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 2/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Comments: Applicant argues that the disclosed hinge is used in a laptop; this is where the hinge of Lu is used (abstract). Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Applicant argues the disclosed hinge functions using friction; applicant’s friction sheet is not claimed until claims 15 and 16. The hinge of Lu and applicant’s hinge structure are identical, in identical uses, and function identically. The only difference between Lu and applicant’s claim is the elastic member; however, all elastic members of Lu and the prior art Fanelli and applicant’s own elastic member, are all compression springs, and therefore all springs function in the same manner as well. Applicant argues “constant magnitude” is important; examiner notes that this is a feature of the spring that is elected by applicant, and is also a feature of the old and well known spring taught by Fanelli.
112b rejections:
Applicant maintains the phrases “configured to deform by bulging outward” and “force acting on the elastic member features a constant magnitude”. Applicant argues these are features of the structure of the elastic member; examiner notes that the Fanelli elastic member meets the claimed limitations, and therefore, these arguments make it seem that both examiner and applicant agree that the Fanelli elastic member meets these phrases. Examiner notes that newly claimed phrase “honeycomb-like” is considered indefinite; if applicant intends to now claim the hexagon shape openings, this is not the same thing. Are the square/rhombus shaped openings considered “like” a honeycomb? The scope of this phrase is not clear. Further, “cellular lattice” is new matter.
103 rejections:
Applicant seems to assert that “honeycomb” is required to perform the “buckle” function and the “constant magnitude” function. Examiner notes Fanelli spring has multiple holes that match at least one of the embodiments disclosed by applicant. By meeting the structure of the spring, the structure therefore is capable of meeting the claimed functional limitations, as stated in MPEP2114(I). The burden is now on “applicant to establish that the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on”. Applicant states “Fanelli does not teach a honeycomb lattice”; this newly claimed language is indefinite, and examiner contends that Fanelli does have “honeycomb lattice”, even if Fanelli uses different terms (like “helical strips”). Applicant states Fanelli does not “teach buckling”; applicant claims “configured to buckle”, and Fanelli discloses the structure that meets the claimed structure, and therefore Fanelli is “configured to buckle”. Applicant states Fanelli is “designed to act as a linear spring”; here, applicant seems to argue function. Applicant seems to assert that a linear spring does not function in the same manner as a “constant force” spring in this hinge. Examiner and applicant both agree that any spring that’s used in a hinge like that disclosed by applicant or that shown in Lu, must press the cams together (cams 50/60 in Lu, cams 51/53 in Applicant). The use of a “constant force spring” such as that taught by Fanelli, or a conventional linear spring of Lu or Fanelli’s prior art, either must still press the cams together in a linear manner. Therefore, there is no functional difference between “constant force spring” and “linear spring”, since the resulting spring forces of all springs are acting in a linear manner. Again, the structure of Fanelli meets the structure claimed by applicant, and therefore meets the “configured to buckle” which results in the “constant force” function, AND the end result (pushing cams together) is the same. Since applicant does not argue that the use of Fanelli in place of the spring of Lu is not contested by applicant, it seems applicant wants to claim a specific spring, and the spring must be inventive to allow this case. If applicant wants to claim a particular spring, please submit a separate application regarding the spring.
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 1, 17, and their dependents 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 1 and 17, applicant now claims “cellular lattice structure”. Applicant does not utilize this term in the specification. Therefore, applicant cannot define this term. The record does not determine if this is phrase regards a particular material, a result of manufacturing methods, or merely is a second term for the indefinite term “honeycomb-like”. Examiner assumes that this term is a duplication of the term “honeycomb-like”, which is indefinite, but is at least part of the written description.
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, 4-17, 34-37 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.
Examiner notes that the claiming of the structure of the elastic member of claims 1 and 17 give a generic structural requirement to any of the three following embodiments: (a) figures 11-12, (b) figure 13, (c) figure 14. All functional limitations newly amended regard the elastic member, which is claimed in the generic in independent claims 1 and 17.
