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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species E (figures 22-23 in the reply filed on 11/21/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the X reference in the search report does not show curved tracks. This is not found persuasive because the rejection below shows that the shared technical feature is not novel, and therefore there is no “special” shared technical feature between any species. Further, Examiner noted that the claims only applied to species E and F (bottom of page 3, restriction 11/6/2025), even though applicant disclosed more species which were not claimed.
Applicant asserts all active claims are applicable to the elected embodiment, however, claims 5-8, 10-11, 13-15, are withdrawn as being directed to an unelected embodiment for the following reasons:
Claims 5-6 requires the guide track is in a link, which is not shown in the elected embodiment of figures 22-23. Claims 5-6 are withdrawn.
Claim 7 defines the sliding joint “comprising a pin, axle, and/or a sliding block”, but applicant has disclosed no structure regarding the sliding joint in the elected embodiment of figures 22-23. Claim 7 is withdrawn.
Claim 8 requires link connected to the part in a hinged joint, which is not shown in the elected embodiment. Claim 8 is withdrawn.
Claims 10-11 requires the guide track has two portions forming an angle relative to each other, which is only applicable to un-elected embodiment F. Claims 10-11 are withdrawn.
Claim 13 requires “at least one pickup…in a hinged joint”. While elected embodiment of figures 22-23 does show a pickup 1071, this pickup is not “in a hinged joint”. Applicant discloses a pick-up “in a hinged joint” referencing figures 13-16, and therefore, is considered not elected.
Claim 14 requires a leaf spring, which is not shown in the elected embodiment of figures 22-23, and therefore claim 14 is withdrawn.
Claim 15 requires the use of a braking device, which is not used in the elected embodiment of figures 22-23. Claim 15 is withdrawn.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because elected embodiment of figures 22-23 are shaded in a manner that reduces legibility of the drawings (MPEP 608.02(V), 37CFR1.84m).
Applicant does not show “movement supporting assembly”, “guiding means”, “linkage mechanism”, two links, and one sash link and one frame link. Please see 112b rejection below.
“force transmission device…configured to act on the sliding joint…directly” is not shown or disclosed (claim 13).
“intermediate frame” of claims 17-18 are not shown, and are in fact explicitly listed in the “non-shown embodiments” section of the specification, page 13 line 23.
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 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, 12, 16-18 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 claims 1 and 17, applicant claims identical hinges, and only differs what the hinge is “configured to be” at the end of the first paragraph. Therefore, the hinge is identical in scope between claims 1 and 17, and therefore, will be treated together.
-A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 1 and 17 recites the broad recitations “movement supporting assembly”, “guiding means”, “linkage mechanism”, and “at least two links”, and the claim also recites “sash link…and a frame link” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Examiner notes that the 112f terms “movement supporting assembly”, “guiding means” and “linkage mechanism” are not positively defined in the specification. Further, the inclusion of the overly broad terms merely confuses the scope of the claims. All three terms “movement supporting assembly”, “guiding means”, and “linkage mechanism”, are all more narrowly defined by the sash link and frame link in the same claim, and therefore, all three terms serve no purpose in the claim language. The narrower structure is positively claimed; therefore, the broader terminology should be removed. The removal of all three of these terms will still result in the “sash link…and a frame link” being considered. Examiner will display a definite claim below so that applicant can understand how to create a definite claim.
-applicant claims “guiding means” (meaning the sash link and frame link) are “configured to allow the sash hinge part to assume an angle relative to the frame hinge part substantially around said hinge axis during an opening movement from a closed position to an open position and during a closing movement from the open position to the closed position”. Examiner notes that this is the purpose of a hinge when the hinge is attached to an object. Examiner notes that applicant does not positively claim the combination of the roof window, and therefore, does not further limit the structure of the hinge.
-Applicant claims the broad recitation “each of link of the at least two links being connected to at least one of the frame hinge part and the sash hinge part at a joint at the at least two links being connected to each other”, and then later claims the specific “sash link providing a connection between the bearing axle and the frame hinge part”, as well as “frame link providing a connection between the bearing axle and the sash hinge part”. Examiner assumes that the narrower structure is positively claimed; therefore, the broader terminology should be removed.
