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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 1, in the reply filed on 3/23/2026 is acknowledged.
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because the drawings filed 3/23/2026 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.
Examiner notes the replacement drawings filed 3/23/2026 overcome numbering issues and are slightly improved over the line quality of 7/24/2024, but still do not contain clean, black, sufficiently dark and dense lines. This appears to be the result of low resolution or greyscale drawings. Correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7: “centring” should be replaced with “centering”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-10 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.
Claims 1-10 recite the term “designed for” or “designed to” multiple times. It is unclear if the limitations which follow are positively recited. For purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted “designed for” to mean “configured for” and “designed to” to mean “configured to”.
Claims 9 and 10 recite “it”. The claims are unclear as to what “it” is referring to. For purposes of examination, Claim 9 “wherein it comprises a slider” has been interpreted to mean “comprising a slider” and Claim 10 “wherein it has” has been interpreted to mean “comprising”.
Dependent claims 2-10 are unclear at least for the same reasons as the claims from which they depend.
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:
elastic element (claims 1-10)
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanini (US 10,244,920), herein referred to as ‘920, in view of ITMI20120660, herein referred to as ‘660.
For Claim 1, ‘920 discloses a hinge (Figure 4) capable of use on doors of electrical household appliances, comprising:
a first element (5) and a second element (4) pivoted to each other and movable relative to each other in tilting fashion, said first and second elements (5, 4) being capable of being fixed one to a frame and the other to a door of an appliance, to make the door movable with respect to the frame between a closed position and an open position,
a connecting arm (7) between said first and second elements (5, 4),
an elastic element (11) connected to said connecting arm (7) and configured to generate, by means of its own deformation, an elastic reaction force (force of elastic element 11) to compensate at least partially the weight force of the door during its opening or closing,
a flat control rod (12) for said elastic element (11), said flat control rod (12) defining an operative connecting means (at 7b) between said arm (7) and said elastic element (11),
‘920 does not disclose said flat control rod being made from sheet metal. ‘920 is instead silent as to the material of the flat control rod. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the flat control rod from sheet metal, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. It is also common knowledge to choose a material that has sufficient strength, durability, flexibility, hardness, etc. for the application and intended use of that material. One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to form the control rod from an inexpensive and durable material.
‘920 further does not disclose means for adjusting the intensity of said elastic reaction force, characterised in that said adjusting means comprise a threaded portion formed in said control rod and a nut engaging by screwing on said threaded portion to continuously adopt different positions at which said elastic element adopts as many different deformed configurations.
‘660 teaches a hinge (Figure 1) having means (5, 6) for adjusting the intensity of an elastic reaction force of an elastic element, characterised in that said adjusting means (5, 6) comprise a threaded portion (6) formed in a control rod and a nut (5) engaging by screwing on said threaded portion (6) to continuously adopt different positions at which said elastic element adopts as many different deformed configurations.
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 adjusting means of ‘660 to the hinge of ‘920. One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to permit varying the closing torque of the hinge.
For Claim 2, ‘920 further does not disclose wherein said flat control rod has two toothed zones formed on two opposite lateral edges, said toothed zones being configured to form said threaded portion and screwably engage with said nut.
‘660 teaches wherein the control rod has two toothed zones (threaded portion 6) on two opposite lateral edges (as seen in Figures 1-3, wherein the toothed portion extends around the control rod), said toothed zones (threaded portion 6) configured to form said threaded portion (6) and screwably engage with said nut (5).
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 toothed zones of the threaded portion of ‘660 to the flat control rod of ‘920. One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to permit varying the closing torque of the hinge.
For Claim 3, ‘920 as modified by ‘660 teaches said toothed zones of said flat control rod, except wherein the toothed zones are made by cutting said metal sheet. Examiner notes that this would be considered to be a product-by-process claim due to the limitation “cutting”. The patentability of the product does not depend on its method of production. Determination of patentability is based on the product itself. See MPEP 2113. “If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
For Claim 4, ‘920 as modified by ‘660 does not disclose wherein said threaded portion is made of plastic material. ‘920 and ‘660 are instead silent as to the material of the threaded portion. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form threaded portion from plastic, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. It is also common knowledge to choose a material that has sufficient strength, durability, flexibility, hardness, etc. for the application and intended use of that material. One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to form the threaded portion from an inexpensive and durable material.
‘920 as modified by ’660 further do not teach co-pressing the threaded portion on said flat control rod. Examiner notes that this would be considered to be a product-by-process claim due to the limitation “co-pressing”. The patentability of the product does not depend on its method of production. Determination of patentability is based on the product itself. See MPEP 2113. “If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
For Claim 5, ‘660 further teaches wherein said threaded portion made has a cylindrical shape (as seen in Figure 1).
For Claim 6, ‘660 further teaches wherein said means (5, 6) for adjusting the intensity of said elastic reaction force comprise a washer (9) interposed between an end of said elastic element (11) and said nut (5).
For Claim 7, ‘920 as modified by ‘660 do not disclose wherein said washer has at least one truncated cone portion configured for centering said elastic element with respect to said flat control rod. ‘660 is instead silent as to the shape of the washer. Examiner takes official notice that it is old and well known to use washers having truncated cones or semi-spherical shape for self-aligning/self-centering. 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 washer of ‘660 with a washer having a truncated cone portion. One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to permit self-aligning or self-centering with the elastic element.
For Claim 8, ‘920 further teaches wherein said flat control rod (12) has a slot (Annotated Figure 4: A) with a longitudinal extension.
For Claim 9, ‘920 further teaches comprising a slider (Annotated Figure 4: B) slidably engaged in said slot (A) with a longitudinal extension and configured for actuating the compression of said helical spring (11).
PNG
media_image1.png
964
762
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanini (US 10,244,920), herein referred to as ‘920, in view of ITMI20120660, herein referred to as ‘660, as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Zasowski et al. (US 9,695,620), herein referred to as ‘620.
For Claim 10, ‘920 as modified by ‘660 further teach the hinge according to claim 1, except comprising formed on one of either said flat control rod or said second element, a graduated scale configured to indicate the position of said nut along said flat control rod and the corresponding preloaded condition of the elastic element.
‘620 teaches comprising formed on a second element (Figure 5: 24), a graduated scale (46) configured to indicate a position of a nut (40) along a control rod (34) and a corresponding preloaded condition of an elastic element (30). 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 graduated scale of ‘620 to the second element of ‘920. One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to enable a user to easily see the setting to which the elastic element is adjusted or set.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 12037830, US 11697955, US 10472870, US 7243396, and US 6637319 all teach hinges having similar features 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
Prosecution Insights