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 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) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu, U.S. Patent 7,725,286 in view of Nayak, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0180369.
Regarding Claim 1, Lu teaches:
A shaft assembly including a first cam component (30) comprising an axial cam face (32),
and the shaft assembly further having…a shaft (12);
a bracket assembly including a second cam component (23) comprising an axial cam face (232), and the bracket assembly further having a bracket assembly recess (221b);
wherein the shaft assembly and the bracket assembly are rotatably coupled for relative rotation about the shaft (Fig. 1);
wherein each of the first and second cam components are aligned on an axis, wherein the axial cam faces of the first and second cam components face each other (Fig. 2);
an axial spring (40) and an axial retention element (13) acting on at least one of the first and second cam components thereby forcing the first and second cam components together;
a restraining component (224).
Lu does not teach:
A shaft assembly recess.
The restraining component positioned within the inertial lock hinge such that when the
inertial lock hinge is in an unlocked condition the restraining component is not engaged with both the bracket assembly recess and the shaft assembly recess so that the shaft assembly and the bracket assembly are allowed to rotate relative to each other, and the restraining component positioned such that when the inertial lock hinge is in a locked condition the restraining component is at least partially engaged with both the bracket assembly recess and the shaft assembly recess so that the shaft assembly and the bracket assembly are locked and prevented from relative rotation by the restraining component.
Nayak teaches:
A shaft recess (154, 156)
A restraining component (132) positioned within an inertial lock hinge (Paragraph [0006]) such that when the inertial lock hinge is in an unlocked condition the restraining component is not engaged (Fig. 1) the hinge elements rotate relative to each other, and the restraining component positioned such that when the inertial lock hinge is in a locked condition (Fig. 2) the restraining component is at least partially engaged with two hinge elements (102, 121) are locked and two hinge elements (102, 16) are prevented from relative rotation by the restraining component.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the teachings of Nayak in the structure of Lu such that in the unlocked condition the shaft assembly and bracket assembly can rotate relative to one another and in the locked position the shaft assembly and the bracket assembly cannot rotate relative to one another because Lu teaches a hinge for a lap top computer which are commonly used on planes, trains and automobiles which can all undergo unexpected dynamic forces and the teachings of Nayak would permit locking in response to dynamic forces which would prevent damage to the computer and also improve the safety of the user by reducing the likelihood of unexpected opening or closing in response to dynamic forces.
Regarding Claim 2, in the instant combination the prior arts are silent with regard to the specific limitations of this claim. However, the Lu-Nayak combination meets the limitation because Nayak teaches the device activating when inertial forces lock the device “due to acceleration caused by a sudden deceleration event” (paragraph [0036]) which meets the limitations not already taught by the combination, as previously set forth, and the Nayak device does not activate when the “sudden deceleration event” has not occurred, but gravity is still in effect before, during and after the “sudden deceleration event”. Therefore, the limitations are met by the prior art.
Regarding Claim 3, Lu-Nayak teach the limitations of this claim because Nayak, in the instant combination, teaches an external impact force acting on the inertial lock hinge and triggering the engagement which, as shown in Figs. 1-2 of Nayak and in the Lu-Nayak combination, would result in the restraining element being partially engaged with each of the bracket assembly recess and the shaft assembly recess such that the device would be in a locked position (see Figs. 1-2, paragraph [0033]).
Regarding Claim 4, Lu, in the Lu-Nayak combination, teaches:
The shaft assembly comprises a shaft housing (11, 12, 13) and the shaft and the bracket assembly comprises a bracket housing (see shaft housing above, see 21, 221) containing the axial spring (see Fig. 3), and wherein the shaft is a bolt (12, 121, 13) having a bolt head (13) that is the axial retention element.
Regarding Claim 5, the Lu, in the Lu-Nayak combination, teaches:
The shaft rotates along a shaft axis (see Fig. 1) and wherein a restraining component moves radially (see 222, 224).
Lu does not explicitly teach:
An inertial lock which changes between the locked condition and unlocked condition with a restraining component which moves radially relative to the shaft.
Nayak teaches:
An inertial lock which changes between the locked condition and unlocked condition with a restraining component (132) which moves radially relative to the shaft (see Figs. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to further provide the Lu-Nayak combination with the teachings of Nayak because Lu already structurally suited for the modification and Lu teaches a hinge for a lap top computer which are commonly used on planes, trains and automobiles which can all undergo unexpected dynamic forces and the teachings of Nayak would permit locking in response to dynamic forces which would prevent damage to the computer and also improve the safety of the user by reducing the likelihood of unexpected opening or closing of the computer.
Regarding Claim 6, Nayak, in the instant combination, teaches:
The restraining component transitions radially toward the shaft with application of impact force to the inertial lock hinge (see Figs. 1-2, see paragraph [0033]).
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu-Nayak as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of Larson, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0068286.
Regarding Claim 7, the Lu-Nayak combination does not teach:
Each of the first and second cam components comprise at least one spline drive.
Larson does teach:
First and second cam components comprise at least one spline drive (see 30, 32, 34, 36, see Fig. 4A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Lu-Nayak with the spline structure taught by Larson because that would allow the cam components to be positioned completely within housings or knuckles (12, 14, 16, 18) which would make the hinge unit enclosed and therefore protected against fluid and detritus ingress.
Regarding Claim 8, Larson, in the Lu-Nayak-Larson combination, teaches:
At least one spline drive of the first cam component (34) is engaged with a housing (12a) such that the first cam component rotates with the housing, and wherein the at least one spline drive of the second cam component (30) is engaged with a second housing (14a) such that the second cam component rotates with the second housing.
It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the Lu-Nayak-Larson combination with the teachings of Larson because the splines would maintain the cams on relative rotatable positions and the housings would provide ingress protection against fluid and detritus.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5218. The examiner can normally be reached IFP, Typically M-Th, 8:00-6:00, regular Fr availability.
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.
/MATTHEW J SULLIVAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3677
