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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 as filed on 02/28/2025 are pending and herewith considered as indicated below.
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.
Claim 8 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In regards to Claim 8, “the trim ring” as recited in lines 2 and 3 lack proper antecedent basis. It appears “the trim ring” is intended to recite “the annular trim ring”.
In regards to Claim 8, “the teeth apertures” as recited in line 3 lack proper antecedent basis. It appears “the teeth aperture is intended to recite “the plurality of teeth apertures”.
In regards to Claim 20, “consisting essentially of multiple living hinges” as recited in lines 5-6 is unclear. The phrase consisting essentially of is a semi-exclusive transitional phrase, essentially located in the middle of “comprising” and “consisting of”. However, the language “multiple living hinges” is inclusive and open ended in the sense of limiting phrases. Furthermore, “consisting essentially of” and “multiple living hinges” counter each other, where one is limiting and the other phrase is open ended (i.e., multiple is not defined as a set number). It appears “consisting essentially of multiple living hinges” is intended to recite “comprising multiple living hinges”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-7, 9, 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Micheal Vegedes (US 5526619 A)(Herein Vegedes) in view of Carey et al. (US 20150067983 A1)(Herein Carey).
In regards to Claim 1, Vegedes discloses
A split block [Abstract], comprising:
a backplate (28) [Fig 2] including a first plate segment (36) [Fig 2] rotatable with respect to a second plate segment (38) [Fig 2] between an open position [Col 6, Lines 15-19] whereat the first plate segment (36) [Fig 2] is spaced from the second plate segment (38) [Fig 2], and a closed position [Col 6, Lines 15-19], whereat the first and second plate segments (36,38) [Fig 2] abut and intersect at a split block line [Fig 2, Showing Split Block Line];
a living hinge system (60) [Fig 2] integral [Col 5; Lines 32-34] with and rotatably [As shown in Figure 2] joining the first and second plate segments (36,38) [Fig 2],
However, fails to disclose
the living hinge system including a first living hinge adjoining the first plate segment and bending on a first axis, a second living hinge adjoining the second plate segment and bending on a second axis oblique to the first axis, and a flap extending between and joining the first and second living hinges.
Furthermore, Carey discloses
the living hinge system (60, Vegedes) [Fig 2] including a first living hinge (110A) [Figs 2A-2D] adjoining the first plate segment (36, Vegedes) [Fig 2] and bending on a first axis [As Shown in Figures 2C-2D. Bending Along a First Axis] [0028], a second living hinge (110C) [Figs 2A-D] [0029] adjoining the second plate segment (38, Vegedes) [Fig 2] and bending on a second axis [As Shown in Figures 2C-2D, Bending Along a Second Axis] [0028] oblique to the first axis [As Shown in Figures 2C-2D, Bending Along a First Axis] [0028], and a flap (Combination of 112A-B) [Figs 2A-2D] extending between and joining the first and second living hinges (110A, 110C) [Fig 2A-2B] [0029, “ where adjacent living hinges 110 are separated by a segment portion 112A, 112B”].
Based on the prior art relied upon above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the split block by Vegedes to further include a living hinge system integral with and rotatably joining the first and second plate segments, the living hinge system including a first living hinge adjoining the first plate segment and bending on a first axis, a second living hinge adjoining the second plate segment and bending on a second axis oblique to the first axis, and a flap extending between and joining the first and second living hinges as disclosed by Carey. When modified, the living hinge system with all limitations facilitates the ability to move in a flexible kinematic range of action [See Carey, 0027, “The living hinge(s) facilitate a flexible-kinematic action of moving the members 102A-102D in a controlled motion along a hinge axis with the required path of motion of the members”]
In regards to Claim 2, Vegedes as modified discloses
The split block [Abstract] of claim 1
Carey discloses
wherein the living hinge system (60, Vegedes) [Fig 2] further includes a third living hinge (110B) [Fig 2A-2D] [0029] interposed between the first and second living hinges (110A, 110C) [Fig 2A-2B] and bending on a third axis [As shown in Figures 2A-2D, third axes] oblique to the first and second axes [As shown in Figures 2A-2D, second axes] .
