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 .
The amendment filled 06/26/2026 has been entered. Claims 8, 10, 18 and 19 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 2, 5, 7 and 14-17 have been amended. Therefore, claims 1-7, 9, 11-17 and 20 remain pending in the application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
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 “structural element” line 1 claim 1 and “swivel axle” & “an attachment” (line 4) in claim 1 (see response to drawings remarks below) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Newly submitted figure 9 constitutes new matter, since it introduces the straight race 41, where there is no support in the original disclosure to its length, size, shape or angular orientation i.e., being horizontal.
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 Objections
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 14-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 lines 1-2 recites “for attaching at least two components of a structural element, a fixed component and an articulated component”; are the “fixed component” and “articulated component” two of the at least two components of a structural element or in addition to them?
Claim 1 recites “a swivel axle of an attachment between the at least one base coupler and the assembly hanger runs through a top pin”; three components recited as three different/distinct limitations i.e., “a swivel axle”, “an attachment” and “a top pin”, however all appear to be pointing to the same element in the drawings, namely reference numerals 51, 54, 53. It is important to note that a swivel axle is a physical component not an axis; hence reference numerals 53 introduced in the replacement sheet 7/9 of 06/26/2026 pointing to an axis of top pin 51 does not help identify a “swivel axle”. And finally, 54 and 51 appear to be pointing to the same component.
Claim 1 line 10; does applicant mean to recite “an other of the at least two additional couplers” instead of “another”. Examiner recommends this change.
Claim 5 recites “a first additional coupler” as well as “a second additional coupler” in lines 3 and 4 respectively, are these the same or different than “one of the at least two additional couplers” and “another of the at least two additional couplers” in lines 9 and 10 of claim 1 respectively?
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 line 6-7 recites “determining a variable position of the swivel axle relative to the fixed component”; note that it is only a rotational angle position that varies relative to the fixed component, and this will be the interpretation of this limitation.
Claim 1 recites “the articulated component and the fixed component being attached to one another via the hinge”; note that while the articulated and the fixed components where previously only recited in intended use form, the above recitation of lines 7-8 now have them positively recited and required by the claim. Hence, the claim is now a combination claim of a hinge, a fixed component and an articulated component.
Claim 1 recites “the additional articulated component being separate from the articulated component”; since no components in the disclosed invention as illustrated in the drawings are “separate” from one another where all components are at least indirectly attached, coupled or other wise connected; hence this limitation will be interpreted as: “not directly coupled”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9, 11 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schrimpf, US (7334361).
In regards to claim 1 Schrimpf discloses
A hinge (assembly as shown in fig. 4B) for attaching at least two components of a structural element (intended use), a fixed component (intended use) and an articulated component (intended use), comprising an assembly hanger (62) designed for mounting the hinge to the fixed component (intended use), at least one base coupler (72) rotatably attached to the assembly hanger (at bottom of 72; see annotated drawings below), wherein a swivel axle (as best understood being the same as the top pin, per what is disclosed; and in the same manner as in the current invention) of an attachment (rotatable attachment; see annotated drawings below) between the at least one base coupler and the assembly hanger runs through a top pin (as best understood being the same as the swivel axle, per what is disclosed; and in the same manner as in the current invention), the at least one base coupler (72) is attached to the assembly hanger through the top pin (as shown in reproduced fig. 4B below), wherein the assembly hanger comprises a race (66) for a travelling pin (68; fig. 4B), determining a variable position of the swivel axle (positions varying between position of fig. 4A and position of fig. 4B, in the same manner as in the current invention) relative to the fixed component (22; fig. 3) attached to one another via the hinge (per the mechanism as shown in fig. 4B; pin 68 traveling in race 66 varies the position of the swivel axle relative to 22), the hinge further comprising at least two additional couplers (61, 74) joined to one another (at top of 74 and bottom of 61 via a portion of 72), one of the at least two additional couplers (61) being suspended on the assembly hanger (at top end of 61 as shown in fig. 4B) and another of the at least two additional couplers (74) being configured to suspend an additional articulated component (additional articulated component 64; intended use) from the hinge, the additional articulated component being separate from the articulated component (80).
