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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Austria on 1/31/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the ATA50056/2023 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-17 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.
Claims 1-17 are replete with unclear limitations, examples of such unclear limitations are listed below. Applicant should review the entirety of the claims for these and similar issues.
Claims 1-17 recite the terms “in particular” and “preferably”. It is unclear whether the limitation which follow are positively recited. For purposes of examination, the limitations which follow “in particular” and “preferably” are interpreted to be optional.
The term “and/or” is used throughout the claims. Examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “and/or” is “or”, and therefore the claims have been interpreted throughout to recite alternatives, such that only one of the limitations separated by “and/or” is required by the prior art.
Claims 1-17 recite “to be fixed to the stationary structure” and “to be fixed to a pivoting element”. It is unclear whether the stationary structure and pivoting element are being positively recited. Examiner notes that Claim 10 recites “a stationary structure”, so this appears to indicate that claims 1-9 do not positively recite the stationary structure. Examiner has interpreted claims 1-9 to mean the stationary structure and pivoting element are intended use recitations only. Clarifying amendments are required.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the plate". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 fails to positively recite “a pivoting element”, however claims 15-17 later recite “the pivoting element” and define further limitations thereof. It appears that claim 10 should be amended to positively recite “a pivoting element”. Clarifying amendments are required.
The term “substantially” in claims 4-6, 9-11, and 15-16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” 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. The limitations cuboidal (claim 4), in a plane (claim 4), closed (claim 5), L-shaped (claim 6), flat (claim 9), parallel (claim 9), entirely (claim 10), parallel (claim 11), coplanar (claim 15), entirely (claim 15), in a plane (claim 16), and free (claim 16) are rendered indefinite by use of the term “substantially”.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
pivoting element (claims 1-17)
first fitting portion (claims 1-17)
second fitting portion (claims 1-17)
adjustment device (claims 2-3, 13)
damping device (claim 2, 13)
adjustment element (claims 2, 13)
fastening element (claims 2, 13)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-6, 8-13, and 15-17, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pittasch (US 4,099,293), herein referred to as ‘293.
For Claim 1, as best understood, ‘293 discloses a fitting (Figures 28-31) configured as a furniture fitting for movably supporting a pivoting element (102) relative to a stationary structure (101), the fitting comprising:
a first fitting portion (107) to be fixed to the stationary structure (101), the first fitting portion (107) to be at least partially inserted into a recess (143) in the stationary structure (104),
a second fitting portion (210) to be fixed to the pivoting element (102), and
a hinge axis (218) pivotally connecting the first fitting portion (107) and the second fitting portion (210) to each other,
wherein the first fitting portion (107) includes a housing (107) having a front face (Annotated Figures 28-29: A) facing towards the second fitting portion (210), and at least one housing side (B) extending transversely to the front face (A), and
wherein at least one arm (219) is provided on which the at least one hinge axis (218) is arranged, the at least one arm (219) projecting transversely from the housing side (B) of the first fitting portion (107).
For Claim 2, as best understood, ‘293 discloses the fitting according to claim 1, wherein the first fitting portion (107):
includes at least one adjustment device (31, 105) having a movable adjustment element (31) for adjusting a position of the arm (219) relative to the housing (107).
For Claim 3, as best understood, ‘293 discloses the fitting according to claim 1, wherein the first fitting portion (107) includes at least two adjustment devices (31, 105; 130, 124, 128), wherein by a first adjustment device (31, 105), a position of the arm (219) relative to the housing (107) is adjustable in a first movement direction, and wherein by a second adjustment device (130, 124, 128), a position of the arm (219) relative to the housing (107) is adjustable in a second movement direction, the second movement direction extending transversely to the first movement direction.
For Claim 4, as best understood, ‘293 discloses the fitting according to claim 1, wherein the housing (107) of the first fitting portion (107): extends substantially in a plane extending parallel to the hinge axis (as seen in Figure 31).
For Claim 5, as best understood, ‘293 discloses the fitting according to claim 1, wherein the front face (A) of the housing (107) of the first fitting portion is substantially closed (as seen in Figures 28-31).
For Claim 6, as best understood, ‘293 discloses the fitting according to claim 1, wherein the arm (219) is substantially L-shaped (as seen in Figures 28-29)
For Claim 8, as best understood, ‘293 discloses the fitting according to claim 1, wherein the second fitting portion (210): includes at least one hinge cup (as seen in Figure 28).
For Claim 9, as best understood, ‘293 discloses the fitting according to claim 1, wherein the housing side (B) of the housing (107), from which the at least one arm (218) projects transversely, is substantially flat (as seen in Figure 28).
For Claim 10, as best understood, ‘293 discloses an arrangement (Figures 28-31) comprising:
a stationary structure (101), a pivoting element (102), and
the fitting according to claim 1 (as outlined above with respect to claim 1),
wherein the stationary structure (101) includes at least one vertically extending panel (101), and the housing (107) of the first fitting portion (107) is at least partially received within (as seen in Figure 31) a recess (143) of the panel (101).
For Claim 11, as best understood, ‘293 discloses the arrangement according to claim 10, wherein the housing side (B) of the housing (107), from which the at least one arm (219) projects transversely, extends substantially parallel (as seen in Figure 31) to the panel (101).
For Claim 12, as best understood, ‘293 discloses the arrangement according to claim 10, wherein the recess (143) includes an opening (as seen in Figures 21 and 30) arranged on a front face (104) of the panel (101) and on a side face (as seen in Figures 21 and 30) of the panel (101), the side face of the panel extending transversely to the front face (as seen in Figures 21 and 30).
For Claim 13, as best understood, ‘293 discloses the arrangement according to claim 10, wherein the first fitting portion (107):
includes at least one adjustment device (31, 105) having a movable adjustment element (31) for adjusting a position of the arm (219) relative to the housing (107), wherein the panel (101) includes at least one opening (143) which permits access to the adjustment element (31) of the at least one adjustment device (31, 105).
For Claim 15, as best understood, ‘293 discloses the arrangement according to claim 10, wherein the pivoting element (102) covers at least partially a front face (104) of the panel (101) in a fully closed position (as seen in Figure 31).
For Claim 16, as best understood, ‘293 discloses the arrangement according to claim 10, wherein the pivoting element (102) is arranged substantially in a plane (plane of inner face of 102) parallel to and offset with respect to a plane (plane of front face 104) of the panel (101) in a fully closed position (as seen in Figure 31).
For Claim 17, as best understood, ‘293 discloses the arrangement according to claim 10, wherein the second fitting portion (210) is at least partially arranged within a bore (243) of the pivoting element (102).
PNG
media_image1.png
660
789
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pittasch (US 4,099,293), herein referred to as ‘293.
For Claim 7, as best understood, ‘293 discloses the fitting according to claim 1, except wherein the first fitting portion includes at least one force storage member, wherein the two fitting portions are movable into a closed end position and/or into an open end position relative to each other by a force of the force storage member. Examiner takes official notice that it is old and well known to use a force storage member, such as a spring, to bias two fitting portions (hinge leaf members) into a closed and/or open position by a force of the spring. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied a force storage member (such as a spring) to the hinge of ‘293. One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to allow for automatic closing of a cupboard door.
For Claim 14, as best understood, ‘293 discloses the arrangement according to claim 10, except wherein the fitting is a first fitting, the arrangement further comprising a second fitting identical to the first fitting and arranged on the panel, wherein the first fitting and second fitting are arranged mirror-symmetrically to each other and are spaced apart from each other in a vertical direction in the plane of the panel. ‘293 is instead silent as to a second fitting. Examiner takes official notice that it is old and well known to use multiple identical fittings (hinges) on a piece of furniture (such as a cupboard) and space them mirror-symmetrically in a vertical direction. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied a second fitting (hinge) identical to the first fitting (hinge) of ‘293 spaced mirror-symmetrically in a vertical direction to the cabinet body and panel of ‘293. One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to support a greater load/weight of the panel and to distribute the load/weight of the panel among more points with respect to the cabinet body.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 4397064, US 12305441, and US 12173540 teach similar hinges/fittings that are pertinent to applicant’s disclosure, but have not been relied upon in the current rejection.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrey O'Brien whose telephone number is (571)270-3655. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7-5:30.
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.
/Jeffrey O'Brien/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3677
Prosecution Insights