The following functional limitations are considered indefinite:
“honeycomb-like cellular lattice structure”. First, “honeycomb-like” is indefinite. Examiner assumes that this phrase is generic to all three embodiments of the spring (a), (b), (c), as mentioned above. Examiner assumes that having multiple holes in a pattern is considered “honeycomb-like”. Further, the structure of Fanelli discloses the honeycomb holes having a polygonal shape of a diamond meets that of claim 4. Further, “cellular lattice” is not utilized in the specification. Examiner has no idea if this is a material requirement, or if “lattice” refers to the “honeycomb-like” term, or something else.
“Elastic member is configured to buckle and deform by bulging outward”. First, examiner notes that only [0082] discloses the words “buckling” and “bulge”, which is discussing figure 15. Figure 15 shows that the “connecting rib 65” bulges outward. Not the entire elastic member of figures 11, or 13, or 14. FOR PURPOSES OF EXAMINATION: Examiner assumes that this requires the “honeycomb-like” holes of the generic recitation of the structure of the elastic member; the prior art Fanelli already discloses polygonal holes and polygonal “connecting ribs”.
“such that a force acting on the elastic member features a constant magnitude after the deformation exceeds a critical point”. First, the “force” in figure 15 is described as “extrusion force F”, described in [0073] as being directly correlated to the “total width of the cam wheel 53 and the concave wheel 51”. Further, [0005] states “concave cam assembly may enable the elastic member to be deformed”. Therefore, the “force acting on the elastic member” is considered the spring force, which is equal to the spring coefficient times the distance compressed (or the total width of the cam surfaces). Second, as assumed that the “force acting on the elastic member” is equivalent to the spring force, it is the cams that dictate the “magnitude” of deformation, not the spring, or the spring coefficient. Applicant also asserts this functional limitation is a structural requirement, but applicant does not correlate this function to any structure, claimed or unclaimed. FOR PURPOSES OF EXAMINATION: Examiner asserts that this phrase refers to the cam surfaces being out of alignment, causing the greatest compression of the springs, which is old and well known, taught by the primary reference Lu.
“an opening angle is maintained…by the reaction force of the deformed elastic member”. First, applicant does not disclose a “stable rotational position” in the specification at all. Applicant does disclose “recessed part 5124 or the protruding part 534 is related to an angle that needs to be maintained” after opening the hinged device [0072], and examiner assumes applicant’s “stable rotational position” correlates to the cam features of the cams 51 and 53 as shown in figure 7. Second, Examiner notes that while it is possible to maintain a rotational position with only friction force provided by a spring without the use of cams is old and well known, but that applicant discloses the use of cams (“concave cam assembly”, and that the stable rotational position is maintained in the old and well known manner as taught by primary reference Lu. Applicant asserts that this is a structural limitation, but applicant does not correlate this function to a particular structure. FOR PURPOSES OF EXAMINATION: examiner asserts that the “rotational position” is assumed to be the rotational position where the cam features of figure 7 are aligned, and that this is old and well known, taught by Lu.
Applicant claims three forces “compressive force” and “reaction force” and “force acting on the elastic member”, which are all assumed to be the force provided by the spring.
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, 4-17, 34-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 2007/0174996 Lu in view of 2005/0168855 Fanelli.
Regarding claims 1 and 17, claim 17 claims the combination of the rotating shaft/hinge and the use of a terminal. Therefore by disclosing claim 17, Lu also discloses the structure of claim 1. Examiner notes that both claims are modified in the same manner, regarding the spring, and therefore, are rejected together in the same manner.
PNG
media_image1.png
488
758
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 1 and 17, Lu discloses Regarding claim 17, Lu discloses a terminal device (laptop computer [0002]), wherein the terminal device comprises a first body (chassis 41), a second body (cover 12), and a rotating shaft (of figure 3); the rotating shaft comprises
a central shaft 20,
a first bracket 40, a second bracket 10, an elastic member 70 and a concave cam assembly (50+60);
the first bracket 40 is rotatably mounted on the central shaft 20 (round hole 43 on chamfered post 22);
the second bracket 10 is fixedly connected to the central shaft 20 (chamfered hole 11 on chamfered post 21);
the elastic member 70 is disposed on the central shaft 20 (figure 3), and
the concave cam assembly (50 and 60) is disposed on the central shaft 20, wherein the concave cam assembly may enable the elastic member to be deformed (moves linearly along the central shaft to compress the elastic member 70);
first body (chassis 41) is fixedly connected to the first bracket 40 [0027], and the second body (cover 12) is fixedly connected to the second bracket 10 [0027]; and
when the first bracket 40 rotates relative to the second bracket 10, the concave cam assembly (50+60) generates a compressive force acting on the elastic member (compressing the elastic member 70, please see 112b above regarding the three “forces” claimed by applicant) in a longitudinal direction of the central shaft (compressing the spring must be down along the shaft of Lu), causing the elastic member to deform (shown in Lu),
the force acting on the elastic member features a constant magnitude after deformation exceeds a critical point (maximum compression is when the cam surfaces of Lu are out of alignment, and the surfaces of Lu are flat when out of alignment, as shown in Lu figure 3),
then an opening angle is maintained (assumed to be the alignment of the cam surfaces, please see 112b above, and shown by Lu figure 3) between the first bracket and second bracket by the reaction force of the deformed elastic member acting on the concave cam assembly in the longitudinal direction of the central shaft (please see 112b above; the cam is maintained in its alignment by the compressed spring in Lu).
Lu discloses the use of elastic disks 70, but does not disclose the use of a “elastic member is a hollow cylinder of an integrated structure, and a hollowed-out hole is disposed on a cylinder wall of the cylinder, wherein a plurality of hollowed out holes and plurality of connecting ribs are disposed on a cylinder wall of the elastic member, and the plurality of hollowed out holes are interleaved with the plurality of connecting ribs and are disposed at intervals to form the elastic member, and wherein a shape of the hollowed out hole comprises at least one of a polygon or a circular shape”, and that the elastic member of Lu is not disclosed “configured to deform by bulging outward”.
PNG
media_image2.png
393
397
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
451
479
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fanelli discloses a hinge for a rear view mirror (title) which uses an “elastic member 5” shown in figure 2. The elastic member 5 is a hollow cylinder of an integrated structure, and a hollowed-out hole 6 is disposed on a cylinder wall of the cylinder (figure 2), wherein a plurality of hollowed-out holes 6 and a plurality of connecting ribs 7 are disposed on a cylinder wall of the elastic member 5, and the plurality of hollowed-out holes 6 are interleaved with the plurality of connecting ribs 7 and are interleaved with the plurality of connecting ribs to form a honeycomb-like cellular lattice structure (indefinite, examiner notes that the term “honeycomb-like cellular lattice structure” is generic to all embodiments, and Fanelli figure 2 meets a specific embodiment of claim 4). The spring of Fanelli discloses a polygonal holes AND polygonal connecting ribs, and therefore is configured to buckle and deform by bulging outwards along a direction intersecting the longitudinal direction of the central shaft (please see 112b rejection above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to replace the leaf spring of Lu with another known alternative spring such as cylindrical device taught by Fanelli. Fanelli discloses that the disclosed spring is capable of use in a hinge (title) and is a known alternative to coil springs, as shown in figure 1. Therefore, replacing one known alternative of Fanelli into the known alternative in Lu would not change the form, function, or use, of the Lu device. 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 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 claims 4 and 36, Lu as modified discloses the rotating shaft according to claims 1 and 17, wherein the polygon comprises a diamond (or rhombus, shown in figure 2 of Fanelli).
Regarding claims 5 and 37, Lu as modified discloses the rotating shaft according to claims 1 and 17, wherein a material of the elastic member is plastic (abstract, Fanelli).
Regarding claims 6 and 34, Lu as modified discloses the devices according to claims 1 and 17, wherein the central shaft 20 comprises a fastening part 21, a blocking part 20 (annotated figure 3), and a rod part 22 that are fixedly connected (unitary, figure 3), and the blocking part 20 is located between the rod part 22 and the fastening part 21; and the second bracket 10 is fastened to the fastening part 21, the rod part 22 sequentially passes through the first bracket 40, the concave cam assembly (50+60), and the elastic member 70 (replaced in claim 1 by Russell), and the first bracket 40 is held against the blocking part 20.
Regarding claims 7 and 35, Lu as modified discloses the devices according to claims 6 and 34, wherein the first bracket 40 comprises a first fastening plate 42, a first through hole 43 is disposed on the first fastening plate (unitary), the rod part 22 passes through the first through hole 43, and the first fastening plate 42 is held against the blocking part 20.
Regarding claim 8, Lu as modified discloses the rotating shaft according to claim 7, wherein the concave cam assembly comprises a concave wheel 50 and a cam wheel 60 that are adjacent to each other (figure 3), wherein the concave wheel 50 is fixedly connected to the first bracket 40 (by post 51), and the cam wheel 60 is fixedly connected to the central shaft 20 (chamfered hole on a chamfered post 22).
Regarding claim 9, Lu as modified discloses the rotating shaft according to claim 8, wherein a fastening hole 44 is disposed on the first fastening plate 40, the concave wheel 50 comprises a concave wheel part and a clamping part 51 (figure 2) that are connected to each other, the concave wheel part is sleeved onto the rod part, and the clamping part 51 is clamped in the fastening hole 44.
Regarding claim 10, Lu as modified discloses the rotating shaft according to claim 9, wherein a second through hole (circular hole) is disposed in the concave wheel part 50, and a minimum diameter of the second through hole is greater than a maximum diameter of the rod part 22 (as shown in figure 3).
Regarding claim 11, Lu as modified discloses the rotating shaft according to claim 9, wherein a third through hole (chamfered hole) is disposed in the cam wheel 60, the third through hole is in a flat shape (chamfered), the rod part 22 is in a flat shape, and the cam wheel is sleeved onto the rod part (figure 3).
Regarding claim 12, Lu as modified discloses the rotating shaft according to claim 9, wherein a surface that is of the concave wheel part 50 and that connects to the cam wheel comprises a recessed part (cutouts 52 and 53) and a flat grinding area (rest of the diameter of the cam) that are connected, a surface that is of the cam wheel 60 and that connects to the concave wheel comprises a protruding part (protrusions 61 and 62), and the protruding part may be accommodated in the recessed part [0028] “mated”.
Regarding claim 13, Lu as modified discloses the rotating shaft according to claim 12, wherein the cam wheel 60 and the concave wheel 50 rotate relative to each other, and before the protruding part comes into contact with the flat grinding area, the elastic member reaches a critical point at which the force in a direction compressing elastic member reaches a maximum (meaning the spring is the most compressed), (please see 112b rejection above; Lu as modified discloses the claimed structure, and therefore, is considered to meet the functional limitations claimed).
Regarding claim 14, Lu as modified discloses the rotating shaft according to claim 8, wherein the rotating shaft 20 further comprises a fastener 90, and the fastener is fastened to a side 23 of the rod part 22 facing away from the blocking part 20, and is held against a surface of the elastic member 70 (replaced with Russell in claim 1) facing away from the concave cam assembly (50 and 60).
Regarding claim 15, Lu as modified discloses the rotating shaft according to claim 14, wherein the rotating shaft further comprises a friction sheet 30, the friction sheet comprises a fourth through hole, the fourth through hole is in a flat shape (chamfered, figure 3), and a shape of the fourth through hole matches with a shape of the rod part 22; and the friction sheet 30 is located between the fastener 90 and the blocking part 20.
Regarding claim 16, Lu as modified discloses the rotating shaft according to claim 15, wherein the friction sheet 30 is located between the concave wheel 50 and the first fastening plate 42.
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