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 filed 6/8/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the drawings, examiner thanks applicant for amended drawings. These are entered. The amended figures do not accurately include stopping member 142 shown in figure 4 to be included in a similar cross section of figure 3; stopping member 142 is expected to be present in the cross section of figure 3.
Regarding 112f interpretation, examiner thanks applicant for the explanation.
Regarding 112b rejections, examiner notes that many issues are resolved, examiner thanks applicant for amended claims. Other issues are still indefinite, as discussed below.
Regarding the prior art rejection(s), Applicant's arguments fail 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.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 6/8/2026. These drawings are entered.
The drawings of 6/8/2026 are objected to because:
The end of the strut in figure 3 omits stopping member 142, stopping member 142 is shown in figures 1-2, 4, and is expected to be shown in figure 3; 142 is not present in figure 3.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11-16 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.
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) 11, 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 5365639 Lewkoski in view of 2020/0056410 French, further in view of 947168 Trimmer.
PNG
media_image1.png
281
264
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Lewkoski discloses a trunk 24 hinge, comprising:
a mounting plate 42 configured to be attached to a body of a vehicle (figure 3);
a pivot block 44 pivotally coupled to the mounting plate 42;
a strut (torsion bar 32/34) extending from a first strut end and a second strut end (shown in figures 1 and 7), the first strut end being pivotally coupled to the mounting plate 42 (figure 7); and
a hinge arm 38 having a first end 72 connected to the pivot block 44 by a threaded fastener 64 extending from the first end 72 of the hinge arm 38 into a hole of the pivot block 44, the threaded fastener 64 configured to enable adjusting a spacing between the first end 72 hinge arm 38 and the pivot block (in a linear direction along the length of the leadscrew 64, shown by the arrows in figure 5), the hinge arm 38 having a second end 82 extending away from the first end, the second end configured to be attached to a trunk of the vehicle (as is shown in figures 1 and 2), wherein:
rotation of the threaded fastener 64 in a first direction increases the spacing between the pivot block and the first end of the arm via interaction between the threaded fastener and the threaded hole (of 74, not of the pivot block 44) (the threaded interaction of 64 allows for linear adjustment as disclosed by Lewkoski), and
rotation of the threaded fastener 64 in a second direction opposite the first direction decreases the spacing between the pivot block 44 and the first end 72 of the hinge arm 38 via interaction between the threaded fastener and the threaded hole (in the opposite manner common in the art of the simple machine “screw”); and
the hinge arm 38 further includes a slot (hollow area within the square cross section, the hollow area shown in figure 5) disposed near the first end of the hinge arm 38, the slot configured to enable a user to access a head of the threaded fastener to facilitate adjusting the spacing between the first end of the hinge arm and the pivot block (by being hollow).
Lewkoski discloses the desire to “bias deck lid 24 into the open position” by using torsion bars 32 and 34 (column 6 lines 6-7), best shown in figure 7. Lewkoski does not disclose the particular structure or manner of inclusion of a strut, but includes torsion bars.
Lewkoski discloses the use of a threaded fastener threadably engaging a threaded hole to adjust the distance between the first end of the hinge arm 38 from the pivot block 44; Lewkoski discloses the threaded fastener seemingly unitary with the pivot block, not threadably engaging the pivot block.
Regarding the strut: French discloses a vehicle hood hinge (title) that includes a mounting plate 200, a hinge arm 320 pivotably attached to the mounting plate 200 at pivot point P, and a strut 325 having two ends, one end pivotably coupled to plate 200, the opposite end pivotably coupled to hinge arm 320 (figure 3b). Strut 325 is “configured to facilitate raising and lowering the hood, as well as retaining the hood in an open position”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize a strut as taught by French in the location as taught by French on the similar hinge as taught by Lewkoski, since both are used to “bias” the deck lid in the open position. Examiner contends that the strut in the location of French performs the identical function as the unclear “torsion bars” as taught in Lewkoski, are in the same art, and therefore, are obvious alternatives for one another. Examiner contends that these are known equivalents and are used for the same purpose within the ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144 (I): “rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art…it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art”.
PNG
media_image2.png
424
414
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding the location of the threaded hole: Trimmer discloses a hinge having a threaded fastener K inserted into a pivot block F which rotates around pivot E, the threaded fastener K adjusts a linear distance between the pivot E and the frame A, shown in figures 1 and 2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to reverse the position of the threaded hole required in Lewkoski, from being within the arm of Lewkoski to being on a pivot block with a threaded hole in the manner taught by Trimmer, as this reversal of parts still allows for linear adjustment common with screws in threaded holes. It has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI) (a). Examiner contends that the use of a pivot block in the manner of Trimmer rather than the unitary piece of the pivot block 44/threaded fastener 45 combination of Lewkoski allows the user to replace the threaded fastener 45 of Lewkoski with less disassembly and time than as it would be required in Lewkoski.
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 15, Lewkoski as modified discloses the trunk hinge of claim 11, wherein the hinge arm 38 defines one or more attachment openings 84/85 disposed near the second end of the hinge arm, each attachment opening configured to receive a fastener for attaching the hinge arm to the trunk of the vehicle (attaching using bolts 90/91 and nuts 92/93, as shown in figures 2 and 7).
Regarding claim 16, Lewkoski as modified discloses the trunk hinge of claim 15, wherein a first attachment opening 84/85 of the one or more attachment openings disposed at the second end of the hinge arm has an open ended shape (a through hole, as shown in figure 9) to facilitate initial placement of a trunk attachment bolt 90/91 in the first attachment opening (as detailed in figure 9).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Examiner contends that in combination with all other claimed subject matter, the inclusion of a portion of the pivot block within the hinge arm, and the use of a lock nut as claimed, is not shown nor disclosed as obvious in the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see 892.
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 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
Prosecution Insights