DETAILED ACTION
The following Non-Final Office Action is in response to the application filed 11/5/2021.
Status of the claims: Claims 1-12 are hereby examined below.
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
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The current abstract is more than 150 words in length.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 4- 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 3 recites “the slat top sides”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the slat top sides”.
Claim 1,lines 4-5 recite “upper fold angle β2 and a lower fold angle β2” Examiner presumes this should read -- upper fold angle β2 and a lower fold angle β1-- .
Claim 1, line 8 recites “the inclination angles”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1, lines 8-9 recites “the fold sides”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1, line 9 recites “the installation state”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1, line 11 recites “the upper half space”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1, line 11 recites “the angle”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4, line 2 recites “the slat edge”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites “the edge zone” and “the floor plane”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 6 recites “the chords” and “the edge zone”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 7 recites “the slat edges”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites “the slat edges”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
This list is not exhaustive, as there are numerous limitations in the claims which do not have proper antecedent basis. Applicant should thoroughly check the claims for these.
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 1-12 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claim 1, line 1 recites “a preliminary product”. Although the language is functional, it is unclear what this is.
Claim 1, line 5 recites “the folds”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, and it is unclear what “the folds” is referring to.
Claim 1, line 13 recites “fold shaped”. It is unclear what it means to be “fold shaped” and what exactly this requires.
Claim 1 recites “stackable slats”, “the slats”, “at least two slats”, “an upper slat” and “a bottom slat”, “a top slat” and “the overlying slat”. It is unclear if these are referring to the same or different slats, just how many slats are being claimed and what their relationship is to each other.
Claim 1, lines 10-12 are generally confusing and unclear. Line 11 recites “the upper half space”. It is unclear what exactly “the upper half space” is. Line 11 recites “is angled at the angle β1”. It is unclear what is angled and to what it is angled with respect to.
Claim 1, line 17-22 are generally confusing and unclear. Lines 18-19 recites “at least one larger fold angle β3 and/or β4 relative to the contour zone”. Is applicant claiming one fold angle or multiple? The use of “and/or” in lines 19-20 make the claim difficult to understand. Lines 20-22 recite “is embodied without a fold side facing away from the light vis-à-vis very high light incident”. Examiner does not know what this means.
Claim 1, lines 25-26 recites “the edge zone contour RZ of the overlying slat does not penetrate through the edge zone RZ of the bottom slat contour”. It is unclear what this means. There is also no antecedent basis for the “the bottom slat contour”.
Claim 1, lines 27-28 recites “the edge zone RZ of the top slat has no area portion from the upper half space that face away vis-à-vis relatively high lateral light incidence”. The examiner does not know what this means. It is unclear what “the upper half space is” or what is actually being claimed.
Claim 1, line 31 recites “the top and bottom slat types”. Is this different from the top and bottom slats? What is a slat type?
Claim 1, lines 40-47 are confusing. Lines 40-41 recites “with the slat preliminary products bifocal sun protection hangings are producible”. What does this mean? What is “the lower hanging region” of line 41? Line 44 recites “high angles of incidence from the sun”. What is required to be a high angle of incidence?
Claim 2 recites “a fold angle β3/ β4. Is this different from the fold angle recited in claim 1? Claim 2 recites “that is > β2 the fold angle in the contour zone K” Should this read – that is greater than the lower fold angle β2 --? It is unclear where there is antecedent basis for the fold angle in the contour zone K.
Claim 4 recites “so steeply” and “shallow sunlight”. These are terms of relative degree and it is unclear what defines either.
Claim 4, line 6 recites “the shadow line between an upper slat and a lower slat”. It is unclear what the “shadow line” is.
It is unclear where the limitations of claim 4 are shown in the Figures and what is actually being claimed.
Claim 5 states that reflected sunlight impinging from below is able to be reflected at a first segment and that reflected lateral light is able to be reflected onto a second segment RZi2 > 0° into the interior. It is unclear what “a second segment RZi2 > 0° into the interior” actually means. Its unclear where these limitations are shown in the figures and what is actually being claimed.
Claim 6 recites “high lateral light incidence angles”. It is unclear what is required to be a “high” lateral light incidence angle as this is a relative term.
Claim 7 recites “shallowly incident lateral light at a shallow angle”. It is unclear what is required to be a “shallow” incident lateral light as this is a relative term. Furthermore, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 8 recites at least one fold on one side and/or the other side is covered by appendages. Does applicant intend that multiple appendages cover a single fold or that a fold is covered by a respective appendage. Furthermore, applicant recites “each of the appendages” in line 6, thus if applicant is claiming a single appendage covers a fold, it is unclear if there is support for the use of “or” and that both sides must have appendages.
Claim 8 recites “the latter”. It is unclear what this is referring back to.
Claim 9 recites “preferably”. It is unclear if the limitations that follow are actually required or not.
Claim 10 recites “fold structure (K)” and “a folded contour K”, while claim 1 recites a contour zone K. It is confusing to have the same reference symbol for different terms and it is unclear if the fold structure and folded contour are the same or different from the contour zone.
Claim 10 recites “Window hanging” and “the window hangings”. It is unclear if there is one or a plurality of window hangings.
Claim 10 recites “in the upper window region only the insolation incident in the contour zone K is deflectable back into the upper half-space on the side of this lateral radiation incidence and lateral radiation incident on the slat edge zones RZ is deflectable at least partly in the direction of the half-space opposite the lateral light incidence, such that in particular zenith radiation is deflectable via a section of the window hangings that is provided for an upper light region into the half-space opposite the lateral light incidence.in particular zenith radiation is deflectable via a section of the window hangings that is provided for an upper light region into the half-space opposite the lateral light incidence”. While this limitation is stated once in the specification, it is unclear what structure supports this claim and how it is achieved.
The above list is not exhaustive, as there are numerous limitations in the claims which are confusing and unclear. Applicant should thoroughly examine the claims to ensure clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: appendages (12,13) are not labeled.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitations of claims 4 and 5 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
As best understood, claims 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Koester DE19828542.
In regard to claim 1, with reference to Figures 11-13, Koester ‘542 discloses stackable slats for directing light as a preliminary product for blind sun protection hangings for directing light, comprising slats (unnumbered) having metallic reflector lustre at least at the slat top sides (claim 15 states that the tooth sides are mirrors by metal vapor disposition ) , wherein the slats are folded at least partly angularly in the longitudinal direction and an upper fold angle (at 122, Fig. 13) and a lower fold angle (to the left, opposite of 122) between the folds arise in a horizontal slat position, wherein at least one portion of the folds has in each case a lateral light irradiation side (left side in Fig. 11) and a lateral light shadow side (right side in Fig. 11), such that on account of the inclination angles of the fold sides at least one lateral light irradiation side (left side) in the installation state faces incident sunlight and a lateral light shadow side (right side) faces away relative to the lateral light from the upper half space and is angled at the angle (as best understood the upper fold angle 122), and wherein at least two slats lying one on top of another at least partly have a fold-shaped contour zone (where 122 is), in which the slats are able to be placed one on top of another shape-complementarily (Fig. 13) and have at least one edge zone (92,95 for the slat of Fig. 11, and as shown below for Fig. 12),
PNG
media_image1.png
212
455
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
272
442
media_image2.png
Greyscale
characterized in that - an upper slat (shown in Fig. 11) lying on a bottom slat (shown in Fig. 12) in the installation state at least in an edge zone (92,93) on the lateral light incidence side has at least one larger fold angle (shown above) relative to the contour zone (where 122 is), and is embodied such that it is extended in the longitudinal direction and is embodied without a fold side facing away from the light vis-a-vis very high light incidence, such that at least one edge zone (92,93) of a top slat is shaped differently from an edge zone (shown above) of a bottom slat, wherein - the edge zone (92,93) contour of the overlying slat (Fig. 11) does not penetrate through the edge zone (shown above) of the bottom slat (Fig. 12) contour, and the edge zone (92,93) of the top slat has no area portions from the upper half-space that face away vis-a-vis relatively high lateral light incidence, such that the slats are stackable in a blind assembly despite different cross-sectional contours in the edge zones of the top and bottom slats (shown in Fig. 13), wherein in the region of the contour zone (where 122 is) of the top and bottom slat types at the lateral light incidence sides (left), lateral light is able to be reflected back in the direction of that half space from which the lateral light is incident (reflected rays shown in Fig. 12 going back to the left), and that at the upper slat lateral light is deflectable at least partly at an edge zone (92,93) in the direction of that half-space which is opposite the half-space of the lateral light incidence (reflected rays shown in Fig. 11 going to the right), and that at the bottom slat lateral light at least in the edge zone (shown above) on the lateral light incidence side is able to be reflected back into the half-space from which the lateral light is incident (reflected rays shown going back in dashed lines in Fig. above), such that with the slat preliminary products bifocal blind sun protection hangings are producible, by means of which in the lower hanging region through the bottom slats (Fig. 12) lateral light is reflected back substantially into the half-space of the light incidence (to the left) and in the upper region of the blind sun protection hanging through the overlying slats lateral light with high angles of incidence from the sun is able to be reflected at least partly into the half-space opposite (to the right) the lateral light incidence and is able to be reflected back into the half-space of the light incidence (to the left) by way of the shape-complementary contour zone.
As best understood, in regard to claim 2, Koester ‘542 discloses the edge zones (92,93 and shown above in Fig. 12) of the overlying slats have a fold angle (shown above) that is greater than the fold angle (of 122) in the contour zone, such that the contours of the edge zone (92,93) of the overlying slat (of Fig. 11) form self-supporting wing elements which serve as light reflectors and form a reflection focus on the half-space opposite the half-space of the light incidence.
As best understood, in regard to claim 3, Koester ‘542 discloses the top slats (Fig. 11) in the edge zone (92,93) are extended.
As best understood, in regard to claim 4, Koester ‘542 discloses the slat edge (forming 93) of a top slat (Fig. 11) with respect to the lateral light incidence side in terms of their angle inclination with respect to the horizontal is arranged so steeply that shallow sunlight (horizontal) incident on the underside of the slat edge (forming 93), is able to be reflected substantially onto the top side of the lower slat at an angle >as, the angle of the shadow line between an upper slat and a lower slat. (when the slat of Fig. 11 is tilted slightly up, light should reflect down off section 93)
As best understood, in regard to claim 5 Koester ‘542 discloses the edge zone (of Fig. 12, shown above) located in the half-space opposite (to the right) the lateral light incidence is embodied in a bent fashion, such that reflected sunlight impinging from below is able to be reflected at a first segment (forming 96) onto the floor plane and reflected lateral light is able to be reflected onto a second segment ( to the left of 96) into the interior.
As best understood, in regard to claim 6, Koester ‘542 discloses chords (forming 93) between slat edges in the edge zone RZ at the lateral light incidence side in the envisaged operating state are formed at angles of at least 00 to 30 (Fig. 11 shows 34°) with respect to the horizontal, such that high lateral light incidence angles between the slats are deflectable into the half-space opposite the lateral light incidence.
As best understood, in regard to claim 7, Koester ‘542 discloses the chords (forming 93) of the slat edges on the interior side are inclined by 0 to 30 (Fig. 11 shows 34° )with respect to the horizontal and shallowly incident lateral light at a shallow angle with respect to the horizontal, in particular of 0 to 90°, is deflectable into the half-space opposite the lateral light incidence.
As best understood, in regard to claim 8, Koester ‘542 discloses at least one fold at the slat edges (forming 96) on the side facing away from the lateral light incidence is at least partly covered by appendages (forming 93) wrapped upwards, and in that lateral light impinging on the latter is at least partly deflectable into the half-space opposite the lateral light incidence, such that a bifocal light deflection arises, wherein each of the appendages produces a focus.
As best understood, in regard to claim 9, Koester ‘542 discloses at least the bottommost slat for an upper window region can be inserted into at least the topmost slat in the lower window region (shown below), wherein in particular the slats for an upper window region and the slats for a lower window region can be combined in each case to form a slat assembly, wherein particularly preferably all slats are able to be combined to form a slat assembly.
PNG
media_image3.png
315
699
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 10, Koester ‘542 discloses a window hanging consisting of a multiplicity of slats (shown above) according to having light-reflecting slat top sides, wherein the slats have a fold structure (at 122) in cross section and the window hangings comprise at least two slat types having different contours (as shown above in claim 9) for an upper window region and a lower window region, characterized in that the slats for the upper window region and for the lower window region have a folded contour (at 122) at least in the slat cross-sectional center, and the slats in the upper window region on the side of the half-space opposite the lateral light incidence (right side) have different contours in the edge zones (92,93), which are embodied such that the slats are stackable and in the upper window region only the insolation incident in the contour zone is deflectable back into the upper half-space on the side of this lateral radiation incidence (as stated in claim 1) and lateral radiation incident on the slat edge zones is deflectable at least partly in the direction of the half-space opposite the lateral light incidence (as stated in claim 1), such that in particular zenith radiation is deflectable via a section of the window hangings that is provided for an upper light region into the half-space opposite the lateral light incidence.
As best understood, in regard to claims 11 and 12, Koester ‘542 discloses at least the bottommost slat for an upper window region can be inserted into at least the topmost slat in the lower window region, wherein in particular the slats for an upper window region and the slats for a lower window region can be combined in each case to form a slat assembly, wherein particularly preferably all slats are able to be combined to form a slat assembly. (as shown above in claim 9 )
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMY C RAMSEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3133. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Wed 7:00-3:30.
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, 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.
/JEREMY C RAMSEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3634
/DANIEL P CAHN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3634