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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In this case, the specification fails to provide support for “an opening smaller than 90 degrees is formed between a tip portion of each of the first and second friction elements and a connecting portion thereof”, as stated in claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-6 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1, lines 14 and 15, “…between a tip portion of each of the first and second friction elements and a connecting portion thereof” is vague and indefinite because it is not clear exactly what is defined as “a tip portion”, “a connecting portion” or “a base portion” (line 19), without defining the geometry of each friction element.
Note that claims 2-6, depending from a rejected claim, are also considered vague and indefinite.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatano ‘128 (US 10,151,128 B2) in view of Horng ‘541 (US 2015/0309541 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hatano shows a dual-axis torque hinge as claimed (e.g., fig. 3), including a first main body (1), an intermediate body (3) rotatably connected to the first main body about a first shaft (4), and a second main body (2) rotatably connected to the intermediate body about a second shaft (5), wherein the first shaft and the second shaft are arranged such that they are freely rotatable relative to each other, without being interconnected by a link, the dual-axis torque hinge comprising a plurality of stacked first friction elements (6) which engage with the first shaft, and a plurality of stacked second friction elements (7) which engage with the second shaft; wherein the first shaft (4) is fixed to either the first main body (1) or the intermediate body (3), the first friction elements (6) are fixed to the other of the first main body or the intermediate body, the second shaft (5) is fixed to either the second main body (2) or the intermediate body (3), and the second friction elements are fixed to the other of the second main body or the intermediate body,
wherein each of the first friction elements has an arm (first hook-shaped arm 43) wound around the first shaft, and each of the second friction elements has an arm (second hook-shaped arm 43) wound around the second shaft (see col. 5, lines 14-18, for an embodiment having the arm 43 “formed into a hook shape”, equivalent to the hook-shaped arms 6 and 7 shown by the current invention).
Hatano does not show that tighten torque at the time of a relative rotation of the first shaft with respect to the first friction element in a tightening direction (i.e., extending direction of the first hook-shaped arm 43) is greater than loosening torque at the time of the relative rotation of the first shaft with respect to the first friction element in a winding direction from a base portion to a tip portion of the arm (i.e., opposite to the extending direction of the first hook-shaped arm), that tightening torque at the time of a relative rotation of the second shaft with respect to the second friction element in a winding direction from the base portion to the tip portion of the arm (i.e., extending direction of the second hook-shaped arm 43) is greater than loosening torque at the time of the relative rotation of the second shaft with respect to the second friction element in a winding direction from the tip portion to the base portion of the arm (i.e., opposite to the extending direction of the second hook-shaped arm 43), and that when the second main body (2) rotates relative to the first main body (1) in one direction, the tighten torque acts on one of the first shaft and the second shaft, and the loosening torque acts on the other of the first shaft and the second shaft, i.e., in summary, Hatano does not show or specify the orientation of each of the hook-shaped arms ( i.e., opposite-facing orientation of the hook-shaped arms 43), for achieving the tightening torque and the loosening torque for each of the shafts during rotation of one of the shafts as claimed.
Horng ‘541, however, teaches a dual-axis torque hinge including a first friction element having a hook-shaped arm (14) wound around the first shaft and facing one direction (fig. 3, facing left) and a second friction element having a hook-shaped arm (16) wound around the second shaft and facing an opposite direction (fig. 3, facing right) such that during opening of the hinge the friction between the first shaft and the first friction element is smaller than the friction between the second pivot shaft and the second friction element, and during closing of the hinge the friction between the first pivot shaft and the first friction element is greater than the friction between the second shaft and the second friction element so that the actuation sequence and angle of the rotation of the first shaft in the first friction element and the turning of the first friction element about the second shaft can be smoothly controlled (see [0006]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position the hook-shaped arms of Hatano such that one of the hook-shaped arms is facing one direction and the other one of the other hook-shaped arms is facing an opposite direction as taught by Horng, so that the actuation sequence and angle of the rotation of the first shaft in the first friction element and the turning of the first friction element about the second shaft can be smoothly controlled.
Regarding the size of the opening between a tip and a connecting portion of the friction element. Hatano does not directly show the opening being smaller than 90 degrees between the tip of the hook-shaped arm and the connecting portion. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to form the opening of the friction element smaller than 90 degrees, 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. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
As to claim 2, when the second main body (2) of Hatano rotates relative to the first main body (1) in one direction, the one of the first shaft (4) and the second shaft (5) performs the relative rotation, and after the relative rotation of the one of the first shaft and the second shaft is limited (by one of the stopper 11), the other of the first shaft and the second shaft performs the relative rotation.
As to claim 3, each of friction element engagement portions of Hatano (“4” and “5” of fig. 3) of the first shaft and the second shaft has a substantially circular cross section (fig. 6).
As to claim 4, the first friction element and the second friction element of Hatano (i.e., hook-shaped friction elements 43, see col. 5, lines 14-18) are provided in the intermediate body (3), and wherein a winding direction of the arm of the first friction element is the same as a winding direction of the arm of the second friction element (i.e., arms 43 of Hatano would face opposite directions as taught by Horng).
As to claim 5, the first friction element and second friction element of Hatano are housed in a housing of the intermediate body (3).
As to claim 6, Hatano does not show the first and second friction elements being formed integrally. Instead, Hatano forms the first and second friction elements in two separate pieces (6, 7). However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the friction elements in one piece (as shown by Horng ‘541), since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. (1) regarding the rejection under 35 USC 102(a)(1), applicant’s primary argument is based on that Horng does not show an opening of each friction element being smaller than 90 degrees. While the examiner does not fully agree with the reference lines presented by applicant to define the angle of the opening, the rejection under 35 USC 102 is hereby withdrawn since the hinge of Horng fails to meet “without being interconnected by a link” as stated in claim 1. There is no reason to fairly remove the link of Horng between the shafts to meet the invention. (2) regarding the rejection under 35 USC 103, the rejection is not based on whether Horng shows an opening smaller than 90 degrees or other measurement. Instead, the obviousness is merely based on the orientation of the hook-shaped arms facing opposite direction, taught by Horng, to achieve the required torque variations as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
Related prior art:
US 9,790,720 B2 (Jenum et al.) shows a friction element having an opening less than 90 degrees (measuring along an arc of a circle).
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 CHUCK MAH whose telephone number is (571)272-7059. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:00.
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.
/CHUCK Y MAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3677 CM
November 27, 2025