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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: on page 12, line 17, “upper hinge part 45” should be “upper hinge part 46”.
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 1-9 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: at least how the “at least one first wall” and the “one second wall” are geometrically and structurally related/linked to each other to define a complete, operable “hinge” that is configured “to open or to close a door”, “to open the hinge”, and “to close the hinge”. As it is claimed, the invention merely includes two walls. Therefore, it is not clear exactly what is defined as a hinge to perform hinging. Also, it is not clear exactly what “an angular opening” and “a hollow internal space” are referring to, without any given geometric reference between the first and second walls.
In claim 2, it is not clear exactly how “an angular opening” and “a hollow internal space” of each of the walls are related to that of the hinge stated in claim 1.
In claim 3, lines 5-6, “wherein action of the hinge…and immobile parts” cannot be understood.
In claim 6, it is not clear exactly how “a locking device” is related/linked to the hinge, i.e., it is not clear whether the locking device is part of the hinge or is an extraneous element used to immobilize the hinge. As it is claimed, any hand tools or latching device, for example, could be considered a locking device to immobilize the hinge in the closed position.
Note that other claims, depending from the rejected claims, are also considered vague and indefinite.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Hsu ‘771 (US 8,769,771).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Hsu shows a hinge as claimed, including at least one first wall (11) and at least one second wall (23) defining an angular opening of the hinge and a hollow internal space of the hinge sized to receive a cable (fig. 9), the first wall and the second wall being positioned relative to one another in order to: to open the hinge in a cable insertion or extraction position to allow the cable to pass through the angular opening of the hinge inside or outside of the internal space (figs. 3-4); and to close the hinge in working position of the hinge between a maximum open position of the door and a closed position of the door to block the angular opening of the hinge so as to be able to enclose the cable in the hollow space (figs. 5-6). Note that the door and the electrical cabinet are not positive limitations and are given no patentable weight.
As to claim 2, each first wall and each second wall respectively extends between two ends spaced apart (two end of the arc, e.g., fig. 6) from one another to form an angular opening and defines a hollow internal space, the hinge being shaped so that: in the cable insertion or extraction position the angular opening of the first wall and the angular opening of the second wall are aligned (fig. 9); and in the working position of the door the angular opening of the first wall is offset from the angular opening of the second wall to close the hinge, the first and second walls being aligned so as to defined an axis of the hinge (figs. 6 and 9).
As to claim 3, Hsu further shows a mobile part (1 and 3) to be fixed to the door and an immobile part (21) to be fixed to the cabinet, the mobile part including at least one hinge part (11, 12, 122, 121) forming the first wall of the hinge and the immobile part (21) including at least one hinge part (22) forming the second wall of the hinge, wherein the action (opening or closing) of the hinge is a result of alignment of the hinge parts of the mobile and immobile parts (figs. 6 and 9).
As to claim 4, one of the mobile part and the immobile parts (i.e., mobile part 1 and 3) includes one or more parts than another of the mobile part and the immobile part (i.e., 21).
As to claim 5, the mobile part includes at least two hinge parts (11, 12, 122, 121) spaced apart from one another so as to guide the immobile part (21).
As to claim 6, any latching/biasing means of the portable electronic device (5 and 6, “a screen” and “a main body”, col. 1, lines 13-17) to keep the screen and the main body in a closed position for storage or carrying meets the invention as claimed.
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 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu ‘771.
Regarding claim 7, Hsu does not show an electrical cabinet including the hinge of claim 1. Instead, Hsu employs the hinge in an electronic device. Both the electrical cabinet and the electronic device having hinging components and are comparable devices that includes wirings/cables for performing electrical functions, and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the hinge of Hsu to an electrical cabinet so that the wirings/cables can be routed through the hinge to save space within the cabinet as taught by Hsu (col. 1, lines 22-29).
As to both claims 8 and 9, Hsu does not show the electrical cabinet or the hinge in an aircraft. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the hinge of claim 1 or the cabinet of claim 7 in an aircraft, since it has been held that rearranging or relocating parts of an invention, e.g., in an office or in an aircraft, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
Related prior art:
CN 1885618 A (CN) shows a hinge including a first wall and a slot through the first wall, a second wall and a slot through the second wall, the first wall being sleeved on the second wall such that a printed circuit board can be inserted and removed from the hinge internal space.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUCK MAH whose telephone number is (571)272-7059. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:00.
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.
/CHUCK Y MAH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3677 CM
September 27, 2026
