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) 1-3, 7-10, 12-14, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PG Pub. US 2014/0262084 – Fleischman in view of PG Pub US 2014/0346811 A1 – Zaluzec et al., hereinafter Zaluzec.
Regarding claim 1.
Fleischman discloses a motorized window treatment comprising:
a roller tube (40, fig 2) that comprises a first tube comprising metal (Paragraph [0048]; The tube 40, 40' may be formed from aluminum or an aluminum alloy); and
a covering material (26, fig 2) that is attached to the roller tube (at 82, fig 3), the covering material operable between a raised position and a lowered position via rotation of the roller tube by a motor drive unit (Compare 12, 14, and 16, fig 1).
Fleischman does not disclose a second tube that is concentrically arranged around the first tube, the second tube comprising a plurality of successively applied layers of carbon fiber, wherein the plurality of layers of carbon fiber comprise at least three layers and wherein carbon fibers of an innermost layer and carbon fibers of an outermost layer have a same alignment relative to a longitudinal axis defined by the first tube, and wherein the second tube is bonded to the first tube.
However, Zaluzec teaches a first tube (20, fig 1b) comprising metal (Paragraph [0044]; Beam member 20 may be formed from steel, aluminum or any suitable material) and a second tube (30, 40, 50, fig 1b) that is concentrically arranged around the first tube (See fig 1b), the second tube comprising a plurality of successively applied layers of carbon fiber (Paragraph [0043]; FIGS. 1A and 1B show one embodiment of a vehicle beam member 20 which may be stiffened by bonding of one or more layers of carbon fiber (CF) prepregs to exterior surface(s) of the member 20.), wherein the plurality of layers of carbon fiber comprise at least three layers (30, 40, 50, fig 1a) and wherein carbon fibers of an innermost layer and carbon fibers of an outermost layer have a same alignment relative to a longitudinal axis defined by the first tube (Paragraph [0050]; Other common fiber directions with respect to a defined base member axis (or with respect to the fiber orientation of an adjacent prepreg) are 0, 45, 60 and 90 degrees. (Examiner notes that a 3-layer composite with a 90 degree offset would result in fibers of an innermost layer and carbon fibers of an outermost layer have a same alignment relative to a longitudinal axis defined by the first tube, as claimed.)), and wherein the second tube is bonded to the first tube (Paragraph [0043]; FIGS. 1A and 1B show … bonding of one or more layers of carbon fiber (CF) prepregs to exterior surface(s) of the member 20.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the window treatment of Fleischman with the composite tube of Zaluzec. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to optimize the strength and/or stiffness of the roller tube for the desired application (See fig 9 of Zaluzec).
Regarding claim 2.
The combination of Fleischman and Zaluzec teaches all limitations of claim 1.
The combination (in Zaluzec) further teaches the plurality of layers of carbon fiber are layers of wound carbon fiber filament (Paragraph [0029]; Prepregs are available in which all of the carbon fibers in the prepreg are oriented predominantly along or parallel to a single axis. Such prepregs are commonly known as "unidirectional prepregs".).
Regarding claim 3.
The combination of Fleischman and Zaluzec teaches all limitations of claim 1.
The combination (in Zaluzec) further teaches the roller tube is a second tube is additively constructed on first tube (Paragraph [0022]; It has been found that the strength and stiffness of a beam member may be enhanced by wrapping a carbon fiber prepreg around a beam member and bonding the prepreg to the beam member).
Regarding claim 7.
The combination of Fleischman and Zaluzec teaches all limitations of claim 3.
The combination (in Zaluzec) further teaches the first tube is aluminum or steel (Paragraph [0044]; Beam member 20 may be formed from steel, aluminum or any suitable material).
Regarding claim 8.
The combination of Fleischman and Zaluzec teaches all limitations of claim 7.
The combination (in Zaluzec) further teaches the second tube (30,40,50, fig 1b) is attached to the first tube by curing the plurality of layers of carbon fiber (Paragraph [0028]; Various embodiments of the prepregs described herein may be bonded directly to associated exterior surfaces of the beam member (or portions thereof) by curing of the adhesive matrix in which the carbon fibers are encased.).
Regarding claim 9.
The combination of Fleischman and Zaluzec teaches all limitations of claim 8.
The combination (in Zaluzec) further teaches the plurality of layers of carbon fiber are wound carbon fiber filament (Paragraph [0029]; Prepregs are available in which all of the carbon fibers in the prepreg are oriented predominantly along or parallel to a single axis. … the prepreg material may be in the form of a thin tape which may be wound around the beam member as desired).
Regarding claim 10.
The combination of Fleischman and Zaluzec teaches all limitations of claim 8.
The combination (in Zaluzec) further teaches the plurality of layers of carbon fiber are carbon fiber fabric (Paragraph [0029]; prepregs are available in which the fibers or bundles of fibers are woven into a fabric structure having interlaced or interlocking arrangement).
Regarding claim 12.
The combination of Fleischman and Zaluzec teaches all limitations of claim 1.
The combination (in Zaluzec) further teaches fibers of adjacent layers of the plurality of layers of carbon fiber are angularly offset from one another (Paragraph [0005]; A fiber orientation of the second prepreg is arranged at a non-zero angle with respect to a fiber orientation of the first prepreg.).
Regarding claim 13.
The combination of Fleischman and Zaluzec teaches all limitations of claim 1.
The combination (in Zaluzec) further teaches fibers of at least one layer of the plurality of layers of carbon fiber are oriented perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (Paragraph [0050]; common fiber directions with respect to a defined base member axis (or with respect to the fiber orientation of an adjacent prepreg) are 0, 45, 60 and 90 degrees.) defined by the first tube to enhance cracking resistance.
Regarding claim 14.
The combination of Fleischman and Zaluzec teaches all limitations of claim 1.
The combination does not explicitly teach the fibers of the innermost layer and the fibers of the outermost layer are not angularly offset relative to the longitudinal axis defined by the first tube.
However, Zaluzec describes an experiment involving the bonding of twenty-eight successive layers of the prepreg to the aluminum beam member. (Paragraph [0063]; Successive layers or sheets of 0/90 degree fiber composite prepreg (wherein each layer is formed from a series of alternating 0.degree. and 90.degree. plies) were bonded to the beam member). This resulted in two sets of 14 layers of parallel orientation of fibers having a same alignment relative to a longitudinal axis defined by the first tube.
It would have been therefore obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination of Fleischman and Zaluzec to have the fibers of the innermost layer and the fibers of the outermost layer are not angularly offset relative to the longitudinal axis defined by the first tube.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to optimize the strength and/or stiffness of the roller tube for the desired application (See fig 9 of Zaluzec.).
Regarding claim 22.
The combination of Fleischman and Zaluzec teaches all limitations of claim 1.
The combination (in Zaluzec) further teaches the plurality of layers of carbon fiber are carbon fiber fabric (Paragraph [0029]; prepregs are available in which the fibers or bundles of fibers are woven into a fabric structure having interlaced or interlocking arrangement).
Regarding claim 23.
The combination of Fleischman and Zaluzec teaches all limitations of claim 1.
The combination (in Zaluzec) further teaches the first tube (20, fig 1b) comprises an outer surface bonded (Paragraph [0043]; FIGS. 1A and 1B show … bonding of one or more layers of carbon fiber (CF) prepregs to exterior surface(s) of the member 20.) to the second tube and an inner surface defining a cylindrical void (See fig 1b).
Claim(s) 4, 15, 19-20, and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over French Patent 2872196 – Benoin in view of Zaluzec.
Regarding claim 4.
Benoin discloses a motorized window treatment (1, fig 1) comprising:
a roller tube comprising a plurality of layers of carbon fiber (13, fig 1 – also see attached translation excerpt inserted below) comprising an innermost layer of carbon fiber material and an outermost layer of carbon fiber material (examiner notes that any number of layers (see attached translation excerpt inserted below) must at least have an innermost layer and an outermost layer as dictated by the geometry of the part.); and
a covering material (See page 1, lines 4-8) that is attached to the roller tube, the covering material operable between a raised position and a lowered position via rotation of the roller tube by a motor drive unit (See page 1, lines 4-8).
Benoin does not explicitly disclose successively applied layers of carbon fiber, comprising an intermediate layer of carbon fiber material bonded to the innermost layer, and an outermost layer of carbon fiber material that surrounds the intermediate layer and the innermost layer, wherein the innermost layer and the outermost layer are each oriented such that fibers of the respective layers have a same alignment relative to a longitudinal axis of the roller tube, and wherein fibers of the intermediate layer have an alignment relative to the longitudinal axis of the roller tube that is different from the alignment of the innermost layer and the outermost layer.
However, Zaluzec teaches a plurality of successively applied layers of carbon fiber (30, 40, 50, figs 1a and 1b), comprising an innermost layer of carbon fiber material (30, fig 1a), an intermediate layer of carbon fiber material (40, fig 1a) bonded to the innermost layer, and an outermost layer of carbon fiber material (50, fig 1a) that surrounds the intermediate layer and the innermost layer (See fig 1a), wherein the innermost layer and the outermost layer are each oriented such that fibers of the respective layers have a same alignment relative to a longitudinal axis of the roller tube (Paragraph [0050]; Other common fiber directions with respect to a defined base member axis (or with respect to the fiber orientation of an adjacent prepreg) are 0, 45, 60 and 90 degrees. (Examiner notes that a 3-layer composite with a 90 degree offset would result in fibers of an innermost layer and carbon fibers of an outermost layer have a same alignment relative to a longitudinal axis defined by the first tube, as claimed.)), and wherein fibers of the intermediate layer have an alignment relative to the longitudinal axis of the roller tube that is different from the alignment of the innermost layer and the outermost layer (Paragraph [0050]; Other common fiber directions with respect to a defined base member axis (or with respect to the fiber orientation of an adjacent prepreg) are 0, 45, 60 and 90 degrees. (Examiner notes that a 3-layer composite with a 90 degree offset would result in fibers of an intermediate layer have an alignment relative to the longitudinal axis of the roller tube that is different from the alignment of the innermost layer and the outermost layer, as claimed.)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the window treatment of Benoin with the composite tube of Zaluzec. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to optimize the strength and/or stiffness of the roller tube for the desired application (See fig 9 of Zaluzec).
In Attached Translation:
PNG
media_image1.png
118
691
media_image1.png
Greyscale
144.07 Art Recognized Suitability for an Intended Purpose [R-08.2012]
The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)
Regarding claim 15.
The combination of Benoin and Zaluzec teaches all elements of claim 4.
Benoin further discloses the-innermost layer further comprises a plurality of splines that extend radially from a surface of the innermost layer that is opposite relative to a surface of the innermost layer that is bonded to the intermediate layer (Page 3, lines 20-21; des rainures paralleles et des cannelures complemetaires sur le moteur).
Regarding claim 19.
The combination of Benoin and Zaluzec teaches all elements of claim 4.
Benoin further discloses the plurality of layers of carbon fiber is a wound carbon fiber filament (Page 6, line 23-Page 7, line 5; The housing is made of composite material and is obtained by a pultrusion process. In this process, reinforcements in the form of yarns … made of … carbon fibers).
Regarding claim 20.
The combination of Benoin and Zaluzec teaches all elements of claim 4.
Benoin further discloses the plurality of layers of carbon fiber is a carbon fiber fabric (Page 6, line 23-Page 7, line 5; The housing is made of composite material and is obtained by a pultrusion process. In this process, reinforcements in the form of … woven or non-woven mats … made of … carbon fibers).
Regarding claim 25.
The combination of Benoin and Zaluzec teaches all elements of claim 4.
The combination does not explicitly teach the fibers of the innermost layer and the fibers of the outermost layer are not angularly offset relative to the longitudinal axis defined by the first tube.
However, Zaluzec describes an experiment involving the bonding of twenty-eight successive layers of the prepreg to the aluminum beam member. (Paragraph [0063]; Successive layers or sheets of 0/90 degree fiber composite prepreg (wherein each layer is formed from a series of alternating 0.degree. and 90.degree. plies) were bonded to the beam member). This resulted in two sets of 14 layers of parallel orientation of fibers having a same alignment relative to a longitudinal axis defined by the first tube.
It would have been therefore obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination of Fleischman and Zaluzec to have the fibers of the innermost layer and the fibers of the outermost layer are not angularly offset relative to the longitudinal axis defined by the first tube.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to optimize the strength and/or stiffness of the roller tube for the desired application (See fig 9 of Zaluzec.).
Regarding claim 26.
The combination of Benoin and Zaluzec teaches all elements of claim 4.
The combination (in Zaluzec) further teaches fibers of adjacent layers of the plurality of layers of carbon fiber are angularly offset from one another (Paragraph [0005]; A fiber orientation of the second prepreg is arranged at a non-zero angle with respect to a fiber orientation of the first prepreg.).
Regarding claim 27.
The combination of Benoin and Zaluzec teaches all elements of claim 4.
The combination (in Zaluzec) further teaches fibers of at least one layer of the plurality of layers of carbon fiber are oriented perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (Paragraph [0050]; common fiber directions with respect to a defined base member axis (or with respect to the fiber orientation of an adjacent prepreg) are 0, 45, 60 and 90 degrees.) of the roller tube.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Fleischman and Zaluzec as applied above, and further in view of Benoin.
Regarding claim 24.
The combination of Fleischman and Zaluzec teaches all limitations of claim 23.
The combination does not teach the first tube further comprises a plurality of splines that extend radially from the inner surface into the void, and wherein the plurality of splines are oriented along the longitudinal axis of the first tube.
However, Benoin teaches the first tube further comprises a plurality of splines that extend radially from the inner surface into the void, and wherein the plurality of splines are oriented along the longitudinal axis of the first tube (Page 3, lines 20-21; des rainures paralleles et des cannelures complemetaires sur le moteur).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Fleischman and Zaluzec with the splines of Benoin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of allowing interface with a different type of motor drive adapter as suggested in Page 3, lines 20-21 of Benoin “des rainures paralleles et des cannelures complemetaires sur le moteur”, to make use of parts on hand.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant traverses the rejection of claims 1 and 4 on the basis that the combination of Fleischman and Zaluzec is based on an unreasonable level of hindsight. Examiner notes that the rejection of claim 4 is not over the combination of Fleischman and Zaluzec, but rather the combination of Benoin and Zaluzec, as repeated above.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In response to applicant's argument that the wrappings of Zaluzec would necessarily obscure the receiving channels of Fleischman, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In the instant case, there are methods known in the art such that one of ordinary skill could, without undue experimentation, wrap the tube of Fleischman as suggested by Zaluzec in such a manner as to preserve the channels of Fleischman (for example, allowing the wrapping to follow the contours of the tube to wrap the inside of the channel, or cutting a slit in the overwrap to access the channel), or to use an alternate method of attaching the flexible barrier material (Examiner notes that even if the overwrap were weakened by slitting, it would still contribute to an overall increase in strength of the tube at least due to an increase of material, notwithstanding other benefits outlined in Zaluzec).
Applicant argues that, as Fleischman discloses structural members as interior wall segments, that one of ordinary skill in the art would not look to Zaluzec to optimize strength and/or stiffness for a desired application. This is not persuasive, as one of ordinary skill in the art may wish to reinforce the tube beyond what is practical for geometries relying solely on interior wall segments for providing rigidity, such as, for example, repurposing existing extrusions (or dies) for longer and/or heavier curtains.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN W HANES JR whose telephone number is (571)272-8840. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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, Daniel Cahn can be reached at 571-270-5616. 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.
/J.W.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3634
/DANIEL P CAHN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights