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 .
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because the drawings filed 6/3/2024 are not proper black and white line drawings. This is frequently the result of drawings which are filed in a very dark grey (so dark that it appears black such as RGB value 37, 37, 37) instead of pure black (RGB value 0, 0, 0). While very dark grey may appear black, it causes artifacts and inconsistent line thickness. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Lines and strokes of different thicknesses may be used in the same drawing where different thicknesses have a different meaning (see MPEP 608, 37 CFR 1.84(l))
Applicant is encouraged to view the drawings on file in the immediate application in Patent Center to more clearly see these line quality issues, as they may not be apparent on the Applicant’s copy of the drawings, as very dark grey may appear black to the eye.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
spring device (claims 1-16)
support element (claims 1-16)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The term “and/or” appears throughout the claims. For purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted “and/or” to have the broadest reasonable interpretation of “or”. Therefore limitations separated by “and/or” are alternatives, and only one is required to anticipate or render obvious the claim limitations.
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.
Claims 1-16 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.
Claims 1-16 are replete with unclear language such as “preferably” and “in particular”. It is unclear whether the limitations which follow “preferably” and “in particular” are positively recited. For purposes of examination, the limitations which follow “preferably” and “in particular”, have been interpreted to be optional. Correction is required.
Claim 2 recites “an inner hinge lever” and “an outer hinge lever”. This is unclear because claim 1 previously recites “at least one hinge lever”. It is unclear if these are additional levers or include the previously defined “at least one lever”. For purposes of examination, claim 2 has been interpreted to mean that the at least one hinge lever comprises an inner hinge lever and an outer hinge lever.
Claim 4 recites “a further portion” and further recites “two portions”. It is believed the “two portions” include a portion (from claim 1) and “a further portion” from earlier in claim 4. Claim 4 is therefore unclear if these are the same portions or different portions. Further, as claim 4 recites “a further portion” and “two portions” separated by “and/or”, and which has the broadest reasonable interpretation of “or”, claim 4 is unclear.
Claim 5 recites “the further portion”, however claim 4 from which claim 5 depends recites “a further portion” in the alternative. It is therefore unclear whether claim 5 is further limiting or if proper antecedent basis is provided for claim 5.
Claim 5 recites “the spring device”. This is unclear because claim 1 previously recites “at least spring device”. The limitation “the spring device” therefore lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 6 recites “two hinge levers”, however claim 1 previously recites “at least one hinge lever”. It is unclear if the two hinge levers of claim 6 are two additional hinge levers or include the previously defined “at least one hinge lever”. For purposes of examination, claim 6 has been interpreted to mean that the at least one hinge lever comprises two hinge levers.
Claim 6 recites “two hinge axes” and “two further hinge axes”. This is unclear because claim 1 recites “at least one hinge axis”. Claim 6 has been interpreted to mean that the at least one hinge axis comprises the two hinge axes and two further hinge axes.
Claim 7 recites “the hinge lever”. This is unclear because claim 1 previously recites “at least one hinge lever”. The limitation “the hinge lever” therefore lacks antecedent basis.
The term “substantially” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The limitations “entirely” and “parallel” are rendered indefinite by the use of the term “substantially”.
Dependent claims 2-16 are unclear at least for the same reasons as the claims from which they depend.
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 1-8, 11, and 14-16, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Koshikawa et al. (US 7,059,018), herein referred to as ‘018.
For Claim 1, as best understood, ‘018 discloses a fitting (Figures 1-3) for movably supporting a pivoting element (D), the fitting comprising:
a first fitting portion (2) to be fixed to a carrier (B),
a second fitting portion (3) to be fixed to the pivoting element (D),
at least one hinge lever (4) pivotally supported about at least one hinge axis (6A), the at least one hinge lever (4) hingedly connecting the first fitting portion (2) and the second fitting portion (3) to each other,
at least one spring device (71) for moving the two fitting portions (2, 3) into a closed position (Figure 1) or into an open position (Figure 2) relative to each other, and
at least one support element (72) on which a portion (71c) of the spring device (71) is supported,
wherein the at least one support element (72) for supporting the spring device (71) is rotationally mounted (Column 6, Lines 16-20).
For Claim 2, as best understood, ‘018 discloses the fitting according to claim 1, wherein the at least one hinge lever includes an inner hinge lever (4) and an outer hinge lever (5), wherein the at least one support element (72) is rotationally mounted on the inner hinge lever (4).
For Claim 3, as best understood, ‘018 discloses the fitting according to claim 1, wherein the at least one support element (72) is arranged adjacent to the hinge axis (6A) of the at least one hinge lever (4).
For Claim 4, as best understood, ‘018 discloses the fitting according to claim 1, wherein the at least one spring device (71) includes a further portion (71b) supported on the first fitting portion (2).
For Claim 5, as best understood, ‘018 discloses the fitting according to claim 4, wherein the first fitting portion (2) includes a U-shaped portion (21, 21, 22) having a base limb (22) and two transverse limbs (21, 21) projecting from the base limb (22), wherein the further portion (71b) of the spring device (71) is supported on the base limb (22) of the first fitting portion (2).
For Claim 6, as best understood, ‘018 discloses the fitting according to claim 1, wherein the fitting is configured as a four-pivot-point hinge (6A, 6B, 6C, 6D), wherein two hinge levers (4, 5) are pivotally connected to the first fitting portion (2) via two hinge axes (6A, 6C), and are pivotally connected to the second fitting portion (3) via two further hinge axes (6B, 6D).
For Claim 7, as best understood, ‘018 discloses the fitting according to claim 1, wherein the at least one hinge axis (6A) of the at least one hinge lever (4) is arranged on the first fitting portion (2).
For Claim 8, as best understood, ‘018 discloses the fitting according to claim 1, wherein the first fitting portion (2) includes a hinge arm (2).
For Claim 11, as best understood, ‘018 discloses the fitting according to claim 1, wherein the at least one hinge lever (4): includes at least one recess (42b) for supporting the at least one support element (72).
For Claim 14, as best understood, ‘018 discloses the fitting according to claim 1, wherein the fitting is configured as a hinge (as seen in Figures 1-3) for moving a movably-supported furniture part (D).
For Claim 15, as best understood, ‘018 discloses an item of furniture (B, D) comprising a stationary carrier (B), a pivoting element (D) movable relative to the stationary carrier, and at least one fitting (as seen in Figures 1-3) according to claim 1 for moving the movable pivoting element (D), wherein the first fitting portion (2) of the fitting is fixed to the stationary carrier (B), and the second fitting portion (3) of the fitting is fixed to the pivoting element (D).
For Claim 16, as best understood, ‘018 discloses the fitting according to claim 1, wherein the fitting is a hinge (as seen in Figures 1-3) for movably supporting a door (D) relative to a stationary carrier (B).
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 9-10, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koshikawa et al. (US 7,059,018), herein referred to as ‘018, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of EP 0909864, herein referred to as ‘864.
For Claim 9, as best understood, ‘018 discloses the fitting according to claim 1, except wherein the at least one support element is at least partially coated with a lubricant.
‘864 teaches a fitting having a support element (10), wherein the support element is at least partially coated with a lubricant (paragraph [0021]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to coat the support element of ‘018 with a lubricant. One would be motivated to make such a modification to reduce friction between the spring and the support element.
For Claim 10, as best understood, ‘018 discloses the fitting according to claim 1, except wherein the at least one support element includes at least partially a coating.
‘864 teaches a fitting having a support element (10), wherein the support element is at least partially a coating (paragraph [0021]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to coat the support element of ‘018 with a lubricant. One would be motivated to make such a modification to reduce friction between the spring and the support element.
English machine translation of ‘864 paragraph [0021]:
In order to reduce the friction between the leg spring 11 and the metal pin 10, the surface of the metal pin 10 can be coated, for example with a titanium nitride coating, a titanium carbon coating, a chromium nitride coating or a tungsten carbide coating.
Furthermore, the surface of the metal pin 10 can be provided with a solid lubrication, for example made of molybdenum disulfide.
Claims 12-13, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koshikawa et al. (US 7,059,018), herein referred to as ‘018, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Holzapfel (US 2014/0331451), herein referred to as ‘451.
For Claim 12, as best understood, ‘018 discloses the fitting according to claim 1, except wherein the fitting includes at least one damper configured to dampen a relative movement of the two fitting portions to each other.
‘451 teaches a fitting (Figure 3a) including at least one damper (7) configured to dampen a relative movement of two fitting portions to each other. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the damper of ‘451 to the fitting of ‘018. One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to provide a smooth damping of a hinge movement and prevent slamming noises and damage from slamming during a movement of the hinge.
For Claim 13, as best understood, ‘451 further teaches wherein the at least one damper is arranged on or within one of the two fitting portions (as seen in Figure 3a). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the damper of ‘451 on or within the fitting of ‘018. One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to provide a smooth damping of a hinge movement and prevent slamming noises and damage from slamming during a movement of the hinge, in a compact and inconspicuous fashion.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 10030427, US 9416575, and US 6601267 teach pertinent features of fittings/hinges that are 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