-“providing a connection” is indefinite. The link is identical in scope to “a connection”. Examiner assumes that applicant means the sash link “connecting the bearing axle and the frame hinge part”. In the alternative, applicant could mean that the sash link has a joint to the frame hinge part and the bearing axle.
-“base plate” for both the frame hinge part and the sash hinge part. Examiner notes that “base plate” is not used in either species E or F, but, applicant does show in the drawings that the elected frame hinge part 1030 and the elected sash hinge part 1040 are generally plate like. Therefore, examiner assumes that applicant just intends to claim the hinge parts 1030 and 1040 are plates. Please remove “base” from the claim language for clarity.
-applicant claims the “hinge plane” in relation to a not positively claimed “hinge axis”, because the hinge axis is defined by the roof window. Examiner notes that this is indefinite. Examiner assumes that the frame hinge plate and the sash hinge plate have parallel planes meets this limitation.
-“at least one other joint of said joints is selected from the group comprising a sliding joint and a hinged joint”. Examiner notes that the connection between the sash/frame links and the sash/frame plates are sliding joints in both instances, joints 1056 and 1062. Therefore, the “hinged joint” is not considered not elected. Regarding “hinged joints”, applicant’s elected embodiment does disclose “sash link 1050 comprises a hinged joint 1051 and a sliding joint 1056”, but the hinged joint is not clearly shown or disclosed to connect the sash link 1050 to the sash plate 1040. Applicant also does not claim that the link is connected to the plate using two methods; applicant claims only one joint between either link and its respective plate. Applicant claims only that a plate is slidingly jointed to a link, the link connected to a second link by a bearing axle, and the second link is slidingly jointed to a second plate.
For purposes of examination, the following definite claim will be considered for both claims 1 and 17:
A hinge for a roof window with a stationary primary frame having a plurality of frame members including at least two opposing side members, and at least one secondary frame including a sash having a plurality of sash members including at least two opposing side members, said hinge being configured to rotationally connect the stationary primary frame and an intermediate frame and said hinge further being configured to rotationally connect the secondary frame sash to define a hinge axis of the roof window,
said hinge comprising:
a frame hinge plate substantially perpendicular to the hinge axis,
a sash hinge plate substantially parallel to the frame hinge plate,
a sash link connected to the frame hinge plate by a first joint,
a frame link connected to the sash hinge plate by a second joint,
the sash link and the frame link are connected by a bearing axle,
at least one of the first and second joints comprises a sliding joint cooperating with a guide track comprising at least one curved portion,
at least the other of the first and second joints is a sliding joint.
Regarding claim 2, applicant claims the guide track is in either the frame hinge plate and/or the sash hinge plate. Both instances of “and” and “or” must be definite for claim 2 to be definite. Examiner notes that applicant requires the sliding joint between the sash hinge plate requires a sliding joint in claim 1. Therefore, the “or” the guide track in the frame hinge plate is NOT definite. Please remove “or”.
Regarding claim 3, Both instances of “and” and “or” must be definite for claim 3 to be definite. The applicant cannot also claim the sash link is connected to the frame hinge part with a sliding joint, because claim 1 requires it is the frame link. The “and” is impossible, and the “or” contradicts claim 1. The record is not clear how claim 3 further limits claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, applicant requires the guide track provided in the “base plate of the sash hinge part or frame hinge part”. Claim 1 already requires sash hinge part has a sliding joint with a guide track. Therefore, claim 1 already requires the guide track in the sash hinge part. The record is not clear how claim 4 further limits claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, applicant claims two 112f terms, both of which are considered identical in scope. Applicant claims “Force transmission device” and “biasing means”, and claims that “force transmission device is provided with biasing means selected from the group comprising….”. Examiner notes that there is no difference in scope between “force transmission device” and “biasing means”. Examiner suggests removing one of these terms.
