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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/07/2025 and 04/03/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 1-20 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 and 15 recite “a pair of substantially parallel, oppositely facing, major surfaces.” The term “substantially” in claims 1 and 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially parallel” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what range of angles is intended to be encompassed by two surfaces being “substantially parallel” and, given the construction of the device, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine if two surfaces would meet the claimed “substantially parallel” major surfaces. As such, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. For the purposes of examination, any two surfaces that are parallel or form an acute angle with one another will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
Claims 1 and 15 further recite “a substantially parallel inner face that borders the housing interior.” The term “substantially” in claims 1 and 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially parallel” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Additionally, it is unclear what the inner face is intended to be “substantially parallel” to as it is not defined in relation to any other surface or face. For the purposes of examination, any inner face that borders the housing interior will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
Claims 1 and 15 further recite “a joint mount that is fast with the shank and that is located exterior to the housing, standing proud of the outer face of said housing.” However, it is unclear how an mount can be “fast with the shank” as it is unclear what structural relation is required for two elements to be “fast.” Moreover, it is unclear how a mount can be “standing proud of the outer face of said housing” as it is unclear what is required such that an element is “standing proud.” For the purposes of examination, any joint mount located exterior to the housing and connected with the shank will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
Claims 1 and 15 further recite “an anchor plate that is located in the housing interior and that is oriented substantially parallel to the inner face of said housing wall.” The term “substantially” in claims 1 and 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially parallel” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what range of angles is intended to be encompassed by two surfaces being “substantially parallel” and, given the construction of the device, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine if two surfaces would meet the claimed “substantially parallel” major surfaces. Additionally, as the anchor plate can have a three-dimensional shape, and the anchor plate is not defined to extend in any given dimension, it is unclear how such an anchor plate can be “substantially parallel to the inner face of said housing.” As such, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. For the purposes of examination, any anchor plate located in the housing interior will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
Claims 1 and 15 further recite “connection of the anchor plate to the base shank includes a welded connection between the base shank and the anchor plate, thereby rotational keying together the base shank and the anchor plate.” However, it is unclear how a welded connection can be provided such that “thereby rotational keying together the base shank and the anchor plate.” It is unclear what structure is required such that the two elements are “rotational keying together.” For the purposes of examination, any welded connection will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
Claims 2-14 are rejected as being dependent upon claim 1 and failing to cure the deficiencies of the rejected base claim; and claims 16-19 are rejected as being dependent upon claim 15 and failing to cure the deficiencies of the rejected base claim.
Claim 5 recites that “the plate fastener is a screw co-axially received in a complementary screw hole defined by the base shank, such that a part of the anchor plate is held captive between a head of the screw and the inner face of said housing wall.” However, it is unclear how a part of the anchor plate can be “held captive between a head of the screw and the inner face of said housing wall” as it is unclear what structural relationship is being defined as being “held captive.” For the purposes of examination, any anchor plate connected between a head of the screw and the inner face of said housing wall will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
Claim 12 recites that “the plate fastener claims the anchor plate against the inner face of said housing wall.” However, it is unclear how the fastener can “claim” two elements against one another as it is unclear what structural relation is intended to be “claimed.” For the purposes of examination, any plate fastener that fastens the anchor plate against the inner face of the housing wall will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
Claim 20 recites “a joint mount forming part of the joint base stands proud of an outer major surface of the housing wall for jointed connection to an external component to the electronic device.” However, it is unclear how an mount can be “fast with the shank” as it is unclear what structural relation is required for two elements to be “fast.” Moreover, it is unclear how a mount can be “standing proud of the outer face of said housing” as it is unclear what is required such that an element is “standing proud.” For the purposes of examination, any joint mount located exterior to the housing and connected with the shank will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
Claim 20 further recites “locating an anchor plate within the housing interior, such that the anchor plate is substantially parallel to the housing wall and bears against an inner surface of the housing wall.” The term “substantially” in claim 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially parallel” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what range of angles is intended to be encompassed by two surfaces being “substantially parallel” and, given the construction of the device, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine if two surfaces would meet the claimed “substantially parallel” major surfaces. Additionally, it is unclear how an anchor plate could “bear against an inner surface” and it is unclear how any element that contacts a surface could not be parallel. For the purposes of examination, any anchor plate contacting an inner surface of the housing wall will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
Claim 20 further recites “forming a welded connection between the anchor plate to the joint base, such that the anchor plate and the joint base are rotationally keyed together by the welded connection against relative rotation about the shank axis.” However, it is unclear how a welded connection can be provided such that “the anchor plate and the joint base are rotationally keyed together.” It is unclear what structure is required such that the two elements are “rotationally keyed together.” For the purposes of examination, any welded connection will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
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.
A complete response to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection is either a reply by applicant showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference claims or the filing of a terminal disclaimer in accordance with 37 CFR 1.321 in the pending application(s) with a reply to the Office action (see MPEP § 1490 for a discussion of terminal disclaimers). Such a response is required even when the nonstatutory double patenting rejection is provisional.
As filing a terminal disclaimer, or filing a showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference application’s claims, is necessary for further consideration of the rejection of the claims, such a filing should not be held in abeyance. Only objections or requirements as to form not necessary for further consideration of the claims may be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,698,542. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of instant claims 1, 15, and 20 are met by the details of reference claims 1, 7, 10, and 11 which require the instantly claimed housing, hinge base with shank and joint mount (i.e. a “hinge member” of the reference claims recited to be metal in claim 7), an anchor plate, electronics, and the required heat conduction (as recited in reference claims 10-11); and the limitations of instant claim 12 are met by the details of reference claim 14 which requires the instantly claimed housing, hinge base (i.e. a “hinge member” of the reference claims), and anchor plate.
