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
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because the drawings filed 10/1/2025 are not proper black and white line drawings. This is frequently the result of drawings which are filed in a very dark grey (so dark that it appears black such as RGB value 37, 37, 37) instead of pure black (RGB value 0, 0, 0). While very dark grey may appear black, it causes artifacts and inconsistent line thickness. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Lines and strokes of different thicknesses may be used in the same drawing where different thicknesses have a different meaning (see MPEP 608, 37 CFR 1.84(l))
Applicant is encouraged to view the drawings on file in the immediate application in Patent Center to more clearly see these line quality issues, as they may not be apparent on the Applicant’s copy of the drawings, as very dark grey may appear black to the eye.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0054]: “see arrow 126, Figure 1a” should be replaced with “see arrow 126, Figure 1b”.
Throughout the specification, reference number 112 is used to refer to two different parts (“hinge” and “through-holes”). The “hinge 112” should be replaced with “hinge 124” throughout the entirety of the disclosure. Examiner notes this error appears numerous times and should be corrected throughout.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites “the hinge defines a pin receiver”. There is no support for this limitation in the disclosure. The hinge (124) is not disclosed as defining the pin receiver (120). This is instead shown as being defined by one of the first and second bodies (114, 116). This appears to have caused confusion by the overall device being a “hinge clip assembly” that includes a “hinge” (124). For purposes of examination, as best understood, “the hinge defines a pin receiver” has been interpreted to mean “one of the first body and the second body defines a pin receiver”.
Claim 2 recites “the hinge comprises a hinge clip defining the pin receiver”. There is no support for this limitation in the disclosure for the same reasons outlined above with respect to claim 1. For purposes of examination, as best understood “the hinge comprises a hinge clip defining the pin receiver” has been interpreted to mean “one of the first body and the second body comprises a hinge clip defining the pin receiver”.
Dependent claims 3-16 fail to comply with the written description requirement for the same reasons as the claims from which they depend.
Claim 14 additionally recites “wherein the hinge permits rotation of the lid about an axis defined by the pin”. There is no support for this limitation in the disclosure. The hinge does not permit rotation about the pin. Rotation about the axis defined by the pin is permitted by the pin receiver. For purposes of examination, as best understood, “wherein the hinge permits rotation of the lid about an axis defined by the pin” has been interpreted to mean “wherein the pin receiver permits rotation of the lid about an axis defined by the pin”.
Claim 17 recites “the living hinge defines a pin receiver”. There is no support for this limitation in the disclosure. The living hinge (124) is not disclosed as defining the pin receiver (120). This is instead shown as being defined by one of the first and second bodies (114, 116). This appears to have caused confusion by the overall device being a “hinge clip assembly” that includes a “living hinge” (124). For purposes of examination, as best understood, “the living hinge defines a pin receiver” has been interpreted to mean “one of the first body and the second body defines a pin receiver”.
Dependent claims 18-20 fail to comply with the written description requirement for the same reasons as the claims from which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-20 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 recites “the hinge defines a pin receiver”. It is unclear how the hinge defines a pin receiver. The hinge (124) is not disclosed as defining the pin receiver (120). This is instead shown as being defined by one of the first and second bodies (114, 116). This appears to have caused confusion by the overall device being a “hinge clip assembly” that includes a “hinge” (124). For purposes of examination, as best understood, “the hinge defines a pin receiver” has been interpreted to mean “one of the first body and the second body defines a pin receiver”.
Claim 2 recites “the hinge comprises a hinge clip defining the pin receiver”. This is unclear for the same reasons outlined above with respect to claim 1. For purposes of examination, as best understood “the hinge comprises a hinge clip defining the pin receiver” has been interpreted to mean “one of the first body and the second body comprises a hinge clip defining the pin receiver”.
Dependent claims 3-16 are unclear for the same reasons as the claims from which they depend.
Claim 14 additionally recites “wherein the hinge permits rotation of the lid about an axis defined by the pin”. It is unclear how the hinge (124) permits rotation of the lid about an axis defined by the pin. The hinge does not permit rotation about the pin. Rotation about the axis defined by the pin is permitted by the pin receiver. For purposes of examination, as best understood, “wherein the hinge permits rotation of the lid about an axis defined by the pin” has been interpreted to mean “wherein the pin receiver permits rotation of the lid about an axis defined by the pin”.
Claim 17 recites “the living hinge defines a pin receiver”. It is unclear how the living hinge defines a pin receiver. The living hinge (124) is not disclosed as defining the pin receiver (120). This is instead shown as being defined by one of the first and second bodies (114, 116). This appears to have caused confusion by the overall device being a “hinge clip assembly” that includes a “living hinge” (124). For purposes of examination, as best understood, “the living hinge defines a pin receiver” has been interpreted to mean “one of the first body and the second body defines a pin receiver”.
Dependent claims 18-20 are unclear for the same reasons as the claims from which they depend.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the snaps". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted claim 9 to depend from claim 6 to provide antecedent basis for the snaps. Additionally, “the snaps” has been interpreted to mean “the plurality of snaps”.
Claim 10 recites “the hinge region of the lid”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted claim 10 to depend from claim 9 to provide antecedent basis for the hinge region of the lid.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-4 and 11-16, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okayama (US 4,193,164), herein referred to as ‘164, in view of Sutton (US 5,588,181), herein referred to as ‘181.
For Claim 1, as best understood, ‘164 discloses a hinge clip assembly (Annotated Figure 2: 7) for coupling a lid (B) to a container (A, 1, 2) having a pin (6), comprising:
a first body (7A);
a second body (7B); and
wherein, in the installed position (Annotated Figure 2), at least a portion of the lid (B) is sandwiched between the first body (7A) and the second body (7B), and
wherein the second body (7B) defines a pin receiver (12) configured to pivotally secure with the pin (6) of the container (A, 1, 2) to permit rotation of the lid (B) relative to the container (A, 1, 2).
‘164 does not disclose a hinge coupling the first body to the second body, the first body and the second body being pivotable relative to one another between a shipment position and an installed position. ‘164 instead discloses wherein the first body and the second body are spaced apart by a connection piece. The first body, second body, and connection piece are all made of plastic.
‘181 teaches a hinge clip assembly having a first body (52), a second body (54), and a hinge (44) coupling the first body (52) to the second body (54), the first body (52) and the second body (54) being pivotable relative to one another between a shipment position (position before screw is installed in 46, 48) and an installed position (position after screw is installed in 46, 48 and tightened).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a hinge between the first and second bodies of ‘164 as taught by ‘181. One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to allow for easier installation by having a wider opening between the first and second bodies during installation, which is then tightened to provide a firmer grip.
For Claim 2, as best understood, ‘164 as modified by ‘181 further teaches the hinge clip assembly of claim 1, wherein the second body (7B) comprises a hinge clip (11a, 11b) defining the pin receiver (12).
For Claim 3, as best understood, ‘164 as modified by ‘181 further teaches wherein the hinge clip comprises a stop (Annotated Figure 2: C) configured to engage the container (A, 1, 2) and thereby limit movement of the lid (B) to a closed position.
For Claim 4, as best understood, ‘181 further teaches wherein the hinge (44) comprises a living hinge (as seen in ‘181 Figure 2) integrally formed with the first body (52) and the second body (54).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the living hinge between the first and second bodies of ‘164 as taught by ‘181. One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to allow for easier installation by having a wider opening between the first and second bodies during installation, which is then tightened to provide a firmer grip.
For Claim 11, as best understood, ‘164 as modified by ‘181 further teaches the hinge clip assembly of claim 1, wherein the hinge clip assembly is fabricated from a thermoplastic material (Column 2, Lines 50-55, wherein polyacetal is a thermoplastic material).
For Claim 12, as best understood, ‘164 as modified by ‘181 further teaches the hinge clip assembly of claim 1, except wherein the hinge clip assembly is fabricated from a thermoplastic elastomer (TPE). ‘164 instead teaches wherein the hinge clip is made of plastic such as polyacetal. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the hinge clip assembly of ‘164 out of thermoplastic elastomer, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. It is also common knowledge to choose a material that has sufficient strength, durability, flexibility, hardness, etc. for the application and intended use of that material. One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to allow for elastomeric properties and allow for the hinge clip assembly easier to make by injection molding and giving a longer life due to elastomeric properties.
For Claim 13, as best understood, ‘164 as modified by ‘181 further teaches the hinge clip assembly of claim 1, except wherein the hinge clip assembly comprises a composite material. ‘164 instead teaches wherein the hinge clip is made of plastic such as polyacetal. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the hinge clip assembly of ‘164 out of composite material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. It is also common knowledge to choose a material that has sufficient strength, durability, flexibility, hardness, etc. for the application and intended use of that material. One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to provide a hinge clip assembly with strong properties that is also light weight.
For Claim 14, as best understood, ‘164 as modified by ‘181 further teaches the hinge clip assembly of claim 1, wherein the pin receiver (12) permits rotation of the lid (B) about an axis defined by the pin (6), the lid (B) being movable between an open position and a closed position relative to the container (A, 1, 2).
For Claim 15, as best understood, ‘164 as modified by ‘181 further teaches the hinge clip assembly of claim 1, wherein the hinge clip assembly (Annotated Figure 2) and the pin (6) collectively support hinged movement of the lid (B).
‘164 and ‘181 do not disclose wherein the lid includes a handle. Examiner takes official notice that it is old and well known to use a handle on a lid for making opening of the lid easier. 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 apply a handle to the lid of ‘164. One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to make opening of the lid easier.
For Claim 16, as best understood, ‘164 as modified by’181 further teaches the hinge clip assembly of claim 1, wherein the hinge clip assembly (7) is a unitary component (as seen in ‘164 Annotated Figure 2).
Claims 6-10, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okayama (US 4,193,164), herein referred to as ‘164, in view of Sutton (US 5,588,181), herein referred to as ‘181, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim (US 10,415,284), herein referred to as ‘284.
For Claim 6, as best understood, ’164 as modified by ‘181 teaches the hinge clip assembly of claim 1, except further comprising a plurality of snaps configured to couple the first body to the second body.
‘284 teaches a hinge (Figure 2) having a first body (310) and a second body (320), and a plurality of snaps (313, 323, 322) configured to couple the first body to the second body. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a plurality of snaps as taught by ‘ 284 to the hinge clip assembly of ‘164. One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to allow a strong connection between the first and second body that is easily releasable.
For Claim 7, as best understood, ‘164 as modified by ‘181 and ‘284 teaches the hinge clip assembly of claim 6. ‘284 further teaches wherein at least one snap (313) of the first body (310) is configured to engage with a complementary snap (323, 322) of the second body (320). ‘164, ‘181, and ‘284 do not disclose wherein the snaps collectively define a generally circular cross-section. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the shape of the snaps to collectively define a generally circular cross-section, as 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). (MPEP 2144.04). One would be motivated to make such a modification in order for the snaps to be capable of insertion through holes formed by a common tool, such as a drill which typically forms a circular hole.
For Claim 8, as best understood, ‘164 as modified by ‘181 and ‘284 teach the hinge clip assembly of claim 7, except wherein each snap is generally D-shaped in cross-section to facilitate insertion through a corresponding through-hole in the lid. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the shape of the snaps such that 3each snap is generally D-shaped in cross-section, as 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). (MPEP 2144.04). One would be motivated to make such a modification in order for the snaps to be capable of insertion through holes formed by a common tool, such as a drill which typically forms a circular hole.
For Claim 9, as best understood, ‘164 as modified by ‘181 and ‘284 teach the hinge clip assembly of claim 6, except wherein a hinge region of the lid comprises a plurality of through-holes through which the plurality of snaps extend to secure the hinge clip assembly to the lid. Examiner takes official notice that it is old and well known to form through holes in a member to penetrate fasteners of a hinge therethrough in order to attach a hinge to said member. 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 plurality of through-holes to the lid of ‘164 through which snaps extend. One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to allow a strong connection between the first and second body on the lid member that is easily releasable.
For Claim 10, as best understood, ‘164 as modified by ’181 and ‘284 teach the hinge clip assembly of claim 9, except wherein the hinge region of the lid is recessed and shaped to complement the first body and/or the second body, thereby mitigating lateral movement of the hinge clip assembly relative to the lid. Examiner takes official notice that it is old and well known to form a hinge region on a member as recessed and shaped to complement a hinge leaf/body 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 recessed hinge region to the lid of ‘164 that is shaped to complement the first and/or second body of ‘164. One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to provide a more aesthetic installation by allowing the hinge bodies to be flush with the lid surface and/or to avoid a gap between the lid and container.
PNG
media_image1.png
727
527
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 17-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 3091357, US 8887354, and US 9295347 are pertinent to applicant’s disclosure, but not 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