Regarding claim 16, applicant claims “ a set of” hinges, which is not defined in the specification. Examiner assumes that applicant means two hinges, which are mounted to the opposite sides of the sash 2 at a location creating a coaxial axis of rotation, as shown in figure 1.
Dependent claims inherit the same issues from parent claims and do not resolve any indefinite issues.
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.
Claim 17-18 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 claims 17-18, applicant claims the use of a window which includes an “intermediate frame”, but explicitly lists that the embodiment of the window is not shown in the drawings, page 13, line 23. Therefore, examiner assumes that this is some kind of different embodiment of a roof window, which is not clearly described in the specification. Examiner suggests removal of these claims. Examiner notes that the hinge of claims 1 and 17 can be utilized in different types of “roof windows”, or different types of any “window”, as required by the user.
Dependent claims inherit the same issues from parent claims and do not resolve any indefinite issues.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 1. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Examiner notes that the only difference in terminology regards the intended combination, and not the hinge itself.
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, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over 2122034 Jackle, or Jackle in view of 5271124 Sandell.
Examiner notes that all claims are rejected as best understood, based on the myriad of indefinite and description rejections discussed above. Since there are so many indefiniteness and description rejections above, examiner notes that the claims are considered anticipated by the prior art cited above, but could also be considered obvious over the prior art cited above, since the claim language has to be assumed by examiner.
Regarding claims 1 and 17:
Jackle discloses a hinge (title) A hinge for a roof window (capable of being used on a window, but is disclosed as being on a door), the door having a stationary frame having at least two opposing side members (left and right parts of the frame, or top and bottom parts of the frame), and at least one sash (similar to the door) comprising at least two opposing side members (left and right edges, or top and bottom edges), said hinge further being configured to rotationally connect the primary frame to the sash to define a hinge axis of (axis of rotation is generally parallel to the length of the pin 26, as shown between figures 1 and 2),
said hinge comprising:
a frame hinge plate 6 substantially perpendicular to the hinge axis (substantially perpendicular to pin 26),
PNG
media_image1.png
681
723
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a sash hinge plate (identical part on the other bracket, so also part 6) substantially parallel to the frame hinge plate 6 (as shown in figures 3 and 2),
a sash link 15 (figure 4) connected to the frame hinge plate 6 by a first joint (sliding joint 16 with pin 19),
a frame link 22 (figure 5) connected to the sash hinge plate (opposite plate 6) by a second joint (sliding joint 23 with pin 26),
the sash link 15 and the frame link 22 are connected by a bearing axle (boss 17 goes in hole 24, and so does pin 20),
at least one of the first and second joints comprises a sliding joint (both are sliding joints) cooperating with a guide track (8 and 12) comprising at least one curved portion (guide track 8 has two angled sections, guide track 12 is continuously curved, best shown in figure 1),
at least the other of the first and second joints is a sliding joint (both are a sliding joint).
Regarding the intended combination of paragraph 1, examiner contends that the “configuration” is met when the sash is a functional equivalent of the door of Jackle.
Should applicant assert that the “configured to” language in the first paragraph of claim 1 somehow further defines the mounting structure of the hinge as claimed, applicant does not positively claim any particular mounting structure. However, the use of a two plates connected by two links is old and well known and taught by Sandell. The hinge of Jackle is usable in this manner by mounting the device of Jackle in a different way; in that the holes with dowels 7 and 11, as shown in figure 2 and shown as a perpendicular dowel in figure 3, would be obvious to use with a screw, which omits the need for the screw plate 9. The use of mounting screws as well as pivoting pins so to be mounted in the “roof window” is shown in Sandell. Should applicant further argue that this does not solve the problem, the use of only two links for a hinge in this location is taught in Sandell, and the use of only two links of Jackle would result in a hinge that performs the same rotational function, but with less material and is therefore cheaper. The issue of the positively claimed window is addressed in claims 16 and 18.
Regarding claim 2, Jackle or Jackle as modified for the use in the particular location of “roof window” which is not positively claimed; Jackle discloses the hinge of claim 1, wherein the use of two sliding joints, each with a curved guide track, one curved guide track in the sash plate, and one curved guide track in the frame plate.
Regarding claim 3, Jackle or Jackle as modified for the use in the particular location of “roof window” which is not positively claimed; Jackle discloses the hinge of claim 1 wherein the frame link 22 is connected to the sash plate in a sliding joint with curved guide track 12, and the sash link 15 is connected to the frame plate 6 with a curved guide track 8.
Regarding claim 4, Jackle or Jackle as modified for the use in the particular location of “roof window” which is not positively claimed; Jackle discloses the hinge of claim 1 wherein the guide tracks 8 and 12 are provided in the hinge plates (as shown in figure 2).
Claim(s) 16, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackle, or Jackle as modified by Sandell as applied to claims 1 and 17 above, and further in view of Sandell.
Claims 16 and 18 positively combine the intended use combination of “roof window” with particular structure of the “roof window”. Jackle is capable of being used with a “roof window” since the structure of the door meets the intended structural combination in claims 1 and 17. However, Claims 16 and 18 positively claim the combination.
Sandell discloses a “roof window” (title) comprising a stationary frame having two opposing side members 42, a sash 44 having two opposing sash members (sides 48), and
a “set of hinges” being two hinges (of figure 6 having a frame plate 14, a sash plate 12, two arms 20 and 22, two used, one on each side, as shown in figure 5), the use of the two hinges allowing the sash to rotate around one axis (figure 7),
the frame plate 14 attached to the stationary frame members 42, the sash plate 12 attached to the sides of the sash 44.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the old and well known multi-link hinge of Jackle to the known multi-link hinge location of Sandell, as this provides an old and well known pivoting structure and function to the known window structure that uses a similar hinge structure and also requires pivoting functions. Examiner contends that the Jackle hinge would merely be modified in the following ways to allow for attachment in the location of the Sandell hinge:
1- Removal of perpendicular screw plates 9 and apply the screws 9a to the through holes for the dowels, as placing the mounting screws on the same surface as the pivoting axes is known in a similar hinge in this location, taught by figure 6 of Sandell. This merely rearranges the mounting screws to be applied in a different location of Jackle so as to be used in the manner of Sandell. The rearrangement of known parts into a known arrangement is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI) (c).
2- Use only one pair of the sash/frame links of Jackle, instead of three pairs of the links as disclosed in Jackle, in order to keep as narrow a space as possible, as suggested in figure 6 of Sandell. This removal of parts is done for purposes of size, and does not alter the form, function, or use, of the Jackle hinge. 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”.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackle or Jackle in view of Sandell as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of 3368237 Bierlich.
Regarding claim 12, Jackle, or Jackle as modified discloses the hinge of claim 1, but does not include a “force transmission device” which selected from the group consisting of “leaf springs, torsion springs and tension/compression springs”.
Bierlich discloses a “hinge for door, window and similar turnable frames” which includes a “force transmission device” which is a “spring disk” 21’ in figure 2, which is attached to the sliding joint in figure 2, which is a leaf spring in the form of a washer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply a spring disk 21’ as taught by Bierlich’s sliding joint to a similar sliding joint of Jackle or Jackle as modified, as this provides a mechanism to adjust “resilient pressure” (column 3, lines 9-12). Examiner notes that the use of the spring disk in the sliding joint in the manner taught by Bierlich, or the sliding joint without the spring disk as taught by Jackle, both provide the same pivoting/rotational structure which does not alter the form, function, or use, of the hinge of Jackle. It merely adds a manner to adjust a pressure on the sliding joint in an old and well known manner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see 892.
Applicant has cited relevant sibling cases 18/288303 claiming a braking device similarly restricted; 18/288385 claiming a force transmission device, similarly restricted; and 18/288388, which is a window, which has been issued. Examiner suggests applicant does not elect figures 22-23 in the other currently pending cases.
Applicant is encouraged to request interviews after non-final rejection, rather than after final rejection. Examiner notes that interviews after final rejection “may be granted if the examiner is convinced that disposal or clarification for appeal may be accomplished with only nominal further consideration” MPEP 713.09.
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