatever force is applied to the similar device of Wadsworth, or Wadsworth as modified. 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
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