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 Amendment
Applicant’s amendments of claims 1, 7-9, 11, 13-16, and 19-20 are acknowledged by the Examiner.
Applicant’s cancelation of claims 6 and 21 are acknowledged by the Examiner.
Applicant’s addition of new claims 22-25 are acknowledged by the Examiner.
Applicant’s amendments of claims 7, 9, 11, 13-16 and 19-20 have overcome the previous claim objections. Therefore, the previous claim objections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments of claim 1, 8, 11, 16, and 20 have overcome the previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Therefore, the previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn.
Claims 1-5, 7-16, 19-20, and 22-25 are pending in the current Application
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments of claim 1 with respect to the references of Heronen, Ferrigolo, and Hsu ‘763 are moot as the current rejection does not rely on the aforementioned references to reject the identified limitations.
With respect to Applicant’s arguments against the reference of Hsu ‘070, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Hsu discloses “a protrusion extending beyond an exterior surface of a hinge arm” (see figure 8a that 145a/b each extends beyond the second cover plate 162 and thus, beyond an exterior surface of the hinge arms), “a protrusion having a length greater than the combined thickness of a bearing and hinge arm (again, see figure 8a that 145a/b each extend past the second cover plate and thus, have a length greater than the claimed thickness), and “a deformation of a distal end portion to define an enlarged head having a diameter greater than the hinge-arm hole to inhibit axial separation” (see [0095-0096]). Thus, Hsu does in fact disclose the identified limitations and will be utilized in the new rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 described below.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments that Hsu does not disclose a distal end portion that first extends beyond the hinge arm exterior and then fills a outlet recess formed along an exterior surface of a second cover plate, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Hsu ‘070 does in fact disclose “a distal end portion (145a/b) that first extends beyond the hinge arm exterior (see figure 8a that 145a/b extends beyond the exterior of second cover plate (162) and thus, extends beyond the hinge arm exterior housed under 162) and then fills an outlet recess (170) formed along an exterior surface of a second cover plate (see [0096])”. The melting of 145a/b forms a cohesive bond between the polymer materials of 145 and 162 within the 170 to improve the security of the attachment of the hinge assembly (i.e. inhibiting axial separation of the first and second cover plates, and the first and second hinge arms as claimed).
With regards to Applicant’s arguments of claim 8, the primary reference of Heronen discloses the claimed limitations of claim 8 as discussed in the final rejection mailed 10/31/2025.
With regards to Applicant’s arguments of new claims 22-25, the combination of Heronen, Ferrigolo, and Hsu ‘070 discloses the new claims as will be discussed below.
Applicant’s arguments of claims 10, and 14-15 depend from the arguments of claim 1 and are not persuasive for the reasons of claim 1 discussed above.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “to inhibit axial separation”. This limitation should be amended to recite “an axial separation” to properly present the limitation.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5, 7-15, and 22-25 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the interior first surface of the second cover plate” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “an interior first surface of the cover plate”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the absence” in line 29. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “an absence”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the first and second openings” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “the openings of the first and second bearings”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “wherein polymeric material from the first and second cover plates”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the polymeric material recited in claim 7 is the same polymeric material recited in claim 1, or new polymeric material. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as being the same polymeric material.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the first and second openings” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “the openings of the first and second bearings”.
Claims 2-5, 8-11, 13-15, and 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being dependent on a rejected claim and thus, contain the same offending limitations.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-9, 11-13, and 22-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heronen (US 2020/0182287 A1) in view of Ferrigolo (US 2021/0259870 A1) and Hsu et al. (US 2020/0306070 A1) (hereinafter Hsu).
In regards to claim 1, Heronen discloses A hinge (100; see [0039]; see figure 1) for an orthopedic device, comprising:
a first hinge arm (104; see [0039]; see figure 1) defining a first hole (156; see [0049]; see figure 2) at a first geared end thereof (see figure 3b);
a second hinge arm (106; see [0039]; see figure 1) defining a second hole (158; see [0049]; see figure 2) at a second geared end thereof (see figure 3b),
first and second cover plates (122 and 134; see [0042-0043]; see figure 2) for hingedly joining the first and second hinge arms (104 and 106; see figure 1);
wherein the first cover plate (122) forms first and second protrusions (136 and 138; see [0042]; see figure 2) extending from a bearing surface (148; see [0044]; see figure 2) protruding from an interior first surface thereof (see figure 2 that 148 extends from 122 when engaged together), and third and fourth protrusions (140a-b; see [0043]; see figure 2) extending from the interior first surface (see figure 2) thereof,
wherein the second cover plate (134) comprises first and second bearings (128 and 130; see [0049]; see figure 2) protruding from the interior first surface of the second cover plate (134; see figure 2 that when assembled 128 and 130 are intended to be placed against 134) and arranged for receiving the first and second protrusions (136 and 138) into openings defined thereby (openings within 128 and 130, and associated 162; see [0049-0050]; see figure 2), the first and second bearings (128 and 130) extending a predetermined distance equal to or greater than a thickness of the first and second hinge arms (104 and 106; see figure 2 that 128 and 130 extend at least a distance equal to the thickness of 104 and 106);
wherein the first and second holes (156 and 158) of the first and second hinge arms (104 and 106), respectively, are sized and configured with a diameter that is at least a size of an outer diameter of the first and second bearings (128 and 130) to freely rotate about the first and second bearings (128 and 130; see [0049]; see figure 3b), the first and second holes (156 and 158) being coaxial to the first and second bearings (128 and 130; see figure 3b);
wherein the first and second protrusions (136 and 138) extend coaxially relative to the first and second bearings (128 and 130) and the first and second holes (156 and 158) along first and second axes (two B axes; see figure 2), respectively, and extend through the openings defined by the first and second bearings through the first and second holes of the first and second hinge arms (see [0045] and figure 2 that 136 and 138 are intended to be arranged along axes B-B which extend through the openings of 128 and 130, and 156/158 respectively),
wherein each of the first and second protrusions (136 and 138) extends through an entire wall thickness of the corresponding bearing (128 and 130), and has a protrusion length greater than a combined thickness of the corresponding bearing and the corresponding hinge arm such that a distal end portion (152; see [0050]; see figure 2) of each of the first and second protrusions extends beyond an exterior surface of the corresponding hinge arm (136 and 138 are intended to extend through the combined thicknesses of 128/130, and 156/158 to be received in 162 which is beyond an exterior surface of the hinge arms (see [0050])).
Heronen does not disclose wherein the first cover plate is molded, and the second cover plate is molded and forms the first and second bearings;
wherein the distal end portion of each of the first and second protrusions is deformed to define an enlarged head having a diameter greater than a diameter of the corresponding hole to inhibit axial separation of the first and second cover plates and the first and second hinge arms in the absence of a separate fastener; and
wherein the first hinge arm, the second hinge arm, and the first and second cover plates are formed of a polymeric material molded by injection molding.
However, Ferrigolo teaches an analogous hinge (10; see [0045]; see figure 1) comprising first and second arms (13 and 14; see [0046]; see figure 1) and first and second cover plates (12 and 11; see [0046]; see figure 1) which hingedly connect the first and second arms (see [0053]); wherein the second cover plate (11) forms the first and second bearings (17 and 18; see [0047]; see figure 1 and 3).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the second cover plate and bearings as disclosed by Heronen and to have the second cover plate form the first and second bearings as taught by Ferrigolo in order to have provided an improved hinge which would have a second cover plate formed with integral bearings, thereby simplifying the assembly of the hinge of Heronen. Furthermore, such a modification is held to be obvious since it has been held that “the use of a one-piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice." In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) (see MPEP 2144.04 (V)(B)).
Heronen as now modified by Ferrigolo still does not disclose wherein the first cover plate is molded, and the second cover plate is molded;
wherein the distal end portion of each of the first and second protrusions is deformed to define an enlarged head having a diameter greater than a diameter of the corresponding hole to inhibit axial separation of the first and second cover plates and the first and second hinge arms in the absence of a separate fastener; and
wherein the first hinge arm, the second hinge arm, and the first and second cover plates are formed of a polymeric material molded by injection molding.
However, Hsu teaches an analogous hinge (101; see [0079]; see figure 2) comprising an analogous first and second cover plates (132, and 160; see [0094]; see figure 7a and 8a) wherein the first cover plate (132) defines first and second protrusions (144 and 146; see [0095]; see figure 7a) wherein the first and second protrusions (144 and 146) having a length greater than a combined length of the predetermined distance of the first and second bearings and a thickness of the second cover plate (162; see figure 8a); wherein the distal end portion (145a/b; see [0095]; see figure 8a) of each of the first and second protrusions (144 and 146) is deformed to define an enlarged head having a diameter greater than a diameter of the corresponding hole (see [0096]; see figure 8b) to inhibit axial separation of the first and second cover plates and the first and second hinge arms in the absence of a separate fastener (145a/b are melted to improve the security of the attachment of the hinge assembly and thus, inhibit axial separation of the claimed structures) for the purpose of improving the security of the attachment of the hinge assembly (See [0096]); and
wherein the first hinge arm, the second hinge arm, and the first and second cover plates are formed of a polymeric material (see [0068]) for the purpose of reducing the cost and complexity of producing and using the hinge assemblies (See [0068]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the distal ends of each of the first and second protrusions as disclosed by Heronen as now modified by Ferrigolo to be deformed to define an enlarged head as taught by Hsu in order to have provided an improved hinge fastening means which improves the security of the attachment of the hinge assembly (See [0096]). It would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the material of the first hinge arm, second hinge arm, first cover plate, and second cover plate as disclosed by Heronen as now modified by Ferrigolo to be formed from the polymeric material as taught by Hsu in order to have provided an improved hinge which reduces the cost and complexity of producing and using the hinge assemblies (see [0068]).
With regards to the remaining limitations of “wherein the first cover plate is molded, and the second cover plate is molded; and wherein the first hinge arm, the second hinge arm, and the first and second cover plates are molded by injection molding”: These limitations are drawn to an article of manufacture, and therefore the limitations are considered to be a product-by-process limitation that is given patentable weight only for the structural limitations imparted to the final product by the process. When a claim is directed to a device, the process steps are not germane to the issue of patentability. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product by process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps (emphasis added). Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 USC 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In the instant case, the combination of Heronen in view of Ferrigolo and Hsu discloses a hinge appearing to be substantially the same or similar to the claimed hinge. Thus, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.
Nonetheless, Hsu teaches the formation of the hinge through an injection molding process (see [0019]) for the purpose of reducing the cost and complexity of producing and using the hinge assemblies (See [0068]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of manufacturing the hinge components as disclosed by Heronen as now modified by Ferrigolo and Hsu and to have formed the hinge components through the process of molding, specifically injection molding as taught by Hsu in order to have provided an improved process of forming the hinge components that would add the benefit of reducing the cost and complexity of producing and using the hinge assemblies (See [0068])
In regards to claim 2, Heronen as now modified by Ferrigolo and Hsu discloses the invention as discussed above.
Heronen as now modified by Ferrigolo further discloses further comprising third and fourth apertures (left and right 160 of Heronen; see Heronen [0050] and figure 2) located between and offset from the first and second bearings (128 and 130 of Heronen as now modified by Ferrigolo; see figure 2 that left and right 160 are between and offset from 162 which is the position of 128 and 130), the third and fourth apertures (left and right 160 of Heronen) being located proximate a peripheral edge of the second cover plate (134; see figure 2).
Heronen as now modified by Ferrigolo and Hsu does not disclose the third and fourth apertures of the second cover plate are third and fourth bearings which protrude from the second cover plate and are parallel to the first and second bearings.
However, Ferrigolo further teaches the first and second bearings (17 and 18) are formed over apertures and receive the first and second protrusions (31 and 32) therethrough (see [0052]; see figure 3).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the third and fourth apertures as disclosed by Heronen as now modified by Ferrigolo and Hsu and to have included third and fourth bearings parallel to the first and second bearings to be associated with the third and fourth apertures as taught by the first and second bearings of Ferrigolo in order to have provided an improved hinge that would add the benefit of providing structures associated with the third and fourth protrusions which would receive, guide, and make the process of assembling the hinge easier. Furthermore, such a modification to include additional bearings is held to be obvious since it has been held that “mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced” In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP 2144.04 (VI) (B)). In the instant case, providing additional bearings provides the expected result of providing additional structures for receiving corresponding protrusions.
In regards to claim 3, Heronen as now modified by Ferrigolo and Hsu discloses the invention as discussed above.
Heronen as now modified by Ferrigolo further discloses wherein the third and fourth bearings (third and fourth bearings of apertures 160 of Heronen as now modified by Ferrigolo) have a length being identical as the predetermined distance of the first and second bearings (128 and 130 of Heronen as now modified by Ferrigolo; the included third and fourth bearings would be similarly housed between the first and second cover plates of Heronen, and thus would have the exact length of 128 and 130).
In regards to claim 4, Heronen as now modified by Ferrigolo and Hsu discloses the invention as discussed above.
Heronen as now modified by Ferrigolo further discloses wherein the third and fourth bearings (third and fourth bearings of apertures 160 of Heronen as now modified by Ferrigolo) define an outer diameter being smaller than the outer diameter of the first and second bearings (128 and 130 of Heronen as now modified by Ferrigolo; the included third and fourth bearings are associated with apertures 160 which have a smaller diameter to those of 162 associated with 128 and 130; thus, the included third and fourth bearings would have a smaller diameter to that of 128 and 130)
In regards to claim 5, Heronen as now modified by Ferrigolo and Hsu discloses the invention as discussed above.
Heronen as now modified by Ferrigolo further discloses wherein the third and fourth protrusions (140a-b of Heronen) are arranged to extend into third and fourth openings (openings of third and fourth bearings as taught by Ferrigolo and associated left and right 160 of Heronen) defined by the third and fourth bearings (third and fourth bearings of apertures 160 of Heronen as now modified by Ferrigolo) along third and fourth axes (two A axes; see figure 2).
In regards to claim 7, Heronen as now modified by Ferrigolo and Hsu discloses the invention as discussed above.
Heronen as now modified by Hsu further discloses wherein the distal end portion (145a/ of Hsu) is arranged to be melted or sonically welded to fill an outlet recess (170 of Hsu) formed along an exterior surface of the second cover plate (134 of Heronen) to secure the first cover plate (122 of Heronen) to the second cover plate (see Hsu [0096]), the outlet recess depending from the first and second openings (170 of Hsu depends from the holes which receive the first and second protrusions which in the device of Heronen are aligned with the first and second bearings), and having an enlarged diameter relative thereto to accommodate the distal end portion portion melted thereinto by welding to form an integral connection of the first cover to the second cover (see Hsu [0096]) wherein polymeric material from the first and second cover plates mixes with one another to form a cohesive bond and material section (when melting 145a/b (a portion of the first cover plate) as disclosed in Hsu [0096], the polymeric material of the protrusions and the second cover plate bond together as claimed).
In regards to claim 8, Heronen as now modified by Ferrigolo and Hsu discloses the invention as discussed above.
Heronen as now modified by Hsu further discloses wherein the first and second protrusions (136 and 138 of Heronen) each form a base portion (150; see Heronen [0044] and figure 2) having a base width or diameter, and a base length (see Heronen figure 2), and an extension portion (152 of Heronen) extending from the base portion (150 of Heronen), the base width or diameter being greater than an extension width or diameter (see Heronen figure 2), the extension portion (152 of Heronen) including the distal end portion (145a/b of Hsu), the base length generally corresponding to the predetermined distance (see Heronen [0049] in reference to 128 and 130 receiving 150), and the extension portion (152 of Heronen) having a length exceeding the thickness of the second cover plate (See Hsu figure 8a that as now modified the length of the extension portion exceeds the thickness of the second cover plate to be ultrasonically melted into 170 of the second cover plate as discussed in Hsu [0096]), wherein a total length of the first and second protrusions (136 and 138 of Heronen) has been shortened (see Hsu [0096] and figures 8a-b) such that the first and second protrusions do not come to a hard stop (see Hsu figure 8a that the protrusions, as now modified, extend through the second cover plate and thus, do not come to a hard stop by abutment) and the first and second cover plates come to a hard stop with the first and second hinge arms (104 and 106 of Heronen; see Heronen figure 1).
