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 .
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cooley et al. (US 20080093908 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Cooley teaches an armrest swing hinge device, the hinge device comprising: a bracket housing (Fig. 1 element 20) coupled to a side of a seat frame (Shown in Fig. 9) and provided with a pivoting space therein; a vertical shaft penetrating through the pivoting space of the bracket housing in an up and down direction (Fig. 1 element 34); a pivoting housing pivotably provided in the pivoting space of the bracket housing in a state of being coupled to the vertical shaft (Fig. 1 element, 24, 26 and 28); and a horizontal shaft (Fig. 1 element 40) provided perpendicular to the vertical shaft on an outer surface of the pivoting housing such that the horizontal shaft is exposed to the outside of the bracket housing, and is coupled to an armrest in a manner that orients the armrest to face forward (Shown in Fig. 1), wherein the horizontal shaft is configured to (i) pivot together with the armrest when the armrest is pivoted up and down (Shaft pivots with armrest when pivoting up/down), and (ii) not pivot while the pivoting housing pivots inward about the vertical shaft when the armrest is pivoted inward while facing forward (Shaft there is a limited amount of horizontal pivotability between the housing and the shaft).
Regarding Claim 2, Cooley teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 1 and further discloses the pivoting housing comprises: a pivoting housing main body coupled to the vertical shaft (Fig. 1 elements 24 and 26); and a pivoting housing extension plate extended forward from the pivoting housing main body (Fig. 1 element 28), and the bracket housing comprises: a bracket housing main body coupled to a side surface of the seat frame (Fig. 1 element 20); and a pivoting blocking plate extended forward from the bracket housing main body and configured to come into contact with the pivoting housing extension plate configured to pivot outward of the seat frame (Fig. 1 element 84).
Regarding Claim 3, Cooley teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 1 and further discloses an elastic body disposed in the pivoting housing in a type of surrounding an outer circumference of the vertical shaft, the elastic body having one side supporting the bracket housing and an opposite side supporting the pivoting housing (Fig. 1 element 72).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooley et al. (US 20080093908 A1) in view of Bart et al. (US 5597209 A).
Regarding Claim 4, Cooley teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Cooley fails to explicitly teach the bracket housing comprises: a bushing surrounding an outer circumference of the vertical shaft.
However, Bart teaches the bracket housing comprises: a bushing surrounding an outer circumference of the vertical shaft (Fig. 4 element 92).
Cooley and Bart are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of armrest hinge devices. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hinge device of Cooley to have the bushing surrounding the shaft as disclosed by Bart. Doing so would reduce the friction on the shaft while maintaining proper alignment.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooley et al. (US 20080093908 A1) in view of Kong et al. (KR 101518956 B1).
Regarding Claim 5, Cooley teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 2.
Cooley fails to explicitly teach the pivoting housing comprises: a damper provided at an end part of the pivoting housing extension plate.
However, Kong teaches the pivoting housing comprises: a damper provided at an end part of the pivoting housing extension plate (“the damper 160 absorbs impacts and vibrations generated from the second link 140, which is to be rotated by the impact force in the lock hole 153 and the movement of the locker 150” Highlighted in attached PE2E translation).
Cooley and Kong are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of armrest hinge devices. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hinge device of Cooley to have the damper as disclosed by Kong. Doing so would absorb the impact of the hinge device while moving between different pivotable positions, extending the reliability and use of the hinge device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant states that the horizontal shaft of Cooley is not configured to not pivot while the pivot housing pivots horizontally. The examiner respectfully disagrees as the shaft and housing of Cooley are not formed as a single piece, therefore there is a limited amount of horizontal pivotability between the horizontal shaft and the pivot housing. This would mean the horizontal shaft is capable of not pivoting horizontally with the housing. Even if the pivotability is minimal, the horizontal shaft is capable of, and therefore configured to not pivot horizontally with the pivot housing.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ERIC ACOSTA whose telephone number is (571)272-4886. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:00pm.
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, Timothy Collins can be reached at 571-272-6886. 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.
/E.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3644
/Nicholas McFall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644
Prosecution Insights