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 § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Weiland et al. US (US 0845971 A).
With respect to claim 6, Weiland discloses a hinge group (see Weiland below annotated Fig. 1, elem. 5 and 6), configured to connect a first (see Weiland below annotated Fig. 1, elem. 1) box with a second box (see Weiland below annotated Fig. 1, elem. 2), wherein the hinge group comprises an upper hinge and a lower hinge (see Weiland below annotated Fig. 1, elem. 5 and 6), the upper hinge and the lower hinge are respectively provided with first shaft holes (see Weiland below annotated Fig. 1, elem. 6A and 7A), second shaft holes and shaft rods (see Weiland below annotated Fig. 1, elem. 19,19A and), the first shaft holes of the upper hinge (see Weiland below annotated Fig. 1, elem. 6A) and the lower hinge (see Weiland below annotated Fig. 1, elem. 5 and 7A) are mutually hinged together through a first rotating shaft (see Weiland below annotated Fig. 1, elem. 7), the second shaft hole of the upper hinge (see Weiland below annotated Fig. 1, elem. 19A) is hinged to the first box (see Weiland below annotated Fig. 1, elem. 1) through a second rotating shaft (see Weiland below annotated Fig. 1, elem. 19), the shaft rod of the upper hinge (see Weiland below annotated Fig. 1, elem. 13) is slidably disposed on the second box (see Weiland below annotated Fig. 1, elem. 2. Can slide into the back of the frame), the second shaft hole of a lower hinge (see Weiland below annotated Fig. 1, elem. 9A) is hinged to the second box (see Weiland below annotated Fig. 1, elem. 2) through a third rotating shaft (see Weiland below annotated Fig. 1, elem. 9), and the shaft rod of the lower hinge (see Weiland below annotated Fig. 1, elem. 10) is slidably disposed on the first box (see Weiland below annotated Fig. 1, elem. 1).
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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tam et at. (US 20120256373 A1) in view of Weiland et al. US (US 0845971 A), and further in view of Herglotz et al. (US 20110041290 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tam discloses a score board for a competition (see Tam below annotated Fig 1), comprising at least two boxes (see Tam below annotated Fig 1, elem. 2 & 4), wherein the two adjacent boxes are respectively connected through a hinge group (see Tam below annotated Fig 1, elem. 6), the two adjacent boxes comprise a first box (see Tam below annotated Fig 1, elem. 2) and a second box (see Tam below annotated Fig 1, elem. 4), the hinge group comprises an upper hinge (see Tam below annotated Fig 1, elem. 2A) and a lower hinge (see Tam below annotated Fig 1, elem. 4A); and surfaces of the first box and the second box are provided with display screens (see Tam below annotated Fig 1, elem. 2 & 4).
Tam does not disclose the upper hinge and the lower hinge are respectively provided with first shaft holes, second shaft holes and shaft rods, the first shaft holes of the upper hinge and the lower hinge are mutually hinged together through a first rotating shaft, the second shaft hole of the upper hinge is hinged to the first box through a second rotating shaft, the shaft rod of the upper hinge is slidably disposed on the second box, the second shaft hole of a lower hinge is hinged to the second box through a third rotating shaft, the shaft rod of the lower hinge is slidably disposed on the first box, a back surface of the first box is provided with a first mounting groove corresponding to the lower hinge; and a back surface of the second box is provided with a second mounting groove corresponding to the upper hinge.
Weiland discloses the upper hinge (see Weiland below annotated Fig. 1, elem. 6) and the lower hinge (see Weiland below annotated Fig. 1, elem. 5) are respectively provided with first shaft holes (see Weiland below annotated Fig. 1, elem. 6A), second shaft holes (see Weiland below annotated Fig. 1, elem. 19A) and shaft rods (see Weiland below Fig. 1, elem. 19), the first shaft holes (see Weiland annotated below Fig. 1, elem. 6A) of the upper hinge (see Weiland annotated below Fig. 1, elem. 6) and the lower hinge (see Weiland annotated below Fig. 1, elem. 5) are mutually hinged together through a first rotating shaft (see Weiland below annotated Fig. 1, elem. 7), the second shaft hole (see Weiland annotated below Fig. 1, elem. 19A) of the upper hinge (see Weiland below annotated Fig. 1, elem. 6) is hinged to the first box (see Weiland below annotated Fig. 1, elem. 1) through a second rotating shaft (see Weiland below annotated Fig. 1, elem. 19), the shaft rod (see Weiland below annotated Fig. 1, elem. 13) of the upper hinge (see Weiland below annotated Fig. 1, elem. 6) is slidably disposed on the second box (see Weiland below annotated Fig. 1, elem. 2. The connection of the rod is slidably attached), the second shaft hole (see Weiland below annotated Fig. 1, elem. 9A) of a lower hinge (see Weiland below annotated Fig. 1, elem. 5) is hinged to the second box (see Weiland below annotated Fig. 1, elem. 2) through a third rotating shaft (see Weiland below annotated Fig. 1, elem. 9), the shaft rod (see Weiland below annotated Fig. 1, elem. 10) of the lower hinge (see Weiland below annotated Fig. 1, elem. 5) is slidably disposed on the first box (see Weiland below annotated Fig. 1, elem. 1. Slidably connected to the first box), a back surface of the first box (see Weiland below Fig. 3, elem. 1B) is provided with a first mounting groove (see Weiland below Fig. 3, elem. 1A) corresponding to the lower hinge (see Weiland below Fig. 3, elem. 5), and a back surface of the second box (see Weiland below annotated Fig. 3, elem. 2B) is provided with a second mounting groove (see Weiland below annotated Fig. 3, elem. 2A) corresponding to the upper hinge (see Weiland below annotated Fig. 3, elem. 6).
Tam and Weiland are considered to be analogous to the claimed inventions because both
are in the same field of using movable hinges. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify teachings of Tam to include the hinges taught by Weiland to provide an improved construction for a simple and comparatively inexpensive option (see Weiland Col. 1, ll. 11-13).
The combination of Tam and Weiland does not disclose the first mounting groove is internally provided with a first movable groove for allowing the shaft rod of the lower hinge to move; the second mounting groove is internally provided with a second movable groove for allowing the shaft rod of the upper hinge to move.
Herglotz discloses the first mounting groove (see Herglotz below Fig. 1, elem. 22A) is internally provided with a first movable groove (see Herglotz below Fig. 1, elem. 22) for allowing the shaft rod of the lower hinge to move (see Herglotz below annotated Fig. 4); the second mounting groove (see Herglotz below annotated Fig. 4, elem. 22B) is internally provided with a second movable groove (see Herglotz below annotated Fig. 1, elem. 23) for allowing the shaft rod of the upper hinge to move (see Herglotz below annotated Fig. 4),
Tam, Weiland and Herglotz are considered to be analogous to the claimed inventions because both are in the same field of using movable hinges. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify teachings of Tam and Weiland to include an adjusting lever taught by Herglotz to further increase the operational reliability (see Herglotz [0020]).
PNG
media_image1.png
610
723
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Tam)
PNG
media_image2.png
427
572
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
329
476
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(Weiland)
PNG
media_image4.png
670
583
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
665
455
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(Herglotz)
Regarding claim 2, Tam discloses a score board for the competition. Tam does not disclose the first mounting groove of the first box, and the second mounting groove of the second box.
Weiland discloses the first mounting groove (see Weiland above annotated Fig. 3, elem. 1A) of the first box (see Weiland above annotated Fig. 3, elem. 1), and the second mounting groove (see Weiland above annotated Fig. 3, elem. 2A) of the second box (see Weiland above annotated Fig. 3, elem. 2).
Tam and Weiland are considered to be analogous to the claimed inventions because both
are in the same field of using movable hinges. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify teachings of Tam with Weiland to include an improved construction of hinges and to provide a simple and comparatively inexpensive option (see Weiland Col. 1, ll. 11-13).
The combination of Tam and Weiland does not disclose the first mounting groove of the first box is provided with a first clamping buckle platform for limiting the shaft rod of the lower hinge; and the second mounting groove of the second box is provided with a second clamping buckle platform for limiting the shaft rod of the upper hinge.
Herglotz discloses a first clamping buckle platform (see Herglotz above annotated Fig. 1 & 4, elem. 22. The intended use of a clamping buckle is the adjusting lever) for limiting the shaft rod of the lower hinge; a second clamping buckle platform (see Herglotz above annotated Fig. 1, elem. 23. The intended use of a clamping buckle is the adjusting lever) for limiting the shaft rod of the upper hinge.
Tam, Weiland and Herglotz are considered to be analogous to the claimed inventions because both are in the same field of using movable hinges. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify teachings of Tam and Weiland to include an adjusting lever taught by Herglotz to further increase the operational reliability (see Herglotz [0020]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tam et at. (US 20120256373 A1) in view of Weiland et al. US (US 0845971 A).
Regarding claim 3, Tam discloses a score board for the competition. Tam does not disclose wherein the first box and the second box are internally and respectively provided with wiring spaces, and the upper hinge and the lower hinge are provided with receding grooves for allowing electric wires to penetrate through.
Weiland discloses wherein the first box (see Weiland above annotated Fig. 1, elem. 1) and the second box (see Weiland above annotated Fig. 1, elem. 2) are internally and respectively provided with wiring spaces box (see Weiland above annotated Fig. 1, elem. 31), and the upper hinge box (see Weiland above annotated Fig. 1, elem. 1) and the lower hinge box (see Weiland above annotated Fig. 1, elem. 2) are provided with receding grooves for allowing electric wires to penetrate through box (see Weiland above annotated Fig. 1, elem. 30).
Tam and Weiland are considered to be analogous to the claimed inventions because both
are in the same field of using movable hinges. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify teachings of Tam to include the hinges taught by Weiland to provide an improved construction for a simple and comparatively inexpensive option (see Weiland Col. 1, ll. 11-13).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tam et at. (US 20120256373 A1) in view of Herglotz et al. (US 20110041290 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Tam discloses a score board for the competition. Tam does not disclose wherein the upper hinge and the lower hinge have the same structure, the upper hinge and the lower hinge are respectively L-shaped structures with a first connecting plate and a second connecting plate, the first shaft hole of the upper hinge and the first shaft hole of the lower hinge are formed in a connection between the first connecting plate and the second connecting plate, and the second shaft hole of the upper hinge and the second shaft hole of the lower hinge are respectively formed at an end of the second connecting plate; and the shaft rod of the upper hinge and the shaft rod of the lower hinge are respectively disposed at an end of the first connecting plate.
Herglotz discloses wherein the upper hinge and the lower hinge have the same structure (see Herglotz above annotated Fig. 1, elem. 29 and 30), the upper hinge and the lower hinge are respectively L-shaped (see Herglotz above annotated Fig. 1, elem. 29 and 30) structures with a first connecting plate and a second connecting plate (see Herglotz above annotated Fig. 1, elem. 29P and 30P), the first shaft hole (see Herglotz above annotated Fig. 1, elem. 31) of the upper hinge (see Herglotz above annotated Fig. 1, elem. 30), and the first shaft hole (see Herglotz above annotated Fig. 1, elem. 31) of the lower hinge (see Herglotz above annotated Fig. 1, elem. 29) are formed in a connection between the first connecting plate and the second connecting plate (see Herglotz above annotated Fig. 1, elem. 29P and 30P), and the second shaft hole of the upper hinge plate (see Herglotz above annotated Fig. 1, elem. 2 and 30P) and the second shaft hole of the lower hinge are respectively formed at an end of the second connecting plate (see Herglotz above annotated Fig. 1, elem. 2 and 29P); and the shaft rod (see Herglotz above annotated Fig. 1, elem. 27) of the upper hinge plate (see Herglotz above annotated Fig. 1, elem. 27 and 30P) and the shaft rod (see Herglotz above annotated Fig. 1, elem. 28) of the lower hinge plate (see Herglotz above annotated Fig. 1, elem. 29P) are respectively disposed at an end of the first connecting plate (see Herglotz above annotated Fig. 1).
Tam and Herglotz are considered to be analogous to the claimed inventions because both are in the same field of using movable hinges. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify teachings of Tam to include an adjusting lever taught by Herglotz to further increase the operational reliability (see Herglotz [0020]).
Regarding claim 5, Tam discloses a score board for the competition. Tam does not disclose wherein the first connecting plate and the second connecting plate are disposed at an obtuse angle, a length of the first connecting plate is greater than a length of the second connecting plate, and an included angle between the first connecting plate and the second connecting plate is in circular arc transition.
Herglotz discloses wherein the first connecting plate (see Herglotz above annotated Fig. 1, elem. 30P) and the second connecting plate (see Herglotz above annotated Fig. 1, elem. 29P) are disposed at an obtuse angle (see Herglotz above annotated Fig. 1. Plates are at an obtuse angle), a length of the first connecting plate is greater than a length of the second connecting plate (see Herglotz [0016], “…the length thereof which is effective in the shifting direction changes and the receptacle and bearing device are shifted relative to each other. This configuration of the adjusting device is distinguished by the structurally simple design thereof and the functional reliability thereof “. Interpreted as structure size can be formatted for use), and an included angle between the first connecting plate and the second connecting plate is in circular arc transition (see Herglotz above annotated Fig. 1, elem. 29 and 30. Both elements are in circular arc transitions).
Tam and Herglotz are considered to be analogous to the claimed inventions because both are in the same field of using movable hinges. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify teachings of Tam to include an adjusting lever taught by Herglotz to further increase the operational reliability (see Herglotz [0020]).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weiland et al. (US 0845971 A) in view of Herglotz et al. (US 20110041290 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Weiland and Herglotz discloses a hinge group. Weiland does not disclose wherein the upper hinge and the lower hinge have the same structure, and are respectively L-shaped structures with a first connecting plate and a second connecting plate, the first shaft hole of the upper hinge and the first shaft hole of the lower hinge are formed in a connection between the first connecting plate and the second connecting plate, and the second shaft hole of the upper hinge and the second shaft hole of the lower hinge are respectively formed at an end of the second connecting plate; and the shaft rod of the upper hinge and the shaft rod of the lower hinge are respectively disposed at an end of the first connecting plate.
Herglotz discloses wherein the upper hinge and the lower hinge have the same structure (see Herglotz above annotated Fig. 1, elem. 29 and 30), and are respectively L-shaped (see Herglotz above annotated Fig. 1, elem. 29 and 30. Both elements are L-shaped) structures with a first connecting plate and a second connecting plate (see Herglotz above annotated Fig. 1, elem. 29P and 30P), the first shaft hole of the upper hinge (see Herglotz above annotated Fig. 1, elem. 30 and 31) and the first shaft hole of the lower hinge (see Herglotz above annotated Fig. 1, elem. 29 and 31) are formed in a connection between the first connecting plate and the second connecting plate (see Herglotz above annotated Fig. 4, elem. 29P and 30P), and the second shaft hole of the upper hinge ( see Herglotz above annotated Fig. 1 & 2, elem. 2 and 30) and the second shaft hole of the lower hinge (see Herglotz above annotated Fig. 1, elem. 2 and 29) are respectively formed at an end of the second connecting plate (see Herglotz above annotated Fig. 1, elem. 29P); and the shaft rod of the upper hinge (see Herglotz above annotated Fig. 1, elem. 27) and the shaft rod of the lower hinge (see Herglotz above annotated Fig. 1, elem. 28) are respectively disposed at an end of the first connecting plate (see Herglotz above annotated Fig. 1, elem. 30P).
Weiland and Herglotz are considered to be analogous to the claimed inventions because both are in the same field of movable hinges. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify teachings of Weiland to include an adjusting lever taught by Herglotz to further increase the operational reliability (see Herglotz [0020]).
Regarding claim 8, Weiland and Herglotz discloses a hinge group. Weiland does not disclose wherein the first connecting plate and the second connecting plate are disposed at an obtuse angle, a length of the first connecting plate is greater than a length of the second connecting plate, and an included angle between the first connecting plate and the second connecting plate is in circular arc transition.
Herglotz discloses wherein the first connecting plate and the second connecting plate are disposed at an obtuse angle (see Herglotz above annotated Fig. 1, elem. 29P and 30P. Both elements are at obtuse angles), a length of the first connecting plate is greater than a length of the second connecting plate (see Herglotz [0016], “…the length thereof which is effective in the shifting direction changes and the receptacle and bearing device are shifted relative to each other. This configuration of the adjusting device is distinguished by the structurally simple design thereof and the functional reliability thereof”. Interpreted as structure size can be formatted for use), and an included angle between the first connecting plate and the second connecting plate is in circular arc transition (see Herglotz above annotated Fig. 1, elem. 29P and 30P. Both elements are in circular arc transitions).
Weiland and Herglotz are considered to be analogous to the claimed inventions because both are in the same field of movable hinges. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify teachings of Weiland to include an adjusting lever taught by Herglotz to further increase the operational reliability (see Herglotz [0020]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references are considered relevant but fail to teach the combination as claimed:
Ming et al. (CN 215781420 U) discloses a score board for a competition and hinge group.
Jian-Cang et al. (CN 120960749) discloses a score board for a competition and hinge group.
Cencioni (US 3673635 A) discloses a hinge group.
Knapp et al. (US 0563432 A) discloses a hinge group.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOUIS WILKERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3141. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am to 5:00pm.
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, Laura Martin can be reached at (571) 272-2160. 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.
/LOUIS JAWAYNE WILKERSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/LAURA MARTIN SWEENEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights