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) 1-8 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 § 102
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kato, JP Patent 6,501,301.
Regarding Claim 1, Kato teaches:
Two opposing wings (11, 12) each provided with through fixing holes (11k, 12e),
and
a mutual engagement area (11b, c, 12b), including shaped and complementary bushings
(11b, c, 12b) each protruding from one wing said opposing wings,
wherein said bushings are together configured to house a matching and friction system composed of a wedge-shaped matching element (16-17) and a bushing-shaped matching element (14) opposed to each other, kept in mutual connection by a screw-nut system (13, 18),
wherein, during an operation of the hinge, the wedge-shaped matching element is configured to contact and broaden a portion of the bushing-shaped matching element (Fig. 4), and
wherein the broadening of the portion of the bushing-shaped matching element creates a friction surface against the bushings of said opposing wings (Fig. 4).
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, 5 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE Patent 2534024.
Regarding Claim 1, DE 024 teaches:
Two opposing wings (8, 18) one which his provided with through fixing holes (16),
and
a mutual engagement area (10, 38), including shaped and complementary bushings
(10, 38) each protruding from one wing said opposing wings,
wherein said bushings are together configured to house a matching and friction system composed of a wedge-shaped matching element (2) and a bushing-shaped matching element (20) opposed to each other, kept in mutual connection by a screw-nut system (30, 28),
wherein, during an operation of the hinge, the wedge-shaped matching element is configured to contact and broaden a portion of the bushing-shaped matching element (Figs. 2-3), and
wherein the broadening of the portion of the bushing-shaped matching element creates a friction surface against the bushings of said opposing wings (Figs. 2-3).
DE ‘024 does not teach through fixing holes on both opposing wings.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide DE ‘024 with fixing through holes on both opposing wings because that would provide additional fastening options for different applications and a duplication of parts is generally considered obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art and applicant has not provided any unforeseen result stemming from the use of the claimed structure nor provided any specific problem solved by the claimed structure or provided any criticality for the claimed structure, In re Harza.
Regarding Claim 5, DE ‘024 teaches:
The bushing-shaped matching element is opposite to said wedge-shaped matching element (Fig. 1), said bushing-shaped matching element being composed of a cylindrical elongated element (22), provided with ribs (26) along the side wall in correspondence with the bottom surface, said ribs being suitable to be engaged with complementary grooves (26) arranged inside said bushings.
Regarding Claim 8, DE ‘024 clearly teaches four longitudinal slots in the bushing-shaped matching element and at the top.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato ‘301 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jaber, WO 2014/066929.
Regarding Claim 3, Kato teaches:
Wedge-shaped matching element is composed of two halves (16, 17).
Kato does not teach:
Each half including a tab and a slot, wherein the tab of a first half is configured to engage with the slot of a second half, and a tab of the second half is configured to engage with the slot of the first half.
Jaber clearly teaches a hinge with an internal insert in two halves (32, 34) with tabs and slots to join the halves (see below).
Jaber does not teach each of the two halves including a tab and a slot.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the wedge-shaped matching element composed of two halves joined by tabs and slots with each half including a tab and a slot because permit easier assembly and disassembly of the device and a rearrangement of parts is generally considered obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art and applicant has not provided any unforeseen result stemming from the use of the claimed structure nor provided any specific problem solved by the claimed structure, In re Japikse.
PNG
media_image1.png
596
366
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4, and 6-7 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.
Conclusion
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