DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments directed to the criticality of the claimed dimensions is traversed. There are numerous ways to arrive at the appropriate dimensions and a user need not employ Applicant’s own mathematical equations based on the door thickness to arrive the optimum geometry and kinematics. Furthermore, the claimed kinematic novelty cited by the Applicant (paragraph [0122]) is clearly taught by He, U.S. Patent 11,118,384 (see Figs. 1-3).
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, 4-8 and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Squire, U.S. Patent 2,867,839 in view of He, U.S. Patent 11,118,384.
Regarding Claim 1, Squire teaches:
a case (see below), defining a receiving space (see below) having an opening (see
below);
a door (see below), configured to block the opening; and
a hinge assembly (see below), disposed body at a pivot side of the case and configured to pivotally connect the case to the door (Figs. 1-4); wherein
the door has an inner edge (see below) and an outer edge (see below) at the pivot side, the door has a first reference plane (see below) and a second reference plane (see below); when the door is in a closed state relative to the case, the inner edge is located on and extend along the first reference plane, and the first reference plane is parallel to a plane in which the opening is located; when the door is in the closed state relative to the case, the outer edge is located on and extend along the second reference plane, and the second reference plane is perpendicular to the plane in which the opening is located, the first reference plane and the second reference plane stay stationary with respect to the case while the door is being opened with respect to the case (see below);
a first hinge point (15) and a second hinge point (14) are formed on the hinge assembly; the second hinge point, compared to the first hinge point, is located further away from the outer edge;
the hinge assembly comprises an outer shaft (15) and an inner shaft (14) arranged in the case, and an outer slot (26) and an inner slot (27) defined on the door, the outer slot and the outer shaft engages with each other to form the first hinge point at a center of the outer shaft, the inner slot and the inner shaft engages with each other to form the second hinge point at a center of the inner shaft;
a first perpendicular line (First PL below) is generated from the center of the outer shaft to the outer edge; the (second PL below) is generated from the center of the outer shaft to the inner edge; the center of the outer shaft has a second perpendicular distance, along the second perpendicular line, to the inner edge; a third angle is generated between the first perpendicular line and the first reference plane, a fourth angle is generated between the second perpendicular line and the first reference plane;
when the door is being opened from the closed state to a position of a first opening angle relative to the case, each of the first perpendicular distance and the second perpendicular distance is gradually decreased, the third angle is within a range of 0 degrees to 90 degrees and is gradually decreased, and the fourth angle is in a range of 0 degrees to 90 degrees and is gradually increased (see figs. 1-4 in light of annotated drawing);
in process of the door being opened from the closed state to a maximum opening angle, the outer slot and the inner slot move together with the door such that at beginning of movement, the outer shaft is located at first end of the outer slot, the inner shaft is located at first end of the inner slot, at end of the movement, the outer shaft is located at second end of the outer slot, the inner shaft is located at second end of the inner slot, and a position of the outer shaft relative to the outer slot changes from the first end of the outer slot to the second end of the outer slot (see figs. 1 and 4).
Squire does not explicitly teach:
wherein, as an opening angle between the door and the case being increased by each
unit of angle, a change in the first perpendicular distance is gradually increased; and a change in the second perpendicular distance is gradually decreased,
wherein the first perpendicular distance is gradually decreased from a range between 0.63t and 0.65t to a range between 0.57t and 0.59t, the second perpendicular distance is gradually decreased from a range between 0.80t and 0.78t to a range between 0.59t and 0.61t, and the t is a thickness of the door.
He teaches the kinematic outcome (see Applicant’s paragraph [0122]) purportedly caused by the claimed dimensions (see Figs. 1-3). The door does not extend outside the width of the case.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Squire with the appropriate dimensions of He such that the kinematic and geometric limitations would be met because that would allow the device to be installed in tight cabinet openings and since the claimed function is known it is obvious that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 [R-5].
PNG
media_image1.png
460
522
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, Squire-He is silent with regard to the claimed angles being swept through by the claimed structures.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the Squire device with the claimed angles because the ultimate opening angle can be selected from a wide variety of desired angles depending upon the application. Furthermore, applicant has not provided any criticality for the claimed angles and it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 [R-5].
Regarding Claim 5, the claims set forth dimensions related by a mathematical process, but still set forth a range since they are based on the third angles which changes as the door is opened or closed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the Squire-He device with the claimed dimensions because the door thickness is a common design choice depending on the application and selecting the remaining dimensions to satisfy the kinematic requirements is well within the ordinary skill of those in the art and, furthermore, applicant has not provided any criticality for the claimed angles and it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 [R-5].
Regarding Claim 6, it appears to be inherent that the claimed product would increase is constant or gradually decreasing while the door is opened. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the Squire-He device with the claimed dimensions because the door thickness is a common design choice depending on the application and selecting the remaining dimensions to satisfy the kinematic requirements is well within the ordinary skill of those in the art and, furthermore, applicant has not provided any criticality for the claimed angles and it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 [R-5].
Regarding Claim 7, the claims set forth dimensions related by a mathematical process, but still set forth a range since they are based on the third angles which changes as the door is opened or closed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the Squire-He device with the claimed dimensions because the door thickness is a common design choice depending on the application and selecting the remaining dimensions to satisfy the kinematic requirements is well within the ordinary skill of those in the art and, furthermore, applicant has not provided any criticality for the claimed angles and it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 [R-5].
Regarding Claim 8, it appears to be inherent that the claimed product would increase is constant or gradually decreasing while the door is opened. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the Squire-He device with the claimed dimensions because the door thickness is a common design choice depending on the application and selecting the remaining dimensions to satisfy the kinematic requirements is well within the ordinary skill of those in the art and, furthermore, applicant has not provided any criticality for the claimed angles and it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 [R-5].
Regarding Claim 11, see 112 rejection above, Examiner cannot determine what is intended to be claimed by these limitations. However, it appears that these limitations can be satisfied by one of the angles through which the prior art opens as set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding Claims 12-13, see drawing selections below (with inner shaft 14) which satisfy the limitations as claimed. Examiner notes that the “inner edge” is an element of the door and therefore will change position from the closed position to the open position.
PNG
media_image2.png
352
346
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
342
361
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 14, see rejection of Claim 1 and note that the “first movement direction” and “second movement direction” are equivalents to the “first perpendicular line” and the “second perpendicular line”.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5218. The examiner can normally be reached IFP, Typically M-Th, 8:00-6:00, regular Fr availability.
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.
/MATTHEW J SULLIVAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3677
/JASON W SAN/SPE, Art Unit 3677
Prosecution Insights