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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s submission dated 11/21/2025 has been entered.
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, 4, 5, 10, 15-17, 23, 24, 28, 32, 33, and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. 1,987,657 – Arms in view of US Pat. 9,797,188 – Rettig.
Regarding claim 1.
Arms discloses a covering (fig 1) for an architectural structure (See fig 1), the covering comprising:
an upper rail (at 11, fig 1);
a bottom rail (Below 16, fig 2) configured to be spaced apart from the upper rail (See fig 2);
an intermediate rail (14, fig 2) positioned between the upper rail and the bottom rail (See fig 2);
a first shade panel (12, fig 1) supported between the upper rail and the intermediate rail (See fig 1) and having a first shade configuration;
a second shade panel (including 16, fig 1) supported between the intermediate rail and the bottom rail (See fig 1) and having a second shade configuration, the second shade configuration differing from the first shade configuration (See fig 1);
a first operating system (Column 2, lines 9-11; a conventional spring roller 11 is mounted in the usual manner, a shade 12 being wound on said roller) provided in operative association with the upper rail (See fig 1) and configured to allow the first shade panel to be extended and retracted as a spacing between the upper rail and the intermediate rail is increased and decreased (Compare figs 1 and 6), respectively, the first operating system requiring a first minimum operating force to be applied downwardly thereto to extend the first shade panel (Column 3, lines 1-2; said cord 26 being also utilized for vertically adjusting the shade.) and increase the spacing between the upper rail and the intermediate rail (Compare figs 1 and 6); and
a second operating system (Column 2, lines 43-55; The adjusting mechanism can be of any desired design and arrangement, and in Figs. 1 and 8 of the drawings l have shown the shade cord 26 anchored to the upper blind slat by means of a tack 27, thence leading upwardly through the eyelet 28 provided in the curtain, with the end hanging free. A similar cord 29 is anchored directly adjacent the opposite edge of the slat, thence leading up and over said slat, with the free end hanging in close proximity to the curtain cord, and it will be obvious that the blind can be readily tilted or adjusted by pulling on either one of said cords) provided in one of the intermediate rail (See fig 8) or the bottom rail, and
wherein the intermediate rail, the second shade panel, and the bottom rail are supported directly by the first shade panel without cords between the upper rail and the intermediate rail (See fig 1).
Arms does not disclose that the second operating system is configured to allow the second shade panel to be extended and retracted as a spacing between the intermediate rail and the bottom rail is increased and decreased, respectively, the second operating system requiring a second minimum operating force to be applied downwardly thereto to extend the second shade panel and increase the spacing between the intermediate rail and the bottom rail, wherein the second minimum operating force is less than the first minimum operating force.
However, Rettig teaches a second operating system (including 55b and 56b, fig 2) is configured to allow the second shade panel (38, fig 3) to be extended and retracted as a spacing between the intermediate rail (18, fig 3) and the bottom rail (22, fig 3) is increased and decreased, respectively, the second operating system requiring a second minimum operating force to be applied downwardly thereto to extend the second shade panel and increase the spacing between the intermediate rail and the bottom rail, wherein the second minimum operating force is less than the first minimum operating force (Column 5, lines 40-57; The connection between consecutive rails 14, 18 is sufficient to be maintained while allowing a third rail 22 to be adjusted in relation to the consecutive rails 14, 18. … Once the magnetic connection is formed, the magnetic retention assembly 98 is in the first or engaged configuration (shown in FIG. 5). The user can then adjust the position of the bottom (or third) rail 22 (shown in FIGS. 1-3) in relation to the head (or first) rail 14 and the intermediate (or second) rail 18, while maintaining the connection between the head (or first) rail 14 and the intermediate (or second) rail 18.).
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 covering of Arms with the operating system of Rettig. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of allowing the selective extension and retraction of the second shade panel.
Regarding claim 4.
The combination of Arms and Rettig teaches all limitations of claim 1.
The combination, in Rettig, teaches the second operating system (including 55b, 56b, and 57b) comprises a balanced operating system (Column 4, lines 7-11; The spring motors 57a, 57b apply torque (or tension) to the respective drive shaft 56a, 56b to facilitate winding (or unwinding) of the winding drums 55a, 55b, while also assisting to maintain the selected position of the associated rail 18, 22).
Regarding claim 5.
The combination of Arms and Rettig teaches all limitations of claim 4.
Arms further discloses the bottom rail is configured to be removably coupled to a portion of the architectural structure (Column 3, lines 25-28; If for any reason it is desired to dispense with the blind section at certain seasons of the year, it is merely necessary to unhook the brackets 23, and the entire blind section is free,).
Regarding claim 10.
The combination of Arms and Rettig teaches all limitations of claim 1.
Arms further discloses the differing first (12, fig 1) and second (including 16, fig 1) shade configurations correspond to at least one of different shade panel types for the first and second shade panels (See fig 1) or different light transmissivity characteristics for the first and second shade panels.
Regarding claim 15.
Arms discloses a covering (fig 1) for an architectural structure (See fig 1), the covering comprising:
an upper rail (at 11, fig 1);
a bottom rail (Below 16, fig 2) configured to be spaced apart from the upper rail (See fig 2);
an intermediate rail (14, fig 2) positioned between the upper rail and the bottom rail (See fig 2);
a first shade panel (12, fig 1) supported between the upper rail and the intermediate rail and having a first shade configuration (See fig 1);
a second shade panel (including 16, fig 1) supported between the intermediate rail and the bottom rail and having a second shade configuration (See fig 1), the second shade configuration differing from the first shade configuration (See fig 1);
a first operating system provided in operative association with the upper rail and configured to allow the first shade panel to be extended and retracted to increase and decrease, respectively, a spacing between the upper rail and the intermediate rail (Column 2, lines 9-11; a conventional spring roller 11 is mounted in the usual manner, a shade 12 being wound on said roller); and
a second operating system (Column 2, lines 43-55; The adjusting mechanism can be of any desired design and arrangement, and in Figs. 1 and 8 of the drawings l have shown the shade cord 26 anchored to the upper blind slat by means of a tack 27, thence leading upwardly through the eyelet 28 provided in the curtain, with the end hanging free. A similar cord 29 is anchored directly adjacent the opposite edge of the slat, thence leading up and over said slat, with the free end hanging in close proximity to the curtain cord, and it will be obvious that the blind can be readily tilted or adjusted by pulling on either one of said cords) provided in operative association with one of the intermediate rail or the bottom rail and wherein the intermediate rail is suspended without cords relative to the headrail upper rail via the first shade panel (See fig 1),
wherein the first operating system requires a first minimum operating force to be applied thereto to extend the first shade panel and increase the spacing between the upper rail and the intermediate rail, (Column 3, lines 1-2; said cord 26 being also utilized for vertically adjusting the shade.),
Arms does not disclose that the second operating system is configured to extend and retract the second shade panel, to increase and decrease, respectively, a spacing between the intermediate rail and the bottom rail, wherein the second operating system requires a second minimum operating force to be applied thereto to extend the second shade panel and increase the spacing between the intermediate rail and the bottom rail, wherein the second minimum operating force is less than the first minimum operating force.
However, Rettig teaches a second operating system (including 55b, 56b, and 57b, fig 2) configured to extend and retract the second shade panel (38, fig 3), to increase and decrease, respectively, a spacing between the intermediate rail (18, fig 3) and the bottom rail (22, fig 3), wherein the second operating system requires a second minimum operating force to be applied thereto to extend the second shade panel and increase the spacing between the intermediate rail and the bottom rail, wherein the second minimum operating force is less than the first minimum operating force (Column 5, lines 40-57; The connection between consecutive rails 14, 18 is sufficient to be maintained while allowing a third rail 22 to be adjusted in relation to the consecutive rails 14, 18. … Once the magnetic connection is formed, the magnetic retention assembly 98 is in the first or engaged configuration (shown in FIG. 5). The user can then adjust the position of the bottom (or third) rail 22 (shown in FIGS. 1-3) in relation to the head (or first) rail 14 and the intermediate (or second) rail 18, while maintaining the connection between the head (or first) rail 14 and the intermediate (or second) rail 18.).
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 covering of Arms with the operating system of Rettig. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of allowing the selective extension and retraction of the second shade panel.
Regarding claim 16.
The combination of Arms and Rettig teaches all limitations of claim 15.
Arms further discloses: the first shade panel (12, fig 1) comprises a roller shade panel (Column 2, lines 9-11; a conventional spring roller 11 is mounted in the usual manner, a shade 12 being wound on said roller) configured to be unwound from and wound around a roller as the roller shade panel is extended and retracted; and
the roller (11, fig 1) is supported relative to or forms at least a portion of the upper rail (See fig 1).
