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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/23/2026 has been entered.
Election/Restriction
During a telephone conversation with John H. Lin on 7/31/2024 a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the species of species i, as claimed in claims 1-12. Affirmation of this election was made by applicant in the reply dated 03/05/2025. Claims 13-14 are withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to a non-elected species.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 18 contains a typographical error. “longitudal” should be “longitudinal”.
Also, “the longitudal center” should be “a longitudinal center” in order to ensure proper antecedence.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 2, 4-12, and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PG Pub. US 2021/0262286 A1 – Campagna et al., hereinafter Campagna in view of PG Pub. US 2013/0333848 A1 – Mullet et al., hereinafter Mullet and US Pat. 11,655,673 – Miroshnichenko et al., hereinafter Miroshnichenko.
Regarding claim 1.
Campagna discloses an apparatus (400 as in fig 4. Examiner notes that the embodiment of figs 11-13 is relied upon for the rejection. However, other figures may be referred to for illustrative purposes.) comprising:
an outer tube (401, as in fig 4) that is a roller winding a screen (406, fig 4) of a roller shutter (400 as in fig 4);
an inner shaft (1110, fig 11) disposed within the outer tube (401, as in fig 4) wherein the inner shaft is the inner most component along a rotation axis of the apparatus (See figs 11-13);
a rotation power source (601, as in fig 7) that provides power to rotate the inner shaft (1110, fig 11) and the outer tube (401, as in fig 4); and
a rotation synchronizer (including 1107 and 1117, fig 11) that is installed at the inner shaft (at 1119, fig 11) to rotationally affix the inner shaft with the outer tube (Paragraph [0312]; The drive wheel 1107 comprises an external surface that slidably contacts the inner surface of the roller tube 401. Drive wheel 1107 can be longitudinally inserted into the roller tube 401 during installation via channels (e.g., 422) and projections (e.g., 424). Drive wheel 1107 may comprise a rubber material and may connect to the terminal end of the mandrel 1110 via a drive wheel adapter 1117 and screw 1125. Particularly, drive wheel 1107 may comprise a keyed bore 1122 adapted to receive the keyed head 1121 of drive wheel adapter 1117. Drive wheel adapter 1117 in turn contains a keyed bore 1119 adapted to receive the terminal end of the mandrel 1110 therein.), wherein each rotation synchronizer has an aperture (See at 1119, fig 12) that allows the inner shaft to be inserted through (See fig 11) and is shaped to match a cross-section of the inner shaft (See figs 11 and 12),
wherein the inner shaft (1110, fig 11) is cross-sectionally shaped (See fig 12) to rotationally drive the rotation synchronizer (including 1107 and 1117, fig 11) and the outer tube.
Campagna does not disclose at least two rotation synchronizers that are installed at the inner shaft at two separate positions away from each other and away from either ends of the inner shaft to rotationally affix the inner shaft with the outer tube at the two separate positions, wherein the inner shaft is cross-sectionally shaped as a polygon.
However, Mullet teaches at least two (the two synchronizers closest to endcap 8 in fig 7) rotation synchronizers (7, fig 7) that are installed at the inner shaft (5, fig 7) at two separate positions away from each other (See fig 7) and away from (See synchronizer 7 closest to endcap 8 remains spaced apart from the endcap in fig 7) either ends of the inner shaft (See fig 7) to rotationally affix (Paragraph [0038]; The spacers may be implemented as drive spacers 7 shown in FIGS. 7 and 8 that hold the motor tube assembly 5 within the outer roll tube 2 and transmit force from one to the other. However, it is within the scope and spirit to use any functionally equivalent component to hold the motor tube assembly 5 within the outer roll tube 2 and transmit force from one to the other.) the inner shaft (5, fig 7) with the outer tube (2, fig 7) at the two separate positions (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 modify the apparatus of Campagna with multiple synchronizers as taught by Mullet. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of reducing the torsional load on the outer tube, allowing the use of a lighter tube resulting in a lighter weight, lower cost system.
Also, Miroshnichenko teaches the inner shaft (115, fig 1) is cross-sectionally shaped as a polygon (See 115, fig 2a).
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 apparatus of Campagna with the polygonal shaft as taught by Miroshnichenko. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of reducing the cost of the system by simplifying manufacture of the shaft.
Regarding claim 2.
The combination of Campagna, Mullet, and Miroshnichenko teaches all limitations of claim 1.
Campagna further discloses the rotation synchronizer comprises a rotation adaptor (1107, fig 12) and a rotation driver (1117, fig 12), wherein the rotation driver is configured to
(i) recess into the rotation adaptor (See fig 11) and
(ii) receive the inner shaft (See fig 11).
Regarding claim 4.
The combination of Campagna, Mullet, and Miroshnichenko teaches all limitations of claim 2.
Campagna further discloses the rotation adaptor (1107, fig 12) comprises teeth (422, as in fig 4) that abut the interior surface (424, as in fig 4) of the outer tube (401, fig 4), wherein the rotation driver (1117, fig 12) comprises a protrusion (1121, fig 12) that mates with a crevice (1122, fig 12) of the rotation adaptor (1107, fig 12).
Regarding claim 5.
The combination of Campagna, Mullet, and Miroshnichenko teaches all limitations of claim 1.
Campagna further discloses the rotation synchronizer (including 1107 and 1117, fig 12) is installed at the inner shaft (1110, fig 12) to rotationally couple the inner shaft with the outer tube (Paragraph [0312]; The drive wheel 1107 comprises an external surface that slidably contacts the inner surface of the roller tube 401. Drive wheel 1107 can be longitudinally inserted into the roller tube 401 during installation via channels (e.g., 422) and projections (e.g., 424). Drive wheel 1107 may comprise a rubber material and may connect to the terminal end of the mandrel 1110 via a drive wheel adapter 1117 and screw 1125. Particularly, drive wheel 1107 may comprise a keyed bore 1122 adapted to receive the keyed head 1121 of drive wheel adapter 1117. Drive wheel adapter 1117 in turn contains a keyed bore 1119 adapted to receive the terminal end of the mandrel 1110 therein.).
The combination, in Mullet further teaches two or more rotation synchronizers (7, fig 7) are installed at different positions (see fig 7) of the outer tube (2, fig 7) such that the rotations at different positions of the outer tube are synchronized (Paragraph [0038]; The spacers may be implemented as drive spacers 7 shown in FIGS. 7 and 8 that hold the motor tube assembly 5 within the outer roll tube 2 and transmit force from one to the other. However, it is within the scope and spirit to use any functionally equivalent component to hold the motor tube assembly 5 within the outer roll tube 2 and transmit force from one to the other.).
Regarding claim 6.
The combination of Campagna, Mullet, and Miroshnichenko teaches all limitations of claim 1.
Campagna further discloses the inner shaft comprises two or more separate sections (Paragraph [0311]; Output mandrel 1110 may comprise a single body, or may be made of a plurality of portions including a first mandrel portion 1111 and a second mandrel portion 1112.), wherein different sections of the inner shaft are interconnected by one or more shaft extenders (1113, fig 12) that convey the rotation of the inner shaft across the different sections (Paragraph [0311]; such that rotation of the first mandrel portion 1111 by the motor 601 also rotates the second mandrel portion 1112).
Regarding claim 7.
The combination of Campagna, Mullet, and Miroshnichenko teaches all limitations of claim 6.
Campagna does not disclose at least one rotation synchronizer is installed on each section of the inner shaft.
However, Mullet teaches at least one rotation synchronizer (7, fig 7) is installed on each section of the inner shaft (5, 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 modify the apparatus of Campagna by installing at least one synchronizer on each shaft section as suggested by Mullet. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of ensuring that each shaft section is centered in the tube, allowing for smoother operation.
Regarding claim 8.
The combination of Campagna, Mullet, and Miroshnichenko teaches all limitations of claim 1.
Campagna further discloses the rotation power source (601, as in fig 7) is installed (in housing 407, as in fig 4) at one end of the outer tube (401, as in fig 4) (See fig 4), and the torque provided by the rotation power source is conveyed to the inner shaft (1110, fig 12) through the rotation synchronizer (Paragraph [0312]; The drive wheel 1107 comprises an external surface that slidably contacts the inner surface of the roller tube 401. Drive wheel 1107 can be longitudinally inserted into the roller tube 401 during installation via channels (e.g., 422) and projections (e.g., 424). Drive wheel 1107 may comprise a rubber material and may connect to the terminal end of the mandrel 1110 via a drive wheel adapter 1117 and screw 1125. Particularly, drive wheel 1107 may comprise a keyed bore 1122 adapted to receive the keyed head 1121 of drive wheel adapter 1117. Drive wheel adapter 1117 in turn contains a keyed bore 1119 adapted to receive the terminal end of the mandrel 1110 therein.).
Regarding claim 9.
The combination of Campagna, Mullet, and Miroshnichenko teaches all limitations of claim 1.
Campagna further discloses the rotation power source (601, as in fig 7) is installed (in housing 407, as in fig 4) at one end of the inner shaft (1110, fig 12) (See fig 4), and the torque provided by the rotation power source is conveyed to the outer tube through the rotation synchronizer (Paragraph [0312]; The drive wheel 1107 comprises an external surface that slidably contacts the inner surface of the roller tube 401. Drive wheel 1107 can be longitudinally inserted into the roller tube 401 during installation via channels (e.g., 422) and projections (e.g., 424). Drive wheel 1107 may comprise a rubber material and may connect to the terminal end of the mandrel 1110 via a drive wheel adapter 1117 and screw 1125. Particularly, drive wheel 1107 may comprise a keyed bore 1122 adapted to receive the keyed head 1121 of drive wheel adapter 1117. Drive wheel adapter 1117 in turn contains a keyed bore 1119 adapted to receive the terminal end of the mandrel 1110 therein.).
Regarding claim 10.
The combination of Campagna, Mullet, and Miroshnichenko teaches all limitations of claim 1.
Campagna further discloses the rotation synchronizer (including 1107 and 1117, fig 12) is a first rotation synchronizer and the outer tube (401, fig 4) is a first outer tube of a first roller shutter (400, fig 4),
Campagna does not disclose a second rotation synchronizer is installed at the inner shaft and rotationally couples the inner shaft to a second outer tube of a second roller shutter such that the rotations of the first and second roller shutters are synchronized.
However, Miroshnichenko teaches a second rotation synchronizer (160, fig 2b) is installed at the inner shaft (115, fig 2b) and rotationally couples the inner shaft to a second outer tube (105, fig 1) of a second roller shutter (See fig 1) such that the rotations of the first and second roller shutters are synchronized (Column 8, line 65 – Column 9, line 8; The drive shaft 115 controls the first drive hub 110 (on the left) that rotates the first shade and also controls the second drive hub 110 (on the right) that rotates the second shade. As such, when the one chain is pulled to rotate the sprocket 130/ring gear, the single drive transfers the rotational force to two shades on either side of the drive bracket 125. In other words, the center drive mechanism drives two bands of a shade in multi-band system via one central sprocket 130 where the two bands, on either side of the drive bracket 125, are driven in a parallel manner (as opposed to a serial manner).).
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 apparatus of Campagna with a second synchronizer and shade as suggested by Miroshnichenko. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of providing synchronized shades across an array of windows.
Regarding claim 11.
The combination of Campagna, Mullet, and Miroshnichenko teaches all limitations of claim 10.
Campagna does not disclose the ends of the inner shaft do not exceed halfway points of the first outer tube and of the second outer tube.
However, Miroshnichenko teaches the ends of the inner shaft (115, fig 1) do not exceed halfway points of the first outer tube (105, fig 1) and of the second outer tube (105, fig 1) (Compare figs 1, 2a, and 2b).
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 apparatus of Campagna with the shaft lengths suggested by Miroshnichenko. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of preventing interference between adjacent sets of synchronizing couplers.
Regarding claim 12.
The combination of Campagna, Mullet, and Miroshnichenko teaches all limitations of claim 1.
Campagna further discloses the outer tube (401, as in fig 4) is a roller for winding a screen of a roller shutter (400, as in fig 4).
Regarding claim 15.
The combination of Campagna, Mullet, and Miroshnichenko teaches all limitations of claim 1.
The combination, in Mullet teaches at least one of the two rotation synchronizers (7, fig 7) is positioned away from either end (See fig 7) of the outer tube (2, fig 7).
Regarding claim 16.
The combination of Campagna, Mullet, and Miroshnichenko teaches all limitations of claim 1.
The combination, in Mullet teaches the at least two rotation synchronizers (7, fig 7) are both positioned away from either end (See fig 7) of the outer tube (2, fig 7).
Regarding claim 17.
The combination of Campagna, Mullet, and Miroshnichenko teaches all limitations of claim 1.
The combination, in Miroshnichenko, further teaches the inner shaft (115, fig 1) is non-hollow (See figs 1 and 2a).
Regarding claim 18.
The combination of Campagna, Mullet, and Miroshnichenko teaches all limitations of claim 1.
The combination, in Mullet, further teaches the at least two (the two synchronizers closest to endcap 8 in fig 7) rotation synchronizers (7, fig 7) are respectively positioned at opposite sides of the longitudal center of the outer tube (2, See figs 7 and 8).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Campagna, Mullet, and Miroshnichenko, as applied above, and in further view of PG Pub. US 2020/0123849 – Feder et al., hereinafter Feder.
Regarding claim 3.
The combination of Campagna, Mullet, and Miroshnichenko teaches all limitations of claim 2.
Campagna does not disclose the cross-section of the inner shaft is a square.
However, Feder teaches the cross-section of the inner shaft (14, fig 1) is a square (Paragraph [0057]; a square tube 14).
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 apparatus of Campagna with the square inner shaft of Feder. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of reducing production costs.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 01/23/2025 have been considered but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
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 J TROY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3637