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 .
Drawings
The replacement sheets of drawings, namely Fig. 2, were received on 10-10-2025. These drawings are acceptable.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (US#2010/0180404).
Regarding claim 1, Chang discloses a hinge ([0023], element 4 rotatable within outer element 51 to adjust angular position between elements 3), comprising: a body 4 shaped as an at least partially solid cylinder (see Fig. 4), the body including a groove 43 having a depth extending from an outer surface of the body to (at least to and including) an axial center of the body, the groove including a bottom portion (see annotated Fig. 5 below wherein the bottom portion of the groove 43 is being viewed as the portion of the groove 43 to the right of the dashed line) and an opening 42, a width of the groove being gradually increased from the open end of the bottom portion to the opening, and the bottom portion being shaped as a U (see Fig. 5 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
588
802
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Chang does not disclose the material of its hinge (or the body thereof) and thus does not limit its hinge (or the body thereof) to a specific material. It would have been an obvious design consideration to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chang by utilizing a plastic material for the hinge (at least the body thereof) for the inherent material property advantages thereof, such as lightweight design, corrosion resistance, and cost effectiveness, as the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 2, the applicant is reminded method limitations, such as injection molding, are given little patentable weight in an article claim as the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. See MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 3, Chang fails to disclose the dimensions of the body, specifically Chang fails to disclose the diameter range of the body being between 1.4mm and 3.5mm. However, it would have been an obvious design consideration to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chang by utilizing the claimed diameter range for the body to optimize hinge performance, 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. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Further, a change in the size of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 4, Chang discloses wherein the bottom has a first width (e.g. width at open end of bottom), the opening has a second width, and the second width is greater than the first width.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Chang fails to disclose the dimensions of the groove, specifically Chang fails to disclose the first width is 0.3mm and the second width is 0.38mm. However, it would have been an obvious design consideration to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chang by utilizing the claimed groove widths body to optimize hinge performance, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Further, a change in the size of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 7, Chang discloses wherein the bottom portion of the groove 43 (see above annotated Fig. 5) “substantially surrounds” the axial center of the body 4 as the U-shaped perimeter of the bottom portion of the groove by definition of its shape and location with respect to element 4 “substantially” circumscribes (or surrounds) the axial center of the body except at the open end of the bottom portion of the groove facing the groove opening 42.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (US#2010/0180404) in view of WO 2017/190342 (hereinafter “WO342”).
Regarding claim 1, Chang discloses a hinge ([0023], element 4 rotatable within outer element 51 to adjust angular position between elements 3), comprising: a body 4 shaped as an at least partially solid cylinder (see Fig. 4), the body including a groove 43 having a depth extending from an outer surface of the body to (at least to and including) an axial center of the body, the groove including a bottom portion (see annotated Fig. 5 below wherein the bottom portion of the groove 43 is being viewed as the portion of the groove 43 to the right of the dashed line) and an opening 42, a width of the groove being gradually increased from the open end of the bottom portion to the opening, and the bottom portion being shaped as a U (see Fig. 5 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
588
802
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Chang does not disclose the material of its hinge (or the body thereof) and thus effectively does not limit its hinge (or the body thereof) to a specific material. In any event, WO342 teaches the use of plastic material for a hinge is well known in the art, see Fig. 1 and the hinge comprising a plastic body 30 rotatable within plastic outer elements 40 and 50 to adjust the angular position between components 10 and 20. Per the translation, the use of plastic is cost effective and facilitates recycling. See the translation and the “SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION” section, paragraphs 8 and 10 thereof, which recites the following: “As a further improvement of the invention, the hinge shaft is made of plastic injection molding. The invention further adopts plastic to make the whole cosmetic box structure, and the production cost is lower than that of the conventional cosmetic case using the metal hinge shaft, and secondly, in the defective product processing during the processing and the waste recycling process after the sale and use. All need only process single material waste, no sorting process is needed, which saves waste disposal cost and is convenient for recycling.” Therefore, as taught by WO342, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chang such that the hinge, including at least the body thereof, was made of plastic for cost effectiveness and to facilitate recycling.
Regarding claim 2, the applicant is reminded method limitations, such as injection molding, are given little patentable weight in an article claim as the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. See MPEP 2113. In any event, WO342 teaches the body is made via injection molding as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Chang fails to disclose the dimensions of the body, specifically Chang fails to disclose the diameter range of the body being between 1.4mm and 3.5mm. However, it would have been an obvious design consideration to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chang by utilizing the claimed diameter range for the body to optimize hinge performance, 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. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Further, a change in the size of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 4, Chang discloses wherein the bottom has a first width (e.g. width at open end of bottom), the opening has a second width, and the second width is greater than the first width.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Chang fails to disclose the dimensions of the groove, specifically Chang fails to disclose the first width is 0.3mm and the second width is 0.38mm. However, it would have been an obvious design consideration to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chang by utilizing the claimed groove widths body to optimize hinge performance, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Further, a change in the size of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 7, Chang discloses wherein the bottom portion of the groove 43 (see above annotated Fig. 5) “substantially surrounds” the axial center of the body 4 as the U-shaped perimeter of the bottom portion of the groove by definition of its shape and location with respect to element 4 “substantially” circumscribes (or surrounds) the axial center of the body except at the open end of the bottom portion of the groove facing the groove opening 42.
Response to Arguments
Regarding claim 1 and Chang (US#2010/0180404), the applicant argues the following:
“Reviewing the annotations, it appears that the Examiner defined the "bottom [portion] of the groove" as everything in the clamping groove 43 to the right of the dashed line. However, this portion of the clamping groove 43 is not "shaped as a U." Rather, it is shaped like a Greek omega (Ω) or horseshoe, with a narrowed neck. Chang [0020] confirms this: "The clamping groove 43 has a width that decreases gradually from the groove end sections 432 to the middle groove section 431" (emphasis added). One of ordinary skill would not interpret "shaped as a U" to include shapes that substantially and by design narrow while approaching an open end thereof.”
The applicant is correct with respect to the examiner defining the bottom portion of the groove as everything in the clamping groove 43 to the right of the dashed line as shown in annotated Fig. 5. While the examiner also concedes this defined bottom portion has a narrowed neck approaching an open end thereof, the bottom portion is still being viewed as “shaped as a U” via its bottom trough and two opposing legs extending therefrom. The claim does not require the bottom portion to have a constant width. Further, under the applicant’s above narrow interpretation of “shaped as a U”, it can be argued Fig. 2 of the applicant’s drawings teaches away from a U-shape as it shows its bottom portion 111 has a slightly expanding neck approaching an open end thereof.
Regarding claim 1 and Chang (US#2010/0180404), the applicant argues the following:
“Further to the above, Claim 1 also recites that the body is "formed of plastic." The Examiner acknowledged that Chang does not disclose its inner clamp member 4 to be plastic but asserted that such a modification would be obvious "based upon its suitability for the intended use." Applicant contends that the material selection is more significant than the Examiner argued. As described in the Background of the Invention, plastic pins introduce issues of thermal expansion and deformation (see, e.g., [0004]). Consequently, metal pins are frequently used, despite their own disadvantages (see, e.g., [0002]). A goal of the recited hinge structure is to enable the use of plastic without deformation issues (see, e.g., [0009]). As such, the use of plastic is not in itself obvious, as metal is generally preferred, and the design of the recited structure makes the use of plastic more feasible in a non-obvious manner.”
Although the examiner disagrees as plastic is a well-known material in the hinge art, an added grounds of rejection is presented above as WO342 is provided as a teaching reference which explicitly states the benefits of a plastic hinge and a body formed of plastic, including known improvements versus metal, as plastic is cost effective and facilitates recycling (see paragraph 14 above). Due to this added grounds of rejection, the instant Office action has been made non-final.
Regarding claim 7 and Chang, the applicant argues the following:
“Referring again to the annotated Chang FIG. 5, the axial center of inner clamp member 4 is plainly, at most, at the edge of the alleged "bottom [portion] of the groove" and is certainly not "substantially surrounded" by this alleged bottom portion.”
The examiner agrees the axial center of element 4 of Chang is located at an edge of the defined bottom portion of the groove 43, namely at the edge of the bottom portion of the groove adjacent the open end thereof (see above annotated Fig. 5). As stated previously, the body of Change includes a groove 43 having a depth extending from an outer surface of the body to (at least to and including) an axial center of the body. The bottom portion of the groove 43 “substantially surrounds” this axial center of element 4 as the U-shaped perimeter of the bottom portion of the groove, by definition of its shape and location relative to element 4, “substantially” circumscribes, “substantially” extends around, and/or “substantially” surrounds the axial center of element 4 except at the open end of the bottom portion of the groove facing the opening 42. Claim 7 does not limit the distance between the axial center and the bottom portion of the groove.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM L MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-7068. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 - 6:00 PM.
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.
WILLIAM L. MILLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3677
/WILLIAM L MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3677