Based on the prior art relied upon above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the split box by Vegedes to further include wherein the living hinge system further includes a third living hinge interposed between the first and second living hinges and bending on a third axis oblique to the first and second axes as disclosed by Carey. When modified, the third living hinge with all limitations allows for facilitating flexible-kinematic action. [See Carey, 0027, “The living hinge(s) facilitate a flexible-kinematic action of moving the members 102A-102D in a controlled motion along a hinge axis with the required path of motion of the members”]
In regards to Claim 3, Vegedes as modified discloses
The split block [Abstract] of claim 2
Carey discloses
wherein the living hinge system (60, Vegedes) [Fig 2] defines an axis of rotation (B) [Fig 2C-2D] about which the first and second plate segments (36, 38, Vegedes) [Fig 2] rotate [0033], and wherein each of the first, second, and third living hinges (110A-C) [Figs 2C-2D] is substantially linear and projects radially outward from the axis of rotation (B) [Fig 2C-2D] [See 0034, “the living hinge 110 configuration above allows the first and second members 102A, 102B to rotate through an angle of approximately 90 degrees while simultaneously bending to take up the compression of the plane”]
Examiners Interpretation: As per Merriam Webster, Compression is “the act, process, or result of compressing”, which examiner has interpreted to mean projecting radially outward.
In regards to Claim 4, Vegedes as modified discloses
The split block [Abstract] of claim 2
Carey discloses
wherein the flap (Combination of 112A-B) [Figs 2A-2D] includes a first flap (112A) [Fig 2A-2D] [0034] interposed between and adjoining the first and third living hinges (110A, 110B) [Fig 2A-2D], and a second flap (112B) [Fig 2A-2D] [0034] interposed between and adjoining the second and third living hinges (110B, 110C) [Figs 2A-2D].
In regards to Claim 5, Vegedes as modified discloses
The split block [Abstract] of claim 4
Carey discloses
wherein the first and second flaps (112A, 112B) [Fig 2C] are triangular and substantially identical [Fig 2C, Showing Triangular and Similar].
In regards to Claim 6, Vegedes as modified discloses
The split block [Abstract] of claim 4
Carey discloses
wherein the living hinge system (60, Vegedes) [Fig 2] consists essentially of the first, second and third living hinges and the first and second flaps (110A-110C, 112A-112B) [Figs 2A-2D] [0029, “The hinge set 104 includes at least one living hinge 110A, 110B, 110C (collectively 110 where appropriate) where adjacent living hinges 110 are separated by a segment portion 112A, 112B (collectively 112 where appropriate)”] .
In regards to Claim 7, Vegedes as modified discloses
The split block [Abstract] of claim 1, further comprising an annular trim ring (32) [Fig 1] configured to removably mount [Col 5, Lines 23-25] onto an axial face [Fig 1] of the backplate (28) [Fig 2] when the first and second plate segments (36,38) [Fig 2] are in the closed position [Col 3; Lines 66-67 and Col 4; Lines 1-2].
In regards to Claim 9, Vegedes as modified discloses
The split block [Abstract] of claim 1, wherein the first plate segment (36) [Fig 2] defines therethrough a first hole segment (106) [Fig 2] and the second plate segment (38) [Fig 2] defines therethrough a second hole segment (108) [Fig 2] aligning with and adjoining the first hole segment (106) [Fig 2] to collectively define a fixture hole [Col 3, Lines 63-65] when the first and second plate segments (36 and 38) [Fig 2] are in the closed position [Col 6, Lines 15-19].
In regards to Claim 11, Vegedes as modified discloses
The split block [Abstract] of claim 1, wherein the backplate (28) [Fig 2]further includes a mounting flange (40 and 44) [Fig 2] [Col 3; Lines 10-12 and Lines 13-15] projecting outward from and extending around outer peripheries [Col 3; Lines 10-12 and Lines 13-15] of the first and second plate segments (36, 38) [Fig 2] , the mounting flange (40 and 44) [Fig 2] [Col 3; Lines 10-12 and Lines 13-15] configured to mount [Col 4; Lines 57-59] the backplate (28) [Fig 2] to a wall structure (12) [Fig 2]
In regards to Claim 12, Vegedes as modified discloses
The split block [Abstract] of claim 1, wherein the backplate (28) [Fig 2] and the living hinge system (60) [Fig 2] are integrally formed as a single-piece structure [Col 5; Lines 32-34] from a polymeric material [Col 5, Lines 39-43].
Examiners Interpretation: Polymetric Material includes polyethylene.
In regards to Claim 13, Vegedes discloses
a split block assembly for a wall structure (12) [Fig 2] with a fixture (18 and 20) [Fig 2],
Forming [As shown in Figs 1-2, a backplate formed] a backplate (28) [Fig 2] configured to mount to the wall structure (12) [Fig 2], the backplate (28) [Fig 2] including a first plate segment (36) [Fig 2] rotatable with respect to a second plate segment (38) [Fig 1] between an open position [Col 6, Lines 15-19], whereat the first plate segment (36) [Fig 2] is spaced [Fig 2] from the second plate segment (36) [Fig 2] , and a closed position [Col 6, Lines 15-19], whereat the first and second plate segments (36, 38) [Fig 2] abut [Fig 1] and thereby cooperatively define a fixture hole [Col 3, Lines 63-65] configured to receive therethrough the fixture (18 and 20) [Fig 1];
forming [Figure 2, showing a living hinge formed] [Col 5, Lines 32-34 disclosing forming a living hinge] a living hinge system (60) [Fig 2] integral [Col 5; Lines 32-34] with and rotatably [As shown in Figure 2] joining the first and second plate segments (36,38) [Fig 2],
However, fails to disclose
A method of manufacturing
the living hinge system including a first living hinge adjoining the first plate segment and bending on a first axis, a second living hinge adjoining the second plate segment and bending on a second axis oblique to the first axis, and a flap extending between and joining the first and second living hinges.
Furthermore, Carey discloses
the living hinge system (60, Vegedes) [Fig 2] including a first living hinge (110A) [Figs 2A-2D] adjoining the first plate segment (36) [Fig 2] and bending on a first axis [As Shown in Figures 2C-2D. Bending Along a First Axis] [0028], a second living hinge (110C) [Fig 2A-2D] adjoining the second plate segment (38) [Fig 2] and bending on a second axis [As Shown in Figures 2C-2D, Bending Along a Second Axis] [0028] oblique to the first axis As Shown in Figures 2C-2D. Bending Along a First Axis] [0028], and a flap (Combination of 112A-B) [Figs 2A-2D] extending between and joining the first and second living hinges (110A, 110C) [Fig 2A-2B] [0029, “ where adjacent living hinges 110 are separated by a segment portion 112A, 112B”].
Based on the prior art relied upon above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the split box assembly by Vegedes to further include A method of manufacturing and forming a living hinge system integral with and rotatably joining the first and second plate segments , the living hinge system including a first living hinge adjoining the first plate segment and bending on a first axis, a second living hinge adjoining the second plate segment and bending on a second axis oblique to the first axis, and a flap extending between and joining the first and second living hinges as disclosed by Carey. When modified, the method of manufacturing allows for a common practice as intended. Additionally, the living hinge system with all limitations facilitates the ability to move in a flexible kinematic range of action [See Carey, 0027, “The living hinge(s) facilitate a flexible-kinematic action of moving the members 102A-102D in a controlled motion along a hinge axis with the required path of motion of the members”].
In regards to Claim 14, Vegedes as modified discloses
The method [See 0048, “a method of manufacturing”, Carey] of claim 13, wherein the living hinge system (60) [Fig 2] further includes a third living hinge (110B, Carey) [Fig 2A-2D] [0029] interposed between the first and second living hinges (110A, 110C, Carey) [Fig 2A-2B] and bending on a third axis [As shown in Figures 2A-2D, third axes, Carey] oblique to the first and second axes [As shown in Figures 2A-2D, second axes, Carey].
Based on the prior art relied upon above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the split box by Vegedes to further include wherein the living hinge system further includes a third living hinge interposed between the first and second living hinges and bending on a third axis oblique to the first and second axes as disclosed by Carey. When modified, the third living hinge with all limitations allows for facilitating flexible-kinematic action. [See Carey, 0027, “The living hinge(s) facilitate a flexible-kinematic action of moving the members 102A-102D in a controlled motion along a hinge axis with the required path of motion of the members”]
In regards to Claim 15, Vegedes as modified discloses
The method [See 0048, “a method of manufacturing”, Carey] of claim 14, wherein the living hinge system (60) [Fig 2] defines an axis of rotation (B, Carey) [Fig 2C-2D] about which the first and second plate segments (36, 38) [Fig 2] rotate, and wherein each of the first, second, and third living hinges (110A-C, Carey) [Figs 2C-2D] is substantially linear and projects radially outward from the axis of rotation [See 0034, “the living hinge 110 configuration above allows the first and second members 102A, 102B to rotate through an angle of approximately 90 degrees while simultaneously bending to take up the compression of the plane” , Carey]
Examiners Interpretation: As per Merriam Webster, Compression is “the act, process, or result of compressing”, which examiner has interpreted to mean projecting radially outward.
In regards to Claim 16, Vegedes as modified discloses
The method [See 0048, “a method of manufacturing”, Carey] of claim 14, wherein the flap (Combination of 112A-B, Carey) [Figs 2A-2D] includes a first flap (112A, Carey) [Fig 2A-2D] [0034] interposed between and adjoining the first and third living hinges (110A, 110B) [Fig 2A-2D, Carey], and a second flap (112B, Carey) [Fig 2A-2D] [0034] interposed between and adjoining the second and third living hinges (110B, 110C, Carey) [Figs 2A-2D].
In regards to Claim 17, Vegedes as modified discloses
The method [See 0048, “a method of manufacturing”, Carey] of claim 16, wherein the living hinge system (60) [Fig 2] consists essentially of the first, second and third living hinges and the first and second flaps. (110A-110C, 112A-112B, Carey) [Figs 2A-2D] [0029, “The hinge set 104 includes at least one living hinge 110A, 110B, 110C (collectively 110 where appropriate) where adjacent living hinges 110 are separated by a segment portion 112A, 112B (collectively 112 where appropriate)”] .
In regards to Claim 18, Vegedes as modified discloses
The method [See 0048, “a method of manufacturing”, Carey] of claim 13, further comprising forming an annular trim ring (32) [Fig 1] configured to removably mount [Col 5, Lines 23-25] onto an axial face [Fig 1] of the backplate (28) [Fig 2] when the first and second plate segments (36, 38) [Fig 2] are in the closed position [Col 6, Lines 15-19].
In regards to Claim 19, Vegedes as modified discloses
The method [See 0048, “a method of manufacturing”, Carey] of claim 13, wherein the first plate segment (36) [Fig 2] defines therethrough a first hole segment (106) [Fig 2] and the second plate segment (38) [Fig 2] defines therethrough a second hole segment (108) [Fig 2] aligning and mating with the first hole segment (106) [Fig 2] to collectively define the fixture hole [Col 3, Lines 63-65] when the first and second plate segments (36, 38) [Fig 2] are in the closed position [Col 6, Lines 15-19].
In regards to Claim 20, Vegedes discloses
A mounting block [Abstract], comprising:
a split block backplate (28) [Fig 2] including at least a mounting flange (40 and 44) [Fig 2] [Col 3; Lines 10-12 and Lines 13-15] , a first plate segment (36) [Fig 2] , and a second plate segment (38) [Fig 2] separated from the first plate segment (36) [Fig 2] by a split block line [Fig 2, Showing Split Block Line];
a living hinge system (60) [Fig 2] connecting the first and second plate segments (36,38) [Fig 2] to rotate back-and-forth between open and closed positions [As shown in Figs 1-2],
However fails to disclose
the living hinge system consisting essentially of multiple living hinges joined by at least one inter-hinge flap, wherein the at least one inter-hinge flap is generally coplanar to the mounting flange when in the closed position and non-planar to the mounting flange when in the open position.
Carey discloses
the living hinge system (104) [Figs 2A-2D] consisting essentially of multiple living hinges joined by at least one inter-hinge flap (110A-110C, 112A-112B) [Figs 2A-2D] [0029, “The hinge set 104 includes at least one living hinge 110A, 110B, 110C (collectively 110 where appropriate) where adjacent living hinges 110 are separated by a segment portion 112A, 112B (collectively 112 where appropriate)”], wherein the at least one inter-hinge flap (112) [Fig 2A-2D] is generally coplanar [As shown in Figs 2A-2D] to the mounting flange (40 and 44, Vegedes) [Fig 2] [Col 3; Lines 10-12 and Lines 13-15] when in the closed position [Col 6, Lines 15-19, Vegedes] and non-planar [As shown in Fig 2A-2D] to the mounting flange (40 and 44, Vegedes) [Fig 2] [Col 3; Lines 10-12 and Lines 13-15] when in the open position [Col 6, Lines 15-19, Vegedes].
Based on the prior art relied upon above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mounting block by Vegedes to further include the living hinge system consisting essentially of multiple living hinges joined by at least one inter-hinge flap, wherein the at least one inter-hinge flap is generally coplanar to the mounting flange when in the closed position and non-planar to the mounting flange when in the open position as disclosed by Carey. When modified, the living hinge with all limitations allows for facilitating flexible-kinematic action. [See Carey, 0027, “The living hinge(s) facilitate a flexible-kinematic action of moving the members 102A-102D in a controlled motion along a hinge axis with the required path of motion of the members”]
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Micheal Vegedes (US 5526619 A)(Herein Vegedes) in view of Carey et al. (US 20150067983 A1)(Herein Carey) and Schiedegger et al. (US 5918431) (Herein Schiedegger)
In regards to Claim 8, Vegedes as modified discloses
The split block [Abstract] of claim 7, wherein the backplate (28) [Fig 2] further includes mounting hub (48 and 50) [Fig 2] defining therein a plurality of teeth apertures (146 and 148) [Fig 2] , and the trim ring (32) [Fig 1] includes a plurality of teeth (144) [Fig 5] configured to snap-fit [Col 5, Lines 5-8] into the teeth apertures (146 and 148) [Fig 2] and thereby removably mount [Col 5, Lines 23-25] the trim ring (32) [Fig 1] to the backplate (28) [Fig 2].
However, fails to disclose
A plurality of ribbed teeth
Furthermore, Schiedegger discloses
A plurality of ribbed teeth (142a, 142b) [Fig 13] [Col 8, Lines 25-30]
Based on the prior art relied upon above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the split block assembly by Vegedes to further include a plurality of ribbed teeth as disclosed by Schiedegger. When modified, the plurality of ribbed teeth allow facilitating an increase in durability and flexibility during connection in the field.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Micheal Vegedes (US 5526619 A)(Herein Vegedes) in view of Carey et al. (US 20150067983 A1)(Herein Carey) and Gretz (US 9140003 B1)
In regards to Claim 10, Vegedes as modified discloses
The split block [Abstract] of claim 1, further comprising:
a locking tooth (136) [Fig 2] projecting axially [As per Merriam Webster “situated around, in the direction of, on, or along an axis”] [Fig 2, Showing (136) projecting along (36)] from the first plate segment (36) [Fig 2]; and
defining a slot (140) [Fig 2] [Col 4; Lines 42-43, “Slot”] configured to receive [See Col 4, Line 37-39] therein the locking tooth (136) [Fig 2] to thereby lock the first plate segment (36) [Fig 2] to the second plate segment (38) [Fig 2] when in the closed position [Col 6, Lines 15-19].
However, fails to disclose
a locking tab projecting from the second plate segment towards the first plate segment
Furthermore, Gretz discloses
A locking tab (34) [Figs 1-2] projecting [See Col 2, Lines 42-43, “extend from base flange”] from the second plate segment (38, Vegedes) [Fig 2] towards the first plate segment (36, Vegedes) [Fig 2]
Based on the prior art relied upon above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the split block by Vegedes to further include a locking tab projecting from the second plate segment towards the first plate segment as disclosed by Gretz. When modified, the locking tab with all limitations allow for simplicity in assembly and inspection, allowing for ease of replacement during failure without needing to replace the entire structure.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See PTO 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZAKARIA K. AL-ASWAR whose telephone number is (571)272-6335. The examiner can normally be reached M through F 7:30 to 5PM.
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, Brian Mattei can be reached at 571-270-3238. 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.
/Z.K.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3635
/KYLE J. WALRAED-SULLIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights