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 with respect to claim(s) 15-33 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Examiner thanks applicant for drawing amendments. These are entered. The drawing amendments do not include an indicator for “c-gap 33” in figure 7.
Applicant has not amended the title. Title is objected to. The specification has been amended, the specification amendments are entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
Claim 1 “friction torque pair” including two tubular members and a hinge pin. Please see 112b rejection below.
Part 33 as claimed in claim 4 is not shown in figure 7. In figure 7, the line to part number 33 seems to indicate a circumferential groove, which is not sufficient to perform the functions required in claim 4.
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The following title is suggested: Hinge having a hollow hinge pin with two c-shaped cross sectional tubes.
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 15-33 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.
Regarding claims 15 and 24:
Applicant claims “friction torque pair…including a first tubular member….and a second tubular member” and then “the friction torque pair comprises a hinge pin”. The record is not clear if applicant intends to claim two tubular members AND a hinge pin, or “hinge pin” is a FUNCTION of “friction torque pair”. If the first, applicant has not disclosed the use of two tubular members AND a hinge pin in any embodiment, and therefore is not enabled. If the second, then it seems the term “hinge pin” is identical in scope to “friction torque pair”, and it is indefinite to claim two terms with identical scope.
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 15-33 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.
Regarding claims 15 and 24:
Applicant claims “friction torque pair…including a first tubular member….and a second tubular member” and then “the friction torque pair comprises a hinge pin”. The record is not clear if applicant intends to claim two tubular members AND a hinge pin, or “hinge pin” is a FUNCTION of “friction torque pair”. If the first, applicant has not disclosed the use of two tubular members AND a hinge pin in any embodiment, and therefore is not enabled. If the second, then it seems the term “hinge pin” is identical in scope to “friction torque pair”, and it is indefinite to claim two terms with identical scope. Examiner suggests claiming “friction torque pair functions as a hinge pin”. According to the applicant’s interview, applicant intends to claim “functions as a hinge pin”.
“may be rotated…only by applying torque”. Examiner notes that this is a functional recitation of the existing structure of the “friction torque pair” in the paragraph above this phrase. Examiner contends that the final paragraph describes function of the structure claimed above, and does not impart any structural features.
Claim 17: “threaded opening for receiving a screw”. The term “threaded opening” is not disclosed, but examiner assumes that applicant intends to claim the “tapped thread 17”.
Regarding claim 26, applicant claims when the set screw is “tightened causes axial bending of the friction torque pair”. The record is not clear if applicant is also claiming the “resilient steel” required in claim 2 or not. Examiner notes that claim 6 seems to only limit the function of the set screw of claim 5, and does not seem to further limit the structure of the article in any understandable manner.
Dependent claims inherit the same issues from parent claims and do not resolve any indefinite issues.
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
496
499
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 2010/0146734 Munson in view of 6711782 Su.
Regarding claim 15, Munson discloses a hinge assembly for pivotably mounting together a lid and a container body (or any two pivoting articles), the hinge assembly comprising:
a first hinge leaf and a second hinge leaf (figure 8), the first hinge leaf having a first pair of opposed flanges (as annotated in figure 8, above) and the second hinge leaf having a second pair of opposed flanges (as annotated in figure 8), each of the opposed flanges within the first pair and second pair defining a hole therethrough (to accept the friction torque device/hinge pin 21, figure 8), one of the first pair of opposed flanges or the second pair of opposed flanges being sized to fit between the other of the first pair of opposed flanges (as shown in figure 8) and the second pair of opposed flanges with all of the holes aligned so that a longitudinal axis extends through all of the holes (in order to insert the hinge pin/friction torque device); and
a friction torque device 21 (figure 9), which is overlapped on itself to have at least some frictional surfaces (figure 9 “Spiral spring”), which creates a “constant outward force…thus creating…swing-resistant friction”, and optionally includes “pin positioned linearly through the center of the spiral spring”, so as to create a frictional bias against relative rotation [0067], the holes of the one of the first pair of opposed flanges and the second pair of opposed flanges receiving ends (as shown in figure 8) of the second tubular member for non-rotational engagement, and the holes of the other of the first pair of opposed flanges and the second pair of opposed flanges receiving ends (as shown in figure 8) of the second c-section member for non-rotational engagement,
wherein the friction torque device (assumed to be “functions as”, see 112b and interview summary) a hinge pin whereby the first hinge leaf may be rotated relative to the second hinge leaf only by applying torque to the first hinge leaf relative to the second hinge leaf sufficient to overcome the frictional bias (“create sufficient swing resistance” [0067]).
Munson friction device includes a spiral spring which overlaps itself, and therefore has at least two layers of engagement of “spiral spring” as shown in figure 9. Munson also discloses that a pin should be within the center of the two layered spiral spring of figure 9. Munson discloses that an alternative to the “spiral spring” is a c-shaped pin to create “adjustable friction force” [0064].
