DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 8/18/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-10 will be examined hereafter.
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.
Claim 7 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites “such that said free end and said fixed end are positioned adjacent to one another in relation to the same hinge of the pair of hinges”. This limitation is awkwardly worded and renders the claim indefinite, as “a pair of torsion elements each having a free end coupled to a respective gear and a fixed end coupled to either of the body side portion or the body” is previously recited in claim 1, from which claim 6 depends, as it is unclear which “free end” and “fixed end” is being referred to in the claim, since each of the “pair of torsion elements” is claimed to include both of a “free end” and a “fixed end”. In other words, which “free end” and “fixed end” are being further limited? Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Schatz et al. (US 2019/0368255) (hereinafter Schatz).
Regarding claim 1, Schatz discloses a hinge based counterbalance mechanism for operating a hinge of a closure panel of a vehicle (See Abstract) to assist in opening and closing of the closure panel between a closed position and an open position, the hinge based counterbalance mechanism including: a pair of hinges (See Figure 5, right and left element 12) such that each hinge of the pair of hinges having a body side portion (element 12b) for connecting to a body of the vehicle and a panel side portion (considered element 12a or area of element 14 as shown in Figure 6) for connecting to the closure panel, the body side portion and the panel side portion coupled to one another by a respective mechanical coupling (See at least Figure 8, considered at least elements 22 and 24, also see Figure 6 for “gooseneck” linkage);a pair of torsion elements (elements 15a and 15b) each having a free end (element 29) coupled to a respective gear (element 144, See at least Figure 8, torsion element and gear are coupled via element 22, See at least paragraph [0050]) and a fixed end (element 27) coupled to either of the body side portion or the body, the fixed end inhibited from rotating relative to the free end and the free end able to rotate about a torsion axis (elements 28a and 28b) of the torsion element; wherein the pair of torsion elements are positioned relative to one another in a non-overlapping manner (See at least Figures 5-6, elements 15a and 15b are oriented parallel with respect to each other).
Regarding claim 2, Schatz discloses wherein the respective mechanical coupling mechanism is a multi-bar linkage (See Figures 9-19).
Regarding claim 3, Schatz discloses wherein the multi-bar linkage includes a gooseneck (See Figure 6).
Regarding claim 4, Schatz discloses wherein the torsion element is a solid rod or a hollow tube (See paragraph [0044]).
Regarding claim 5, Schatz discloses wherein the closure panel is selected from the group consisting of: a lift gate; and a swing door (See at least paragraph [0047]).
Regarding claim 6, Schatz discloses wherein each of the torsion elements are linear in length along their respective torsion axis.
Regarding claim 8, Schatz discloses wherein the pair of torsion elements are positioned parallel to one another, thus providing the non-overlapping manner.
Regarding claim 10, Schatz discloses wherein the multibar linkage includes a crank link (considered element 34) driven by rotation of a gear coupled to a respective one of the pair of torsion elements.
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schatz et al. (US 2019/0368255) (hereinafter Schatz).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Schatz discloses wherein the pair of hinges are configured such that said free end and said fixed end are positioned adjacent to one another in relation to the same hinge of the pair of hinges (See at least Figures 6-8, Fixed end of element 15a is positioned adjacent to Free end of element 15b). Although Schatz does not explicitly disclose that the pair of hinges are configured as asymmetrical to one another, Examiner notes that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify pair of hinges of Schatz such that they are slightly asymmetrical, since it has been held that changes in shape, form, or configuration of components of a device are obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape, form, or configuration would be found significant to a person of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Such modifications are not critical to the design and would have produced no unexpected results. In addition, the prior art element performs the function specified in the claim in substantially the same manner as the function is performed by the corresponding element described in the specification, and such structure are considered art recognized equivalent structures and would have functioned at least equally as well. It would have been obvious to modify the device in this way for the purpose of providing an alternative arrangement that would have functioned at least equally as well.
Additionally, Examiner notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify pair of hinges of Schatz such that they are slightly asymmetrical, since it is prima facie obvious to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of results (MPEP 2143(E)), and modification of the hinges to make them slightly asymmetrical would be a predicable solution for the purpose of accommodating different structural applications.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is 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 JUSTIN B REPHANN whose telephone number is (571)270-7318. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, Daniel Cahn can be reached at 571-270-5616. 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.
/JUSTIN B REPHANN/Examiner, Art Unit 3634