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 with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1-15 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.
Applicant has amended “trajectory” to “path” and “track”, but the “path” or “track” is still defined by an edge, which is a line. When I line undergoes translation and rotation it will sweep out an area which can comprise many different paths. A single path within the swept area cannot be clearly and explicitly defined and limited.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Squire, U.S. Patent 2,867,839.
Regarding Claim 1, Squire teaches:
a case (12), defining a holding space; wherein the holding space has an opening (Figs. 2-
4);
a door (19), configured to block the opening; and
a hinge assembly (Title, Figs. 1-4), arranged on a pivot side of the case and pivotally connected to the door and the case (Figs. 1-4);
wherein the door has an outer edge (see below) and an inner edge (see below) on the pivot side; a first reference plane (see below) and a second reference plane (see below) are defined for the door; the first reference plane is parallel to a plane where the opening is located, and a contour of the inner edge is located on the first reference plane in a closed state (Fig. 1, see below); the second reference plane is perpendicular to the plane where the opening is located, and a contour of the outer edge is located on the second reference plane in the closed state (Fig. 1, see below); the first reference plane and the second reference plane remain stationary with respect to the case during a process of the door being opened relative to the case…
…the hinge assembly comprises a first shaft (14) and a second shaft (15) arranged in the case, and a first slot (27) and a second slot (26) arranged in the door, the first slot and the first shaft engages with each other, and the second slot and the second shaft engages with each other
in process of the door being opened from the closed state to the third opening angle, the first slot and the second slot move together with the door such that at beginning of movement, the first shaft is located at first end of the first slot (Fig. 1), the second shaft is located at first end of the second slot (Fig. 1), at end of the movement, the first shaft is located at second end of the first slot (Fig. 4), the second shaft is located at second end of the second slot (Fig. 4), a position of the first shaft relative to the first slot changes from the first end of the first slot to the second end of the first slot, and a position of the second shaft relative to the second slot changes from the first end of the second slot to the second end of the second slot (see Figs. 1-4).
Squires does not explicitly teach:
During a process of the door, under an action of the hinge assembly, moving from the
closed state to an opened state at a first opening angle relative to the case, the outer edge moves toward the first reference plane along a first path; the first path has a radius of curvature greater than or equal to 5t, and a distance of the first path exceeding a side of the second reference plane back to the opening is less than or equal to a first predetermined distance;
during a process of the door, under the action of the hinge assembly, moving from the opened state at the first opening angle to an opened state at a second opening angle relative to the case, the outer edge moves along a second path toward the first reference plane; the second path has a radius of curvature greater than or equal to 5t, and a distance of the second path exceeding the side of the second reference plane back to the opening is less than or equal to the first predetermined distance; wherein the t is a thickness of the door;
during a process of the door, under the action of the hinge assembly, moving from the opened state at the second opening angle to an opened state at a third opening angle relative to the case, the outer edge moves along a third path toward a side of the second reference plane toward the opening; the third path is an arc having a radius of curvature of 0.45t-0.55t; a circle center of the third path is located in the door.
Insofar as the limitations not taught by Squire can be understood, 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 claimed radii of curvature of the first, second and third paths swept by the inner and outer edge with the values claimed (5t, 5t, 0.45t-0.55t, respectively) because Squire broadly teaches the claimed door path (and associated door elements) 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]. Additionally, Applicant has not provided any unforeseen result or criticality stemming from the use of the claimed dimensions.
PNG
media_image1.png
649
737
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, these claim limitations set forth further dimensional requirements for the first opening angle (25°-31°), second opening angle (57°-60°) and third angle (122°-132°) of the structure. These limitations rejected because 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]. Additionally, Applicant has not provided any unforeseen result or criticality stemming from the use of the claimed dimensions.
Regarding Claim 3, it is inherent that the first path has an end point on the second reference plane, see drawing selection above. It is considered further obvious to provide the distance between the end point of the first path and the second reference plane being less than or equal to 0.135t because 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]. Additionally, Applicant has not provided any unforeseen result or criticality stemming from the use of the claimed dimensions.
Regarding Claim 4, Squire is interpreted to inherently teach a first path, a second path and a third path, but is silent with regard to the specific radii of curvature of these trajectories. 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 claimed radii of curvature of the first, second and third paths in the first, second and third opening angles, respectively, because Squire broadly teaches the claimed trajectories (see Figs. 1-4 compared with Applicant’s fig. 10) 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]. Additionally, Applicant has not provided any unforeseen result or criticality stemming from the use of the claimed dimensions.
Regarding Claim 5, it is inherent that an end point of the first track is located on the first reference plane, see drawing selection above.
