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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because it doesn’t appear to the examiner that there is a figure that depicts all the features of the claimed and elected embodiment. For example, figure 1a only shows a first panel, and none of figures 1b, 5, 6 and 9-11 appear to show one of the panels being stationary while the other translates.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
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 second panel being configured to be shifted in the longitudinal direction as the second shade panel is raised” from claim 6 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-9, and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Hall (US 20180163461) in view of Yang (US 20130163062).
Regarding claim 1, Hall teaches a motorized window treatment (fig. 4a) comprising:
a roller tube (130 in front in fig. 4a);
a covering material (140 in fig. 5a) that is attached to the roller tube, wherein the covering material comprises:
a first panel (140 in front); and
a second panel (140 in rear); and
a motor (160) configured to be located within the roller tube (fig. 5a), the motor comprising a motor drive shaft defining a motor drive shaft (motors inevitably have some form of a rotating component/shaft, as well as a stationary component that allows the shaft to rotate relative to the stationary component. In Hall, the outside face of the motor is considered the shaft as it rotates per paragraph 26) rotational axis in a longitudinal direction (axis of rotation), the motor drive shaft configured to rotate the roller tube to adjust the covering material between a raised position and a lowered position (paragraph 26);
wherein the motorized window treatment is configured to adjust a visible light transmittance of the covering material by adjusting, while the first panel remains stationary, the second panel between a first position and a second position with respect to the first panel (the rollers are selectively actuated per paragraph 23, light transmittance is adjusted as the second panel is actuated).
Hall does not explicitly teach that the first panel has a plurality of first fabric strands defining a first mesh weave having a first pattern and defining a first plurality of vertices, that the second panel has a plurality of second fabric strands defining a second mesh weave having a second pattern and defining a second plurality of vertices; and wherein the plurality of second fabric strands is aligned with the plurality of first fabric strands when the second panel is in the first position, and wherein the plurality of second fabric strands is unaligned with the plurality of first fabric strands and the second plurality of vertices is located at a midpoint between the first plurality of vertices when the second panel is in the second position.
Yang teaches a window treatment with a plurality of first strands defining a first mesh weave (101, paragraph 109) having a first pattern (fig. 1a) and defining a first plurality of vertices (fig. 1a), that the second panel (102) has a plurality of second strands defining a second mesh weave (paragraph 109) having a second pattern and defining a second plurality of vertices (fig. 1c); and wherein the plurality of second strands is aligned with the plurality of first strands when the second panel is in a first position (as is shown in fig. 1D, paragraph 102), and wherein the plurality of second strands is unaligned with the plurality of first strands and the second plurality of vertices is located at a midpoint between the first plurality of vertices when the second panel is in a second position (fig. 1f, paragraph 105).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Hall with teachings of Yang so that the first panel has a plurality of first strands defining a first mesh weave having a first pattern and defining a first plurality of vertices, that the second panel has a plurality of second strands defining a second mesh weave having a second pattern and defining a second plurality of vertices; and wherein the plurality of second strands is aligned with the plurality of first strands when the second panel is in the first position, and wherein the plurality of second strands is unaligned with the plurality of first strands and the second plurality of vertices is located at a midpoint between the first plurality of vertices when the second panel is in the second position. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of allowing a user to adjust light transmittance of the shade by moving only a single roller.
The examiner notes that this combination discloses the claimed invention except for the plurality of first strands and the plurality of second strands being fabric strands. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make these strands fabric strands, 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. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of using a cheap and easy to acquire material for the covering materials.
Regarding claim 2, modified Hall teaches that the first panel is parallel to the second panel (fig. 5a).
Regarding claim 3, modified Hall does not teach that the first panel is on a window side of the motorized window treatment and the second panel is on a non-window side of the motorized window treatment.
The examiner notes that the courts have held that the particular placement of a component was held to be an obvious matter of design choice. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further modify Hall so that the first panel is on a window side of the motorized window treatment and the second panel is on a non-window side of the motorized window treatment. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of allowing for user specified lighting characteristics.
Regarding claim 4, modified Hall teaches that the plurality of first fabric strands and the plurality of second strands are configured such that the visible light transmittance is approximately zero when the second panel is in the second position (paragraph 105 of Yang after the modification above).
Regarding claim 5, modified Hall teaches that the first pattern and the second pattern are the same (fig. 1a and 1c).
Regarding claim 6, modified Hall teaches that the second panel is configured to be shifted in the longitudinal direction as the second panel is raised to adjust the visible light transmittance of the covering material (after the modification above, the second panel is shifted in the longitudinal direction, while is able to happen as the shade is raised).
Regarding claim 7, modified Hall teaches that when the second panel is in the first position (fig. 1D of Yang), the first mesh weave is aligned with the second mesh weave such that the visible light transmittance of the covering material is at a maximum (fig. 1D).
Regarding claim 8, modified Hall teaches that when the second panel is in the second position (fig. 1f), the second plurality of vertices is located at a midpoint between the first plurality of vertices such that the visible light transmittance of the covering material is at a minimum (fig. 1f, paragraph 105).
Regarding claim 9, modified Hall teaches that the second panel is configured to be translated in two dimensions (up and down movement from Hall, and the longitudinal movement from the modification with Yang).
Regarding claims 24-25, modified Hall further teaches one or more wireless communication components (800) configured to communicate wireless messages with an external control device (mobile device from paragraph 32), wherein the motorized window treatment is configured to adjust the visible light transmittance of the covering material based on control instructions received from the external control device by the one or more wireless communication components (paragraph 32).
Claim(s) 34 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall (US 20180163461) in view of Yang (US 20130163062) as applied above, and further in view of Dorsey (US 20060082987).
Regarding claims 34 and 36, modified Hall does not teach a plurality of light sources located in the flexible material; and a control unit configured to control one or more of an intensity or a color of the plurality of light sources, wherein the motorized window treatment is configured to adjust one or more of the color or the pattern of the flexible material.
Dorsey teaches a shading device (27) with a plurality of light sources (20, fig. 4) located in a flexible material of a covering material (fig. 4); and a control unit (62) configured to control one or more of an intensity or a color of the plurality of light sources (paragraph 60), wherein the device is configured to adjust one or more of the color or the pattern of the flexible material (paragraph 60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further modify Hall by including the teachings of Dorsey so that there is a plurality of light sources located in the flexible material; and a control unit configured to control one or more of an intensity or a color of the plurality of light sources, wherein the motorized window treatment is configured to adjust one or more of the color or the pattern of the flexible material. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of the device being customizable to be lit in different ways according to user preference to set different moods in the room.
Claim(s) 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall (US 20180163461) in view of Yang (US 20130163062) as applied above, and further in view of Cheng (US 20160319591).
Regarding claim 37, modified Hall does not teach that the first pattern is different than the second pattern.
Cheng teaches a window treatment with a first panel with a first pattern that is different that a patten of a second panel (as shown in fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further modify Hall so that the first pattern is different than the second pattern. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of maximize the lighting characteristics wanted by a user.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/2/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that: “Yang discloses a mechanical smart window 100 with two movable layers 101, 102 that are housed between two stationary transparent layers (i.e., panes of a double-paned window) (Yang, para. [0090] and [0098]-[0100]). Therefore, Yang perceived a need to allow for the light- transmissivity of the window to be continuously tunable between a maximum and minimum light-transmissivity supported by the layers (Yang, para. [0009]). But, the subject matter of the claims is not directed to adjusting a light-transmissivity of a window itself; instead, the subject matter of claim 1 adjusts the visible light transmittance of a covering material that is adjacent to a window (e.g., without having to modify the window itself). That is, the mechanical smart window 100 in Yang is not a motorized window treatment. And, the movable layers 101, 102 in Yang are not a covering material of a motorized window treatment much less comprise a plurality of strands. Instead, the movable layers 101, 102 are substantially transparent materials (i.e., glass, acrylic, UV-stabilized acrylic, or other polymers) with an opaque material applied thereto (Yang, paras. [0106]-[0107]). Thus, Yang does not teach or suggest at least the first panel has a plurality offirst fabric strands defining a first mesh weave having a first pattern and defining a first plurality of vertices, that the second panel has a plurality of second fabric strands defining a second mesh weave having a second pattern and defining a second plurality of vertices.
Moreover, the movable layers 101, 102 in Yang are not part of a covering material that is attached to a roller tube, as recited in claim 1. Instead, Yang discloses that movable layers 801, 802, 803, 804 (e.g., which are similar to movable layers 101, 102) are connected at different locations along respective parallel links 820, 822 (i.e., pivot arms) that pivot to adjust the movable layers 801, 802, 803, 804 with respect to one another (Yang, paras. [0141]-[0146]). And, the Office Action does not address how the pivot arms of Yang would integrate with the roller tubes of Hall. That is, the structure of the claimed motorized window treatment that adjusts the visible light transmittance of the covering material would not have been obvious to those skilled in the art when combining the teachings of Yang and Hall.
Thus, the subject matter of claim 1 as a whole would not have been obvious, from the teachings of Hall and Yang, to a person of ordinary skill in the art as of the relevant time.”
The examiner notes that all the limitations as claimed are taught by the rejection above, and that the combination would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Hall is found to teach a motorized window treatment (fig. 4a) comprising:
a roller tube (130 in front in fig. 4a);
a covering material (140 in fig. 5a) that is attached to the roller tube, wherein the covering material comprises:
a first panel (140 in front); and
a second panel (140 in rear); and
a motor (160) configured to be located within the roller tube (fig. 5a), the motor comprising a motor drive shaft defining a motor drive shaft (motors inevitably have some form of a rotating component/shaft, as well as a stationary component that allows the shaft to rotate relative to the stationary component. In Hall, the outside face of the motor is considered the shaft as it rotates per paragraph 26) rotational axis in a longitudinal direction (axis of rotation), the motor drive shaft configured to rotate the roller tube to adjust the covering material between a raised position and a lowered position (paragraph 26);
wherein the motorized window treatment is configured to adjust a visible light transmittance of the covering material by adjusting, while the first panel remains stationary, the second panel between a first position and a second position with respect to the first panel (the rollers are selectively actuated per paragraph 23, light transmittance is adjusted as the second panel is actuated).
Hall does not explicitly teach that the first panel has a plurality of first fabric strands defining a first mesh weave having a first pattern and defining a first plurality of vertices, that the second panel has a plurality of second fabric strands defining a second mesh weave having a second pattern and defining a second plurality of vertices; and wherein the plurality of second fabric strands is aligned with the plurality of first fabric strands when the second panel is in the first position, and wherein the plurality of second fabric strands is unaligned with the plurality of first fabric strands and the second plurality of vertices is located at a midpoint between the first plurality of vertices when the second panel is in the second position.
Yang is found to teach a window treatment with a plurality of first strands defining a first mesh weave (101, paragraph 109) having a first pattern (fig. 1a) and defining a first plurality of vertices (fig. 1a), that the second panel (102) has a plurality of second strands defining a second mesh weave (paragraph 109) having a second pattern and defining a second plurality of vertices (fig. 1c); and wherein the plurality of second strands is aligned with the plurality of first strands when the second panel is in a first position (as is shown in fig. 1D, paragraph 102), and wherein the plurality of second strands is unaligned with the plurality of first strands and the second plurality of vertices is located at a midpoint between the first plurality of vertices when the second panel is in a second position (fig. 1f, paragraph 105).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Hall with teachings of Yang so that the first panel has a plurality of first strands defining a first mesh weave having a first pattern and defining a first plurality of vertices, that the second panel has a plurality of second strands defining a second mesh weave having a second pattern and defining a second plurality of vertices; and wherein the plurality of second strands is aligned with the plurality of first strands when the second panel is in the first position, and wherein the plurality of second strands is unaligned with the plurality of first strands and the second plurality of vertices is located at a midpoint between the first plurality of vertices when the second panel is in the second position. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of allowing a user to adjust light transmittance of the shade by moving only a single roller.
The examiner notes that this combination discloses the claimed invention except for the plurality of first strands and the plurality of second strands being fabric strands. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make these strands fabric strands, 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. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of using a cheap and easy to acquire material for the covering materials.
It is noted that Yang is not used to teach the motorized window treatment nor a roller tube, as that is taught by the Hall reference. In regards to the argument that Yang does not teach the panels being made of fabric strands, the examiner again directs attention to paragraph 109 of the Yang reference where a woven mesh made of strands is clearly taught. The modification is to then make these strands to be made of fabric.
The applicant argues that “Claim 1 requires that the covering material - that comprises a first panel and a second panel - be attached to the roller tube (i.e., not multiple roller tubes). Hall is silent with respect to a covering material having a first panel and a second panel, attached to one roller tube. Instead, Hall discloses that a film 140 can be attached to each of a plurality of rollers 130 (Hall, para. [0027] and FIG. 5A). And, attaching separate films 140 to separate rollers 130 cannot be said to be the same as a covering material attached to the roller tube, as claimed.
Yang does not cure the deficiencies of Hall. Yang is completely silent with respect to covering materials much less a covering material attached to a roller tube.
Thus, Hall and Yang do not teach or suggest at least a covering material that is attached to the roller tube, wherein the covering material comprises a first panel with a plurality of first fabric strands defining a first mesh weave having a first pattern and defining a first plurality of vertices; and a second panel with a plurality of second fabric strands defining a second mesh weave having a second pattern and defining a second plurality of vertices.”
The examiner notes that the rejection above teaches all the limitations as claimed. The claim simply requires “a roller tube (130 in front in fig. 4a); a covering material (140 in fig. 5a) that is attached to the roller tube, wherein the covering material comprises: a first panel (140 in front); and a second panel (140 in rear)”. This is clearly taught by Hall, as a part of the covering material, i.e. the first panel, is attached to the roller tube. It is also noted that the second panel is at least indirectly attached to the same roller tube. The claim does not require the entirety of the first and the second panels to both be directly attached to a single roller tube.
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 MATTHEW R SHEPHERD whose telephone number is (571)272-5657. 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.
/M.S./ Examiner, Art Unit 3634
/DANIEL P CAHN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3634