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 March 26, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-8 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made, as detailed below.
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.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mosher (US 5555605 A).
Regarding claim 1, Mosher discloses an apparatus (see fig 1) for securely installing a hinge comprising a first hinge leaf (16) and a second hinge leaf (14), wherein the first hinge leaf includes first (36a), second (36b), and third (53) mounting holes, the apparatus comprising: (a) a first securing plate (30) configured with at least first (38a) and second (38b) threaded holes that respectively correspond to the first and second mounting holes of the first hinge leaf (see col 4, lines 24-27); (b) first (32a) and second (32b) threaded fasteners, the first fastener configured to feed through the first mounting hole of the first hinge leaf and to engage the first threaded hole of the first securing plate, the second fastener configured to feed through the second mounting hole of the first hinge leaf and to engage the second threaded hole of the first securing plate (see fig 2 and col 4, lines 24-27); and (c) a first locking fastener (40) configured to be positioned through the third mounting hole of the first hinge leaf and to be locked in place in that position (note that at least the rightmost end of 40 as viewed in fig 2 is configured to be positioned through the third mounting hole of 16 and locked in position via 50).
Regarding claim 4, Mosher discloses the apparatus of claim 1 wherein the first hinge leaf includes a fourth mounting hole (56b) and the apparatus further comprising a second locking fastener (54b) configured to be positioned through the fourth mounting hole of the first hinge leaf and to be locked in that position (via engagement with 70; see fig 2).
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.
Claims 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mosher (US 5555605 A).
Regarding claims 5 and 8, Mosher does not explicitly disclose a method for securing a first workpiece to a second workpiece using a hinge as claimed. However, given the structure of the hinge apparatus disclosed by Mosher (per the rejection of claims 1 and 4 above), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the method as claimed to secure a first workpiece to a second workpiece.
Claims 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mosher (US 5555605 A), in view of Stanley (US 20080244866 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Mosher discloses the apparatus of claim 1 wherein the locking fastener includes a bolt and a lock nut (see fig 2), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first and second threaded fasteners are bolts.
Stanley, however, teaches it is known in the art of hinges to use bolts and screws as mounting fasteners interchangeably (see paragraph 0052). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the threaded fasteners disclosed by Mosher to be bolts as taught by Stanley in order to achieve the expected result of securely mounting the hinge leaf.
Regarding claim 7, Mosher (in view of Stanley) does not explicitly disclose a method for securing a first workpiece to a second workpiece using a hinge as claimed. However, given the structure of the hinge apparatus disclosed by Mosher (in view of Stanley) (per the rejection of claim 2 above), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the method as claimed to secure a first workpiece to a second workpiece.
Claims 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mosher (US 5555605 A), in view of Ferre et al. (US 7127775 B2), herein referred to as Ferre.
Regarding claim 3, Mosher discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the second hinge leaf includes first, second, and third mounting holes (see Mosher fig 1).
Mosher does not disclose the apparatus further comprising: (a) a second securing plate configured with at least first and second threaded holes that respectively correspond to the first and second mounting holes of the second hinge leaf; (b) third and fourth threaded fasteners, the third fastener configured to feed through the first mounting hole of the second hinge leaf and to engage the first threaded hole of the second securing plate, the fourth fastener configured to feed through the second mounting hole of the second hinge leaf and to engage the second threaded hole of the second securing plate; and (c) a second locking fastener configured to be positioned through the third mounting hole of the second hinge leaf and to be locked in that position.
Ferre, however, teaches it is known in the art for a hinge apparatus to include first and second securing plates which correspond to first and second hinge leaves as claimed. The purpose for including first and second securing plates is to provide a more secure attachment of each hinge leaf to the door or door frame (see at least col 1, lines 14-33). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus disclosed by Mosher to include a second securing plate as taught by Ferre in order to provide a more secure attachment of each hinge leaf. Note that it follows the second securing plate would include the claimed holes and fasteners, identical to the first securing plate.
Regarding claim 6, Mosher (in view of Ferre) does not explicitly disclose a method for securing a first workpiece to a second workpiece using a hinge as claimed. However, given the structure of the hinge apparatus disclosed by Mosher (in view of Ferre) (per the rejection of claim 3 above), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the method as claimed to secure a first workpiece to a second workpiece.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The examiner notes that the prior art cited on PTO-892 but not relied upon for this rejection discloses hinge assemblies relevant in scope and structure to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christine M Mills whose telephone number is (571) 272-8322. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday - Thursday, 7:30 - 5:30 EST.
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, Joe Thomas, can be reached on (571) 272-8004. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/CHRISTINE M MILLS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675