Additionally, the limitations of instant claims 2-14 and 16-19 are met by the details of reference claims 1-15.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,204,174. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of instant claims 1, 15, and 20 are met by the details of reference claims 1 and 12 which require the instantly claimed housing, hinge base with shank and joint mount (i.e. a “hinge member” of the reference claims recited to be metal in claim 7), an anchor plate, electronics, and the required heat conduction (as recited in reference claims 10-11); and the limitations of instant claim 12 are met by the details of reference claim 14 which requires the instantly claimed housing, hinge base (i.e. a “hinge member” of the reference claims), and anchor plate.
Additionally, the limitations of instant claims 2-14 and 16-19 are met by the details of reference claims 1-17.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-11, and 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sales et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,910,298; hereinafter – “Sales”) in view of Senatore et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,353,593; hereinafter – “Senatore”).
Regarding claim 1, Sales teaches a housing assembly comprising:
a housing (102) that defines a hollow housing interior (300) for holding electronics components, the housing including a housing wall (304) having a thickness dimension that extends between a pair of substantially parallel, oppositely facing, major surfaces oriented transverse to the thickness dimension, the pair of major surfaces comprising: an outer face exterior to the housing; and a substantially parallel inner face that borders the housing interior (See e.g. Figs. 4-7; C. 5, L. 10-53; C. 8, L. 30-58);
a hinge base (106, 316, 318) affixed to said housing wall, the hinge base comprising: a shank that extends through said housing wall, a lengthwise dimension of the shank defining a shank axis transverse to the pair of major surfaces of said housing wall; and a joint mount that is fast with the shank and that is located exterior to the housing, standing proud of the outer face of said housing wall, the joint mount being configured to provide a fixed mounting site for an exterior component such that said exterior component is hingedly displaceable relative to the housing (See e.g. Figs. 4-7; C. 5, L. 10-53; C. 8, L. 40 – C. 9, L. 14); and
an anchor plate (312, 314) that is located in the housing interior and that is oriented substantially parallel to the inner face of said housing wall, the anchor plate being fixedly connected to the shank of the hinge base such that axial movement of the shank towards the outer face, and thereby axial movement of the joint mount away from the outer face of the housing wall, is prevented by obstruction of the anchor plate by the housing wall (See e.g. Figs. 4-7; C. 8, L. 40 – C. 9, L. 14; C. 10, L. 11-45);
wherein connection of the anchor plate to the base shank rotational keys together the base shank and the anchor plate (See e.g. Figs. 4-7; C. 8, L. 40 – C. 9, L. 14; C. 10, L. 11-45).
Sales further teaches that various elements can be attached via a welded connection as a suitable means for securing the elements (C. 4, L. 60 – C. 5, L. 8).
Sales fails to explicitly disclose that the connection of the anchor plate to the base shank includes a welded connection.
However, Senatore teaches a hinge mechanism comprising a hinge member (230, 250, 1020), an anchor plate with a base shank (120, 270), and a housing (110), the connection of the anchor plate to the hinge base comprises a welded connection (See e.g. Figs. 3-4; C. 5, L. 24-37).
Senatore teaches this welded connection as a suitable choice for “balance between flexibility and rigidity” (C. 6, L. 19-32) and in order to provide “ample space within the temple and end piece for the connecting tube to bend without kinking” (C. 3, L. 58 – C. 4, L. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the housing assembly of Sales with the welded connection of Senatore for “balance between flexibility and rigidity” and in order to provide “ample space within the temple and end piece for the connecting tube to bend without kinking,” as taught by Senatore (C. 3, L. 58 – C. 4, L. 4; C. 6, L. 19-32), and 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 design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (See MPEP 2144.07).
Examiner further finds that the prior art contained a device/method/product (i.e., a housing assembly) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of component(s) (i.e., a screw securing the anchor plate and the hinge post) with other component(s) (i.e., a welding connection securing the anchor plate and the hinge post), and the substituted components and their functions were known in the art as above set forth. An ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of invention could have substituted one known element for another (i.e., substituting the welding connection for the screw), and the results of the substitution (i.e., a housing with a welding connection between the anchor plate and the hinge post) would have been predictable.
Therefore, pursuant to In re Fout, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982), and/or In re O'Farrell, 7 USPQ2d 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1988), Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of invention to substitute the screw of reference Sales for the welding connection of reference Senatore, since the result would have been predictable.
Examiner further finds that the prior art included each element claimed (as set forth above), although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements within a single reference. Moreover, an ordinarily skilled artisan could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately (i.e., a secured anchor plate and hinge post), and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Therefore, pursuant to Anderson's-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 163 USPQ 673 (1969), and/or Ruiz v. AB Chance Co., 69 USPQ2d 1686 (Fed. Cir. 2004), Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of invention to combine the welding connection of reference Senatore with screw of reference Sales, since the result would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 2, Sales in view of Senatore teaches the housing assembly of claim 1, as above.
Sales further teaches that the anchor plate (312) has a non-circular periphery in outline, the inner face of the housing wall defining a seating area for the anchor plate which is at least in part complementarily non-circular in shape, such that the anchor plate is keyed to said housing wall against rotation about the shank axis by obstruction of the anchor plate periphery against an interior surface of the housing interior (See e.g. Figs. 4-7; C. 8, L. 40 – C. 9, L. 14; C. 10, L. 11-45).
Regarding claim 3, Sales in view of Senatore teaches the housing assembly of claim 1, as above.
Sales fails to explicitly disclose that said housing wall is of a polymeric plastics material, the base shank and the anchor plate being metal components.
However, Senatore further teaches that the hinge member and the anchor plate are metal components, the housing wall being of a polymeric plastics material (See e.g. Figs. 1-3, 10, and 18-21; C. 4, L. 25-44; C. 6, L. 19-32; C. 6, L. 60 – C. 7, L. 41).
Senatore teaches metal and plastic as suitable materials for “balance between flexibility and rigidity” (C. 6, L. 19-32) and in order to provide “ample space within the temple and end piece for the connecting tube to bend without kinking” (C. 3, L. 58 – C. 4, L. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the housing assembly of Sales such that the hinge member and anchor plate are metal and the housing is plastic as suggested by Senatore for “balance between flexibility and rigidity” and in order to provide “ample space within the temple and end piece for the connecting tube to bend without kinking,” as taught by Senatore (C. 3, L. 58 – C. 4, L. 4; C. 6, L. 19-32), and 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 design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (See MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 4, Sales in view of Senatore teaches the housing assembly of claim 3, as above.
Sales further teaches that the connection of the anchor plate to the base shank further comprises: a plate fastener screw-threadedly connected to the hinge base from the interior of the housing and extending through the anchor plate, such that the plate fastener clamps the anchor plate to the inner face of said housing wall (See e.g. Figs. 4-7; C. 5, L. 10-53; C. 8, L. 40 – C. 9, L. 14; C. 10, L. 11-45).
Examiner further finds that the prior art included each element claimed (as set forth above), although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements within a single reference. Moreover, an ordinarily skilled artisan could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately (i.e., a secured anchor plate and hinge post), and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Therefore, pursuant to Anderson's-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 163 USPQ 673 (1969), and/or Ruiz v. AB Chance Co., 69 USPQ2d 1686 (Fed. Cir. 2004), Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of invention to combine the welding connection of reference Senatore with screw of reference Sales, since the result would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 5, Sales in view of Senatore teaches the housing assembly of claim 4, as above.
Sales further teaches that the plate fastener is a screw co-axially received in a complementary screw hole defined by the base shank, such that a part of the anchor plate is held captive between a head of the screw and the inner face of said housing wall (See e.g. Figs. 4-7; C. 5, L. 10-53; C. 8, L. 40 – C. 9, L. 14; C. 10, L. 11-45).
Examiner further finds that the prior art included each element claimed (as set forth above), although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements within a single reference. Moreover, an ordinarily skilled artisan could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately (i.e., a secured anchor plate and hinge post), and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Therefore, pursuant to Anderson's-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 163 USPQ 673 (1969), and/or Ruiz v. AB Chance Co., 69 USPQ2d 1686 (Fed. Cir. 2004), Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of invention to combine the welding connection of reference Senatore with screw of reference Sales, since the result would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 8, Sales in view of Senatore teaches the housing assembly of claim 4, as above.
Sales further teaches that the hinge base (106) is anchored against axial movement towards the housing interior by a flange forming part (106a, 106b) of the hinge base, the flange being exterior to the outer face of said housing wall and extending transversely relative to the base shank such that at least part of said housing wall is sandwiched between the anchor plate and the flange, the anchor plate being larger in area than the flange of the hinge base (See e.g. Figs. 4-7; C. 5, L. 10-53; C. 8, L. 40 – C. 9, L. 14; C. 10, L. 11-45).
Regarding claim 9, Sales in view of Senatore teaches the housing assembly of claim 1, as above.
Sales further teaches one or more electronics components that are located in the housing interior and that are mounted on the anchor plate, the anchor plate serving as a mounting base for the one or more electronics components (See e.g. Figs. 3-7; C. 8, L. 40-58; C. 10, L. 11-29).
Regarding claim 10, Sales in view of Senatore teaches the housing assembly of claim 1, as above.
Sales fails to explicitly disclose that the anchor plate and the shank of the hinge base are thermally connected for heat conduction between them, the anchor plate being connected in heat transfer relationship to one or more heat generating components within the housing interior, so that the anchor plate and the shank of the hinge base form part of a heat transfer path from the housing interior to an external heatsink.
However, Senatore further teaches that the anchor plate and the shank of the hinge base are thermally connected for heat conduction between them, the anchor plate being connected in heat transfer relationship to one or more heat generating components within the housing interior, so that the anchor plate and the shank of the hinge base form part of a heat transfer path from the housing interior to an external heatsink (See e.g. Figs. 1-3, 10, and 18-21; C. 4, L. 25-44; C. 5, L. 24-37; C. 6, L. 19-32; C. 6, L. 60 – C. 7, L. 41 – Senatore explicitly teaches that the elements are metal elements welded together, thus constituting the elements being thermally connected, as required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims).
Senatore teaches this connection for “balance between flexibility and rigidity” (C. 6, L. 19-32) and in order to provide “ample space within the temple and end piece for the connecting tube to bend without kinking” (C. 3, L. 58 – C. 4, L. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the housing assembly of Sales such that the hinge member and anchor plate are metal and the thermal connection as suggested by Senatore for “balance between flexibility and rigidity” and in order to provide “ample space within the temple and end piece for the connecting tube to bend without kinking,” as taught by Senatore (C. 3, L. 58 – C. 4, L. 4; C. 6, L. 19-32), and 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 design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (See MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 11, Sales in view of Senatore teaches the housing assembly of claim 10, as above.
Sales further teaches that the hinge base comprises a hinge member that is of one-piece construction and that provides the shank and the joint mount (See e.g. Figs. 4-7; C. 8, L. 40 – C. 9, L. 14; C. 10, L. 11-45).
Regarding claim 13, Sales in view of Senatore teaches the housing assembly of claim 1, as above.
Sales further teaches a sealing member (332) located radially about the shank of the hinge base to provide a circumferentially extending sealing interface between the hinge shank and said housing wall (See e.g. Fig. 5; C. 9, L. 1-14).
Regarding claim 14, Sales in view of Senatore teaches the housing assembly of claim 1, as above.
Sales further teaches that the housing forms part of an eyewear frame (108) for an electronics-enabled eyewear device, the joint mount being configured for hinged connection to a temple (102) of the eyewear device (See e.g. Figs. 1-3; C. 4, L. 8 – C. 5, L. 8).
Regarding claim 15, Sales teaches a device comprising:
a device body (108) (See e.g. Figs. 1-7; C. 5, L. 10-53; C. 8, L. 30-58); and
a housing assembly incorporated in the device body (See e.g. Figs. 4-7; C. 5, L. 10-53; C. 8, L. 30-58), the housing assembly comprising:
a housing (102) that defines a hollow housing interior (300) for holding electronics components, the housing including a housing wall (304) having a thickness dimension that extends between a pair of substantially parallel, oppositely facing, major surfaces oriented transverse to the thickness dimension, the pair of major surfaces comprising: an outer face exterior to the housing; and a substantially parallel inner face that borders the housing interior (See e.g. Figs. 4-7; C. 5, L. 10-53; C. 8, L. 30-58);
a hinge base (106, 316, 318) affixed to said housing wall, the hinge base comprising: a shank that extends through said housing wall, a lengthwise dimension of the shank defining a shank axis transverse to the pair of major surfaces of said housing wall; and a joint mount that is fast with the shank and that is located exterior to the housing, standing proud of the outer face of said housing wall, the joint mount being configured to provide a fixed mounting site for an exterior component such that said exterior component is hingedly displaceable relative to the housing (See e.g. Figs. 4-7; C. 5, L. 10-53; C. 8, L. 40 – C. 9, L. 14); and
an anchor plate (312, 314) that is located in the housing interior and that is oriented substantially parallel to the inner face of said housing wall, the anchor plate being fixedly connected to the shank of the hinge base such that axial movement of the shank towards the outer face, and thereby axial movement of the joint mount away from the outer face of the housing wall, is prevented by obstruction of the anchor plate by the housing wall (See e.g. Figs. 4-7; C. 8, L. 40 – C. 9, L. 14; C. 10, L. 11-45);
wherein connection of the anchor plate to the base shank rotational keys together the base shank and the anchor plate (See e.g. Figs. 4-7; C. 8, L. 40 – C. 9, L. 14; C. 10, L. 11-45).
Sales further teaches that various elements can be attached via a welded connection as a suitable means for securing the elements (C. 4, L. 60 – C. 5, L. 8).
Sales fails to explicitly disclose that the connection of the anchor plate to the base shank includes a welded connection.
However, Senatore teaches a hinge mechanism comprising a hinge member (230, 250, 1020), an anchor plate with a base shank (120, 270), and a housing (110), the connection of the anchor plate to the hinge base comprises a welded connection (See e.g. Figs. 3-4; C. 5, L. 24-37).
Senatore teaches this welded connection as a suitable choice for “balance between flexibility and rigidity” (C. 6, L. 19-32) and in order to provide “ample space within the temple and end piece for the connecting tube to bend without kinking” (C. 3, L. 58 – C. 4, L. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Sales with the welded connection of Senatore for “balance between flexibility and rigidity” and in order to provide “ample space within the temple and end piece for the connecting tube to bend without kinking,” as taught by Senatore (C. 3, L. 58 – C. 4, L. 4; C. 6, L. 19-32), and 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 design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (See MPEP 2144.07).
Examiner further finds that the prior art contained a device/method/product (i.e., a housing assembly) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of component(s) (i.e., a screw securing the anchor plate and the hinge post) with other component(s) (i.e., a welding connection securing the anchor plate and the hinge post), and the substituted components and their functions were known in the art as above set forth. An ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of invention could have substituted one known element for another (i.e., substituting the welding connection for the screw), and the results of the substitution (i.e., a housing with a welding connection between the anchor plate and the hinge post) would have been predictable.
Therefore, pursuant to In re Fout, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982), and/or In re O'Farrell, 7 USPQ2d 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1988), Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of invention to substitute the screw of reference Sales for the welding connection of reference Senatore, since the result would have been predictable.
Examiner further finds that the prior art included each element claimed (as set forth above), although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements within a single reference. Moreover, an ordinarily skilled artisan could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately (i.e., a secured anchor plate and hinge post), and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Therefore, pursuant to Anderson's-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 163 USPQ 673 (1969), and/or Ruiz v. AB Chance Co., 69 USPQ2d 1686 (Fed. Cir. 2004), Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of invention to combine the welding connection of reference Senatore with screw of reference Sales, since the result would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 16, Sales in view of Senatore teaches the device of claim 15, as above.
Sales further teaches that the device is an eyewear device comprising: an eyewear frame (108) defined by the device body, the eyewear frame providing one or more optical element holders for holding respective optical elements within view of a user, when the eyewear device is worn, the housing assembly being incorporated in the eyewear frame such that the joint mount of the hinge base projects from a lateral end portion of the eyewear frame; a temple (102) that is hingedly connected to the eyewear frame to be displaceable relative to the eyewear frame between a folded position and an extended position in which the eyewear device is in a wearable configuration; and a hinge mechanism by which the temple is hingedly connected to the eyewear frame, the hinge mechanism comprising: the joint mount of the hinge base mounted on the housing assembly; and a hinge formation complementary to and hingedly connected to the joint mount, the hinge formation being located at a proximal end of the temple (See e.g. Figs. 1-3; C. 4, L. 8 – C. 5, L. 8).
Regarding claim 17, Sales in view of Senatore teaches the device of claim 16, as above.
Sales further teaches that the eyewear device has incorporated therein a pair of the housing assemblies, each of which is located at a respective lateral end portion of the eyewear frame (See e.g. Figs. 1-3; C. 4, L. 8 – C. 5, L. 8).
Regarding claim 18, Sales in view of Senatore teaches the device of claim 16, as above.