Regarding claim 17.
The combination of Arms and Rettig teaches all limitations of claim 15.
Arms further discloses the differing first (12, fig 1) and second shade (including 16, fig 1) configurations correspond to at least one of different shade panel types for the first and second shade panels (See fig 1) or different light transmissivity characteristics for the first and second shade panels.
Regarding claim 23.
The combination of Arms and Rettig teaches all limitations of claim 15.
The combination, in Rettig, teaches the second operating system (including 55b, 56b, and 57b, fig 2) is configured as an unbalanced operating system or a balanced operating system (Column 4, lines 7-11; The spring motors 57a, 57b apply torque (or tension) to the respective drive shaft 56a, 56b to facilitate winding (or unwinding) of the winding drums 55a, 55b, while also assisting to maintain the selected position of the associated rail 18, 22).
Regarding claim 24.
The combination of Arms and Rettig teaches all limitations of claim 15.
Arms further discloses the bottom rail is configured to be removably coupled to a portion of the architectural structure (Column 3, lines 25-28; If for any reason it is desired to dispense with the blind section at certain seasons of the year, it is merely necessary to unhook the brackets 23, and the entire blind section is free,).
Regarding claim 28.
Arms discloses a covering (fig 1) for an architectural structure (See fig 1), the covering comprising:
a roller (11, fig 1);
a bottom rail (Below 16, fig 2) configured to be spaced apart from the roller (See fig 2);
an intermediate rail (14, fig 2) positioned between the roller and the bottom rail (See fig 2);
a roller shade panel (12, fig 1) supported between the roller and the intermediate rail (See fig 1);
a non-roller shade panel (including 16, fig 1) supported between the intermediate rail and the bottom rail (See fig 1);
a first operating system provided in operative association with the roller and configured to allow the roller shade panel to be unwound from and wound around the roller as the intermediate rail is respectively moved away from and towards the roller (Column 2, lines 9-11; a conventional spring roller 11 is mounted in the usual manner, a shade 12 being wound on said roller); and
a second operating system provided in operative association with the bottom rail (Column 2, lines 43-55; The adjusting mechanism can be of any desired design and arrangement, and in Figs. 1 and 8 of the drawings l have shown the shade cord 26 anchored to the upper blind slat by means of a tack 27, thence leading upwardly through the eyelet 28 provided in the curtain, with the end hanging free. A similar cord 29 is anchored directly adjacent the opposite edge of the slat, thence leading up and over said slat, with the free end hanging in close proximity to the curtain cord, and it will be obvious that the blind can be readily tilted or adjusted by pulling on either one of said cords) and configured to extend the non-roller shade panel (tilting the slats ‘closed’ causes them to cover a larger area, meeting a broadest reasonable interpretation of “extend”),
wherein the first operating system requires a first minimum operating force to be applied thereto to extend the roller shade panel (Column 3, lines 1-2; said cord 26 being also utilized for vertically adjusting the shade.),
wherein the second operating system requires a second minimum operating force to be applied thereto to extend the non-roller shade panel (tilting the slats ‘closed’ causes them to cover a larger area, meeting a broadest reasonable interpretation of “extend”), and wherein the second minimum operating force is less than the first minimum operating force (Column 2, line 54-column 3, line 2; it will be obvious that the blind can be readily tilted or adjusted by pulling on either one of said cords, said cord 26 being also utilized for vertically adjusting the shade.).
Arms does not disclose that the second operating system is configured to extend and retract the non-roller shade panel, to increase and decrease, respectively, a spacing between the intermediate rail and the bottom rail, wherein the second operating system requires a second minimum operating force to be applied thereto to extend the non-roller shade panel and increase the spacing between the intermediate rail and the bottom rail, wherein the second minimum operating force is less than the first minimum operating force.
