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 § 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 1-9, 13-14, and 17-19 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.
In claim 1, lines 6-9, it is not clear exactly how a damping mechanism, arranged on at least one of the clamp plates and parallel to the hinge axis, is activated to damp the closing movement. The relative rotation of the second plate towards the first clamp plate as claimed does not seem to link any effect to the damping mechanism, without any activating means. Therefore, the structural cooperative relationship between the damping mechanism and the plates is ambiguous, rendering the damper inoperable. Note similar issues in claims 14 and 17.
In claim 9, line 1, “two damping mechanisms” contradicts with “a damping mechanism” stated in base claim 1. For clarity, “a damping mechanism” in claim 1 should be changed to “at least one damping mechanism”. Note similar issues in claims 14 and 17.
In claim 13, “the surface” lacks antecedent basis. Apparently, claim 13 should depend from claim 12, not claim 1.
Note that other claims, depending from the rejected claims, are also considered vague and indefinite.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5, 9-10, and 14-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,795,749 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are but different definitions of the same subject matter, varying in breadth or scope of definition as set forth in MPEP 806.03. In this case, claims 1-20 of Patent ‘749, explicitly or implicitly, include all structural elements of claims 1-5, 9-10, and 14-19 of the current application.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,180,773 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are but different definitions of the same subject matter, varying in breadth or scope of definition as set forth in MPEP 806.03. In this case, claims 1-20 of Patent ‘749, explicitly or implicitly, include all structural elements of claims 1-20 of the current application.
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)(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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by GB ‘847 (GB 2469847 A).
Regarding claim 1, GB shows a damping hinge as claimed, including a first clamp plate (11) configured to be mounted to a fixed supporting panel; a second clamp plate (13) configured to be mounted to a panel of a door or gate, wherein the second clamp plate is connected with the first clamp plate for relative rotation thereto about a hinge axis (hinge pin connecting link 13 or link 14 to hinge cup 11); a damping mechanism (fig. 3) arranged on at least one of the first clamp plate and the second clamp plate, the damping mechanism including a linear damper (17) arranged substantially parallel to the hinge axis and configured to retard or control relative rotation of the second plate towards the first plate during closing of the hinge.
As to claim 2, GB shows the damping mechanism being arranged on the first clamp plate (11). The damping mechanism can be located outside of a plane of the respective panel and adjacent or next to an outer or facing surface of the panel. Also note that the panel is not a positive limitation within the claim.
As to claim 3, GB shows a damper base (23) provided on the first clamp plate. The damping mechanism is arranged on the damper base.
As to claim 4, the damper base of GB is arranged in a hollow or cavity (hinge cup) in the first clamp plate such that the damping mechanism is positioned adjacent next to an outer or facing surface of the panel. Note that the panel is not a positive limitation. The damping mechanism can be positioned adjacent to an outer or facing surface of the panel.
Conclusion
Related prior art references:
No pertinent prior art reference is attached to this office action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUCK MAH whose telephone number is (571)272-7059. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:00.
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 on 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.
/CHUCK Y MAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3677 CM
January 29, 2026