Regarding Claim 6, these claims set forth further dimensional requirements for the first predetermined distance (0mm-4mm) and the second predetermined distance (0mm-2mm). These limitations rejected because 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]. Additionally, Applicant has not provided any unforeseen result or criticality stemming from the use of the claimed dimensions.
Regarding Claim 7, Since the track and path are not explicitly defined it is arbitrary to designate the first track and first path such that the ratio of the length of the path to the track is 3.5 to 4.5 because 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]. Additionally, Applicant has not provided any unforeseen result or criticality stemming from the use of the claimed dimensions.
Regarding Claim 8, since the “track” and the “path” are not explicitly defined and are available to be chosen from within the area swept by the edges, it is arbitrary to defined the radii of curvature between the third track and third path to be 1.22 because 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]. Additionally, Applicant has not provided any unforeseen result or criticality stemming from the use of the claimed dimensions.
Regarding Claim 9, since the limitation “t” is a variable that is undefined it is considered well within the ordinary skill of those in the art to provide the distance from the circle to the first reference plane as 0.6t and the distance to the second reference plane as 0.5t because 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]. Additionally, Applicant has not provided any unforeseen result or criticality stemming from the use of the claimed dimensions.
Regarding Claim 10, Squire is interpreted to inherently teach an outer reference point having a first outer-reference-point trajectory and a second-outer-reference-point trajectory, but is silent with regard to the specific dimensions of these trajectories. 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 claimed dimensions of the first and second outer-reference-point trajectories because Squire broadly teaches the claimed trajectories (see Figs. 1-4 compared with Applicant’s fig. 10) 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]. Additionally, Applicant has not provided any unforeseen result or criticality stemming from the use of the claimed dimensions.
Regarding Claim 11, Squire is interpreted to inherently teach an outer reference point having a first inner-reference-point trajectory and a second inner-reference-point trajectory, but is silent with regard to the specific dimensions of these trajectories. 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 claimed dimensions of the first and second inner-reference-point trajectories because Zhang broadly teaches the claimed trajectories (see Figs. 1-4 compared with Applicant’s fig. 10) 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]. Additionally, Applicant has not provided any unforeseen result or criticality stemming from the use of the claimed dimensions.
Regarding Claim 12, since the limitation “t” is a variable that is undefined it is considered well within the ordinary skill of those in the art to provide the perpendicular distances claimed as being 0.1t because 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]. Additionally, Applicant has not provided any unforeseen result or criticality stemming from the use of the claimed dimensions.
Regarding Claim 13, since the reference points are abstractions it is arbitrary to designate the outer reference point on the outer edge and the inner reference point on the inner edge.
Regarding Claim 14, since the trajectories claimed in this limitation are not exclusively parallel to the claimed references planes it is considered inherent that the reference points of the prior art would have a component parallel to each reference plane and are therefore interpreted to meet the limitations.
Regarding Claim 15, since the reference points can be chosen at different locations on the inner and outer edge it is arbitrary to designate the first inner and outer reference points such that the first inner reference point trajectory is greater than a length of the first outer reference point trajectory and the ratio of these lengths being 3.5 to 4.5 because 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]. Additionally, Applicant has not provided any unforeseen result or criticality stemming from the use of the claimed dimensions.
Regarding Claim 16, Squire teaches:
A case (12), defining a holding space; wherein the holding space has an opening (Figs. 2-
4);
a door (19), configured to block the opening; and
a hinge assembly (Title, Figs. 1-4), arranged on a pivot side of the case and pivotally connected to the door and the case (Figs. 1-4);
wherein the door has an outer edge (see below) and an inner edge (see below) on the pivot side; in condition of the door being in a closed state relative to the case, the inner edge is closer to the case compared to the outer edge; a first reference plane (see below) and a second reference plane (see below) are defined for the door; the first reference plane is parallel to a plane where the opening is located, and a contour of the inner edge is located on the first reference plane in the closed state (see below); the second reference plane is perpendicular to the plane where the opening is located, and a contour of the outer edge is located on the second reference plane in the closed state (see below);
during a process of the door, under an action of the hinge assembly, moving from the closed state to an opened state at a first opening angle relative to the case, the outer edge moves toward the first reference plane along a first path, and the inner edge moves toward a side of the second reference plane toward the opening along a first track (see below, see figs. 1-4);…
…the hinge assembly comprises a first shaft (14) and a second shaft (15) arranged in the case, and a first slot (27) and a second slot (26) arranged in the door, the first slot and the first shaft engages with each other, and the second slot and the second shaft engages with each other;
in process of the door being opened from the closed state to a third opening angle, the first slot and the second slot move together with the door such that at beginning of movement, the first shaft is located at first end of the first slot (Fig. 1), the second shaft is located at first end of the second slot (Fig. 1), at end of the movement, the first shaft is located at second end of the first slot (Fig. 4), the second shaft is located at second end of the second slot (Fig. 4), a position of the first shaft relative to the first slot changes from the first end of the first slot to the second end of the first slot, and a position of the second shaft relative to the second slot changes from the first end of the second slot to the second end of the second slot (Figs. 1-4).
Squire does not explicitly teach:
Wherein the first path has a radius of curvature greater than or equal to 5t, and a
distance of the first path exceeding a side of the second reference plane back to the opening is less than or equal to a first predetermined distance; the first track has a radius of curvature greater than or equal to 100t, and a distance of the first track exceeding a side of the first reference plane toward the opening is less than or equal to a second predetermined distance; wherein the t is a thickness of the door.
Insofar as the limitations not taught by Squire can be understood, 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 claimed radius of curvature of the first track and the claimed distance of the first track because Squire broadly teaches the claimed door path (and associated door elements) 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]. Additionally, Applicant has not provided any unforeseen result or criticality stemming from the use of the claimed dimensions.
PNG
media_image1.png
649
737
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 17, these claim limitations set forth further dimensional requirements for the first opening angle (25°-31°) and the first predetermined distance (3mm) and the second predetermined distance (1.5mm). These limitations are rejected because 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]. Additionally, Applicant has not provided any unforeseen result or criticality stemming from the use of the claimed dimensions.
Regarding Claim 18, it is considered inherent that the end point of the first path is located on the second reference plane.
Regarding Claim 19, Squire teaches wherein during a process of the door, under the action of the hinge assembly, moving from the opened state at the first opening angle to an opened state at a second opening angle relative to the case, the outer edge moves along a second path toward the first reference plane, and the inner edge moves along a second track toward the side of the second reference plane toward the opening and a side of the first reference plane back to the opening (see drawing selection above, see Figs. 1-4).
Squire does not explicitly teach
the second path has a radius of curvature greater than or equal to 5t, and a distance of the second path exceeding the side of the second reference plane back to the opening is less than or equal to the first predetermined distance; a radius of curvature of the second track gradually decreases.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the claimed dimensions and gradually decreasing radius of curvature because 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]. Additionally, Applicant has not provided any unforeseen result or criticality stemming from the use of the claimed dimensions.
Regarding Claim 20, Squire teaches:
a case (12), defining a holding space; wherein the holding space has an opening (Figs. 2-
4);
a door (19), configured to block the opening; and
a hinge assembly (Title, Figs. 1-4), arranged on a pivot side of the case and pivotally connected to the door and the case (Figs. 1-4);
wherein the door has an outer edge (see below) and an inner edge (see below) on the pivot side; a first reference plane (see below) and a second reference plane (see below) are defined for the door; the first reference plane is parallel to a plane where the opening is located, and a contour of the inner edge is located on the first reference plane in a closed state (Fig. 1, see below); the second reference plane is perpendicular to the plane where the opening is located, and a contour of the outer edge is located on the second reference plane in the closed state (Fig. 1, see below); the first reference plane and the second reference plane remain stationary with respect to the case during a process of the door being opened relative to the case…
…the hinge assembly comprises a first shaft (14) and a second shaft (15) arranged in the case, and a first slot (27) and a second slot (26) arranged in the door, the first slot and the first shaft engages with each other, and the second slot and the second shaft engages with each other
in process of the door being opened from the closed state to the third opening angle, the first slot and the second slot move together with the door such that at beginning of movement, the first shaft is located at first end of the first slot (Fig. 1), the second shaft is located at first end of the second slot (Fig. 1), at end of the movement, the first shaft is located at second end of the first slot (Fig. 4), the second shaft is located at second end of the second slot (Fig. 4), a position of the first shaft relative to the first slot changes from the first end of the first slot to the second end of the first slot, and a position of the second shaft relative to the second slot changes from the first end of the second slot to the second end of the second slot (see Figs. 1-4).
Squire does not explicitly teach:
During a process…located in the door… (Claim lines 13-32).
Insofar as the limitations not taught by Squire can be understood, 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 claimed radius of curvature (5t), the distance of the second path exceeding the side of the second reference plane by the claimed amount and the third path being an arc with a radius of curvature of 0.45t-0.55t because 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]. Additionally, Applicant has not provided any unforeseen result or criticality stemming from the use of the claimed dimensions.
PNG
media_image1.png
649
737
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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.
/M.J.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3677
/JASON W SAN/SPE, Art Unit 3677