However, Rettig teaches a second operating system (including 55b, 56b, and 57b, fig 2) configured to extend and retract the non-roller shade panel (38, fig 3), to increase and decrease, respectively, a spacing between the intermediate rail (18, fig 3) and the bottom rail (22, fig 3), wherein the second operating system requires a second minimum operating force to be applied thereto to extend the non-roller shade panel and increase the spacing between the intermediate rail and the bottom rail, wherein the second minimum operating force is less than the first minimum operating force (Column 5, lines 40-57; The connection between consecutive rails 14, 18 is sufficient to be maintained while allowing a third rail 22 to be adjusted in relation to the consecutive rails 14, 18. … Once the magnetic connection is formed, the magnetic retention assembly 98 is in the first or engaged configuration (shown in FIG. 5). The user can then adjust the position of the bottom (or third) rail 22 (shown in FIGS. 1-3) in relation to the head (or first) rail 14 and the intermediate (or second) rail 18, while maintaining the connection between the head (or first) rail 14 and the intermediate (or second) rail 18.).
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 covering of Arms with the operating system of Rettig. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of allowing the selective extension and retraction of the second shade panel.
Regarding claim 32.
The combination of Arms and Rettig teaches all limitations of claim 28.
The combination, in Rettig, teaches the second operating system (including 55b, 56b, and 57b, fig 2) comprises an unbalanced operating system or a balanced operating system (Column 4, lines 7-11; The spring motors 57a, 57b apply torque (or tension) to the respective drive shaft 56a, 56b to facilitate winding (or unwinding) of the winding drums 55a, 55b, while also assisting to maintain the selected position of the associated rail 18, 22).
Regarding claim 33.
The combination of Arms and Rettig teaches all limitations of claim 28.
Arms further discloses the bottom rail is configured to be removably coupled to a portion of the architectural structure (Column 3, lines 25-28; If for any reason it is desired to dispense with the blind section at certain seasons of the year, it is merely necessary to unhook the brackets 23, and the entire blind section is free,).
Regarding claim 37.
The combination of Arms and Rettig teaches all limitations of claim 1.
Arms further discloses the first operating system is independent and distinct from the second operating system (See fig 1).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Arms and Rettig as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Pat. 9,708,850 – Anderson et al., hereinafter Anderson.
Regarding claim 2.
The combination of Arms and Rettig teaches all limitations of claim 1.
The combination does not teach the second operating system is configured as an unbalanced operating system.
However, Anderson teaches an unbalanced operating system (See fig 10).
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 Arms and Rettig with the unbalanced operating system of Anderson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of allowing an operator to lock the second shade at a specific height.
Claim(s) 27, 30, and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Arms and Rettig as applied above, and further in view of PG Pub. US 2019/0032402 – Ter Haar et al., hereinafter Ter Haar.
Regarding claim 27.
The combination of Arms and Rettig teaches all limitations of claim 15.
The combination does not teach at least one of the first operating system or the second operating system comprises a motorized operating system.
However, Ter Haar teaches at least one of the first operating system (610, fig 7) or the second operating system (620, fig 7) comprises a motorized operating system.
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 further modify the combination of Arms and Rettig with the motorized operating system of Ter Haar. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of providing a greater ease of use.
Regarding claim 30.
The combination of Arms and Rettig teaches all limitations of claim 28.
The combination does not teach the non-roller shade panel comprises a cellular shade panel.
However, Ter Haar teaches the non-roller shade panel (608, fig 7) comprises a cellular shade panel (See fig 7).
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 further modify the combination of Arms and Rettig with the cellular shade panel of Ter Haar. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of providing a different aesthetic appearance.
Regarding claim 36.
The combination of Arms and Rettig teaches all limitations of claim 28.
The combination does not teach at least one of the first operating system or the second operating system comprises a motorized operating system.
However, Ter Haar teaches at least one of the first operating system (610, fig 7) or the second operating system (620, fig 7) comprises a motorized operating system.
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 further modify the combination of Arms and Rettig with the motorized operating system of Ter Haar. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of providing a greater ease of use.
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Arms and Rettig, as applied above, and in further view of US Pat. 6,516,856 B2 – Lai.
Regarding claim 29.
The combination of Arms and Rettig teaches all limitations of claim 28.
Arms further discloses the non-roller shade panel is formed from a light- filtering (Light filters through the venetian blind) or room-darkening material.
The combination does not teach the roller shade panel is formed from a sheer or transparent material.
However, Lai teaches the roller shade panel is formed from a sheer or transparent material (Column 5, line 66- column 6, line 3; the entire translucent fabric 31" is adapted for automatically receiving into the receiving device 321" through the slit 322" in a rolling manner, so as to fold up the second shading arrangement 30").
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 Arms and Rettig with the sheer material of Lai. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of providing an aesthetic appearance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 15, and 28 have been considered but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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