PNG
media_image2.png
409
636
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Su discloses a hinge including a leaf 12 and a second leaf 22, connected by a frictional hinge pin (figure 3) which includes a friction torque pair extending along the longitudinal axis and including a first tubular member 31 defining a longitudinal slot 33 so as to have a c-shaped cross-section (as shown in figure 3) and a second tubular member 21 defining a longitudinal slot 23 so as to have a c-shaped cross- section (as shown in figure 3), the second tubular member 21 being located radially within and coaxial with the first tubular member 31 (as shown in figure 3), an outer diameter of the second tubular member 21 before insertion into the first tubular member being larger than an inner diameter of the first tubular member with an interference fit (“friction force of compression and tension” is created by the smaller tube within the larger tube, column 2 line 56).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to replace the hinge pin including two layers of spring surfaces with an internal pin of Munson, with an equivalent spring of two c-shaped tubes of Su, as both are known equivalent alternatives, as suggested by Munson’s other embodiments, and how similar in structure Munson and Su are. Examiner contends that these are known equivalents and are used for the same purpose within the ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144 (I): “rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art…it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art”.
Note that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. MPEP 2114. Examiner notes the phrases in italics above, and throughout the action, are considered intended use. Examiner contends that the structure capable of performing the intended use is met in the prior art, and is described how the structure disclosed performs the claimed functions in the parentheses; therefore, all italicized language is considered and shown in the prior art. Further, examiner notes that the disclosed structure is capable of performing the intended use claimed by applicant.
Regarding claim 20, Munson as modified discloses the hinge of claim 15, wherein the surfaces are used to create friction; friction can be managed using lubricant, lubricant also elongates the life of frictional devices.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include lubricant in the known manner of lubricating mechanical devices, as this would modify the friction created by the frictional hinge of Munson, as well as elongate the life of the hinge of Munson.
Regarding claim 21, Munson as modified discloses the hinge of claim 15, including axle caps (flat top 10 and nut 13, figure 3 of Munson) respectively attached to the ends of the tubular members to retain the tubular members. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the upper and lower pin retention caps in other embodiments of Munson to apply to the pin optionally included in other embodiments of Munson, as it is the known and obvious manner of retaining the optional pin of Munson figure 8.
Regarding claim 22, Munson as modified discloses the hinge of claim 15, further including a pin (required by both Munson and Su) having two ends, a central portion therebetween, a first head 10 (figure 3 of Munson) at one end, and a second head (nut 13, figure 3 of Munson) the pin central portion extending through a center opening of second tubular member (as shown in figure 8 of Munson) the first and second heads located respectively longitudinally outward of the ends of the second tubular member (figure 3 of Munson) to retain the second tubular member within the first hinge leaf and the second hinge leaf (as shown in figure 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the upper and lower pin retention caps in other embodiments of Munson to apply to the pin optionally included in other embodiments of Munson, as it is the known and obvious manner of retaining the optional pin of Munson figure 8.
Claim(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munson modified by Su as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of 1487081 Walts.
Regarding claims 17-19, Munson as modified discloses the structure of claim 15, but does not include the use of a screw in a threaded opening to engage the hinge pin.
Walts discloses a hinge having a central hinge pin and two leaves, one leaf includes a threaded opening 11 receiving a screw 8 rotatable so as to move an end of the screw toward or away from the hinge pin (the screw allows linear movement), wherein rotation of the screw so as to move the end into contact with the hinge pin thereby increasing applied force and increasing the torque required to overcome the frictional bias (in the old and well known manner as taught by Walts).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the manual frictional adjustment taught by Walts to be used on a frictional hinge as taught by modified Munson, as this is a redundant friction application to the frictional hinge of Munson and does not alter the form, function, or use, of the frictional hinge of Munson. Examiner notes that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI) (b).
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munson in view of Su as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of 5805066 Murdy.
Regarding claim 24, Munson in view of Su discloses the hinge of claim 15, but does not disclose what the modified hinge of Munson is applied to. Murdy discloses a case for holding a musical instrument (for containing a guitar 36), the case comprising: a case body 40 defining an opening (figure 2) and an interior configured to receive the musical instrument (as shown in figure 2); a lid 45 configured for selectively closing the opening to the container body to secure the musical instrument in the interior; the case using a generic hinges 46 (figures 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the modified Munson hinge on the case that requires, such as the case of Murdy, because any hinge that is capable of hinging the case is a known equivalent to the generic hinge of Murdy. Examiner contends that these are known equivalents and are used for the same purpose within the ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144 (I): “rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art…it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art”.
Regarding claim 29, please see claim 20 above.
Regarding claim 30, please see claim 21 above.
Regarding claim 31, please see claim 22 above.
Regarding claim 33, Munson hinge used on the case of Murdy, the lid is possible to change its weight so that the hinge of Munson can maintain this lid in the open position; A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(a).
Claim(s) 26-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munson in view of Su and Murdy as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Walts.
Please see claims 17-19 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16, 23, 25, 32 are 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. Examiner also notes that the independent claims also are rejected as indefinite.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: In combination with all other claim language, the manner of attaching the friction torque pair as claimed to the hinge leafs as claimed in the manner claimed in claims 16, 23, 25, 32, is not shown as obvious or equivalent to any relevant prior art as mentioned in this office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see 892.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 EMILY M MORGAN whose telephone number is (303)297-4260. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8-5 MST.
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.
/EMILY M MORGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3677
Prosecution Insights