PNG
media_image1.png
569
800
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 2 Schrimpf discloses the hinge comprises a second coupler (70), wherein the second coupler is immovably attached to the articulated component (80) and attached in an articulated manner to the assembly hanger (hanger 62 via 68 traveling in 66) and the at least one base coupler (72 via 76).
In regards to claim 3 Schrimpf discloses a first end of a second coupler (top end of 70 at pin 68) is attached to the assembly hanger via the travelling pin (68) of the hinge (as shown in fig. 4B), and a second end of the second coupler is attached to the at least one base coupler via a bottom pin (either attached to 72 at 76 or indirectly at bottom of 70 via 64 and 74 via unnumbered pin at bottom of 70; note that “end” need not be the terminal end).
In regards to claim 4 Schrimpf discloses the travelling pin is located on the articulated component (68 located on 80 since 70 is located on 80, in the same manner as in the current invention where 6 is located on 11 via 7; see fig. 6 of the current invention).
In regards to claim 5 Schrimpf discloses at least two additional couplers (61, 74) comprise a first additional coupler (61) and a second additional coupler (74), wherein a first end of the first additional coupler (bottom end of 61) and a first end of the second additional coupler (top end of 74) are joined to one another by an articulated attachment (attachment at curved bottom end of 61 joined to 74 via a top portion of 72), a second free end of the first additional coupler (top end of 61) is configured to be attached (intended use) in an articulated manner to the assembly hanger (attachment at curved top end of 61 joined to 62), and a second, free end of the second additional coupler (bottom of 74) is configured to be attached (intended use) in an articulated manner to the additional articulated component (at least indirectly, and where articulated attachment is not positively required, only that “is configured to be attached” i.e., intended use limitation).
In regards to claim 7 Schrimpf discloses the articulated attachment of the free end of the first additional coupler (top end of 61) with the assembly hanger (62) is an adjustable attachment (where top curved end attachment of wire of spring 61 is adjustable in term of pivoting and adjusting length of 61).
In regards to claim 9 Schrimpf discloses the race is in a shape of an arch (arc shape of 66 as shown in fig. 4B).
In regards to claim 11 Schrimpf discloses the race is curved (curved shape between top and bottom halves of 66 as shown in fig. 4B).
In regards to claim 13 Schrimpf discloses the first end (top end) of the second coupler (70) is attached to the assembly hanger (62) via the travelling pin (68) of the hinge (as shown in fig. 4B), and a second end of the second coupler is attached to the at least one base coupler via a bottom pin (either attached to 72 at 76 or indirectly at bottom of 70 via 64 and 74 via unnumbered pin at bottom of 70; note that “end” need not be the terminal end).
In regards to claim 14 Schrimpf discloses at least two additional couplers (61, 74) comprise a first additional coupler (61) and a second additional coupler (74), wherein a first end of the first additional coupler (bottom end of 61) and a first end of the second additional coupler (top end of 74) are joined to one another by an articulated attachment (attachment at curved bottom end of 61 joined to 74 via a top portion of 72), a second free end of the first additional coupler (top end of 61) is configured to be attached (intended use) in an articulated manner to the assembly hanger (attachment at curved top end of 61 joined to 62), and a second, free end of the second additional coupler (bottom of 74) is configured to be attached (intended use) in an articulated manner to the additional articulated component (at least indirectly, and where articulated attachment is not positively required, only that “is configured to be attached” i.e., intended use limitation).
In regards to claim 15 Schrimpf discloses at least two additional couplers (61, 74) comprise a first additional coupler (61) and a second additional coupler (74), wherein a first end of the first additional coupler (bottom end of 61) and a first end of the second additional coupler (top end of 74) are joined to one another by an articulated attachment (attachment at curved bottom end of 61 joined to 74 via a top portion of 72), a second free end of the first additional coupler (top end of 61) is configured to be attached (intended use) in an articulated manner to the assembly hanger (attachment at curved top end of 61 joined to 62), and a second, free end of the second additional coupler (bottom of 74) is configured to be attached (intended use) in an articulated manner to the additional articulated component (at least indirectly, and where articulated attachment is not positively required, only that “is configured to be attached” i.e., intended use limitation).
In regards to claim 16 Schrimpf discloses at least two additional couplers (61, 74) comprise a first additional coupler (61) and a second additional coupler (74), wherein a first end of the first additional coupler (bottom end of 61) and a first end of the second additional coupler (top end of 74) are joined to one another by an articulated attachment (attachment at curved bottom end of 61 joined to 74 via a top portion of 72), a second free end of the first additional coupler (top end of 61) is configured to be attached (intended use) in an articulated manner to the assembly hanger (attachment at curved top end of 61 joined to 62), and a second, free end of the second additional coupler (bottom of 74) is configured to be attached (intended use) in an articulated manner to the additional articulated component (at least indirectly, and where articulated attachment is not positively required, only that “is configured to be attached” i.e., intended use limitation).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schrimpf as applied to claim 5 above.
In regards to claim 6, examiner takes Official Notice that hook attachments at the end of a component around a pivoting pin are old and well-known in the art, such as piano hinges for closures for instance. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had the bottom end of member 74 hooked around the unnumbered pivot pin at the bottom of 74 for the predicable result with reasonable expectation of success i.e. to provide for high-strength, non-permanent connection which can be easily repaired and allow for limited side-to-side positioning flexibility.
In regards to claim 17 Schrimpf discloses the articulated attachment of the free end of the first additional coupler (top end of 61) with the assembly hanger (62) is an adjustable attachment (where top curved end attachment of wire of spring 61 is adjustable in term of pivoting and adjusting length of 61).
Claims 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schrimpf as applied to claims 1 and 2 respectively above, and further in view of Gerkin, US (3729044).
In regards to claims 12 and 20 Schrimpf does not disclose an insert made out of plastic is provided in the race.
Gerkin teaches an insert (40) made out of plastic (as described in Col 3; LL 23-29; see highlighted excerpt below) is provided in the race (12).
PNG
media_image2.png
186
606
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the plastic insert taught by Gerkin onto the race 66 of Schrimpf for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success and as motivated by Gerkin i.e., to provide for low friction contact between pin 68 and the inner edges of race 66 in order to reduce wear and tear of repeated usage, and provide for a relatively cheap replaceable insert when needed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive because:
Applicant’s argument regarding the drawings objection are accepted for the majority of the issues, per claims cancelled, amendment to the specification and replacement sheets. However, a couple issues remain also with regards to the drawings objections, namely the “structural element”, “swivel axle” and the “an attachment”; since (A) the three components recited as three different/distinct limitations i.e., “a swivel axle”, “an attachment” and “a top pin” all appear to be pointing to the same element in the drawings, namely reference numerals 51, 54, 53. It is important to note that a swivel axle is a physical component not an axis; hence reference numerals 53 introduced in the replacement sheet 7/9 of 06/26/2026 pointing to an axis of top pin 51 does not help identify a “swivel axle”. And finally, 54 and 51 appear to be pointing to the same component. And (B) reference numeral (1) newly added to fig. 1, does not help identify the structural element since it is point in the middle of nowhere not a particular component, or at best pointing to the same component as numeral 2 which is the stairs box.
Previous 35 USC § 112 rejection have been withdrawn as a result of the amendment. And Previous claim objections have been partially withdrawn in light of the applicant’s amendment; however, new objections have been introduced also as a result of the amendment.
Applicant argues “claim 1 requires that the hinge "further compris[e] at least two additional couplers joined to one another, one of the at least two additional couplers being suspended on the assembly hanger and another of the at least two additional couplers being configured to suspend an additional articulated component from the hinge, the additional articulated component being separate from the articulated component." Schrimpf does not disclose this limitation. Schrimpf is directed to an access system that moves a single display panel (40) relative to a case (20); the only components moved relative to one another are the case and the single display panel, and Schrimpf discloses no additional articulated component that is separate from that display panel. Although the Examiner identified Schrimpf's second bracket 64 as the "additional articulated component" in connection with claim 5, Schrimpf expressly describes bracket 64 as "coupled to each side of an inner rear surface 46 of the display panel 40"; bracket 64 is therefore part of the display panel- that is, the articulated component itself - and not a component separate from it. The elements the Examiner identified as the "additional couplers" (the spring member 61 and the third link 74) are components of the single linkage that connects the case to that one display panel, and they do not suspend any component separate from the display panel. Schrimpf thus nowhere discloses a second, independently articulating component, separate from the articulated component, suspended from the assembly hanger”; examiner respectfully disagrees and presents that it appears that applicant is arguing limitations that are not recited or recited in a different manner that reference Schrimpf indeed reads on the language of the claim. Examiner asserts that Schrimpf discloses the assembly hanger comprises a race (66) for a travelling pin (68; fig. 4B), determining a variable position of the swivel axle (positions varying between position of fig. 4A and position of fig. 4B, in the same manner as in the current invention) relative to the fixed component (22; fig. 3) attached to one another via the hinge (per the mechanism as shown in fig. 4B; pin 68 traveling in race 66 varies the position of the swivel axle relative to 22), the hinge further comprising at least two additional couplers (61, 74) joined to one another (at top of 74 and bottom of 61 via a portion of 72), one of the at least two additional couplers (61) being suspended on the assembly hanger (at top end of 61 as shown in fig. 4B) and another of the at least two additional couplers (74) being configured to suspend an additional articulated component (additional articulated component 64; intended use) from the hinge, the additional articulated component being separate from the articulated component (80).
PNG
media_image1.png
569
800
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s remarks regarding “Teaching away” and arguing against reference Schrimpf is unclear, where applicant argues that “Schrimpf further leads a person of ordinary skill in a direction divergent from the claimed invention. Schrimpf's stated objective is to provide front access to a single display panel while locating the operable components within the case so that adjacent display panels in a large display can be positioned "as close together as possible," and Schrimpf repeatedly describes moving "the display panel" as a single unit. A person of ordinary skill reading Schrimpf would thus be led toward a compact, single-panel mechanism and away from a hinge that additionally connects and separately articulates a distinct component in addition to the articulated component, as required by amended claim 1. Schrimpf accordingly provides no apparent reason that would have led a person of ordinary skill to arrive at the claimed hinge connecting three separate components”; examiner respectfully presents / reminds the applicant that A reference is no less anticipatory if, after disclosing the invention, the reference then disparages it. The question whether a reference “teaches away” from the invention is inapplicable to an anticipation analysis. Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361, 47 USPQ2d 1516, 1522-23 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (The prior art was held to anticipate the claims even though it taught away from the claimed invention. “The fact that a modem with a single carrier data signal is shown to be less than optimal does not vitiate the fact that it is disclosed.”). >See Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005)(claimed composition that expressly excluded an ingredient held anticipated by reference composition that optionally included that same ingredient);< see also Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO, Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1349, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1948 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (Claimed composition was anticipated by prior art reference that inherently met claim limitation of “sufficient aeration” even though reference taught away from air entrapment or purposeful aeration.).
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 SHIREF M MEKHAEIL whose telephone number is (571)270-5334. The examiner can normally be reached 10-7 Mon-Fri.
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, Daniel Cahn can be reached at 571-270-5616. 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.
/S.M.M/Examiner, Art Unit 3634
/DANIEL P CAHN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights