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 “figures 1-2 first embodiment” in the reply filed on 2/5/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Zetti does not disclose the structure of claim 16 (election 2/5/2026 page 8), as well as “it is not at all clear how combining the documents…could arrive in an obvious manner” (Election 2/5/2026 page 9). This is not found persuasive because Zetti is used as the primary reference of the rejection, as well as the modification had an obviousness statement on page 6 of the restriction, bottom of page 6. Applicant’s argument on page 9 of the election fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant withdraws claims 20, 23, 28, on page 4 of the election as not drawn to the elected “first embodiment” of figures 1-2.
Claim 22 requires “means for visualizing”, which is disclosed as having slots 36 and graduated scale on movable element 31. Figure 1 shows slot 36 discloses the damper 21, and is not able to show the movable element 31 in the position of figure 1. Therefore, claim 22 is considered withdrawn.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
In claim 16:
“coupling element” (function “coupling” nonce term “element”) assumed to be a bracket
“fixing element” (function “fixing” nonce term “element”) assumed to be a bracket
Two “elastic compression means” 17 and 18
“adjustment assembly for adjusting a preloading” (function “adjustment” nonce term “assembly”) 30 which is indefinite
“pusher element” (function “pushing” nonce term “element”) 32 “being adapted to modify the preloading of the first or second elastic means”, further defined in claims 18 and 19
In claims 24-26:
“means for setting a breadth”, which is further limited by 112f term “stroke limiting element” in claim 25, and is finally identified as “second threaded element” in claim 26.
In claim 29:
“damping means” (function damping, nonce term means), which is not further limited by any structure in the claim language.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 16-19, 21, 24-27, 29-30 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 16:
-“adjustable damped snap acting hinge”. Examiner assumes that “adjustable” is due to the presence of “adjustment assembly”, “damped” is improper to include because only claim 29 includes a damping means, and “snap acting” does not have a definite further limitation of the “hinge”. Examiner assumes that by having the structure later claimed, examiner contends that the hinge meets “snap acting”.
-“a second portion of said first lever which is interposed between the preceding levers”. Applicant previously claims ALL disclosed levers. This phrase does not clearly further limit the location of the second portion of the first lever.
- “second portion…. is articulated thereto” and “second lever and a fourth lever which are associated in an articulated manner”. Applicant is not clear as to what “articulated to” or “associated in an articulated manner” means. Examiner has assumed that this means the two parts are directly connected using a “articulation pivots”. If this is applicant’s intent, the claim is not clear as to what lever the second portion is articulated to. If this is not applicant’s intent, then examiner does not understand how these phrases further limit the structure.
-“hinge being adapted to assume alternately an open configuration and a closed configuration” is the entire purpose of a hinge; and therefore does not further limit the hinge.
-“said fixing element varying arrangement thereof by an angle of aperture during the movement between the open and closed configuration”. Examiner notes that the hinge goes through a variety of angles between the closed and open positions; this is the purpose of the hinge. Therefore this phrase does not further limit the hinge.
-Compression means “associated with” one particular quadrilateral; examiner notes that the mere presence of compression means within the hinge are “associated” with the rest of the hinge. If applicant intends that the compression means act only on one quadrilateral, applicant does not claim this.
-Applicant claims multiple instances of alternatives in order to be broad enough to cover multiple embodiments. Since applicant has elected figures 1-2, only the terminology relevant to figures 1-2 are considered for rejection, but all terminology must be definite and disclosed. Therefore, the “either or both” is considered to be “one of the first and second elastic means”, since figures 1-2 only disclosed on elastic means abutting an abutment element.
-“abutment element associated with at least one of the levers of said first or second quadrilateral”. “associated with” is not definite; all abutment elements are disclosed as being unitary with ONE lever. Therefore, the record is not clear how it can be “associate with” any more than one lever. Further, the statement of “one of the levers of said first or second quadrilateral” means any lever previously required.
-“and further comprising at least one adjustment assembly”, the record is not clear as to what is “further comprising” this 112f term. Examiner assumes that the hinge further comprises the adjustment assembly. Further, “adjustment assembly” is not defined in the specification.
-“movable element supporting said abutment element and associated with at least one of the levers of said first or second quadrilateral”. Examiner notes that the movable element 31 and the abutment element 29 are unitary. The record is not clear how these are “associated” with any of the levers. Examiner notes that 29/31 is attached at pivot 9 to second lever 6. The record does not disclose that the part 29/31 is “associated” with any other lever.
-“pusher element interposed between said third or fourth lever and said movable element”. Applicant does not present any option of having the pusher element 32 is “interposed” between the third lever and movable element 31. Therefore, examiner assumes that applicant means “between fourth lever” and movable element.
Regarding claim 17, applicant’s elected embodiment does not disclose the “or” alternative of the claim.
Regarding claim 18, applicant’s elected embodiment does not disclose that the threaded hole is on the fourth lever. The claim states that the “threaded first hole which is associated with one of either said third or fourth lever and said movable element”. Examiner notes that the threaded hole is on the fourth lever, and that the pusher element abuts the movable element 31. The hole is not “associated with” the movable element. Further, the pusher is adapted to abut against the movable element, not “either said third or fourth lever”. Examiner notes that applicant’s claim 19 best claims applicant’s elected embodiment. Examiner assumes that rejecting claim 19 also rejects claim 18.
Regarding claim 21, applicant claims “one or both of said third and said fourth lever” has a spine. Examiner notes that applicant’s specification does not disclose “or both”.
Regarding claims 24-27, applicant claims “means for setting a breadth”, claim 25 further defines it as “at least one settable stroke limiting element”, which is further limited in claim 26 as “second threaded element 47”. Examiner assumes that all of these terms are identical in scope. Claim 25 requires the threaded element 47 “is interposed between the …second lever and said third lever or between the…first lever and the fourth lever”. Examiner notes that the elected embodiment has the second threaded element 47 screwed in a hole on the third lever 5 and abutting second lever 6.
Regarding claim 30, examiner notes that the alternative “or” phrase is not elected by applicant.
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) 16, 18-19, 21, 24-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 2017/0241176 Zetti.
Based on the indefinitely broad and alternative language presented in applicant independent claim 16, examiner contends that a definite 102 rejection is impossible. Examiner contends that Zetti discloses the claim language as best understood, and/or as claimed in the claim language.
Regarding claim 16, Zetti discloses an adjustable damped snap-acting (please see 112b above) hinge, comprising:
- a first articulated quadrilateral which comprises a coupling element 6 which is configured to be associated with a fixed element 101, a first portion of a first lever and a third lever (levers 4 and 27) which are associated in an articulated manner with said coupling element (by pivots, figure 2), and a first portion of a second lever (second lever is part of the other quadrilateral), which is interposed between the first and third levers and is articulated thereto (levers of the other quadrilateral are connected using pivots to the levers of the first quadrilateral),
- a second articulated quadrilateral which comprises a fixing element 7 which is configured to be associated with an element 102 that can move with respect to said fixed element (pivoting between positions of figures 2 and 3), a second portion of said second lever and a fourth lever (levers 28 and 5) which are associated in an articulated manner with said fixing element 7 (by pivots, figure 2), and a second portion of said first lever (which is a lever of the first quadrilateral) which is interposed between the preceding levers and is articulated thereto (levers of the second quadrilateral is attached using pivots to the levers of the first quadrilateral),
the hinge being adapted to assume alternately an open configuration and a closed configuration (figures 2 and 3), said first, second, third and fourth levers rotating about respective articulation pivots which are substantially mutually parallel (as shown in figure 2), and said fixing element 7 varying arrangement thereof by an angle of aperture during a movement between the open and closed configurations (all the positions between figures 2 and 3 are possible by using the hinge),
the hinge being further provided with first elastic compression means 8 associated with the first quadrilateral and with second elastic compression means 31 associated with the second quadrilateral,
wherein either or both of said first and second elastic means is interposed between said coupling element 6 or said fixing element 7 (both are considered “interposed between” the mounting brackets called “coupling/fixing elements”) and an abutment element 9 associated with at least one of the levers of said first or second quadrilateral (“associated with” by being a part of the hinge), and further comprising at least one adjustment assembly 10 for adjusting a preloading of said first or second elastic means (10 adjusts elastic means 8), which comprises a movable element 11 supporting said abutment element 9 and associated with at least one of the levers of said first or second quadrilateral (associated with lever 4, since the abutment element 9 is on the other end of elastic element 8, and is therefore “associated with” lever 4), and at least one pusher element 14 interposed between said third or fourth lever and said movable element (directly contacts movable element, and is “interposed between” that and the lever 4), a variation of the position of the movable element 11 that is actuated via the pusher element 14 being adapted to modify the preloading of the first or second elastic means (directly affects the preloading of elastic element 8).
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 claim 18, Zetti discloses the hinge according to claim 16, wherein said pusher element 14 comprises a first threaded element 16 which is engaged in a corresponding internally threaded first hole 35 which is associated with one of either said third or fourth lever and said movable element (threaded stem 16 is within holes on movable element 11 and hole in 35, which is associated with the first quadrilateral), and is adapted to abut against the other one of said movable element and either said third or fourth lever (by having nut 13 and end 15).
Regarding claim 19, Zetti discloses the hinge according to claim 18, wherein said first hole is associated with said third or fourth lever (since “associated” does not require the hole is on the third or fourth lever, the first hole that holds threaded element 16 is “associated” with all levers) and said pusher element 14 is adapted to abut with its stem against said movable element (by nut 13 shown in figure 2).
Regarding claim 21, Zetti discloses the hinge according to claim 16, wherein one or both of said third and said fourth lever comprises a pair of side walls which are blended by a spine (figure 1).
Regarding claims 24-27, Zetti discloses the hinge according to claim 16, further comprising “means for setting a breadth of said angle of aperture” comprising at least one settable stroke limiting element 24 (device is located in the claimed location, and therefore performs the function of “settable stroke limiting”) which is interposed between levers 4 and 27, said at least one stroke limiting element 24 comprises a second threaded element 25 which is engaged in a corresponding internally threaded second hole (figures 1 and 2), wherein said second hole is associated with either said third or fourth lever (located on lever 4, but is “associated” with all levers), and said stroke limiting element 24 is adapted to abut with its stem against the first portion of said lever 27.
Claim(s) 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zetti as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of 2018/0106088 Zetti.
Regarding claims 29-30, ‘1176 Zetti discloses the hinge according to claim 16, but does not include any damping means.
‘6088 Zetti discloses a similar hinge having two quadrilaterals, two elastic means, with multiple parallel pivots, further comprising damping means 14 associated with said first or with said second quadrilateral, said damping means are interposed between the first portion of said first lever and the first portion of said second lever or between the second portion of said first lever and the second portion of said second lever, in the same manner disclosed by the instant application.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include a damping mechanism as taught by ‘6088 Zetti into the similar hinge of ‘1176 Zetti in order to “act in the transition from the open configuration to the closed configuration” [0011] so as to provide a “soft-close” feature [0042].
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘1176 Zetti as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of 2008/0276422 Beckman.
Regarding claim 17, ‘1176 Zetti discloses the hinge according to claim 16, disclosing the pivoting movable element 11 is directly pivoted to the bracket 6 to adjust the preloading of elastic element 8 adjusted by threaded stem 16. ‘1176 does not provide the pivoting movable element 11 pivoted to the lever at the opposite end of the elastic element 8.
Beckman discloses an adjustable damped snap-acting hinge, comprising: four lever arms, a coupling element 1 and a fixing element 2, the hinge adapted to have an open and closed configuration, the pivots are substantially mutually parallel, having one elastic compression means 17,
wherein said elastic means is interposed between said coupling element 1 and an abutment element (pivot pin on movable element 14 abutting spring 17) associated with at one of the levers (lever 5), and further comprising at least one adjustment assembly (screw 16 and arm 14) for adjusting a preloading of said elastic means ([0022]), which comprises a movable element 14 supporting said abutment element (pivot pin abutting the spring 17) and associated with at lever 5, and at least one pusher element 16 interposed between said lever 5 and said movable element 14, a variation of the position of the movable element 14 that is actuated via the pusher element 16 being adapted to modify the preloading of the first or second elastic means (limit rotation of rocker arm, thereby altering the characteristics of spring behavior. With the adjusting screw, the rocker arm can also be rotated until the spring action is nullified” [0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to replace the adjustable spring 8 of a similar hinge of Zetti (which utilizes a movable element 11 and pusher element 14), and instead utilize the adjustable spring 15 of a similar hinge of Beckman (which utilizes a movable element 14 and pusher element 16 to provide the adjustment), in order to provide the known and required adjustable spring of Zetti in a different and known location and orientation of adjustable springs, as taught by Beckman. Examiner contends that applying a known manner to adjust a spring in a hinge (using a moving element and a pusher element) in a spring to a known location of having a similar spring adjusted, as taught in Beckman, still provides the known and desired spring adjustment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see 892.
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