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 § 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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyun ( KR 101069242 B1; “Hyun” hereinafter), in view of Zhang et al et al (JP3179328U; “Zhang” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Hyun teaches: a hinge device (100, fig. 1) that rotatably connects a first chassis (10, fig. 1) and a second chassis (20, fig. 1) each having a flat shape, the hinge device comprising:
a first shaft (120) configured to extend in a first direction (see ‘1D’ in annotated fig. 3 below) along a connection edge (see annotated fig. 6 below) between the first chassis and the second chassis, and be rotatably relative to the first chassis (figs. 4-5) in a vicinity (see annotated fig. 6 below) of the connection edge to the second chassis (examination of figs. 5-6 teaches this limitation);
a second shaft configured (140) to extend in the first direction (fig. 3) and be fixed to the second chassis (through element 130, figs. 2-5) in the vicinity of the connection edge to the first chassis (see annotated fig. 6 below);
a crank (130, fig. 3) disposed between the first and second chassis (see annotated fig. 4 below, where a distal end of 130 meets this limitation; note also that this appears to be within the BRI of the term between as the relationship is analogous to applicants’ where 46 is within the cross-sections defined by the housings, see Fig. 11A-C analogous to drawing 5 of Hyun), and configured to connect the first shaft and the second shaft (figs. 2-3);
a slider (113a, fig. 3) configured to be provided on the first chassis (through 110, figs 3-5) to be slidable in a second direction (see ‘2D’ in annotated fig. 3 below, along 1511a and 1521a, figs. 2-5) orthogonal to the first direction; and
a link (150, figs. 2-4) configured to pivotally support the slider in the first direction (figs. 2-3) and pivotally support the second shaft (figs. 2-6), wherein as the first chassis and the second chassis rotate from a closed state (fig. 4) in which the first chassis and the second chassis are stacked to an open state (fig. 6), the link protrudes from a non-facing surface of the second chassis in the closed state (see annotated fig. 4 below, and figs. 5-6).
PNG
media_image1.png
514
652
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
208
327
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
213
613
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
264
501
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Hyun suggest, but does not explicitly disclose:
the crank configured to connect the first shaft and the second shaft in a non-rotatable manner.
However, Zhang teaches:
a link (12, fig. 1) configured to connect a first shaft (35, fig. 1) and a second shaft (25, fig. 1) in a non-rotatable manner (as disclosed upon examination of figs. 2-4, where the flat portion of the shafts match the flat portions on the openings disposed in 121 and 122), and allows rotation of link 20 and link 30 (figs. 7-10) .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to set the crank as being configured to connect the first shaft and the second shaft of Hyun in a non-rotatable manner as taught by Zhang, by way of fixing the central portion shaft 120 in hole 131a, allowing rotation of element 110 through distal ends of shaft 120, and fixing the central portion of shaft 140 in hole 131b, allowing rotation 151 and 152 through distal ends of shaft 140. in element 110, in order to provide a non-rotatable pivot member to functionally enable the hinge, for the advantage of reducing rotational wear on holes 131a and 131b . The claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of a plurality of known pivoting/rotation techniques recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity (§MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 2, Hyun in view of Zhang teaches the limitation of claim 1, and Hyun further teaches: further comprising: a base plate (110, fig. 3) configured to be fixed to the first chassis (figs. 4-6), guide the slider to be slidable (figs. 3-6), and pivotally support the first shaft (figs. 3-6).
Regarding claim 3, Hyun in view of Zhang teaches the limitation of claim 2, and Hyun further teaches: wherein the base plate has two axis support portions that pivotally support the first shaft (see annotated fig. 3 below), and the crank is provided between the two axis support portions (fig. 2).
PNG
media_image5.png
486
528
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Hyun in view of Zhang teaches the limitation of claim 1, and Hyun further teaches: wherein the link forms a continuous surface with a surface of the connection edge in the closed state (examination of fig. 6 teaches this limitation).
Regarding claim 9, Hyun teaches: an electronic apparatus (assembly of fig. 1) in which a first chassis (10, fig. 1) and a second chassis (20, fig. 1) each having a flat shape are rotatably connected to each other by a hinge device (100, fig. 1),
wherein the hinge device includes
a first shaft (120) configured to extend in a first direction (see ‘1D’ in annotated fig. 3 below) along a connection edge (see annotated fig. 6 below) between the first chassis and the second chassis, and be rotatable relative to the first chassis (figs. 4-5) in a vicinity (see annotated fig. 6 below) of the connection edge to the second chassis (examination of figs. 5-6 teaches this limitation);
a second shaft configured (140) to extend in the first direction (fig. 3) and be fixed to the second chassis (through element 130, figs. 2-5) in the vicinity of the connection edge to the first chassis (see annotated fig. 6 below);
a crank (130, fig. 3) disposed between the first and second chassis (see annotated fig. 4 below, where a distal end of 130 meets this limitation), and configured to connect the first shaft and the second shaft (figs. 2-3),
a slider (113a, fig. 3) configured to be provided on the first chassis (through 110, figs 3-5) to be slidable in a second direction (see ‘2D’ in annotated fig. 3 below, along 1511a and 1521a, figs. 2-5) orthogonal to the first direction; and
a link (150, figs. 2-4) configured to pivotally support the slider in the first direction (figs. 2-3) and pivotally support the second shaft (figs. 2-6), wherein as the first chassis and the second chassis rotate from a closed state (fig. 4) in which the first chassis and the second chassis are stacked to an open state (fig. 6), the link protrudes from a non-facing surface of the second chassis in the closed state (see annotated fig. 4 below, and figs. 5-6).
PNG
media_image1.png
514
652
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
208
327
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
213
613
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
264
501
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Hyun suggests but does not explicitly disclose:
the crank configured to connect the first shaft and the second shaft in a non-rotatable manner.
However, Zhang teaches:
a link (12, fig. 1) configured to connect a first shaft (35, fig. 1) and a second shaft (25, fig. 1) in a non-rotatable manner (as disclosed upon examination of figs. 2-4, where the flat portion of the shafts match the flat portions on the openings disposed in 121 and 122), and allows rotation of link 20 and link 30 (figs. 7-10) .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to set the crank as being configured to connect the first shaft and the second shaft of Hyun in a non-rotatable manner as taught by Zhang, by way of fixing the central portion shaft 120 in hole 131a, allowing rotation of element 110 through distal ends of shaft 120, and fixing the central portion of shaft 140 in hole 131b, allowing rotation 151 and 152 through distal ends of shaft 140. in element 110, in order to provide a non-rotatable pivot member to functionally enable the hinge, for the advantage of reducing rotational wear on holes 131a and 131b . The claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of a plurality of known pivoting/rotation techniques recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity (§MPEP 2143).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyun ( KR 101069242 B1; “Hyun” hereinafter), in view of Zhang as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Lin et al (US 20200080357; “Lin” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 7, Hyun in view of Zhang teaches the limitation of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach:
wherein a torque applying portion configured to apply a rotational torque is provided on the first shaft.
However, Lin2 teaches:
a torque applying portion (110, fig. 1B) configured to apply a rotational torque (¶[0021]) is provided on a first shaft (112, fig. 1B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the hinge of Hyun in view of Zhang and include a torque applying portion as taught by Lin, with the first shaft of Hyun, such that a torque applying portion configured to apply a rotational torque is provided on the first shaft, in order to hold the first and second chassis in a stable manner at a desired angular posture while ensuring a smooth rotational movement operation between the first and second chassis. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of a plurality of known techniques recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity (§MPEP 2143).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyun, in view of Zhang as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Wen et al (US 20240152187; “Wen” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 8, Hyun in view of Zhang teaches the limitation of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach:
wherein a keyboard is provided on a facing surface of the first chassis with respect to the second chassis, and a ventilation hole is provided on the non-facing surface.
However, Wen teaches:
a keyboard (unnumbered, fig. 2A, ¶[0026]) is provided on a facing surface (S1, fig. 2A) of a first chassis with respect to the second chassis (120), and a ventilation hole (121, fig. 1A) connected to a fan (150, fig. 3) is provided on a non-facing surface (S2, ¶[0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the first chassis of Hyun in view of Zhang, and include Wen’s keyboard, fan, ventilation hole arrangement, in order to improve heat dissipation performance and provide an input module (¶[0027]). The claim would have been obvious because the particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as evidenced by Wen. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of a plurality of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity (§MPEP 2143).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art of record taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest,
in combination with other limitations recited in claims 1-2, a combination of limitations that teaches: wherein the slider has a rectangular shape surrounding the base plate. None of the reference art of record discloses or renders obvious such a combination.