wherein the first and second protrusions (136 and 138) extend from a bearing surface (148; see [0044]; see figure 2) protruding from an inner surface thereof (see figure 2) through the first and second holes (156 and 158) of the hinge arms (104 and 106) and the first and second bearings (128 and 130; see figure 2), and the first and second cover plates (122 and 134) are arranged to come to a hard stop with the first and second hinge arms (104 and 106; see figure 1).
In regards to claim 9, Heronen as now modified by Ferrigolo and Hsu discloses the invention as discussed above.
Heronen further discloses wherein the openings of the first and second bearings (openings within 128 and 130, and associated 162) each define an opening base portion (openings within 128 and 130) configured and dimensioned to the base portion of the first and second protrusions (150 of 136 and 138; see [0049]), and an opening extension portion (associated 162) is sized and configured to accommodate the width or diameter of the extension portion (152; see [0050]), the opening extension portion (associated 162) arranged shorter than the extension portion (152 extends into 162 (see [0050]) and thus, is longer than 162).
In regards to claim 11, Heronen as now modified by Ferrigolo and Hsu discloses the invention as discussed above.
Heronen further discloses wherein the third and fourth protrusions (140a-b) each form a base portion (144; see [0043]; see figure 2) having a base width or diameter, and a base length (see figure 5a), and an extension portion (146; see [0043]; see figure 5a) extending from the base portion (144; see figure 5a), the base width or diameter being greater than an extension width or diameter (see figure 5a), the extension portion (146) having a length exceeding a thickness of the second cover plate (140a-b are intended to be received within 160 of 134 (see [0050]) and thus, have a length which exceeds a thickness of 134), wherein the third and fourth protrusions (140a-b) are shortened such that the third and fourth protrusions do not come to a hard stop (140a-b extend through 160 and thus, do not come to a hard stop by abutting 134), and the first and second cover plates are arranged to come to a hard stop with the first and second hinge arms (104 and 106; see figure 1).
In regards to claim 12, Heronen as now modified by Ferrigolo and Hsu discloses the invention as discussed above.
Heronen further discloses further comprising at least a first rotation stop (110; see [0040]; see figure 2) having a pair of prongs (prongs which form 182; see figure 6d) with a clearance (182; see [0060]; see figure 6d) defined between interior surfaces of the pair of prongs (see figure 6d).
Heronen as now modified by Ferrigolo and Hsu does not explicitly disclose the pair of prongs sized and configured to removably snap-fit to at least one of the third and fourth bearings. Though intended use does not inhibit the structure, design or disclosure of Heronen as now modified by Ferrigolo and Hsu, for full clarity it is obvious that Heronen as now modified by Ferrigolo and Hsu’s prongs of the first rotation stop are formed from a polymer material (a material which can have modified robustness based on the polymer (see Hsu [0019]), and thus can be a material which is capable of flexing from a first configuration to a second configuration and back) as taught by Hsu (see discussion of claim 1 above), and comprises prongs which form a narrow clearance leading to a larger opening (see Heronen figure 6d) and thus, having the shape and material required for being capable of being used to removably snap-fit to at least one of the third and fourth bearings.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have known that the intended use of the first rotation stop removably snap-fitting to at least one of the third and fourth bearings does not inhibit the structure, design or disclosure of Heronen as now modified by Ferrigolo and Hsu and Heronen as now modified by Ferrigolo and Hsu’s first rotation stop is fully capable of being used to removably snap-fit to at least one of the third and fourth bearings.
In regards to claim 13, Heronen as now modified by Ferrigolo and Hsu discloses the invention as discussed above.
Heronen further discloses wherein the pair of prongs (prongs which form 182) define first and second abutment surfaces (192 and 194; see [0059; see figure 3b) on exterior surfaces thereof opposite the clearance (182; see figure 3b), the first and second hinge arms (104 and 106) defining first and second stops (202 and 206; see [0059]; see figure 3b) of an anterior side of the hinge (102; see figure 3b) and first and second projections (200 and 204; see [0059]; see figure 3b) of a posterior side of the hinge (102; see figure 3b) and arranged to abut the first and second abutment surfaces (192 and 194; see figure 3b), and limit rotation of the first and second hinge arms (104 and 106) in a first direction (see [0059]).
In regards to claim 22, Heronen as now modified by Ferrigolo and Hsu discloses the invention as discussed above.
Heronen as now modified by Hsu further discloses wherein each of the first and second protrusions (136 and 138 of Heronen) includes a base portion (150; see Heronen [0044] and figure 2) and an extension portion (152; see Heronen [0044] and figure 2) extending from the base portion (see Heronen figure 2), the extension portion including the distal end portion (145a/b of Hsu) and wherein a width or diameter of the base portion is greater than a width or diameter of the extension portion (see Heronen figure 2).
In regards to claim 23, Heronen as now modified by Ferrigolo and Hsu discloses the invention as discussed above.
Heronen as now modified by Hsu further discloses wherein the enlarged head (head of 145a/b of Hsu melted into 170 of Hsu) of each of the first and second protrusions (136 and 138 of Heronen) is radially continuous about an entire circumference of the corresponding protrusion (see figures 8a and 8b of Hsu).
In regards to claim 24, Heronen as now modified by Ferrigolo and Hsu discloses the invention as discussed above.
Heronen as now modified by Hsu further discloses wherein the second cover plate (134 of Heronen) defines a recess (170 of Hsu) aligned with each of the first and second bearings (128 and 130 of Heronen; 170 of Hsu depends from the holes which receive the first and second protrusions which in the device of Heronen are aligned with the first and second bearings) and wherein the enlarged head of each of the first and second protrusions is at least partially received within the corresponding recess (See Hsu [0096] and figures 8a/b).
In regards to claim 25, Heronen as now modified by Ferrigolo and Hsu discloses the invention as discussed above.
Heronen further discloses wherein each of the first and second protrusions (136 and 138) extends from the bearing surface (148) protruding from an interior first surface thereof (see figure 2), and a base length of the base portion (150) generally corresponds to the predetermined distance of the first and second bearings (see Heronen [0049] in reference to 128 and 130 receiving 150).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heronen in view of Ferrigolo, and Hsu as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Schillig (US 2023/0310193 A1).
In regards to claim 10, Heronen as now modified by Ferrigolo, and Hsu discloses the invention as discussed above.
Heronen as now modified by Ferrigolo, and Hsu does not disclose wherein the opening base portions of the first and second openings are configured in a star shape to minimize warping.
However, Schillig teaches an analogous opening (opening of 208; see figure 2) which receives a protrusion (212; see [0036]; see figure 2) for facilitating rotation of an analogous first and second hinge arm (202; see [0035]; see figure 2); wherein the opening base portion (opening of 208) is configured in a star shape (see figure 2) to minimize warping and create more even wall thickness for the purpose of providing an angular shape which prevents movement (see [0036]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the opening base portion as disclosed by Heronen as now modified by Ferrigolo, and Hsu and to have formed the opening base portion in the shape of a star as taught by Schillig in order to have provided an improved opening base portion which would provide the benefit of providing an angular shape which prevents movement (see [0036]).
Such a modification is considered obvious since there is nothing in the record which establishes that the star shape presents a novel or unexpected result, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. Applicant’s specification paragraph [0106] states: “A periphery of the opening 154 may be defined by alternating pattern 166 of recesses 168, such as in the depicted embodiment in Fig. 9. The alternating pattern 166 eliminates warpage at the tubular bearings by removing material whereat fibers may tangle during the formation of the tubular bearings, which still offers sufficient surface area to receive the base portion 148. The depicted image is only exemplary, and a variety of material-saving variations may be employed”. Thus, a star shape is considered to be a design choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (see MPEP 2144.04)
Claim(s) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heronen in view of Ferrigolo and Hsu as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Chiang et al. (US 2011/0071450 A1) (hereinafter Chiang).
In regards to claim 14, Heronen as now modified by Ferrigolo and Hsu discloses the invention as discussed above.
Heronen as now modified by Ferrigolo and Hsu does not disclose wherein at least one of the first and second cover plates defines first and second tabs defined along the peripheral edge and have first stop surfaces arranged for abutment by first and second stops of the anterior side of the hinge formed by the first and second hinge arms to limit a maximum extension of the hinge.
However, Chiang teaches an analogous polycentric hinge (10; see [0018]; see figure 1) comprising first and second hinge arms (20 and 30; see [0018]; see figure 1) and first and second cover plates (11 and 12; see [0019]; see figure 2) wherein at least one of the first and second cover plates (11 and 12) defines first and second tabs (see annotated figure 6 below) defined along the peripheral edge (see figure 2) and have first stop surfaces arranged for abutment by first and second stops of the anterior side of the hinge formed by the first and second hinge arms (20 and 30) to limit a maximum extension of the hinge (10; see figure 6) for the purpose of providing a maximum range of movement and preventing movement outside of the determined range (See [abstract]).
PNG
media_image1.png
238
425
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first plate as disclosed by Heronen as now modified by Ferrigolo and Hsu and to have included the first and second tabs along the peripheral edge as taught by Chaing in order to have provided an improved hinge first cover plate that would add the benefit of providing a tab which limits a maximum range of movement and preventing movement outside of the determined range (See [abstract]) thereby ensuring the user does not over extend their joint while using the hinge device without the included rotation stops.
In regards to claim 15, Heronen as now modified by Ferrigolo, Hsu, and Chaing discloses the invention as discussed above.
Heronen as now modified by Chaing further discloses wherein the first and second tabs protrude the predetermined distance from the interior first surface of the second cover plate (see figure 1 of Chiang that tabs extend between the first and second cover plates; therefore the included tabs of Chiang would protrude the predetermined distance as claimed) and are located on opposite sides of the first rotation stop (110 of Heronen; the relied upon tabs of Chiang are positioned on an anterior side of the hinge, 110 of Heronen is positioned on a posterior side of the hinge, therefore the tabs and 110 are located as claimed), the first and second tabs (tabs of Chiang) forming second stop surfaces arranged proximate or adjacent to first and second ends of the first rotation stop (110 of Heronen; the tabs of Chiang and 110 of Heronen being structures of the same hinge are considered “proximate” (i.e. very near or close)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16, and 19-20 are allowed
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
the subject matter not disclosed either singly or in combination is that of “wherein the first hinge arm forms a first clearance and the second hinge arm forms a second clearance, the first flexion stop forming first and second plugs adapted to fit in the first and second clearances, respectively, to prevent rotation of the first hinge arm relative to the second hinge arm; wherein the first hinge arm defines a first outer stop and a first inner stop bounding opposed ends of the first clearance about a circumference of the first geared end”. No hinge arm which defines both inner and outer stops to be used with a plug formed by a flexion stop to be inserted into the clearance bounded by inner and outer stops could be found in the examiner’s search. It would appear in the field of polycentric hinges which use flexion stops, that only single stops are utilized to abut against a flexion stop. It is for this reason claim 16 is considered to contain allowable subject matter.
Claims 19 and 20 are considered allowable insofar as the claims depend from independent claim 16 and thus, contain the same allowable limitations.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5445. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-4pm.
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, Alireza Nia can be reached at 571-270-3076. 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.
/DANIEL A MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3786
Prosecution Insights