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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
“installation member” of claim 1, please see 112b below. Examiner assumes the scope of “installation member” is that of figure 6.
“limit post” of claim 1. Indicator 14 points at a second connecting spring 16, not a post.
“rectangular groove” of claim 2 does not have a part number, nor is it shown in the drawings.
The cross sectional view of figure 7 is not indicated from where it comes from. If Figure 7 is a cross section of figure 4, the hinge cups 20 are not indicated in figure 7, nor is the space for working hole 21. The record is not clear how the assembly plate 3 accepts both the springs 16 in hinge cups 20 AND the springs 23. Indicating the origin of the cross section is required by MPEP703.02, 37 CFR 1.84 (h)(3).
“connector” of claim 14 is not shown. If applicant intends the device of figure 5, figure 5 shows the “arc shaped connecting plate” as stated in [0015].
“clamping grooves” within “working groove 18” is not shown, as in claim 3. Examiner assumes they are shown in figure 3, but they are not indicated.
“through hole provided in the working groove” of claim 6 is not shown or indicated.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Cabinet hinge with spring and damper inside the hinge cup.
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.
Regarding claim 1:
“American style” is not descriptive. Hinges are not described by the country of origin. Examiner assumes that “American style” means “cabinet hinge”.
“installation member” does not have a defined scope in the specification, nor a part number in the drawings. Examiner assumes that “installation member” is that shown in figure 6.
“inner assembly plate” is not clearly described in the drawings. Figure 4 suggests that the springs 16 go within hinge cups 20, while the side of the hinge cup 20 has a spring biased side clamping plate 19, biased by spring 23, perpendicular to spring 16. Figure 7, a cross sectional diagram of “assembly plate 3” does not include the gap between hinge cups 20 that accommodates hole 21, nor does figure 7 show the opening 20 for the spring 16. The record is not clear how the internal structure of the assembly plate 3 functions, nor does applicant indicate where the cross section of figure 7 is taken from any other drawing, required by MPEP703.02, 37 CFR 1.84 (h)(3).
Regarding claim 2: “rectangular groove” is not indicated in the drawings. Examiner assumes an indicator for “rectangular groove” should be present in figure 7, but figure 7 is not clear if it is accurate.
Regarding claim 3, applicant claims “clamping grooves” but does not include an indicator for this part in either the drawings or the specification. Examiner assumes these are shown in figure 3.
Regarding claim 4, applicant claims a relative term “hard” and “corrosion resistant”. The term “hard” 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. Examiner assumes that applicant intends to claim a particular material in claim 4, however applicant’s specification does not indicate a particular metal.
Regarding claim 5, applicant claims “rotation shaft ring plate” 22 and “squeezing arc plates” 5 are part of the working groove. Examiner notes that this is incorrect. These are disclosed in figure 5 as part of the “connector” of claim 14, the device of figure 5 is described as “arc-shaped connecting plate”. Examiner notes that the working groove 18 of the hinge plate 1 is NOT “further provided with” the ring plate 22 and the arc plates 5; but applicant is assumed to be claiming the device of figure 5.
Regarding claim 8, applicant claims the connecting slot 9 is on the installation member. Examiner notes that figure 6 indicates that connecting slot 9 is on the upper assembly plate 12. The record is not clear if “installation member” is identical in scope to “upper assembly plate 12” or not.
Regarding claim 14, please see 112b above regarding the scope of “installation member”. Applicant also claims “connector”, which is assumed to be the device of figure 5. If this is the case, “connector” is equivalent to “arc shaped connector plate”. Applicant claims “elastic members are disposed int eh hinge cups”. Examiner is unsure if applicant’s intended “elastic members” of claim 14 are the springs 16 or the springs 23, as both are assumed to be located in the hinge cups 20.
Regarding claim 15, applicant claims a “limit post” which is not clearly shown in the drawings, and it is not immediately clear what the “limit post” is. Examiner is unsure if this is part of the “buffer mechanism” 15 or not.
Regarding claims 16-20, please note that these claims are similar to previous dependent claims and if the previous dependent claims have indefiniteness issues, so do claims 16-20.
Dependent claims inherit the same issues from parent claims and do not resolve any indefinite issues.
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.
Claim(s) 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by 9163447 Liang.
Regarding claim 14, Liang discloses an American-style (unknown descriptor, see 112b rejection above) hinge, comprising a hinge plate 20 and an installation member (unknown scope, assumed to be the right side of Liang figure 8) capable of rotating relative to the hinge plate (figures 9a-9c), wherein
the hinge plate 20 is provided with a working groove 40 inside, an inner assembly plate 64 is disposed in the working groove 40, a plurality of hinge cups 82 (figure 3) are disposed in the inner assembly plate 64, and elastic members 24 are disposed in the hinge cups 82; and
a connector (assumed to be equivalent to part 48, figure 2) is disposed between the installation member and the hinge plate 20 (as shown in figures 9a-9c), and at least one end of the connector 48 is rotatably disposed in the working groove 40 and abuts against the elastic members 24 (figure 9a and part 46).
Note that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. MPEP 2114. Examiner notes the phrases in italics above, and throughout the action, are considered intended use. Examiner contends that the structure capable of performing the intended use is met in the prior art, and is described how the structure disclosed performs the claimed functions in the parentheses; therefore, all italicized language is considered and shown in the prior art. Further, examiner notes that the disclosed structure is capable of performing the intended use claimed by applicant.
Regarding claim 15, Liang discloses the American-style hinge according to claim 14, wherein the elastic member 24 is a connecting spring 24 (figure 2), and a limit post 60 is inserted into the connecting spring 24, and the limit post passes through the other end of the connecting spring 24 and is fixedly connected with a second rectangular plate 52a.
Regarding claim 16, Liang discloses the American-style hinge according to claim 15, wherein the connector 48 is an arc- shaped connecting plate (as shown in figure 1), one end (flat surface) of the arc-shaped connecting plate is fixedly connected with the installation member (shown in figure 1), while the other end (with protrusions 46) extends into the working groove and is fixedly connected with a rotation shaft ring plate 22.
Regarding claim 17, Liang discloses the American-style hinge according to claim 16, wherein a plurality of squeezing arc plates 46 are fixedly connected to a side surface of the rotation shaft ring 22 plate (figure 2), and the squeezing arc plates 46 abut against the second rectangular plate 52a (column 5 lines 50-55).
Regarding claim 18, Liang discloses the American-style hinge according to claim 16, wherein a connecting shaft 50 is disposed inside the rotation shaft ring plate 22, a through hole 34 is provided in the working groove 40, and the connecting shaft 50 is inserted into the through hole 34 and rotatably connected with the through hole (figures 9a-9c).
Regarding claim 19, Liang discloses the American-style hinge according to claim 14, wherein a working hole 84 is disposed in the middle of two adjacent hinge cups 82 (shown in figure 3), a buffer mechanism 66 is disposed in the working hole 82, and the buffer mechanism 66 extends out of the working hole and abuts against the connector 48 (as shown in figures 6-7).
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) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 9163447 Liang.
Regarding claim 20, Liang discloses the American-style hinge according to claim 19, wherein the buffer mechanism 66 is a generic damper. Liang does not disclose what kind of damper.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize any damper appropriate to fit in the space of the generic damper required by Liang, as these would be obvious equivalents. Examiner contends that these are known equivalents and are used for the same purpose within the ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144 (I): “rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art…it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art”.
Claim(s) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over 9163447 Liang.
PNG
media_image1.png
604
753
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Liang discloses an American-style (unknown descriptor, please see 112b above) hinge, comprising a hinge plate 20 and an installation member (assumed to be the left of figure 2) capable of rotating relative to the hinge plate (as shown in figures 9a-9c), wherein the hinge plate 20 is provided with a working groove 40 inside, an inner assembly plate 64 is disposed in the working groove 40, and a plurality of hinge cups (exterior of walls 74, figure 3) are disposed inside the inner assembly plate 64; and the hinge cup 20 is provided with a connecting spring 24, a limit post 60 is inserted into the connecting spring 24, and the limit post passes through the other end of the connecting spring and is fixedly connected with a second rectangular plate (Please see 102/103 discussion below regarding limit post); and
a working hole 84 is disposed in the middle of two adjacent hinge cups (exterior of walls 74), a buffer mechanism 66 is disposed in the working hole 84, a first rectangular plate 70 is disposed at a side of the buffer mechanism 66 (above the buffer 66), and the buffer mechanism 66 is connected with the first rectangular plate 70.
Regarding “limit post”, examiner notes that applicant does not clearly describe the “limit post” in the drawings nor in the specification. Applicant does not claim a compression/linear spring. Therefore, examiner contends that the limit post of the spring 24 of Liang is “inserted onto” the spring 24, the past is attached to the end of the connecting spring, and is fixedly connected to a second rectangular plate 28. Alternatively, the “limit post” could be 56 in Liang, it is inserted into spring 24, passing through the spring and fixed to second rectangular plate 28.
Should applicant intend to claim two compression springs mounted onto “limit posts” on either side of a buffer mechanism, please see cited reference 2021/0032919 Peer.
Regarding claim 5, Liang discloses the American-style hinge according to claim 1, wherein the working groove 40 is further provided with a rotation shaft ring plate (22 of the connector) close to the inner assembly plate 64, a plurality of squeezing are plates 46 (of the connector) are fixedly connected to a side surface of the rotation shaft ring plate 22 (as shown in figure 2), and the squeezing arc plates 46 abut against the second rectangular plate 52a (column 5 line 50-55).
Regarding claim 6, Liang as modified discloses the American-style hinge according to claim 5, wherein a connecting shaft 50 is disposed inside the rotation shaft ring plate 22, a through hole 34 is provided in the working groove 40, and the connecting shaft 50 is inserted into the through hole 34 and rotatably connected with the through hole 34.
Regarding claim 7, Liang as modified discloses the American-style hinge according to claim 5, wherein an upper end of the rotation shaft ring plate 22 is fixedly connected with an arc-shaped connecting plate 46, and an upper end of the arc-shaped connecting plate 46 is fixedly connected with a connecting clamping plate (flat portion of the connector 48 shown in figure 1).
Regarding claim 8, Liang as modified discloses the American-style hinge according to claim 7, wherein the installation member comprises a connecting slot (figure 1), and the connecting clamping plate (flat portion of the connector) is clamped in the connecting slot.
Regarding claim 9, Liang as modified discloses the American-style hinge according to claim 8, wherein the installation member further comprises a rectangular side plate (figure 1) and an upper
PNG
media_image2.png
388
474
media_image2.png
Greyscale
assembly plate (perpendicular with a second fastener), and the connecting slot is fixedly connected to the rectangular side plate (as annotated in Liang figure 1).
Regarding claim 10, Liang discloses the American-style hinge according to claim 9, wherein the connecting clamp plate is connected with a first fixing bolt (as annotated in figure 1) in a threaded way, and the first fixing bolt is inserted between the connecting clamp plate and the rectangular side plate.
Regarding claim 11, Liang discloses the American-style hinge according to claim 10, wherein a side of the rectangular side plate facing away from the connecting clamping plate is fixedly connected with the upper assembly plate; and wherein a lower end of the upper assembly plate is provided with a middle assembly plate and a lower assembly plate (figures 9a-9c).
Regarding claim 12, Liang discloses the American-style hinge according to claim 11, wherein second fixing bolts are inserted between the upper assembly plate, the middle assembly plate and the lower assembly plate (figures 9a-9c).
Regarding claim 13, Liang discloses the American-style hinge according to claim 1, wherein a plurality of upper connecting plates are disposed at an upper end of the hinge plate (in the common manner, shown in figures 9a-9c).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of 2017/0370139 McGregor.
Regarding claim 4, Liang discloses the American-style hinge according to claim 1, wherein the hinge plate 20 is made of a material, but does not disclose “hard and corrosion-resistant metal”.
McGregor discloses “metal coil spring biases the metal hinge cup toward the metal hinge arm” [0002].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make the device of Liang using a known material in the art, such as that taught by McGregor, as the device needs to be made out a material, and metal is known in the art for the equivalent piece. Note that 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 obvious engineering design choice. See MPEP 2144.07. Examiner contends that these are known equivalents and are used for the same purpose within the ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144 (I): “rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art…it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art”.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of 2021/0032919 Peer.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Liang discloses the American-style hinge according to claim 1, wherein the inner assembly plate further includes side clamping plates 82 (figure 3) that are biased outward into to the clamping grooves 38 within the working groove 40 (figure 2, column 6 line 16), the dimensions of the clamping grooves 38 are matched with the shape of the side clamping plates 82.
Liang does not disclose that the side clamping plates 82 are biased outward using a compression spring inside a groove.
Peer discloses springs 208 within a groove (figure 3d) that pushes the plate 3 outward.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize a spring in a groove to bias the existing clamping plates 82 into the existing clamping grooves 38 of Liang in the spring/groove structure as taught by similar device Peer, as this is an old and well known manner to bias something outwards, commonly known in the art. Examiner contends that these are known equivalents and are used for the same purpose within the ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144 (I): “rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art…it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY M MORGAN whose telephone number is (303)297-4260. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8-5 MST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jason San can be reached at (571)272-6531. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EMILY M MORGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3677
Prosecution Insights