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 Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 19, line 2, change second recitation of “a” to --the--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-11 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.
It is unclear if “a frame” recited in claim 1, line 6, is referencing and/or includes “a sash” previously recited in claim 1, line 2. According to the specification of the instant application, the frame and sash are the same element 12. Per paragraph [0022], “FIG. 1 shows a security screen 10 that includes a rectangular frame 12 (or sash), such as may be formed by four legs 14. The frame 12 defines an opening that is occupied by a mesh/infill screen 16. The sash 12 extends about and supports the mesh/infill screen 16.”. Further, it is noted the “sash” is again recited in claim 1, line 9, claim 4, line 2, claim 10, line 2, and claim 11, line 3, while the “frame” is again recited in claim 10, line 2. The applicant is advised to amend claims 1, 4, 10, and 11 to ensure consistent labeling of the frame/sash element 12.
Claim 1, line 9, is inaccurate as the second mounting plate is configured to engage the door/window, not the sash/frame. Claim 1, lines 5-6, previously establishes the sash/frame is engaged by the first mounting plate. See claims 12 and 19 which accurately recite the second mounting plate is configured to engage the door/window.
Although not specifically addressed above, claims 2, 3, and 5-9 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as they depend from a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1, 11, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Woodward et al. (US#11905748).
Regarding claims 1, 12, and 19, Woodward discloses a hinge system comprising: a door/window 102 having a sash/frame 104; and a slip hinge 106 comprising: a pin 214; a base member including a first mounting plate 210 and a first hinge portion 200, the first mounting plate configured to engage a frame/sash 104 defining an opening configured to receive the door/window 102, and the first hinge portion having a first recess to receive the pin therein; and a rotating member including a second mounting plate 212 and a second hinge portion 202, the second mounting plate configured to engage an edge of the door/window and the second hinge portion having a second recess to receive the pin therein, such as via lowering the second hinge portion onto the pin (Fig. 2C versus Fig. 2B); wherein a cross-section of each of the first 200 and second 202 hinge portions is substantially polygonal (substantially square) in shape with at least two sides that are not parallel to one another, such as two adjacent sides of the substantially square cross-section which are substantially perpendicular to each other.
Regarding claim 11, wherein the rotating member comprises a connecting portion 240 intermediate the second mounting plate 2and the second hinge portion, the connecting portion “configured to position” (i.e. at least partially aid in positioning) the second mounting plate into engagement with an end of the sash via the connecting portion receiving fasteners (set screws).
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 2-10, 13-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodward et al. (US#11905748).
Regarding claims 2, 6, 13, 16, and 20, Woodward discloses the polygonal cross-section of the first 200 and second 202 hinge portions is substantially square in shape as opposed to substantially triangular in shape. However, while a polygonal shape of the hinge portions is a critical feature of the applicant’s invention, the specific polygonal shape is not a critical feature of the applicant’s invention as evidenced by claims 1, 12, and 19 only requiring a polygonal shape with at least two sides that are not parallel to each other. It would have been an obvious design consideration to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Woodward by replacing its substantially square cross-section of the first and second hinge portions with a substantially triangular cross-section. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (See MPEP 2143 and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)). Further, a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). The substitution of first and second hinge portions having a cross-section substantially triangular in shape would provide a reduction of material and reduced profile for the hinge. Woodward desires concealment of its hinge (col. 4, line 64, to col. 5, line 3), and this reduction of material and reduced profile would further enhance concealment. Likewise, regarding claims 3, 4, and 14, the substitution of first and second hinge portions wherein the substantially triangular cross-section of the first and second hinge portions is more specifically a triangle having a truncated vertex, wherein the triangle has a base disposed adjacent to and engaging the sash/frame and the truncated vertex is opposite the base, would provide a reduction of material, reduced hinge profile, and thus further enhance concealment.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Woodward discloses the first 200 and second 202 hinge portions have rounded corners (see Fig. 2C), and thus when modified above with respect to claims 2 and 13, respectively, a rounded edge would replace a vertex (corner) of the substantially triangular cross-section.
Regarding claim 7, Woodward discloses the first hinge portion 200 is connected to the first mounting plate 210 at a corner of the substantially square cross-section (see Fig. 2C), and thus when modified above with respect to claim 6, the first hinge portion would be connected to the first mounting plate at an apex (corner) of the substantially triangular cross-section.
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Woodward discloses wherein the first 200 and second 202 hinge portions are aligned with one another in a first position in which the door/window 102 is in a closed position (see Fig. 2A), and it would remain so upon being modified above with respect to claims 6 and 16, respectively.
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Woodward discloses wherein the second hinge portion 202 is configured for rotation about the pin 214 to pivot the door/window 102 to an open position as the second hinge portion is part of the rotating member connected to the door/window, and it would remain so upon being modified above with respect to claims 6 and 16, respectively.
Regarding claim 10, Woodward discloses wherein the first hinge portion 200 is configured not to engage sash/frame 104 and the second hinge portion 202 is configured not to engage the sash/frame 104, upon pivoting the door/window 102 to the open position to allow for the pivoting of the door/window, and it would remain so upon being modified above with respect to claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
It is noted Noe (US#2025/0109767) discloses a hinge system comprising: a door 506 having a sash/frame 505; and a slip hinge comprising: a pin 102; a base (bottom) member 100 (Figs. 1 and 3) including a first mounting plate 101 and a first hinge portion (polygonal barrel), the first mounting plate configured to engage the sash/frame defining an opening configured to receive the door (see Fig. 5); and a rotating (top) member 200 (Figs. 2 and 3) including a second mounting plate 202 and a second hinge portion (polygonal barrel), the second mounting plate configured to engage the door and the second hinge portion having a second recess 201 to receive the pin therein, such as via lowering the second hinge portion onto the pin (Fig. 3 versus Fig. 4); wherein a cross-section of at least one of the first and second hinge portions is substantially polygonal in shape (via the respective polygonal barrel) with at least two sides that are not parallel to one another.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM L MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-7068. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 - 6:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
WILLIAM L. MILLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3677
/WILLIAM L MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3677
Prosecution Insights