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. Please also consider the 112 rejections below.
“vertical extension” of claim 1
“vice versa” conditions of claims 1 and 2
“coupling surfaces”
“the surface facing outwards” of claim 2
“flat front edge” of claim 3
“angular extensions” of claims 4 and 5
The shaped walls of the arms have a total angular extension of 180 degrees of claim 5
“quick locking arm by means” of claim 9
“means of vertical front and lateral adjustment” of claim 10.
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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The following phrases indicate the use of 112f interpretation:
“return closing means” in claim 1: “means” plus function of “return closing”. This is not interpreted as 112f because applicant later claims the “return closing means comprise at least one spring”, and therefore, is considered identical in scope to “at least one spring”. Please also see 112b rejection below.
“support element” in claim 9: nonce term “element” plus function of “support”. Applicant discloses this part as part 21 shown in figure 3. This is not considered as 112f term.
“quick locking arm by means of” in claim 9: “means” plus function “quick locking”. This is not interpreted as 112f because applicant later claims structure of “insert in a plate element attached to the shoulder of the furniture item”. Please see 112b rejection below.
“means of vertical front and lateral adjustment” of claim 10: “means” plus function of “adjustment”. This is interpreted as 112f because there is no structure included in the claim. Please see 112a and 112b rejections below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 2 require “or vice versa”. The record is not clear what is “opposite”. If applicant intends in claim 1 that the fixed part is attached to the shoulder or to the door, applicant should claim that the fixed part is attachable to either, rather than claiming “vice versa” structure of which part has “horizontal arms”.
“coupling surfaces” is not disclosed in the specification. Examiner assumes that applicant intends to claim cam surfaces, which is common in the art. The record is not clear as to which surfaces are considered the “coupling surfaces”.
Regarding claim 5, applicant claims 180 degrees of the internal shaped walls and the shaped walls of the pusher has 360 degrees. The record does not clearly show this difference. Examiner notes that the cam surfaces must match exactly as required in claim 4 and shown in figure 8c.
Regarding claim 7, applicant asserts the inclusion of plate 13 is an “anti-friction plate”. Examiner notes that the cam surfaces must extend through the “anti-friction plate” 13 so that the cam surfaces engage. As shown in figure 8c, the remaining surfaces of the pusher 8 and the arm 32 do not abut, and therefore, cannot be any friction between the remaining surfaces of pusher 8 and arm 32 in the location suggested by figure 3, as taught by the separation based in figure 8c. The inclusion of plate 13 would cause more friction than the absence of plate 13. The purpose of the plate 13 is unknown.
Dependent claims inherit the same issues from parent claims and do not resolve any indefinite issues.
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 1-10 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 claims 1-10, The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. Some examples are included below.
Regarding claim 1:
-A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “return closing means”, and the claim also recites “at least one spring” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
-“vertical extension” which does not have a part number. The record is not clear if this is a “vertical dimension” or if applicant intends this to be equivalent in scope to part number 31 in figure 3.
-record is not clear if the furniture item with door and shoulder is positively claimed or not. Applicant claims this as an intended combination in the preamble, and then positively attaches the “fixed part attached to the shoulder”. The record is not clear if the door/shoulder/furniture item is positively claimed. The broadest reasonable interpretation is to consider the furniture item not positively claimed.
-“or vice versa” situation is not shown by applicant. If applicant intends that the fixing part could be mounted to either the door or the shoulder/frame, applicant should amend the claim to indicate that the door/shoulder is intended use, or are switchable.
-“coupling surfaces” is not originally disclosed, is further defined by “inclined planes”. The record seems to indicate these are identical in scope. Applicant later defines “shaped walls”, which examiner assumes that the “coupling surfaces” and the “shaped walls” are identical in scope. Examiner assumes the coupling surfaces/shaped walls having inclined planes 11 and front edge 10 (as shown in figure 6c). Examiner notes that the common term in the art for these parts are “cam surfaces”.
-“fork shape” is not further limiting, since by having the structure of “pair of horizontal arms” and a “vertical extension”, makes the “fork shape”. This phrase is not further limiting.
Examiner assumes the following claim 1 has an identical scope to what applicant discloses, and is considered definite. This is rejected by art below. If applicant concurs with what is assumed to be definite here, please subsequently amend all dependent claims.
A hinge for furniture, comprising:
a fixed part attachable to a frame or a door of the furniture, the fixed part has a housing with a vertical dimension; and
a movable part attachable to a frame or a door of the furniture, the movable part having a body with a vertical dimension between two horizontal arms, the housing is arranged between the two horizontal arms; and
a pin coaxial with both vertical dimensions, the pin traversing said fixed part and movable part; and
at least one spring arranged around said pin, wherein the at least one spring exerts a force along the pin’s axis; and
at least two cam surfaces biased by the at least one spring.
Regarding claim 2:
-“bearing on the surface” is unclear, since applicant has previously claimed “coupling surfaces” “inclined planes”. Further, the pusher itself has “coupling surfaces” and applicant has not yet claimed what else has a “coupling surface” to bear onto.
-“surface facing outwards from said housing” is assumed to be part of the pusher 8.
-“shaped wall” is assumed to be identical in scope with “coupling surface” as previously discussed in claim 1.
-“corresponding shaped wall provided internally to at least one of the arms”. Examiner assumes the horizontal arm has a cam surface shaped to engage the pusher 8.
-“extending over an arc which determines the angle of action”. “Angle of action” is not disclosed or shown by applicant. The “arc” is not shown by applicant. Examiner assumes that applicant intends to claim an inclined surface on both cam surfaces of the horizontal arm and the pusher.
Examiner assumes the following definite claim 2, which is rejected below:
Hinge according to claim 1, wherein the housing has a seat; and
a pusher non-rotatably inserted in said seat, the pusher has one of the at least two cam surfaces; and
one of the horizontal arms has one of the at least two cam surfaces which engages the cam surface of the pusher; and
the at least one spring is arranged in said seat.
Regarding claim 3:
-“flat front” is not shown in the drawings nor given a part number in the specification.
-“shaped wall of the pusher…connected at the base of the pusher”. Examiner notes that the cam surface is part of the pusher. The record is not clear how this phrase further limits the device.
-claim 2 already assumes that the horizontal arm already has a cam surface. The record is not clear how “shaped wall provided internally to said arm ends”.
-examiner assumes claim 3 further limits the cam surfaces to be equal in shape, and each has a flat edge.
Regarding claim 4:
-“angular extension” is not disclosed or shown in the drawings. Examiner assumes that “angular extension” is the arc length of whatever cam surface feature is claimed.
-“explementary”, which requires multiple arc lengths which are complementary. The record is not clear how the either cam shape has any surfaces which are “explementary”.
The record is not clear how claim 4 is further limiting. Examiner assumes that the claim means the cam surfaces are identical surfaces.
Regarding claim 5:
Applicant claims the “angular extension”, which seems to be the arc length, to be 300 degrees for one cam surface, and 120 degrees for a different cam surface. Examiner notes that applicant does not disclose that the cam surfaces are different. Applicant’s claim 5 requires the pusher cam to have one inclined surface and the arm cam surface to have two inclined surfaces. This is not shown or disclosed in any part of applicant’s disclosure.
Regarding claim 6:
Examiner assumes that applicant claims two pushers on either side of the spring, and that both arms have interior cam surfaces to engage the pusher cam surfaces.
Regarding claims 9 and 10:
Applicant claims “quick locking arm by means” and “means of…adjustment”. The record is not clear as to the scope of these claims, since applicant does not clearly describe the scope of these terms in the specification, drawing, or dependent claims. Examiner notes that “quick locking arm by means” is identical in scope to the subsequently claimed structure of “underlying insert in a plate element”.
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) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by 2024/0068286 Larson.
Examiner notes that some claims are replete with indefiniteness issues, and examiner has written assumed definite claims; these assumed definite claims are rejected below.
As best understood Regarding claim 1, Larson discloses a hinge for furniture (“furniture manufacturing” [0002]), comprising:
a fixed part (18 and 14, left side of figure 1) attachable to a frame or a door of the furniture (by having connector holes), the fixed part has a housing (14a and 18a) with a vertical dimension (along the pin 20); and
PNG
media_image1.png
418
598
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a movable part (12 and 16, right side of figure 1) attachable to a frame or a door of the furniture (by having connector holes), the movable part having a body (12b and 16b) with a vertical dimension (along the length of the pin) between two horizontal arms (12a and 16a), the housing (14a and 18a) is arranged between the two horizontal arms (12a and 16a); and
a pin 20 coaxial with both vertical dimensions (figure 3b), the pin 20 traversing said fixed part and movable part (figure 3b); and
at least one spring 24 arranged around said pin 20 (figure 3b), wherein the at least one spring 24 exerts a force along the pin’s axis (compressed in figure 3b, to expand the cams 32 and 30 apart); and
at least two cam surfaces (four cam surfaces as shown in figure 9b) biased by the at least one spring 24.
As best understood, Regarding claim 2, Larson discloses a hinge according to claim 1, wherein the housing (14a and 18a) has a seat (through hole); and
a pusher (two pushers 30 and 32) non-rotatably inserted in said seat (seat has ribs 60 figure 6a and the pushers have external grooves, figure 5b), the pusher 30/32 has one of the at least two cam surfaces (as shown in figure 5b and 9b); and
one of the horizontal arms (both horizontal arms) have one of the at least two cam surfaces (with cams 36 and 34) which engages the cam surface of the pusher (as shown in figure 9b); and
the at least one spring 24 is arranged in said seat (hole, as shown in figure 3b).
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) 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larson in further view of 5152029 Pai.
As best understood, Regarding claim 3, Larson discloses the hinge according to claim 2, wherein the cam surface of the pusher 32 is equal to the cam surface of the arm (cam surface of the arm is located on cam 34), the matched surfaces providing the compact situation of figure 10b. Larson does not disclose that the cam surfaces include a flat front edge.
Pai discloses a hinge having two arms 12/13 on either side of housing 22 with a central coaxial pin 30 and a spring 59 exterior of pin 30, pushing cam 15 towards cam 54, each of cams 15 and 54 have a flat front edge (assumed to be equivalent to Pai flat front edges 55 and 152 of figure 6a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to change the shape of the cam surfaces as taught in Larson for the cam surfaces as known in Pai, as each has different functions known in the art. The inclusion of either cam surface has an old and well-known rotational function of locating a stopping point of the rotation of the door in a particular angle during the swing of a door.
As best understood Regarding claim 4, Larson as modified discloses the hinge according to claim 3, wherein the angular extensions of said shaped walls of the pusher and arm are explementary (assumed to be the cam surfaces are complementary, as shown in figures 3 and 6a), with said inclined plane surfaces, which have the same angular extension, overlapping each other (as shown in figures 3 and 6a).
As best understood, Regarding claim 5, Larson as modified discloses the hinge according to claim 3, wherein said shaped wall of the pusher has an angular extension of approximately 300° and said shaped wall provided internally to said arm has an angular extension of approximately 120 degrees, said inclined plane surfaces having an angular extension of approximately 60 degrees. Please see 112a and 112b rejection above. Examiner contends that the structure of Pai’s cam surfaces meets applicant’s claim and disclosure.
As best understood regarding claim 6, Larson discloses the hinge according to claim 2, wherein said housing (of Larson) are arranged one spring 24 that work in opposition against two pushers 30/32, with respective cams provided internally to both arms of said movable part (cam surfaces on 36/34 are internal/inward of both arms). Larson does not disclose the use of two springs.
Pai discloses the use of two compression springs 39 and 59 around pin 30.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to duplicate the springs of Larson to use two springs, one inside the other, in the manner taught by Pai, in order to provide the same expansion pressure required by the disclosure and by Larson. Examiner notes that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI) (b). 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) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of 5970819 Katoh.
As best understood regarding claim 7, Larson discloses the hinge according to claim 1, Larson knows the “friction torque” and the “spring load and coefficient of friction” determined by the detent hinge torque. Larson does not include an anti-friction plate, otherwise termed a washer.
Katoh discloses a single pin hinge having a “friction washer 6” between the fixed part 2a and the movable part 5c.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include a washer at any point there is friction. The surfaces of applicant’s “anti friction plate” do not engage as shown in figure 8c and therefore the presence of the washer 13 of applicant’s figure 3 would therefore add friction. However, examiner notes that it is old and well known in the art to include a washer such as 6 by Katoh to reduce friction between abutting surfaces. The inclusion of a friction washer 6 like that taught by Katoh would elongate the life of the hinge where it is applied.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of 2022/0298841 Kashiwaguma.
As best understood regarding claim 8, Larson discloses the hinge according to claim 1, but does not disclose the inclusion of a damper.
Kashiwaguma discloses a damper on one of the hinge leafs which interacts in the manner shown by figures 6a-6c, in which the damper is not compressed until the “last section of the closing stroke of the door” in figures 6b and 6c, and abstract.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply a damper as known in Kashiwaguma in order to further dampen the hinge for the purpose as old and well known taught by Kashiwaguma, along with the catch mechanism of the cams as taught in Larson. Kashiwaguma teaches the use of both a catch mechanism and a damper mechanism [0003] for smooth action hinge.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larson as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of 5713105 Toomey.
As best understood, regarding claim 9, Larson discloses the hinge according to claim 2, the fixed part 14/18 comprises a support element (mounting plate) bearing at one end the housing (other end is the exterior edge), wherein the hinge is attached to the furniture item with connectors in connector holes. Larson does not use a quick locking attachment means to connect to the furniture.
Toomey discloses a hinge with a single axis, the plate with the hinge arms 104 having a plate with connector holes 26, and the fixed part 100 between the two arms 104 having an underlying insert 24 inserted into a plate element 22 attached to the other part of the door/frame.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize a connector means for the fixed part of Larson to be connected in the old and well-known manner as taught by Toomey for the purpose of ease of attachment and adjustability of the hinge (abstract). Examiner contends that replacing a plate with connector holes for a different plate with different connector holes does not affect the form, function, or use, of the hinge with the cams as taught by Larson; it merely changes the manner of attachment of the hinge of Larson.
As best understood regarding claim 10, Larson as modified discloses the hinge according to claim 9, wherein said fixed part (104 of Toomey, 14/18 of Larson) provides means of vertical, front and lateral adjustment of the hinge (means of vertical adjustment is the screw 38, the means of front and lateral adjustment is screw 110).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see 892.
Applicant is encouraged to request interviews after non-final rejection, rather than after final rejection. Examiner notes that interviews after final rejection “may be granted if the examiner is convinced that disposal or clarification for appeal may be accomplished with only nominal further consideration” MPEP 713.09.
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