DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A in the reply filed on 12/16/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “species B and C are not alternative embodiments to species A”. Applicant seems to assert that the different species are not “different adjustment devices”. This is not found persuasive because species A is called “adjustment mechanism” [0030], the cams 430/450 are “allow adjustment of the trunk” [0037], and threaded fastener 500 “facilitate controlled adjustment” [0043]. Applicant seems to argue the alternative that species B and C are optional attachments to the arm 104; this is not disclosed in the specification. In this argued alternative, neither attachment species B and C are used in species A; species B and C are alternatives to each other. Therefore, it seems that applicant elects the use of the hinge arm 104 that does not have the optional attachments of species B and C. Therefore, applicant has elected the hinge of figures 1-6b, claims 11-16.
Claims 1-10, 17-20 claim a “trunk attachment member” which is shown only in species B and C, and therefore, those claims are not considered. In Claim 16, applicant does not positively claim a trunk attachment member, applicant claims a “trunk attachment bolt” as an intended combination.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Figures 1-4 are shaded such that it reduces legibility and obstructs lead lines to reference characters, please see 37CFR1.84 (m).
Applicant claims four directions in claims 12-13, and none of these are shown in the elected figures 1-6b.
The end of the strut in figure 3 is not shown to be attached to the arm as shown in figures 1 and 2.
The hinge arm is not shown to be “open ended” as in claim 16.
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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “strut” in claim 11.
Applicant claims “strut” but does not require any structure of “strut”. Applicant discloses “can be filled with a gas, fluid, spring, or the like that resists compression” [0028]. Examiner contends that “strut” is a placeholder for these options.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 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.
Regarding claim 11, applicant claims “leadscrew”, without any reference to “leadscrew” in the elected embodiment. The elected embodiment discloses the threaded fastener 126 in figure 3, which examiner assumes is equivalent in scope. Examiner suggests either claiming “threaded fastener” to be consistent with the specification, or disclosing in the specification that “leadscrew” is equivalent to “threaded fastener” in the specification.
Regarding claim 12, applicant claims the lead screw rotating relative to the pivot block adjusts how close the arm is to the pivot block. Examiner notes that this is possible because the pivot block has a threaded hole 122, but applicant does not claim a threaded hole 122. The record is not clear if the threaded hole is included in claim 12 or not.
Regarding claim 13, the lead screw can only rotate in two directions. The record is not clear what the “third” and “fourth” directions are in claim 13. Examiner assumes that these directions are relative to the locknut 128 rather than the directions of the threaded fastener/leadscrew 126, and not claiming a third and fourth rotational direction. The rotation of the lock nut on the lead screw merely moves the nut linearly along the length of the leadscrew. Examiner believes that the function of “enables the leadscrew to rotate” or “prevents the leadscrew from rotating” is that the nut abuts a side of the opening 124, and it is not the rotation of the nut 128. The nut 128 must abut the arm within the opening 124 to perform the “prevent” function, and must be spaced from the sides of the opening 124 “enables” rotation of the leadscrew. Applicant does not claim the abutment of the locknut within the opening in claim 13, or any other dependent claim.
Regarding claim 14, applicant claims “accessible by a user to turn”. Examiner assumes that applicant claims the intended function, not the structure of the opening in this phrase. This could mean that the locknut is able to be touched by applicant through the opening. The ability or inability to turn the locknut is a function of the structure of the opening in relationship to the locknut, which applicant does not claim.
Regarding claim 16, applicant claims “open ended” hinge arm. The record is not clear how “open ended” structurally modifies the hinge arm. The record is not clear if “open ended” means having a through hole, or the end is hollow, or the end is notched, or some other structure. The specification does not indicate the structure implied from this term, nor does the specification indicate which drawing shows this structure.
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) 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 5365639 Lewkoski in view of 2020/0056410 French, or in view of 5419012 Lewis.
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) having a first strut end and a second strut end (shown in figure 7), the first strut end being pivotally coupled to the mounting plate 42 (figure 7); and
a hinge arm 38 pivotally coupled to the strut at the second strut end (34, figure 7) and connected to the pivot block 44 by a leadscrew 64 through a locknut 74, the leadscrew 64 and the locknut 74 configured to enable relative movement between the hinge arm 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 configured to be attached to a trunk of the vehicle (as is shown in figures 1 and 2).
Lewkoski does not disclose the inclusion of a strut (either being a spring or a piston/cylinder, please see 112b rejection above). 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.
Examiner notes that the “torsion bars” are not clear in Lewkoski as how they are connected.
IF applicant intends 112f terminology of “strut”, Lewkoski in view of Lewis.
Lewis discloses a vehicle deck lid having a similar hinge arm 20 pivotably connected to mounting base 28 using torsion spring 46 to “provide the counterbalancing of the deck lid 16” (column 4 line 25), and the ends of the torsion spring 46 between the “body member and the universal hinge member”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize a torsion spring 46 as taught in Lewis as the means to provide the “bias” to keep the deck lid in the open position, as this is the same function as known in the art taught by Lewkoski. Examiner contends that a torsion spring in the location of Lewis 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”.
IF applicant intends “strut” must have a piston and a cylinder, Lewkoski in view of French
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”.
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 12, Lewkoski as modified discloses the trunk hinge of claim 11, wherein: the pivot block (of Lewkoski) includes a pivot block reference point (exterior surface 54); rotation of the leadscrew 64 relative to the pivot block in a first direction increases a spacing between the pivot block reference point and the hinge arm (in the down direction of the arrow); and rotation of the leadscrew relative to the pivot block in a second direction opposite the first direction decreases the spacing between the pivot block reference point and the hinge arm (in the up direction of the arrow).
Regarding claim 13, please see 112b above. This claim is rejected as best understood. Lewkoski as modified discloses the trunk hinge of claim 12, wherein: rotation of the locknut relative 74 to the leadscrew in a third direction enables the leadscrew to rotate (moves the locknut along the length of the leadscrew…. If applicant means abutting another surface, applicant does not claim this); and rotation of the locknut relative to the leadscrew in a fourth direction opposite the first direction prevents the leadscrew from rotating (moves the locknut along the length of the leadscrew…if applicant means abutting another surface, applicant does not claim this).
Regarding claim 14, Lewkoski as modified discloses the trunk hinge of claim 13, wherein: the hinge arm 38 defines an opening (which holds locknut 74) proximate the pivot block (as shown in figure 5) configured to accept the locknut (as is shown in figure 5); and the locknut is accessible by a user to turn relative to the leadscrew via the opening (by being open to the exterior of the arm as shown in figure 5).
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, 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 defined by the hinge arm is open-ended (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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY M MORGAN whose telephone number is (303)297-4260. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8-5 MST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jason San can be reached at (571)272-6531. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EMILY M MORGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3677