Regarding claim 5, the prior art of record taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest,
in combination with other limitations recited in claims 1, a combination of limitations that teaches:
further comprising: an input/output device configured to slide in the second direction together with the slider or a vicinity of an axis support portion of the slider in the link, wherein the input/output device is covered with a cover in the closed state and is exposed from the cover in the open state. None of the reference art of record discloses or renders obvious such a combination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s first argument:
“The Examiner maps the claimed first chassis to Hyun's base unit 10, the claimed second chassis to Hyun's display unit 20, and the claimed crank to Hyun's pivot member 130, as shown in Hyun's annotated FIG. 5 reproduced below. See Non-final Office Action, pp. 2-3. As that
figure shows, Hyun's pivot member 130 is disposed within Hyun's display unit 20. This contrasts with the above limitations that require "a crank disposed between the first chassis and the second chassis," as shown, for example, in FIG. 7 of the original specification”.
Examiner’s response:
Examination of Hyun’s figure 4, discloses element 130 (mapped element 46 of applicant’s disclosure) disposed between a first chassis 10 and a second chassis 20. Annotated fig. 4 below, details at least a distal end of element 130 disposed in the first chassis 10 and some portion extending between. Note: this also appears to be within the broadest reasonable interpretation in the art of “between” in view of applicant’s usage and drawings. See for example cross-sectional views in 11A-C where the crank resides within the cross section of the respective housings with only a limited extending between the housings to connect them. See also Drawing 5 of Hyun.
PNG
media_image4.png
264
501
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s second argument:
“The Examiner maps the claimed first shaft to Zhang's second rotating shaft 35 and the claimed second shaft to Zhang's first rotation(al) shaft 25. See Non-final Office Action, p. 7. Zhang provides "when the first rotational shaft 25 rotates ...." Zhang, para. [0023]. This contrasts with the above limitations that require "a crank .. configured to connect the first shaft and the second shaft in a non-rotatable manner."”.
Further, the applicant argues, the proposed modification of Hyun in view of Zhang would render the device inoperable.
Examiner’s response:
The teaching of Zhang applied to Hyun, is such that rotation occurs in Hyun’s elements 1510a and 1520a in the case of hole 131b, through the distal ends (see ‘DE’ in annoted fig. 3 below) of shaft 140, while the center portion (see ‘CP’ in annoted fig. 3 below corresponding to shaft 140) of shaft 140 is fixed to element 130 (analogous to the teaching of Zhang), and non-rotatable relative to said element 130. Likewise, the center portion of shaft 120 would be fixed in hole 131a after its insertion into said hole and non-rotatable relative to element 110 (analogous to the teaching of Zhang), while the distal ends of said shaft 120 (in the same fashion of the distal ends of shaft 140) would not be fixed to the rotating portions (see ‘RP’ in annoted fig. 3 below) of element 110 to enable rotation of element 110. Therefore, changing the site of rotation does not render the device inoperable, and thus the argument is not found
PNG
media_image6.png
442
490
media_image6.png
Greyscale
persuasive.
Zhang demonstrates the mechanics of the combination explained above is facilitated by the shape of the shafts and holes. Examination of annotated fig. 2 from Zhang, shows shafts 25, 36, and link 12 (i.e. crank) comprising square sides. Therefore, it would be physically impossible for shafts 25 and 36 to rotate within the openings in link 12. This is further corroborated upon examination of annotated fig. 3 below (closed state) and annotated fig. 5 below (opened state), where an abutting end (251, fig. 2) of shaft 25 is shown in the same position, and serving to limit the rotation of link 20 via contact of the abutting end 251 and stopper 211. Figs. 7 and 9, further confirms shafts 25 and 35 as non-rotatable, due to the location of the aforementioned square sides in the closed state (fig. 7) and the opened state (fig. 9).
Therefore, Hyun in view of Zhang teaches the limitation of amended claims 1 and 9.
PNG
media_image7.png
823
894
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
582
899
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
766
1186
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PETER KRIM whose telephone number is (703)756-1246. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am -4:30pm.
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, Allen L Parker can be reached at (303) 297-4722. 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.
/ALLEN L PARKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2841
/P.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights