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
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, 4-5, 7-8, 10-16, 18, 21-22, 24-25, 27-33, and 69-71 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mullet (US 20130099714) in view of Thumerel (WO2020099628A1).
Regarding claim 1, Mullet teaches a motorized window treatment comprising:
a roller tube (paragraph 41) having a longitudinal axis;
a flexible material (22) that is attached to the roller tube (fig. 3), the flexible material operable between a raised position and a lowered position via rotation of the roller tube (functional language); and
a motor drive unit (30) disposed within a cavity of the roller tube (paragraph 41), the motor drive unit comprising: a motor (50) comprising a drive shaft extending from a drive end (as described in paragraph 53, this shaft connects to the fear assembly 52) of the motor and a rear shaft (51) extending from a non-drive end of the motor, the drive shaft and the rear shaft configured to rotate about the longitudinal axis;
a gear assembly (52) operatively coupled to the roller tube and the drive shaft such that actuation of the motor causes the gear assembly to rotate the roller tube (paragraph 41);
a magnet ring (49) operatively coupled to the rear shaft, the magnet ring configured to direct a magnetic field toward a printed circuit board (47) of the motor drive unit (paragraph 59).
Mullet does not teach a shaft stabilization member operatively coupled to the rear shaft between the magnet ring and the motor, the shaft stabilization member configured to dampen one or more of axial or radial forces in the motor drive unit,
wherein the shaft stabilization member comprises a first portion having a first diameter and a second portion having a second diameter, and wherein the first diameter is greater than the second diameter.
Thumerel teaches a shaft stabilization member (35 is considered a shaft stabilization member, as when the shaft rotates, the mass of this element will behave as such) operatively coupled to a rear shaft (fig. 4), the shaft stabilization member configured to dampen one or more of axial or radial forces in a motor drive unit (capable of this, the mass of this member will do this), wherein the shaft stabilization member comprises a first portion having a first diameter and a second portion having a second diameter, and wherein the first diameter is greater than the second diameter (fig. 4 clearly shows two diameters on this element with a first diameter being greater than a second diameter).
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 Mullet with the teachings of Thumerel so that there is a shaft stabilization member operatively coupled to the rear shaft between the magnet ring and the motor, with the smaller diameter end further from the motor, the shaft stabilization member configured to dampen one or more of axial or radial forces in the motor drive unit, wherein the shaft stabilization member comprises a first portion having a first diameter and a second portion having a second diameter, and wherein the first diameter is greater than the second diameter.
This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of the shaft having a higher moment of inertia resulting is a smoother rotation.
Regarding claim 4, modified Mullet teaches that the first portion is proximate to the motor and the second portion is distal from the motor (see modification to claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 5, modified Mullet teaches that the second portion is located proximate to a notch of a printed circuit board of the motor drive unit (after the modification above, the notch is shown in fig. 6 of Mullet).
Regarding claim 7, modified Mullet teaches that the magnet ring (49) is configured to be located within the notch of the printed circuit board (fig. 7b).
Regarding claim 8, modified Mullet teaches that the shaft stabilization member (35 from Thumerel) is magnetic (paragraph 108 of Thumerel).
Regarding claim 10, modified Mullet teaches that the shaft stabilization member is located on the rear shaft to enable access to one or more motor terminals extending from the motor (functional language, electric motors have terminals as they require power).
Regarding claim 11, modified Mullet teaches that the motor drive unit comprises one or more motor leads (electric motors have leads) configured to electrically connect the printed circuit board to the one or more motor terminals (capable of).
Regarding claim 12, modified Mullet teaches that the shaft stabilization member is sized and shaped to enable access to the one or more motor terminals (functional language).
Regarding claim 13, modified Mullet teaches that the shaft stabilization member is a symmetrical mass that is carried by the rear shaft (after the modification above).
Regarding claim 14, modified Mullet teaches that the shaft stabilization member is configured to generate a moment of inertia when rotated that resists one or more of radial or axial movement of the rear shaft (capable of, any rotating member has a moment of inertia that can be said to resist radial or axial movement).
Regarding claim 15, modified Mullet teaches that the shaft stabilization member is configured such that there is noise level of the motor drive unit at one or more frequencies when the motor is operating (functional language, motors run at least one frequency and have a noise level). Modified Mullet is silent concerning the noise level of the motor drive unit is below 10 decibels at one or more frequencies when the motor is operating.
Regarding claim 16, although modified Mullet teaches that the motor has a frequency (motors run with at least one frequency.), it does not explicitly teach that the one or more frequencies are within a range of 300 Hz to 1 kHz.
The examiner notes that the courts have held that "It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions." In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929). 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 Mullet so that the one or more frequencies are within a range of 300 Hz to 1 kHz. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of a frequency that is within a user’s specification.
Regarding claim 18, Mullet teaches a motor drive unit (30) for rotating a roller tube about a longitudinal axis, the motor drive unit comprising:
a motor (50) comprising a drive shaft extending from a drive end (as described in paragraph 53, this shaft connects to the fear assembly 52) of the motor and a rear shaft (51) extending from a non-drive end of the motor, the drive shaft and the rear shaft configured to rotate about the longitudinal axis;
a gear assembly (52) operatively coupled to the roller tube and the drive shaft such that actuation of the motor causes the gear assembly to rotate the roller tube (paragraph 41),
a magnet ring (49) operatively coupled to the rear shaft, the magnet ring configured to direct a magnetic field toward a printed circuit board (47) of the motor drive unit (paragraph 59).
Mullet does not teach a shaft stabilization member operatively coupled to the rear shaft between the magnet ring and the motor, the shaft stabilization member configured to dampen one or more of axial or radial forces in the motor drive unit,
wherein the shaft stabilization member comprises a first portion having a first diameter and a second portion having a second diameter, and wherein the first diameter is greater than the second diameter.
Thumerel teaches a shaft stabilization member (35 is considered a shaft stabilization member, as when the shaft rotates, the mass of this element will behave as such) operatively coupled to a rear shaft (fig. 4), the shaft stabilization member configured to dampen one or more of axial or radial forces in a motor drive unit (capable of this, the mass of the member will do this) wherein the shaft stabilization member comprises a first portion having a first diameter and a second portion having a second diameter, and wherein the first diameter is greater than the second diameter (fig. 4 clearly shows two diameters on this element with a first diameter being greater than a second diameter).
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 Mullet with the teachings of Thumerel so that there is a shaft stabilization member operatively coupled to the rear shaft between the magnet ring and the motor, with the smaller diameter end further from the motor, the shaft stabilization member configured to dampen one or more of axial or radial forces in the motor drive unit, wherein the shaft stabilization member comprises a first portion having a first diameter and a second portion having a second diameter, and wherein the first diameter is greater than the second diameter.
This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of the shaft having a higher moment of inertia resulting is a smoother rotation.
Regarding claim 21, modified Mullet teaches that the first portion is proximate to the motor and the second portion is distal from the motor (see modification above).
Regarding claim 22, modified Mullet teaches that the second portion is located proximate to a notch of a printed circuit board of the motor drive unit (after the modification above, the notch is shown in fig. 6 of Mullet).
Regarding claim 24, modified Mullet teaches that the magnet ring (49) is configured to be located within the notch of the printed circuit board (fig. 7b).
Regarding claim 25, modified Mullet teaches that the shaft stabilization member (35 from Thumerel) is magnetic (paragraph 108 of Thumerel).
Regarding claim 27, modified Mullet teaches that the shaft stabilization member is located on the rear shaft to enable access to one or more motor terminals extending from the motor (functional language, electric motors have terminals as they require power).
Regarding claim 28, modified Mullet teaches that the motor drive unit comprises one or more motor leads (electric motors have leads) configured to electrically connect the printed circuit board to the one or more motor terminals (capable of).
Regarding claim 29, modified Mullet teaches that the shaft stabilization member is sized and shaped to enable access to the one or more motor terminals (functional language).
Regarding claim 30, modified Mullet teaches that the shaft stabilization member is a symmetrical mass that is carried by the rear shaft (after the modification above).
Regarding claim 31, modified Mullet teaches that the shaft stabilization member is configured to generate a moment of inertia when rotated that resists one or more of radial or axial movement of the rear shaft (capable of, any rotating member has a moment of inertia that can be said to resist radial or axial movement).
Regarding claim 32, modified Mullet teaches that the shaft stabilization member is configured such that there is noise level of the motor drive unit at one or more frequencies when the motor is operating (functional language, motors run at least one frequency and have a noise level). Modified Mullet is silent concerning the noise level of the motor drive unit is below 10 decibels at one or more frequencies when the motor is operating.
The examiner notes that the courts have held that "It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions." In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929). 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 Mullet so that the noise level of the motor drive unit is below 10 decibels at one or more frequencies when the motor is operating. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of a quieter device that will disturb a user’s relation less.
Regarding claim 33, although modified Mullet teaches that the motor has a frequency (motors run with at least one frequency.), it does not explicitly teach that the one or more frequencies are within a range of 300 Hz to 1 kHz.
The examiner notes that the courts have held that "It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions." In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929). 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 Mullet so that the one or more frequencies are within a range of 300 Hz to 1 kHz. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of a frequency that is within a user’s specification.
Regarding claim 69, modified Mullet teaches that the shaft stabilization member is configured to (functional language) adjust a resonance frequency of the motor to avoid resonance from occurring during operation of the motor (when spinning it inherently does this).
Regarding claim 70, modified Mullet teaches that the shaft stabilization member is configured to adjust a natural frequency of rotor axial oscillation (functional language, when spinning in inherently does this).
Regarding claim 71, modified Mullet teaches that the shaft stabilization member is a balancing mass that keeps the rotor, the drive shaft, and the rear shaft aligned with the longitudinal axis during operation of the motor (the balancing shaft is considered a balancing mass, and inherently does this as it rotates).
Claim(s) 17 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mullet (US 20130099714) in view of Thumerel (WO2020099628A1) as applied above, and further in view of Li (US 20170321480).
Regarding claim 17, modified Mullet does not explicitly teaches that the motor comprises one or more permanent magnets that at least partially surround a rotor of the motor.
Li teaches a motorized window treatment with a motor (30) that comprises one or more permanent magnets (paragraph 42) that at least partially surround a rotor (381) of the motor. 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 Mullet so that the motor comprises one or more permanent magnets that at least partially surround a rotor of the motor. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of a cheap and durable motor style.
Regarding claim 34, modified Mullet does not explicitly teaches that the motor comprises one or more permanent magnets that at least partially surround a rotor of the motor.
Li teaches a motorized window treatment with a motor (30) that comprises one or more permanent magnets (paragraph 42) that at least partially surround a rotor (381) of the motor. 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 Mullet so that the motor comprises one or more permanent magnets that at least partially surround a rotor of the motor. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of a cheap and durable motor style.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that:
“The Office Action admits that Mullet does not teach a shaft stabilization member
operatively coupled to the rear shaft proximate to the magnet ring, the shaft stabilization member configured to dampen one or more of axial or radial forces in the motor drive unit (Office Action, p. 6). Rather, the Office Action relies on Thumerel for allegedly disclosing such subject matter. Applicants traverse.
Thumerel discloses a motorized drive unit 7 for a blind 1; the motorized drive unit 7 comprising an electromechanical actuator 8 that opens or retracts a screen 2 of the blind 1 (Thumerel English counterpart - U.S. Patent No. 12,091,911, col. 5, lines 41-46). The electromechanical actuator 8 of Thumerel includes an end-of-travel detection device 35 that is assembled on an output shaft 20 of the electromechanical actuator 8 (Thumerel English counterpart, col. 8, lines 12-20 and FIG. 4). But the end-of-travel detection device 35 in Thumerel is not a shaft stabilization member operatively coupled to the rear shaft between the magnet ring and the motor. Instead, the end-of-travel detection device 35 in Thumerel is a magnetic type device (i.e., a magnet ring) that is located on the output shaft 20 of the electromechanical actuator 8 (Thumerel English counterpart, col. 8, lines 21-22).
Mullet also discloses a magnet 49 that is attached to the end of a motor shaft 51 to enable determination of position of a shade/curtain (Mullet, para. [0059]). Thus, a person skilled in the art would not have been motivated to include Thumerel's magnetic end-of-travel detection device 35 in Mullet's electromechanical actuator 8, because Mullet's electromechanical actuator 8 already includes a magnetic device that enables determination of the position of the shade/curtain.
Thus, the asserted references either alone or in the proposed combination do not teach or suggest a shaft stabilization member operatively coupled to the rear shaft between the magnet ring and the motor much less wherein the shaft stabilization member comprises a first portion having a first diameter and a second portion having a second diameter, and wherein the first diameter is greater than the second diameter.”
The examiner notes that all the limitations as claimed are taught by the combination above.
It is true that Mullet does not teach a shaft stabilization member as claimed by the applicant.
Thumerel is found to teach a shaft stabilization member (35 is considered a shaft stabilization member, as when the shaft rotates, the mass of this element will behave as such) operatively coupled to a rear shaft (fig. 4), the shaft stabilization member configured to dampen one or more of axial or radial forces in a motor drive unit (capable of this, the mass of this member will do this), wherein the shaft stabilization member comprises a first portion having a first diameter and a second portion having a second diameter, and wherein the first diameter is greater than the second diameter (fig. 4 clearly shows two diameters on this element with a first diameter being greater than a second diameter).
The combination is to take teachings from Thumerel and add this shaft stabilization member to the shaft of Mullet. As is stated above, “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 Mullet with the teachings of Thumerel so that there is a shaft stabilization member operatively coupled to the rear shaft between the magnet ring and the motor, with the smaller diameter end further from the motor, the shaft stabilization member configured to dampen one or more of axial or radial forces in the motor drive unit, wherein the shaft stabilization member comprises a first portion having a first diameter and a second portion having a second diameter, and wherein the first diameter is greater than the second diameter. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of the shaft having a higher moment of inertia resulting is a smoother rotation.”
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