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
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 15, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ammon (US 3,231,927), herein referred to as ‘927.
For Claim 15, ‘927 discloses a household appliance (record player) comprising:
a chassis (12) having an access opening;
a treating chamber (interior of record player) accessible via the access opening;
a closure element (14) selectively moveable to close the access opening; and
at least one hinge assembly moveably coupling the closure element to the chassis for pivotable motion between an opened position and a closed position where the closure element closes the access opening, the at least one hinge assembly comprising:
a first plate (52) directly mounted to the chassis (12), the first plate (52) comprising a first pin (98, 100, 101) and an arcuate aperture (70) having a substantially constant radius of curvature (as seen in Figures 1-5); and
a second plate (92) directly mounted to the closure element (14), the second plate (92) having a circular aperture (unnumbered hole through which 98, 100, 101 extends) configured to receive the first pin (98, 100,101) such that the first pin (98, 100, 101) defines an axis of rotation for the at least one hinge assembly, the second plate (92) having a second pin (99, 100, 101) configured to be received within the arcuate aperture (70) and configured for movement along at least a portion of a length of the arcuate aperture (70) during the pivotable motion between the opened position and the closed position (as seen in Figures 4-5);
wherein the closure element (14) is configured to pivot about the axis of rotation via the first pin (98, 100, 101).
For Claim 16, ‘927 discloses the household appliance of claim 15, wherein the at least one hinge assembly comprises a first hinge assembly (left side of Figure 1) and a second hinge assembly (right side of Figure 1) spaced along a length (left to right as seen in Figure 1) of the closure element (14).
For Claim 20, ‘927 discloses the household appliance of claim 15, wherein the first pin (98, 100, 101) and the second pin (99, 100, 101) are substantially circular (as seen in Figures 2-5).
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.
Claims 1-7 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ammon (US 3,231,927), herein referred to as ‘927, in view of Frye et al. (US 4,953,259), herein referred to as ‘259.
For Claim 1, ‘927 discloses a household appliance (record player) comprising:
a chassis (12) having an access opening;
a treating chamber (interior of record player) accessible via the access opening;
a closure element (14) selectively moveable to close the access opening; and
at least one hinge assembly moveably coupling the closure element to the chassis for pivotable motion between an opened position and a closed position where the closure element closes the access opening, the at least one hinge assembly comprising:
a first plate (52) directly mounted to the chassis (12), the first plate (52) comprising a first pin (98, 100, 101) and an arcuate aperture (70) spaced from and having an edge (edge of 70 facing pin 98, 100, 101) with a consistent distance from the first pin (98, 100, 101); and
a second plate (92) directly mounted to the closure element (4), the second plate (92) having a circular aperture (unnumbered hole through which 98, 100, 101 extends) configured to receive the first pin (98, 100, 101) such that the first pin (98, 100, 101) defines an axis of rotation for the at least one hinge assembly, the second plate (92) having a second pin (99, 100, 101) configured to be received within the arcuate aperture (70) and configured for movement along at least a portion of a length of the arcuate aperture (70) during the pivotable motion between the opened position and the closed position (as seen in Figures 4-5).
‘927 further discloses wherein the arcuate aperture (70) has a width and a length (as seen in Figures 2, 4, and 5).
‘927 does not disclose wherein the width is smaller at a center of the arcuate aperture than at endpoints of the length of the arcuate aperture. ‘927 instead teaches wherein the end points of the arcuate aperture are space closer together to facilitate resilient operation.
‘259 teaches a hinge assembly having an arcuate aperture having a width and a length (as seen in Figures 1, 2, and 5), wherein the width is smaller (Column 5, Lines 47-50) at a center (53) of the arcuate aperture than at endpoints (49, 51) of the length of the arcuate aperture. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the arcuate aperture of ‘927 with the arcuate aperture having a smaller width at a center than at endpoints as taught by ‘259. One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to control frictional resistance force and enhance quality of the hinge position adjustment capacity. One would further be motivated to make such a modification in order to urge the pin to one of the endpoints.
For Claim 2, ‘927 as modified by ‘259 teaches the household appliance of claim 1, except wherein the household appliance comprises a cooking appliance wherein the treating chamber is a cooking chamber.
‘927 instead teaches wherein the household appliance is a record player. Examiner takes official notice that it is old and well known to use a microwave cooking appliance having a cooking chamber and microwave generator heating element as a household appliance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the record player household appliance of ‘927 with a microwave cooking appliance having a cooking chamber and microwave generator heating element as it is a simple substitution of one known household appliance type for another in a manner that yields predictable results. One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to increase the number of household appliances that could use the hinge assembly of ‘927 and therefore increase profitability of the hinge.
Examiner’s assertion of official notice from the Office Action Mailed 5/16/2025 with regards to using a microwave cooking appliance having a cooking chamber and microwave generator heating element as a household appliance is now taken to be admitted prior art due to Applicant's failure to traverse said official notice (see MPEP § 2144.03).
For Claim 3, ‘927 as modified by ‘259 further does not teach wherein the cooking appliance comprises an oven including at least one heating element operably coupled with the cooking chamber.
‘927 instead teaches wherein the household appliance is a record player. Examiner takes official notice that it is old and well known to use a microwave cooking appliance having a cooking chamber and microwave generator heating element as a household appliance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the record player household appliance of ‘927 with a microwave cooking appliance having a cooking chamber and microwave generator heating element as it is a simple substitution of one known household appliance type for another in a manner that yields predictable results. One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to increase the number of household appliances that could use the hinge assembly of ‘927 and therefore increase profitability of the hinge.
Examiner’s assertion of official notice from the Office Action Mailed 5/16/2025 with regards to using a microwave cooking appliance having a cooking chamber and microwave generator heating element as a household appliance is now taken to be admitted prior art due to Applicant's failure to traverse said official notice (see MPEP § 2144.03).
For Claim 4, ‘927 as modified by ‘259 further does not teach wherein the cooking appliance further comprises a microwave generator for providing microwave radiation to the cooking chamber.
‘927 instead teaches wherein the household appliance is a record player. Examiner takes official notice that it is old and well known to use a microwave cooking appliance having a cooking chamber and microwave generator heating element as a household appliance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the record player household appliance of ‘927 with a microwave cooking appliance having a cooking chamber and microwave generator heating element as it is a simple substitution of one known household appliance type for another in a manner that yields predictable results. One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to increase the number of household appliances that could use the hinge assembly of ‘927 and therefore increase profitability of the hinge.
Examiner’s assertion of official notice from the Office Action Mailed 5/16/2025 with regards to using a microwave cooking appliance having a cooking chamber and microwave generator heating element as a household appliance is now taken to be admitted prior art due to Applicant's failure to traverse said official notice (see MPEP § 2144.03).
For Claim 5, ‘927 as modified by ‘259 teaches the household appliance of claim 1, wherein the closure element (14) comprises a door (14).
For Claim 6, ‘927 as modified by ‘259 teaches the household appliance of claim 5, except wherein the door pivots about a vertical axis of rotation. ‘927 instead teaches wherein the door (14) pivots about a horizontal axis of rotation (axis of 98, 100, 101).
Examiner takes official notice that it is old and well known to use pivot a door about a vertical axis of rotation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have reoriented the appliance and hinge of ‘927 such that the axis or rotation is a vertical axis of rotation. One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to allow for the door to be pivoted to the side and out of the way of a user accessing an interior of the appliance.
For Claim 7, ‘927 as modified by ‘259 teaches the household appliance of claim 15, wherein the at least one hinge assembly comprises a first hinge assembly (left side of Figure 1) and a second hinge assembly (right side of Figure 1) spaced along a length (left to right as seen in Figure 1) of the closure element (14).
For Claim 13, ‘927 as modified by ‘259 teaches the household appliance of claim 1, wherein the household appliance (record player) is capable of built-in installation.
For Claim 14, ‘927 as modified by ‘259 teaches the household appliance of claim 1, wherein the arcuate aperture (70) has a substantially constant radius of curvature (as seen in Figures 2, and 4-5).
Claims 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ammon (US 3,231,927), herein referred to as ‘927, in view of Frye et al. (US 4,953,259), herein referred to as ‘259, as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Thomas et al. (US 12,247,427), herein referred to as ‘427.
For Claim 8, ‘927 as modified by ‘259 further teaches the household appliance of claim 7, except wherein a width of the arcuate aperture of the first hinge assembly is larger than a width of the arcuate aperture of the second hinge assembly. ‘927 is instead silent as to the width of the arcuate apertures.
‘427 teaches that it is known to modify the width of an arcuate aperture of a hinge assembly to have wider or narrower portions (column 6, Lines 55-57). It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the width of the arcuate portions of the multiple hinge assemblies of ‘927 such that a width of the arcuate aperture of the first hinge assembly is larger than a width of the arcuate aperture of the second hinge assembly. One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to better control frictional resistance force during opening and closing of the door and to provide users with a quality feeling during opening and closing.
Further, it has been held that a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04).
For Claim 9, ‘927 as modified by ‘259 and further as modified by ‘427 further teaches the household appliance of claim 8, except wherein the width of the arcuate aperture of the first hinge assembly ranges from 4.0 millimeters to 4.5 millimeters, inclusive of endpoints and the width of the arcuate aperture of the second hinge assembly ranges from 3.2 millimeters to 3.7 millimeters inclusive of endpoints. ‘927, ‘259, and ‘427 are instead silent as to the specific dimensions of the arcuate apertures. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the arcuate aperture width limitation disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP § 2144.05). In the instant case, ‘427 teaches the general conditions that it is known to modify the width of an arcuate aperture of a hinge assembly to have wider or narrower portions (column 6, Lines 55-57). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to discover the optimum or workable ranges of the width of the arcuate apertures for application to the desired household appliance. One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to better control frictional resistance force during opening and closing of the door and to provide users with a quality feeling during opening and closing.
Further, it has been held that a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04).
For Claim 10, ‘927 as modified by ‘259 and further as modified by ‘427 further teaches the household appliance of claim 8, except wherein the second pin received within the arcuate aperture of the first hinge assembly is larger than the second pin received within the arcuate aperture of the second hinge assembly. ‘927, ‘259, and ‘427 are instead silent as to the size of the second pin received within the arcuate aperture.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to form the second pin as various different sizes to correspond to the respective arcuate aperture, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04). One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to better control frictional resistance force during opening and closing of the door and to provide users with a quality feeling during opening and closing.
For Claim 11, ‘927 as modified by ‘259 and further as modified by ‘427 further teaches the household appliance of claim 7, except wherein a width of the arcuate aperture of the first hinge assembly is variable by up to 1 millimeter.
‘927, ‘259, and ‘427 are instead silent as to the specific dimensions of the arcuate aperture. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the arcuate aperture width limitation disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP § 2144.05). In the instant case, ‘427 teaches the general conditions that it is known to modify the width of an arcuate aperture of a hinge assembly to have wider or narrower portions (column 6, Lines 55-57). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to discover the optimum or workable ranges of the width of the arcuate aperture for application to the desired household appliance. One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to better control frictional resistance force during opening and closing of the door and to provide users with a quality feeling during opening and closing.
Further, it has been held that a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04).
For Claim 12, ‘927 as modified by ‘259 and further as modified by ‘427 further teaches the household appliance of claim 11, except wherein the width of the arcuate aperture of the first hinge assembly is variable by up to 0.5 millimeters.
‘927, ‘259, and ‘427 are instead silent as to the specific dimensions of the arcuate aperture. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the arcuate aperture width limitation disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP § 2144.05). In the instant case, ‘427 teaches the general conditions that it is known to modify the width of an arcuate aperture of a hinge assembly to have wider or narrower portions (column 6, Lines 55-57). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to discover the optimum or workable ranges of the width of the arcuate aperture for application to the desired household appliance. One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to better control frictional resistance force during opening and closing of the door and to provide users with a quality feeling during opening and closing.
Further, it has been held that a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04).
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ammon (US 3,231,927), herein referred to as ‘927, as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Thomas et al. (US 12,247,427), herein referred to as ‘427.
For Claim 17, ‘927 as further teaches the household appliance of claim 16, except wherein a width of the arcuate aperture of the first hinge assembly is larger than a width of the arcuate aperture of the second hinge assembly. ‘927 is instead silent as to the width of the arcuate aperture.
‘427 teaches that it is known to modify the width of an arcuate aperture of a hinge assembly to have wider or narrower portions (column 6, Lines 55-57). It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the width of the arcuate portions of the hinge assembly of ‘927 as modified to have multiple hinge assemblies such that a width of the arcuate aperture of the first hinge assembly is larger than a width of the arcuate aperture of the second hinge assembly. One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to better control frictional resistance force during opening and closing of the door and to provide users with a quality feeling during opening and closing.
Further, it has been held that a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04).
For Claim 18, ‘927 as modified by ‘427 further teaches the household appliance of claim 17, except wherein a width of the arcuate aperture of the first hinge assembly is variable by up to 1 millimeter.
‘927 and ‘427 are instead silent as to the specific dimensions of the arcuate aperture. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the arcuate aperture width limitation disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP § 2144.05). In the instant case, ‘427 teaches the general conditions that it is known to modify the width of an arcuate aperture of a hinge assembly to have wider or narrower portions (column 6, Lines 55-57). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to discover the optimum or workable ranges of the width of the arcuate aperture for application to the desired household appliance. One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to better control frictional resistance force during opening and closing of the door and to provide users with a quality feeling during opening and closing.
Further, it has been held that a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04).
For Claim 19, ‘927 as modified by ‘427 further teaches the household appliance of claim 18, except wherein the width of the arcuate aperture of the first hinge assembly is variable by up to 0.5 millimeters.
‘927 and ‘427 are instead silent as to the specific dimensions of the arcuate aperture. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the arcuate aperture width limitation disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP § 2144.05). In the instant case, ‘427 teaches the general conditions that it is known to modify the width of an arcuate aperture of a hinge assembly to have wider or narrower portions (column 6, Lines 55-57). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to discover the optimum or workable ranges of the width of the arcuate aperture for application to the desired household appliance. One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to better control frictional resistance force during opening and closing of the door and to provide users with a quality feeling during opening and closing.
Further, it has been held that a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments are directed to newly added limitations which have necessitated the new grounds of rejection above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 11,629,542, US 10,060,168, US 9,380,863, US 8,303,059, US 5,738,179, and US 5,265,954, all teach similar hinge devices having arcuate apertures that are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure, but have not been relied upon in the current rejection.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrey O'Brien whose telephone number is (571)270-3655. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7-5:30.
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.
/Jeffrey O'Brien/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3677
Prosecution Insights