DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 17, 2026, was in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The amendments to the specification submitted on August 17, 2026, have been considered by the examiner and approved for entry.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 109826508. CN`508 teaches of a hinge system (fig. 4) for supporting a plurality of doors (30), comprising: a bracket (21) that is configured to be fixed to a housing {100}, the bracket aligned to receive complimentary features {31} from one or more doors {30} that hang from the bracket; the bracket comprises a panel (viewed as the lower planar horizontal segment of (21) in the orientation as shown in fig. 6 for instance – in as much as applicant identifies the bracket (101) and the panel (102) as the same component) that is configured to be rigidly mounted to the housing, a plurality of offset supports (shown as the horizontal support portions extending out from the body of the bracket, along (21) when viewing fig. 6 in an upside down manner (i.e., rotated 180 degrees)) that extend from the panel in a cantilevered manner (the supports extend out from a front end of the panel); and a plurality of support walls (can be viewed as the vertical walls (214) for example that extend up from the offset supports when viewing fig. 6 in an upside down manner) that extend from respective offset supports and extend substantially perpendicular to a plane through the respective offset supports (shown), the bracket extends from a first end portion (viewed as the right end portion - fig. 7) to an opposite second end portion (viewed as the left end portion - fig. 7), a first offset support (rightmost offset support) of the plurality of offset supports that is aligned at the first end portion further comprises a first tab (viewed as the upper horizontal tab that is parallel to and vertically above the offset portion when viewing fig. 6 in an upside down manner) that extends in a cantilevered manner from the support wall that extends from the first offset support (as mapped, the first tab extends in a cantilevered manner from the support wall), wherein the first tab extends substantially in parallel to and above the respective first offset support to establish a space therebetween (note fig. 6 as oriented for the mapping – the space would be to the right of 214a for instance), and a second offset support (can be viewed as a spaced apart offset support from the rightmost offset support) of the plurality of offset supports that is aligned at the second end portion (other end portion) further comprises a second tab (viewed as a laterally spaced apart different upper horizontal tab from the first tab, that is parallel to and vertically above the second offset portion when viewing fig. 6 in an upside down manner) that extends in a cantilevered manner from the support wall that extends from the second offset support, wherein the second tab extends substantially in parallel to and above the respective second offset support to establish a second space therebetween (again, note fig. 6 as oriented for mapping). As to Claim 2, a third offset support (viewed as any one of the other offset supports between the first and second offset supports) of the plurality of offset supports that is adjacent to and inboard of the first offset support comprises a third tab (viewed as a laterally spaced apart different upper horizontal tab between the first and second tabs, that is parallel to and vertically above the third offset portion when viewing fig. 6 in an upside down manner) that extends from the support wall that extends from the third offset support, wherein the third tab extends substantially in parallel to and above the respective third offset support to establish a third space therebetween (again, note fig. 6 as oriented for mapping), and a fourth offset support (any one of the offset supports between the first and second offset supports which is not the third offset support – note fig. 4 showing multiple offset supports) of the plurality of offset supports that is adjacent to and inboard of the second offset support comprises a fourth tab (viewed as a laterally spaced apart different upper horizontal tab between the first and second tabs and not the third tab, that is parallel to and vertically above the fourth offset portion when viewing fig. 6 in an upside down manner) that extends from the support wall that extends from the fourth offset support, wherein the fourth tab extends substantially in parallel to and above the respective the fourth offset support to establish a fourth space therebetween (again, note fig. 6 as oriented for mapping). As to Claim 3, the plurality of offset supports and their corresponding pluralities of support walls are each aligned to establish a space (such as along (31) for instance) between edges of adjacent offset supports and corresponding support walls. As to Claim 4, the system further comprising a plurality of doors (30) that are configured to be supported by the bracket, wherein each of the plurality of doors has two spaced supports (31) which are the complementary features, wherein when the respective door of the plurality of doors is aligned with the bracket, the two spaced supports each rest upon two adjacent offset supports of the plurality of offset supports (as would be the case when inverted). As to Claim 5, a first door (right side door – fig. 2) of the plurality of doors that is supported by the bracket and positioned proximate to the first end of the bracket, the first door is supported by the bracket such that one of the two spaced supports is disposed under the first tab (as would be the case when viewing fig. 6 inverted 180 degrees), and a second door (left side door – fig. 2) of the plurality of doors that is supported by the bracket and positioned proximate to the second end of the bracket, the second door is supported by the bracket such that one of the two spaced supports is disposed under the second tab (same as above for first tab).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered, but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the mapping of the reference being used in the current rejection. It is noted that the examiner reviewed applicant’s amendments to the claims and associated remarks. A determination was made that such amendments effectively obviated the prior rejection as mapped. However, a new mapping is of record incorporating the new limitations when considering the prior art in a different perspective. It is noted that the rejected claims merely set forth a hinge system comprising a bracket along with particulars of the bracket constituting the claimed scope. A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference." Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 63 l, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827 (1987). Analysis of whether a claim is patentable over the prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102 begins with a determination of the scope of the claim. The Office determines the scope of the claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The properly interpreted claim must then be compared with the prior art. Once a prima facie case of anticipation has been established, the burden shifts to applicant to prove that the prior art product does not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of the claimed product. The Office may find in the prior art a feature which is capable of performing a function recited in the claims. Accordingly, the position is taken that a prior art structure is entitled to all its potential uses, regardless of viewed orientation. As such, all the claimed structural components and their interconnections relative to the other components have been accounted for within the body of the rejection and therefore a prima facie case of anticipation is maintained.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 are presently allowed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new mapped ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES O HANSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6866. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8 am - 4:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Daniel Troy can be reached at 571-270-3742. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
JOH
August 27, 2026
/James O Hansen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights