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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 630. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 300, the "hinge units". 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. 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 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 is:
"a catch unit" in claims 1 and 12.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is 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 limitation 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 to avoid it 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 recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it 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.
As per 35 U.S.C. 112(f), if a claim contains only a single limitation and this claim invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f), then it is indefinite because it can take on a wide variety of structural embodiments and steps and there are no other limitations that are definitely required. A limitation which properly invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) must contain at least one other limitation (e.g. 35 U.S.C. 112(f) explicitly states it applies to "an element in a claim for a combination.")
Claims 1-20 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.
Claim limitation “catch unit” in claims 1 and 12, for instance, invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. It is not clear, from the specification, if the rod 410 and the catch step 420 are meant to be part of the catch unit or not. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 4 and 17 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because it sets forth “an inlet portion located in the side lid portion facing the center lid portion, and configured to be inserted into the side lid portions at a location corresponding to the catch step.” This limitation is indefinite because it is not clear how “an inlet portion located in the side lid portion” can be “inserted into the side lid portion” if this “inlet portion” is itself part of the “side lid portion.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park (KR Patent 1009307570000).
Regarding claim 1, Park discloses a two-way openable console (Abstract, Ln. 1-2) comprising:
Side lid portions (console box 10, in annotated figure 1 below) located on first and second sides of the two-way openable console;
A center lid portion (console cover 20, in annotated figure 1 below) located between the side lid portions to be operatively open about a first end of the center lid portion;
A button unit (knobs 31 and 31’, in annotated figure 5 below) located on each of front and rear end portions of the center lid portion;
A rotation unit (332a, 332b, and 333a, 333b, in annotated figure 5 below) engaged to the button unit and rotated in response to an input of the button unit;
Hinge units (30, see annotated figure 4 below for specific elements included) located on first and second end portions of the center lid portion, and configured so that the rotation unit is rotated in response to the input of the button unit
And thereby center shafts (32a, 32a’, 32b, 32b’ in annotated figure 5 below) protruding from first and second sides of the center lid portion are selectively retracted into the center lid portion;
And a catch unit (331a, 331a’, 331b, 331b’ in annotated figure 5 below) located adjacent to each of the hinge units, and integrally retracted in response to driving of each of the center shafts.
PNG
media_image1.png
234
285
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Park discloses the hinge units (30, see annotated figure 4 below) including:
A hinge housing (334a, 334b in annotated figure 4 below) configured so that a corresponding center shaft among the center shafts is integrally moved in a width direction of the center lid portion;
And a catch hole (hole, shown with blue arrow in annotated figure 4 below) formed so that the catch unit is inserted into a side of the hinge housing,
And wherein the catch unit is configured to be moved integrally with the hinge housing when the hinge housing is moved in the width direction of the center lid portion in response to driving of the button unit (Paragraph [0023], Ln. 4-8 in the provided English translation PDF).
PNG
media_image2.png
863
412
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
529
1006
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Park discloses a two-way openable console (Abstract, Ln. 1-2) comprising:
Side lid portions (console box 10, in annotated figure 1 above) located on first and second sides of the two-way openable console;
A center lid portion (console cover 20, in annotated figure 1 above) located between the side lid portions to be operatively open about a first end of the center lid portion;
A button unit (31 in annotated figure 5 above) located on each of front and rear end portions of the center lid portion;
Center shafts (32a, 32a’, 32b, 32b’ in annotated figure 5 above) located on first and second end portions of the center lid portion to be inserted into the side lid portions;
Hinge units (30, see annotated figure 4 above for specific elements included) configured so that the center shafts are selectively retracted into the center lid portion in response to an input of the button unit;
And a catch unit (331a, 331a’, 331b, 331b’ in annotated figure 5 above) located adjacent to each of the hinge units,
And integrally retracted into the center lid portion in response to a movement of each of the center shafts (Paragraph [0024], Ln. 3-16 in the provided English translation PDF).
Regarding claim 13, Park discloses
A rotation unit (332a, 332b, and 333a, 333b, in annotated figure 5 above) located between the button unit and the hinge unit in response to the input of the button unit.
Regarding claim 14, Park further discloses
The rotation unit transfers a movement of the button unit in a longitudinal direction of the center lid portion to a movement of the hinge units located on first and second sides of the center lid portion in a width direction thereof (as seen in annotated figure 5 above).
Regarding claim 15, Park further discloses hinge units including:
A hinge housing (334a, 334b in annotated figure 4 above) configured so that a corresponding center shaft among the center shafts is integrally moved in a direction facing the side lid portions;
And a catch hole (hole, shown with blue arrow in annotated figure 4 above) formed so that the catch unit is inserted into a side of the hinge housing,
And wherein the catch unit is configured to be moved integrally with the hinge housing when the hinge housing is moved in a width direction of the center lid portion in response to driving of the button unit (Paragraph [0023], Ln. 4-8 in the provided English translation PDF).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-11, and 16-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 3-11, and 16-20 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 primary reason for the indication of allowable subject matter in claim 3 and 16 is the inclusion in the claims of the limitations for the catch unit that includes a rod that is inserted into the hinge housing, and the catch step protruding to an outside of the center lid portion, wherein the catch step is inserted into the center lid portion integrally with the hinge housing fastened to the rod. Such limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claims, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record. The closest prior art of record is Park (KR Patent 1009307570000). The catch unit of Park does not include a rod inserted into the hinge housing nor a catch step that protrudes into the center lid portion. These deficiencies in Park are not made up by any other teachings in the prior art. Claims 4-7, and 17 are indicated as being allowed as they are dependent on claims 3 and 16.
The primary reason for the indication of allowable subject matter in claim 8 is the inclusion in the claim of the limitation for an opening striker located on the side lid portions, and configured to move up the center lid portion. Such limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record. Park does not teach an opening striker for such use on the side lid portion. These deficiencies in Park are not made up by any other teachings in the prior art.
The primary reason for the indication of allowable subject matter in claims 9 and 18 is the inclusion in the claims of the limitations for a locking unit located on the center lid portion, and fastened to the button unit to be unlocked from the side lid portions in response to the input of the button unit. Park also does not teach this limitation, as it interfaces with the prior limitation from claim 8. These deficiencies in Park are not made up by any other teachings in the prior art. Claims 10-11, and 19-20 are indicated as being allowed as they are dependent on claims 9 and 18.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel G Chen whose telephone number is (571)272-9669. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-5:30pm.
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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached at (571) 272-5109. 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.
/D.G.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/VIVEK D KOPPIKAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612