Sales further teaches that the device further comprises: a plate fastener screwingly connected to the hinge base from the interior of the housing, such that the plate fastener clamps the anchor plate to the inner face of said housing wall (See e.g. Figs. 4-7; C. 5, L. 10-53; C. 8, L. 40 – C. 9, L. 14; C. 10, L. 11-45).
Examiner further finds that the prior art included each element claimed (as set forth above), although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements within a single reference. Moreover, an ordinarily skilled artisan could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately (i.e., a secured anchor plate and hinge post), and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Therefore, pursuant to Anderson's-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 163 USPQ 673 (1969), and/or Ruiz v. AB Chance Co., 69 USPQ2d 1686 (Fed. Cir. 2004), Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of invention to combine the welding connection of reference Senatore with screw of reference Sales, since the result would have been predictable.
Sales fails to explicitly disclose that said housing wall is of a polymeric plastics material, the base shank and the anchor plate being metal components.
However, Senatore further teaches that the hinge member and the anchor plate are metal components, the housing wall being of a polymeric plastics material (See e.g. Figs. 1-3, 10, and 18-21; C. 4, L. 25-44; C. 6, L. 19-32; C. 6, L. 60 – C. 7, L. 41).
Senatore teaches metal and plastic as suitable materials for “balance between flexibility and rigidity” (C. 6, L. 19-32) and in order to provide “ample space within the temple and end piece for the connecting tube to bend without kinking” (C. 3, L. 58 – C. 4, L. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the housing assembly of Sales such that the hinge member and anchor plate are metal and the housing is plastic as suggested by Senatore for “balance between flexibility and rigidity” and in order to provide “ample space within the temple and end piece for the connecting tube to bend without kinking,” as taught by Senatore (C. 3, L. 58 – C. 4, L. 4; C. 6, L. 19-32), and 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 design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (See MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 19, Sales in view of Senatore teaches the device of claim 18, as above.
Sales further teaches onboard electronics comprising one or more heat-generating components within the housing interior (See e.g. Figs. 3-7; C. 8, L. 40-58; C. 10, L. 11-29).
Sales fails to explicitly disclose that a heatsink incorporated in the temple, wherein the anchor plate and the shank of the hinge base are thermally connected for heat conduction between them, and wherein the shank of the hinge base is thermally connected in heat transfer relationship to the heatsink incorporated in the temple, so that the anchor plate and the shank of the hinge base form part of a heat transfer path from the housing interior to the heatsink of the temple.
However, Senatore further teaches a heatsink incorporated in the temple, wherein the anchor plate and the shank of the hinge base are thermally connected for heat conduction between them, and wherein the shank of the hinge base is thermally connected in heat transfer relationship to the heatsink incorporated in the temple, so that the anchor plate and the shank of the hinge base form part of a heat transfer path from the housing interior to the heatsink of the temple (See e.g. Figs. 1-3, 10, and 18-21; C. 4, L. 25-44; C. 5, L. 24-37; C. 6, L. 19-32; C. 6, L. 60 – C. 7, L. 41 – Senatore explicitly teaches that the elements are metal elements welded together, thus constituting the elements being thermally connected, as required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims).
Senatore teaches this connection for “balance between flexibility and rigidity” (C. 6, L. 19-32) and in order to provide “ample space within the temple and end piece for the connecting tube to bend without kinking” (C. 3, L. 58 – C. 4, L. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the housing assembly of Sales such that the hinge member and anchor plate are metal and the thermal connection as suggested by Senatore for “balance between flexibility and rigidity” and in order to provide “ample space within the temple and end piece for the connecting tube to bend without kinking,” as taught by Senatore (C. 3, L. 58 – C. 4, L. 4; C. 6, L. 19-32), and 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 design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (See MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 20, Sales teaches a method of manufacturing an electronic device, the method comprising:
locating a joint base (106, 316, 318) on a housing wall of a housing for electronics components such that; a joint mount forming part of the joint base stands proud of an outer major surface of the housing wall for jointed connection to an external component to the electronic device; and a shank of the joint base extends lengthwise through the housing wall and into an interior of the housing along a shank axis transverse to the housing wall; locating an anchor plate within the housing interior, such that the anchor plate is substantially parallel to the housing wall and bears against an inner surface of the housing wall (See e.g. Figs. 4-7; C. 5, L. 10-53; C. 8, L. 40 – C. 9, L. 14);
locating an anchor plate (312, 314) within the housing interior, such that the anchor plate is substantially parallel to the housing wall and bears against an inner surface of the housing wall; using a screw-threaded fastening mechanism, translationally fastening together the base shank and the anchor plate such that the anchor plate is clamped against the inner surface of the housing wall and such that withdrawal of the base shank towards an exterior of the housing is prevented by obstruction of the anchor plate against the housing wall (See e.g. Figs. 4-7; C. 8, L. 40 – C. 9, L. 14; C. 10, L. 11-45); and
forming a connection between the anchor plate to the joint base, such that the anchor plate and the joint base are rotationally keyed together by the welded connection against relative rotation about the shank axis (See e.g. Figs. 4-7; C. 8, L. 40 – C. 9, L. 14; C. 10, L. 11-45).
Sales further teaches that various elements can be attached via a welded connection as a suitable means for securing the elements (C. 4, L. 60 – C. 5, L. 8).
Sales fails to explicitly disclose that the connection of the anchor plate to the base shank includes a welded connection.
However, Senatore teaches a hinge mechanism comprising a hinge member (230, 250, 1020), an anchor plate with a base shank (120, 270), and a housing (110), the connection of the anchor plate to the hinge base comprises a welded connection (See e.g. Figs. 3-4; C. 5, L. 24-37).
Senatore teaches this welded connection as a suitable choice for “balance between flexibility and rigidity” (C. 6, L. 19-32) and in order to provide “ample space within the temple and end piece for the connecting tube to bend without kinking” (C. 3, L. 58 – C. 4, L. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the housing assembly of Sales with the welded connection of Senatore for “balance between flexibility and rigidity” and in order to provide “ample space within the temple and end piece for the connecting tube to bend without kinking,” as taught by Senatore (C. 3, L. 58 – C. 4, L. 4; C. 6, L. 19-32), and 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 design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (See MPEP 2144.07).
Examiner further finds that the prior art contained a device/method/product (i.e., a housing assembly) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of component(s) (i.e., a screw securing the anchor plate and the hinge post) with other component(s) (i.e., a welding connection securing the anchor plate and the hinge post), and the substituted components and their functions were known in the art as above set forth. An ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of invention could have substituted one known element for another (i.e., substituting the welding connection for the screw), and the results of the substitution (i.e., a housing with a welding connection between the anchor plate and the hinge post) would have been predictable.
Therefore, pursuant to In re Fout, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982), and/or In re O'Farrell, 7 USPQ2d 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1988), Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of invention to substitute the screw of reference Sales for the welding connection of reference Senatore, since the result would have been predictable.
Examiner further finds that the prior art included each element claimed (as set forth above), although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements within a single reference. Moreover, an ordinarily skilled artisan could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately (i.e., a secured anchor plate and hinge post), and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Therefore, pursuant to Anderson's-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 163 USPQ 673 (1969), and/or Ruiz v. AB Chance Co., 69 USPQ2d 1686 (Fed. Cir. 2004), Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of invention to combine the welding connection of reference Senatore with screw of reference Sales, since the result would have been predictable.
Claim(s) 6-7 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sales in view of Senatore as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Blum et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,905,541; hereinafter – “Blum”).
Regarding claim 6, Sales in view of Senatore teaches the housing assembly of claim 4, as above.
Sales and Senatore fail to explicitly disclose an adhesive layer located between the anchor plate and the inner face of said housing wall, adhesively attaching the anchor plate to the inner face of the housing wall.
However, Blum teaches electronic spectacle frames comprising a hinge (305), an anchor plate (306, 307), and a housing (300) with a housing wall further comprising an adhesive layer located between the anchor plate and the inner face of said housing wall, adhesively attaching the anchor plate to the inner face of the housing wall (See e.g. Figs. 3-9; C. 12, L. 35-56; C. 18, L. 65 – C. 19, L. 3; C. 14, L. 56 – C. 42, L. 30; C. 61, L. 52 – C. 62, L. 3; C. 86, L. 48 – C. 88, L. 8).
Blum teaches this adhesive layer as a suitable choice to secure the elements in a manner that is “moisture resistant, such that it may prevent moisture from contacting the electrical connections” (C. 86, L. 63-65) to provide electronic spectacle frames that improve upon “the fashion design of the eyeglass frame or limit the materials which the eyeglass frame can be made of, maintain as few completed eyeglass frames or eyeglass frame components (frame fronts, bridges, temples) stock keeping units (SKUs) as possible, allow for robust placement of the electronics, and in a way that can be manufactured so that it remains affordable, and aesthetically desirable” (C. 1, L. 30-63).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the housing assembly and device of Sales with the adhesive layer of Blum as a suitable choice to secure the elements in a manner that is “moisture resistant, such that it may prevent moisture from contacting the electrical connections” to provide electronic spectacle frames that improve upon “the fashion design of the eyeglass frame or limit the materials which the eyeglass frame can be made of, maintain as few completed eyeglass frames or eyeglass frame components (frame fronts, bridges, temples) stock keeping units (SKUs) as possible, allow for robust placement of the electronics, and in a way that can be manufactured so that it remains affordable, and aesthetically desirable,” as taught by Blum (C. 1, L. 30-63; C. 86, L. 63-65).
Examiner further finds that the prior art contained a device/method/product (i.e., a housing assembly) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of component(s) (i.e., a screw securing the anchor plate and the housing wall) with other component(s) (i.e., an adhesive layer securing the anchor plate and the housing wall), and the substituted components and their functions were known in the art as above set forth. An ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of invention could have substituted one known element for another (i.e., substituting the adhesive layer for the screw), and the results of the substitution (i.e., a housing with an adhesive layer between the anchor plate and the housing wall) would have been predictable.
Therefore, pursuant to In re Fout, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982), and/or In re O'Farrell, 7 USPQ2d 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1988), Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of invention to substitute the screw of reference Sales for the adhesive layer of reference Blum, since the result would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 7, Sales in view of Senatore and Blum teaches the housing assembly of claim 6, as above.
Sales further teaches that the anchor plate is shaped and positioned such as to create a seal against ingress or moisture into the housing interior via a passage through said housing wall through which the shank extends (See e.g. Figs. 4-7; C. 8, L. 40 – C. 9, L. 14; C. 10, L. 11-45).
Additionally, Blum further teaches that the adhesive layer is shaped and positioned such as to create a seal against ingress or moisture into the housing interior via a passage through said housing wall through which the shank extends (See e.g. Figs. 3-9; C. 12, L. 35-56; C. 18, L. 65 – C. 19, L. 3; C. 14, L. 56 – C. 42, L. 30; C. 61, L. 52 – C. 62, L. 3; C. 86, L. 48 – C. 88, L. 8).
Blum teaches this adhesive layer as a suitable choice to secure the elements in a manner that is “moisture resistant, such that it may prevent moisture from contacting the electrical connections” (C. 86, L. 63-65) to provide electronic spectacle frames that improve upon “the fashion design of the eyeglass frame or limit the materials which the eyeglass frame can be made of, maintain as few completed eyeglass frames or eyeglass frame components (frame fronts, bridges, temples) stock keeping units (SKUs) as possible, allow for robust placement of the electronics, and in a way that can be manufactured so that it remains affordable, and aesthetically desirable” (C. 1, L. 30-63).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the housing assembly and device of Sales with the adhesive layer of Blum as a suitable choice to secure the elements in a manner that is “moisture resistant, such that it may prevent moisture from contacting the electrical connections” to provide electronic spectacle frames that improve upon “the fashion design of the eyeglass frame or limit the materials which the eyeglass frame can be made of, maintain as few completed eyeglass frames or eyeglass frame components (frame fronts, bridges, temples) stock keeping units (SKUs) as possible, allow for robust placement of the electronics, and in a way that can be manufactured so that it remains affordable, and aesthetically desirable,” as taught by Blum (C. 1, L. 30-63; C. 86, L. 63-65).
Examiner further finds that the prior art contained a device/method/product (i.e., a housing assembly) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of component(s) (i.e., a screw securing the anchor plate and the housing wall) with other component(s) (i.e., an adhesive layer securing the anchor plate and the housing wall), and the substituted components and their functions were known in the art as above set forth. An ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of invention could have substituted one known element for another (i.e., substituting the adhesive layer for the screw), and the results of the substitution (i.e., a housing with an adhesive layer between the anchor plate and the housing wall) would have been predictable.
Therefore, pursuant to In re Fout, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982), and/or In re O'Farrell, 7 USPQ2d 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1988), Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of invention to substitute the screw of reference Sales for the adhesive layer of reference Blum, since the result would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 12, Sales in view of Senatore teaches the housing assembly of claim 4, as above.
Sales further teaches a plate fastener that connects the anchor plate to the shank of the hinge base such as to anchor the shank to anchor plate against movement towards the housing exterior along the shank axis, and such that the plate fastener claims the anchor plate against the inner face of said housing wall (See e.g. Figs. 4-7; C. 5, L. 10-53; C. 8, L. 40 – C. 9, L. 14; C. 10, L. 11-45).
Sales and Senatore fail to explicitly disclose an adhesive layer located between the anchor plate and the inner face of said housing wall, adhesively attaching the anchor plate to the inner face of the housing wall.
However, Blum teaches electronic spectacle frames comprising a hinge (305), an anchor plate (306, 307), and a housing (300) with a housing wall further comprising an adhesive layer located between the anchor plate and the inner face of said housing wall, adhesively attaching the anchor plate to the inner face of the housing wall (See e.g. Figs. 3-9; C. 12, L. 35-56; C. 18, L. 65 – C. 19, L. 3; C. 14, L. 56 – C. 42, L. 30; C. 61, L. 52 – C. 62, L. 3; C. 86, L. 48 – C. 88, L. 8).
Blum teaches this adhesive layer as a suitable choice to secure the elements in a manner that is “moisture resistant, such that it may prevent moisture from contacting the electrical connections” (C. 86, L. 63-65) to provide electronic spectacle frames that improve upon “the fashion design of the eyeglass frame or limit the materials which the eyeglass frame can be made of, maintain as few completed eyeglass frames or eyeglass frame components (frame fronts, bridges, temples) stock keeping units (SKUs) as possible, allow for robust placement of the electronics, and in a way that can be manufactured so that it remains affordable, and aesthetically desirable” (C. 1, L. 30-63).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the housing assembly and device of Sales with the adhesive layer of Blum as a suitable choice to secure the elements in a manner that is “moisture resistant, such that it may prevent moisture from contacting the electrical connections” to provide electronic spectacle frames that improve upon “the fashion design of the eyeglass frame or limit the materials which the eyeglass frame can be made of, maintain as few completed eyeglass frames or eyeglass frame components (frame fronts, bridges, temples) stock keeping units (SKUs) as possible, allow for robust placement of the electronics, and in a way that can be manufactured so that it remains affordable, and aesthetically desirable,” as taught by Blum (C. 1, L. 30-63; C. 86, L. 63-65).
Examiner further finds that the prior art contained a device/method/product (i.e., a housing assembly) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of component(s) (i.e., a screw securing the anchor plate and the housing wall) with other component(s) (i.e., an adhesive layer securing the anchor plate and the housing wall), and the substituted components and their functions were known in the art as above set forth. An ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of invention could have substituted one known element for another (i.e., substituting the adhesive layer for the screw), and the results of the substitution (i.e., a housing with an adhesive layer between the anchor plate and the housing wall) would have been predictable.
Therefore, pursuant to In re Fout, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982), and/or In re O'Farrell, 7 USPQ2d 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1988), Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of invention to substitute the screw of reference Sales for the adhesive layer of reference Blum, since the result would have been predictable.
Claim(s) 10 and 19 is/are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sales in view of Senatore as applied to claims 1 and 15, respectively above, and further in view of Moore et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2019/0198983; hereinafter – “Moore”)
Regarding claim 10, Sales in view of Senatore teaches the housing assembly of claim 1, as above.
Sales fails to explicitly disclose that the anchor plate and the shank of the hinge base are thermally connected for heat conduction between them, the anchor plate being connected in heat transfer relationship to one or more heat generating components within the housing interior, so that the anchor plate and the shank of the hinge base form part of a heat transfer path from the housing interior to an external heatsink.
However, Senatore further teaches that the anchor plate and the shank of the hinge base are thermally connected for heat conduction between them, the anchor plate being connected in heat transfer relationship to one or more heat generating components within the housing interior, so that the anchor plate and the shank of the hinge base form part of a heat transfer path from the housing interior to an external heatsink (See e.g. Figs. 1-3, 10, and 18-21; C. 4, L. 25-44; C. 5, L. 24-37; C. 6, L. 19-32; C. 6, L. 60 – C. 7, L. 41 – Senatore explicitly teaches that the elements are metal elements welded together, thus constituting the elements being thermally connected, as required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims).
Senatore teaches this connection for “balance between flexibility and rigidity” (C. 6, L. 19-32) and in order to provide “ample space within the temple and end piece for the connecting tube to bend without kinking” (C. 3, L. 58 – C. 4, L. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the housing assembly of Sales such that the hinge member and anchor plate are metal and the thermal connection as suggested by Senatore for “balance between flexibility and rigidity” and in order to provide “ample space within the temple and end piece for the connecting tube to bend without kinking,” as taught by Senatore (C. 3, L. 58 – C. 4, L. 4; C. 6, L. 19-32), and 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 design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (See MPEP 2144.07).
Although Senatore teaches materials providing a thermal connection, reading on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim as detailed above, Sales and Senatore fail to explicitly disclose that the anchor plate and the shank of the hinge base are thermally connected for heat conduction between them, the anchor plate being connected in heat transfer relationship to one or more heat generating components within the housing interior, so that the anchor plate and the shank of the hinge base form part of a heat transfer path from the housing interior to an external heatsink.
However, Moore teaches wearable heads-up displays with antennas comprising an anchor plate (238, 602) and a hinge member (222a, 620) wherein the anchor plate and the shank of the hinge base are thermally connected for heat conduction between them, the anchor plate being connected in heat transfer relationship to one or more heat generating components within the housing interior, so that the anchor plate and the shank of the hinge base form part of a heat transfer path from the housing interior to an external heatsink (See e.g. Figs. 1-2 and 6; Paragraphs 0053-0054 and 0074-0079).
Moore teaches this thermal connection in order to “dissipate heat produced by functioning of the electronic components which may be present…in an effective manner” (Paragraph 0054) and to “enable optimal connectivity, range, and signal strength characteristics for the antenna and the radio regardless of the position of an external device within a given range” (Paragraph 0079).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the housing assembly of Sales such that the anchor plate and the hinge member are thermally connected as in Moore in order to “dissipate heat produced by functioning of the electronic components which may be present…in an effective manner” and to “enable optimal connectivity, range, and signal strength characteristics for the antenna and the radio regardless of the position of an external device within a given range,” as taught by Moore (Paragraphs 0054 and 0079).
Regarding claim 19, Sales in view of Senatore teaches the device of claim 18, as above.
Sales further teaches onboard electronics comprising one or more heat-generating components within the housing interior (See e.g. Figs. 3-7; C. 8, L. 40-58; C. 10, L. 11-29).
Sales fails to explicitly disclose that a heatsink incorporated in the temple, wherein the anchor plate and the shank of the hinge base are thermally connected for heat conduction between them, and wherein the shank of the hinge base is thermally connected in heat transfer relationship to the heatsink incorporated in the temple, so that the anchor plate and the shank of the hinge base form part of a heat transfer path from the housing interior to the heatsink of the temple.
However, Senatore further teaches a heatsink incorporated in the temple, wherein the anchor plate and the shank of the hinge base are thermally connected for heat conduction between them, and wherein the shank of the hinge base is thermally connected in heat transfer relationship to the heatsink incorporated in the temple, so that the anchor plate and the shank of the hinge base form part of a heat transfer path from the housing interior to the heatsink of the temple (See e.g. Figs. 1-3, 10, and 18-21; C. 4, L. 25-44; C. 5, L. 24-37; C. 6, L. 19-32; C. 6, L. 60 – C. 7, L. 41 – Senatore explicitly teaches that the elements are metal elements welded together, thus constituting the elements being thermally connected, as required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims).
Senatore teaches this connection for “balance between flexibility and rigidity” (C. 6, L. 19-32) and in order to provide “ample space within the temple and end piece for the connecting tube to bend without kinking” (C. 3, L. 58 – C. 4, L. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the housing assembly of Sales such that the hinge member and anchor plate are metal and the thermal connection as suggested by Senatore for “balance between flexibility and rigidity” and in order to provide “ample space within the temple and end piece for the connecting tube to bend without kinking,” as taught by Senatore (C. 3, L. 58 – C. 4, L. 4; C. 6, L. 19-32), and 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 design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (See MPEP 2144.07).
Although Senatore teaches materials providing a thermal connection, reading on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim as detailed above, Sales and Senatore fail to explicitly disclose that a heatsink incorporated in the temple, wherein the anchor plate and the shank of the hinge base are thermally connected for heat conduction between them, and wherein the shank of the hinge base is thermally connected in heat transfer relationship to the heatsink incorporated in the temple, so that the anchor plate and the shank of the hinge base form part of a heat transfer path from the housing interior to the heatsink of the temple.
However, Moore teaches wearable heads-up displays with antennas comprising an anchor plate (238, 602) and a hinge member (222a, 620) wherein a heatsink incorporated in the temple, wherein the anchor plate and the shank of the hinge base are thermally connected for heat conduction between them, and wherein the shank of the hinge base is thermally connected in heat transfer relationship to the heatsink incorporated in the temple, so that the anchor plate and the shank of the hinge base form part of a heat transfer path from the housing interior to the heatsink of the temple (See e.g. Figs. 1-2 and 6; Paragraphs 0053-0054 and 0074-0079).
Moore teaches this thermal connection in order to “dissipate heat produced by functioning of the electronic components which may be present…in an effective manner” (Paragraph 0054) and to “enable optimal connectivity, range, and signal strength characteristics for the antenna and the radio regardless of the position of an external device within a given range” (Paragraph 0079).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Sales such that the anchor plate and the hinge member are thermally connected as in Moore in order to “dissipate heat produced by functioning of the electronic components which may be present…in an effective manner” and to “enable optimal connectivity, range, and signal strength characteristics for the antenna and the radio regardless of the position of an external device within a given range,” as taught by Moore (Paragraphs 0054 and 0079).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas R Pasko whose telephone number is (571)270-1876. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 5 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, William Kraig can be reached at 571-272-8660. 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.
Nicholas R. Pasko
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2896
/Nicholas R. Pasko/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights