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 6/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the IDS of 11/7/2025, applicant has included two of three foreign reference copies, and 3 of 5 NPL copies. The IDS is still insufficient and is still objected below, but is resigned with the inclusions of 6/11/2025. Google patent translations cannot replace a copy of the foreign reference.
Regarding the specification amendments: examiner notes that applicant is including new matter into the specification. Applicant includes the phrases and concepts of the new claim 1 into the specification, which are not originally disclosed or shown, and therefore are impermissible new matter. Examiner notes that the specification amendment of 6/11/2025 is not entered. New matter concepts such as the engagement member abutting the pin during use, are not shown in the drawings, nor originally disclosed in the specification.
Regarding the drawing amendments: applicant has added new drawings which do not forward prosecution, or resolve any previous drawing objection. Applicant is perfectly capable of showing the originally disclosed subject matter in the original drawings, should applicant apply new part numbers to those drawings, or use the same language that applicant has originally disclosed for the parts shown in the original drawings. New matter concepts such as the engagement member abutting the pin during use, are not shown in the drawings, nor originally disclosed in the specification.
Examiner thanks applicant for claim amendments that reduce 112b rejections and claim objections. Examiner notes that applicant’s new claim language has rendered new 112a rejections.
Regarding claim 1 and “acute release angle”, applicant’s new drawings have not assisted the examiner nor one of ordinary skill in the art regarding the angle ranges or the force application. According to the specification, applicant discloses “doors…will impact a wall if opened beyond ninety degrees” applicant’s specification, top of page 6. Therefore, examiner contends that this specified angle is not the result of the hinge itself, which applicant claims. This angle range is limited by the specification to the situation that a-it is attached to an internal residential door, and b-the door is opening into a corner; neither of which is required by applicant’s claim, nor applicant’s drawings. This “release angle” has nothing to do with the hinge itself, but has to do with the device to which this hinge is attached. Examiner again notes that applicant’s disclosed device can disassemble in the manner disclosed at 91 degrees open, so long as the user-applied force is in the direction of the opening of the open knuckle. There is nothing preventing applicant’s hinge from being disassembled at an angle range greater than disclosed by applicant; nor does applicant show or disclose any structure in the hinge that limits this “angle” . Therefore, examiner again requests applicant’s help in disclosing how and why the “release angle” is only in an “acute” range.
Regarding claims 8 and 10, applicant has removed the term “only” regarding the range, but this seems to be applicant agreeing that the angle for the hinge to disassemble is wider than applicant’s disclosed “between zero and 90 degrees”. Applicant’s specification makes it seem that the devices attached to the hinge are what prevent the hinge from being disconnected; examiner notes that applicant does not claim the hinge in combination with any device. Therefore, the hinge itself is not limited.
Examiner thanks applicant for clarification regarding claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, applicant asserts that “strong, robust, durable, and corrosion resistant” are features of the claimed “metallic, metallic alloy, or polymeric materials”. If this is the case, examiner notes that descriptors of the material are not further limiting the material, and therefore, are unnecessary for the scope of the claim. Examiner also notes that iron is metallic, but rusts, which is a well-known type of corrosion. For claim 16 to be definite, examiner suggests applicant remove the relative terms “strong, robust, durable, and corrosion resistant”.
Regarding claim 17, applicant similarly asserts that “similarly characterized polymer materials” is definite. This is a mere allegation of definitiveness. Should applicant want to include “polymer materials”, examiner suggests removing “similarly characterized” from this term.
Examiner has written a new rejection with new art, which moots these arguments.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 11/7/2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
One foreign reference is lacking as of 6/11/2025, and 3 NPL references are lacking as of 6/11/2025.
Specification
The amendment filed 6/11/2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: Please see 112a rejection below.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 6/11/2025. These drawings are unacceptable.
Drawings include part numbers for new features which are rejected under 112a, below, and none of the drawings fix the previous drawing objections regarding angle range or force.
The drawings of 11/7/2023 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show any “angular range” of claims 1, 7-10; “raised edge unconnected to the second leaf” of claim 1; “intermediary space” of claim 1; “engagement member” of claim 1; engagement member abutting the pin when the pin is in the intermediary space of claim 1; “acute release angle” of claim 1, since applicant’s drawings do not include any “angle” or “angle range”; “force” of claim 7, as described in the specification.
Examiner notes that “raised edge” is assumed to be originally disclosed “open knuckle edge”. By claiming this term, rather than the new matter “raised edge”, this would reduce 112a, drawing, and specification, objections.
“engagement member” is broader than applicant’s original disclosure, to the point that this is impermissible new matter. Reverting back to “protrusion” in both claims and specification would reduce 112a rejections, and drawing objections.
Engagement member “abutting the pin” is new matter. Deleting this claimed term would reduce 112a and drawing issues.
“intermediary space” is assumed to be show in the original drawings, however applicant does not indicate it nor give it a part number or antecedent basis in the specification. Merely adding the sentence “intermediary space is shown in figure 3 as part [insert here]” would reduce 112a and drawing and specification issues.
Applicant’s new drawings have not assisted the examiner nor one of ordinary skill in the art regarding the angle ranges or the force application. Examiner again notes that applicant’s device can disassemble in the manner disclosed at 91 degrees open (if that is in fact applicant’s intent), so long as the force is in the direction of the opening of the open knuckle. There is nothing preventing applicant’s hinge from being disassembled at an angle range greater than disclosed by applicant.
Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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 Objections
Claims 1-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 15: applicant’s claim 1 requires the hinge members must have four edges. Therefore, it is impossible for the leaves to be shaped as “triangles”, or “butterflies”; the term “butt” does not have a defined shape.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4, 8-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1:
“raised edge” is not a term in the specification, nor is properly defined in the specification or claims. Applicant’s drawings do not include an indicator for such an edge; nor does “unconnected to the second leaf” assist one of ordinary skill in the art to understand which “edge” is being referred to. The record is not clear as to what “raised edge” refers to. If applicant refers to the surface 29 in figure 3, this is already disclosed as “open knuckle edge”, and applicant should claim this surface as “open knuckle edge” to definitively refer to “open knuckle edge 29” in figure 3.
“intermediary space” is not a term present in the specification. Examiner assumes the “intermediary space” is that within the open knuckle that holds the hinge pin, best shown in figure 3. Should applicant agree with this assumption, applicant is reminded to make the drawings and specification support this term.
“caused to seat” seems to be a functional limitation, however the record is not clear as to how the pin is “caused to seat when positioned under the raised edge”. The record is not clear as to what applicant intends “to seat” to mean in the disclosed structure. If “caused to seat” means “within the intermediary space”, examiner is not sure how “under the raised edge” further limits this position. The record is not clear as to what “the pin is caused to seat when positioned under the raised edge” means, or how it limits the structure of the claimed hinge device.
“engagement member” is not a term present in the specification. Since applicant uses this term to replace the fully defined and disclosed term “protrusion”, examiner assumes that this is a broader term than “protrusion”. This broadens the scope of the claimed device in a manner that is not supported by the specification. For purposes of examination, examiner will consider the terms “protrusion” equivalent with “engagement member”, but the 112a rejection will not be overcome until applicant removes the term “engagement member” since it is broader than the original disclosure.
“engagement member…in a position to abut the pin” is not shown nor disclosed in the specification. Applicant’s drawings of figures 3, 4, and 5, all show that the protrusion does not engage the hinge pin when the hinge is assembled. Applicant seems to have included this because the prior art discloses this location. Just because the prior art discloses this, does not mean that applicant has disclosed this feature. Applicant has not disclosed this feature.
“acute release angle” is not shown nor properly disclosed in the specification. Applicant has not shown what the angle is that is required for “release”, nor the fact that it must be “acute”. Examiner reminds applicant that angles define a relationship between two parts, and applicant does not define either part of this angle, or how this angle is measured in any location. Examiner also notes that the disclosed device can disassembly in more angles than that disclosed, because as long as two hinge plates are not in the same plane, the force need only be in the direction of the opening of the open knuckle.
“engagement member frictionally prevents” is not in the specification. Examiner agrees that the protrusion (not engagement member) performs the function of preventing separation, but applicant does not disclose that this is done in a frictional manner.
Regarding claims 8 and 10, applicant has previously claimed “separation is only effective…at the release angle” in claim 1. Examiner notes that claim 8 requires the release angle is between 15-55 degrees, and in claim 10, the release angle is 25-45 degrees. Meanwhile, applicant discloses the release angle range is between zero and 90 degrees. Applicant has not shown any structure that limits the release angle to 15-55 degrees, OR from 25-45 degrees. Examiner again notes that the limiting device disclosed by applicant is that which the hinge is attached to, NOT a feature of the hinge. Applicant discloses “doors…will impact a wall if opened beyond ninety degrees” applicant’s specification, top of page 6. Applicant does not claim the hinge attached to any device with these limitations. Therefore, the hinge by itself, as claimed by applicant, is not further limited by this claimed particular “release angle”; this release angle only affects the structure of the hinged device, not the hinge itself.
Regarding claim 11, applicant’s claim 1 requires the protrusion to engage the pin during rotation (“engagement member…in a position to abut the pin when…the pin is disposed in the intermediary space”). This means that the protrusion must be part of the surface of the intermediary device in order to abut the pin. But, claim 11 requires the engagement member is “spaced apart from the intermediary space”, meaning that the engagement member is NOT supposed to be part of the edge of the intermediary space that allows the engagement member to “abut” as required in claim 1. This phrase directly contradicts the location of the engagement member required to be in claim 1. Examiner suggests removal of this phrase from claim 1, since the location of claim 11 is supported in the disclosure and figures.
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 1-19 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 1: applicant claims a “specified angle range” but does not disclose in the drawings the locations of this “angle”. Further, the pin utilized by applicant is round, and the slot that allows insertion into the round knuckle 28. For this reason, the record is not clear as to what creates the limited “specified angle range”. The hinge disclosed can be disassembled at any angular position if the force is applied to pin 38 in the direction of the opening between knuckle edge 29 and leaf 20.
Regarding claims 8 and 10, applicant has previously claimed “separation is only effective…at the release angle” in claim 1. Examiner notes that claim 8 requires the release angle is between 15-55 degrees, and in claim 10, the release angle is 25-45 degrees. Meanwhile, applicant discloses the release angle range is between zero and 90 degrees. Applicant has not shown any structure that limits the release angle to 15-55 degrees, OR from 25-45 degrees. Examiner again notes that the limiting device disclosed by applicant is that which the hinge is attached to, NOT a feature of the hinge. Applicant does not claim the hinge attached to any device with these limitations. Therefore, the hinge by itself, as claimed by applicant, is not further limited by this claimed particular “release angle”; this release angle only affects the structure of the hinged device, not the hinge itself.
Regarding claim 16: applicant claims “strong, robust, durable, and corrosion resistant”, which are all relative terms. These terms are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Examiner notes that these are believed to be “characteristics” of the previously listed “metallic, metallic alloy, or polymeric materials”, so that by meeting one of those materials, the prior art meets these relative terms. Further, applicant claims “components” but does not previously claim any “component”.
Regarding claim 17: applicant claims several metals, “or similarly characterized polymer materials”. Examiner notes that applicant does not indicate in the claim, or in the specification, what the “characteristics” are that are intended to be “similar”. Applicant exactly duplicates this phrase from the specification, but does not provide definition of the characteristics or the preferred polymer materials in order for this phrase to be sufficiently definite.
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, 8-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 6338181 Hwang.
PNG
media_image1.png
400
377
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Hwang discloses a separable mounting hinge device (figures 9-10) comprising:
a first hinge member 4 comprising a first leaf 8 having a proximal edge and a distal edge; a pin 22; at least two knuckles 26 extending from the proximal edge;
a second hinge member comprising:
a second leaf 32 having a proximal edge 33 (in figure 9) and a distal edge (in fig. 3);
at least one open knuckle (detailed in figure 9) extending from the proximal edge 33, said open knuckle adapted to engage around the pin 22 of the first leaf (as shown in figures 9-10), said open knuckle having a raised edge 58 (figure 10) unconnected to the second leaf 32 (as shown in figures 9 and 10) to define an opening (figures 9-10) whereby the open knuckle bounds an intermediary space 40 wherein the pin 22 is caused to seat when positioned under the raised edge (as best understood, shown in figures 9 and 10); and
at least one protrusion/engagement member 59 disposed upon the second leaf 32 in a position to abut the pin when the first leaf is joined to the second leaf (the pin 22 is capable of engaging protrusion 59 when inserted) and the pin is disposed in the intermediary space (as shown in figures 9 and 10);
wherein the first leaf engages and alternately disengages with the second leaf (through the opening shown in figures 9 and 10) when positioned at an acute release angle defined within a specified angular range (open in figure 9, and partially open in figure 10, but not in the closed position) of the first leaf relative to the second leaf as required for the proximal edge of the first leaf to be free of the at least one open knuckle of the second leaf;
wherein the at least one protrusion/engagement member 59 frictionally (as best understood) prevents separation of the first and second hinge members whereby separation is effective only when the first and second leaves are positioned at the release angle (as required by the container body and the lid, as the attached devices are what limit the release angle as disclosed by applicant) and sufficient force is applied to overcome the frictional engagement.
Hwang does not disclose the first hinge member has knuckles that “curve over” the hinge pin, because as best shown in figure 2, the hinge pin seems to be either molded with or otherwise attached to the body of the container.
Wang discloses a hinge having a hinge pin 21 attached to a first hinge member 2 by having two knuckles curl around the pin (figure 1), which is attached to a second hinge member 1 having an open knuckle 11 with an edge unconnected to the second hinge member, and they are attached through the opening of the open knuckle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to change the attachment method of the pin 22 of Hwang using the curled over manner of as disclosed by Wang, should the container and the hinge pin of Hwang are made of different materials (and therefore unable to be unitary together), or if they are made in different manners (like extrusion versus molding). 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”.
Regarding claim 2, Hwang as modified discloses the hinge of claim 1, wherein the open knuckle (of Hwang) is arced to circumferentially engage around the pin (as shown in figure 9) except at the opening (as shown in figure 9).
Regarding claim 3, Hwang as modified discloses the hinge of claim 1, wherein the raised edge (end of the open knuckle) is rounded (with a chamfer, shown in figure 9).
Regarding claim 4, Hwang as modified discloses the hinge of claim 1, wherein the raised edge of the open knuckle is disposed to delimit ¼ of the circumference of the intermediary space (if the intermediary space was square, one side of the intermediary space would be open, according to claim 1).
Regarding claims 8 and 10, please see 112b above. As best understood, Hwang as modified discloses the hinge of claim 1, wherein the release angle of Hwang is defined by the relative locations of the lid and container body, not by any particular structure of the hinge itself, just as applicant discloses. The hinge is not separable at the location of figure 2, but IS separable at figure 3 (identical to detailed figure 10), and the “open” position of figure 9. Therefore, the release angle is shown to be applicable at 45 degrees in Hwang.
Regarding claim 9, Hwang as modified discloses the hinge of claim 1, wherein the knuckle of the second hinge member (modified by Wang, in claim 1 above), is circular, for the “curled over” structure required in claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, Hwang as modified discloses the hinge of claim 1, wherein the protrusion/engagement member 59 is disposed on the second leaf (as shown in figure 9) spaced apart from the intermediary space whereby the pin 22 must pass overtop the engagement member 59 to be removed from the intermediary space (as shown in figure 9).
Regarding claim 12, Hwang as modified discloses the hinge of claim 1, wherein the engagement member is a raised bump that maintains the engagement of the first and second hinge members and prevents accidental dismounting (column 4 lines 25-65).
Regarding claim 13, Hwang as modified discloses the hinge of claim 1, wherein the engagement member is shaped to resemble a rectangle (“projections 59 have a rectangular cross section” column 4 line 28).
Regarding claim 14, Hwang as modified discloses the hinge of claim 1 wherein the affixed pin 22 is flattened.
Regarding claim 15, Hwang as modified discloses the hinge of claim 1 wherein the first and second leaves are shaped to resemble rectangles (lid is rectangular, container body is generally rectangular).
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Hwang as modified discloses the hinge of claim 1, wherein each component is composed of polymeric materials (polyethylene, column 3 line 31).
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang in view of Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of 2014/0090204 Sarnowski.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Hwang in view of Wang does not disclose the use of a retention member in the shape of a ring “about” the at least one open knuckle “intended to further retain the length of the pin”.
Sarnowski discloses the use of washers/rings 135 at the end of the pin 125, and in between the knuckles of the hinge.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the known hinge washers in the known locations of Sarnowski to the known similar single pin hinge as taught by Hwang modified by Wang, as this provides an adjustable friction “to ensure the desired angular position of the hinge” [0020] as is old and well known in the art. Examiner contends that locating the washers at the interior edges of knuckles Hwang is an old and well known place to locate the washers/rings 135 as is old and well known in the use of hinges, as taught by Sarnowski.
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