DETAILED ACTION
The following Non-Final Office Action is in response to the amendment filed 11/25/2025.
Status of the claims: Claims 1-10,14-15 and 17-23 are hereby examined below.
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.
Claims 1-10,14,15,17-19 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claypool et al US 5,722,478 in view of Kovach et al US 2018/0094480.
In regard to claim 1, with reference to Figure 5, Claypool et al ‘478 disclose an actuating system for a window shade comprising: a control module adapted to couple to a transmission axle, the control module being actuatable to rotate the transmission axle for adjusting a shading structure of a window shade, wherein the control module includes:
a wand (12c) having a hollow interior extending between a first end and a second end of the wand; a flexible operating element (24c,26c) extending outside the wand (12c) at the first end thereof, and a handle (58c) coupled to the operating element and disposed at the second end of the wand, the handle being operable to pull the operating element for actuating the control module; and
an anti-winding guard (38c) of an elongate shape, wherein the operating element (24c,26c), the handle (58c) and the anti-winding guard (38c) are movable in unison relative to the wand (12c), and the anti-winding guard (38c) is configured to extend outside the wand (12c) between the handle (58c) and the second end of the wand when the handle (58c) moves away from the second end of the wand,
wherein the anti-winding guard (38c) is disposed apart from the handle (58c) and attached (indirectly via 40c,58c) to the operating element (24c,26c) at an end of the operating element, and
the handle (58c) is connected to the anti-winding guard (38c) via a link (40c).
Claypool et al ‘478 fails to explicitly disclose the link is a flexible link.
However, Kovach et al ‘480 discloses that a rigid link (102) can be a flexible link. (paragraph [0036])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the device of Claypool et al ‘478 to make the rigid link be a flexible link as taught by Kovach et al ‘480 as the rigidity would provide resistance to bending and forming a loop, while the flexibility would provide a more cord-like feel.
In regard to claim 2, Claypool et al ‘478 disclose wherein the anti-winding guard (38c) is dimensioned to be positionable inside the hollow interior of the wand (12c).
In regard to claim 3, Claypool et al ‘478 discloses wherein the anti-winding guard (38c) is movable through the second end into and out of the wand (12c).
In regard to claim 4, Claypool et al ‘478 disclose wherein the handle (58c) is movable between a first position (up) adjacent to the second end of the wand and a second position (down) away from the second end of the wand (see Figures 4 and 7), the anti-winding guard (38c) being exposed and occupying a distance between the second end of the wand and the handle when the handle is in the second position.
In regard to claim 5, Claypool et al ‘478 disclose wherein the anti-winding guard (38c) is partially exposed outside the wand (12c) when the handle is in the second position (down, Figure 5).
In regard to claim 6, Claypool et al ‘478 disclose wherein the anti-winding guard (38c) occupies at least half of the distance between the second end of the wand (12c) and the handle (58c) when the handle is in the second position. (see Figure 5)
In regard to claim 7, Claypool et al ‘478 disclose wherein the anti-winding guard (38c) occupies at least two-thirds of the distance between the second end of the wand (12c) and the handle (58c) when the handle is in the second position (down). (see Figure 5)
In regard to claim 8, Claypool et al ‘478 disclose wherein the anti-winding guard (38c) is partially received inside the hollow interior of the wand (12c) when the handle (58c) is in the first position (up). (see Figure 4)
In regard to claim 9, Claypool et al ‘478 disclose the wand (12c) is fixedly connected to a sleeve (18c) at the second end, the sleeve having a cross-section that is larger than a cross-section of the wand (12c), the handle (58c) lying adjacent to the sleeve in the first position (up).
In regard to claim 10, Claypool et al ‘478 disclose wherein the second position (down) corresponds to a maximal displacement of the handle (58c) away from the second end of the wand (12c).
In regard to claim 14, Claypool et al ‘478 disclose wherein the anti-winding guard (38c) includes a tube having a hollow interior.
In regard to claim 15, Claypool et al ‘478 disclose wherein the anti-winding guard (38c) includes a tube, and the operating element (24c,26c) is threaded through a hollow interior of the tube.
In regard to claim 17, Claypool et al ‘478 disclose wherein an exposure of the operating element (24c,26c) between the second end of the wand (12c) and the handle (58c) that could induce coiling of the operating element (24c,26c) is prevented by an extension of the anti-winding guard (38c) between the second end of the wand and the handle (58c) when the handle moves away from the second end of the wand.
In regard to claim 18, Claypool et al ‘478 discloses wherein the handle (58c) is operable to pull the operating element (24c,26c) for displacing vertically a shading structure of a window shade.
In regard to claim 19, Claypool et al ‘478 discloses wherein the handle (58c) is operable to pull the operating element (24c,26c) for collapsing a shading structure of a window shade, and the wand (12c) is rotatable about a lengthwise axis thereof for expanding the shading structure of the window shade.
In regard to claim 23, Claypool et al ‘478 discloses the flexible (as modified by Kovach) link (40c) has two ends (top and bottom) respectively anchored to the handle (58c) and the anti-winding guard (38c).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claypool et al US 5,722,478 and Kovach et al US 2018/0094480 as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Huang US 6,752,194.
In regard to claim 20, Claypool et al ‘478 discloses the control module us used for a shading structure. (abstract)
Claypool et al ‘478 fails to disclose a head rail having a transmission axle a shading structure and a bottom part suspended from the head rail; wherein the control module is assembled with the head rail, the wand being pivotally connected to the head rail .
Huang ‘194 discloses a head rail (1) having a transmission axle (6), a shading structure (3) and a bottom part (2) suspended from the head rail; wherein the control module (5) is assembled with the head rail, the wand (57,578) being pivotally connected to the head rail (1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Claypool et al ‘478 to include a headrail, transmission axle and shading structure as taught by Huang ‘194 as such is a known configuration for a control module of a shading structure.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang US 6,752,194 in view of Kovach et al US 2018/0094480.
In regard to claim 21, Huang ‘194 discloses an actuating system for a window shade, comprising a control module (57) adapted to couple to a transmission axle, the control module being actuatable to rotate the transmission axle for adjusting a shading structure of a window shade, wherein the control module includes: a wand (571)(578) having a hollow interior extending between a first end and a second end of the wand; a flexible operating element (58) extending outside the wand (571)(578) at the first end thereof, and a handle (534) coupled to the operating element and disposed at the second end of the wand, the handle being operable to pull the operating element for actuating the control module; wherein the handle (534) is integrally formed with a tube (533) having a hollow interior, the tube (533) having a distal end that is disposed inside the wand (571)(578) and is anchored to an end of the operating element (58), the tube (533) extending along a longitudinal axis of the wand (571)(578) from the end of the operating element (58) to the handle (534), wherein the operating element (58) the handle (534) and the tube (533) are movable in unison relative to the wand (571)(578) and the tube (533) is configured as an anti-winding guard that extends outside the wand (571)(578) between the handle (534) and the second end of the wand (571)(578) when the handle moves away from the second end of the wand and retracts into the wand (571)(578) when the handle is adjacent to the second end of the wand.
Huang ‘194 fails to disclose wherein the tube is a solid rod having no hollow interior that is integrally formed with the handle as a single body, the solid rod being anchored to an end of the operating element and extending along a longitudinal axis of the wand from the end of the operating element to the handle.
Kovach et al ‘480 disclose wherein the tube (102) is a solid rod having no hollow interior that is integrally formed with the handle (106) as a single body, the solid rod being (102) anchored to an end of the operating element (110) and extending along a longitudinal axis of the wand from the end of the operating element to the handle (106).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the device of Huang ‘194 to make the tube be a solid rod with no hollow interior formed integrally with the handle as a single body as taught by Kovach et al ‘480 as such is shown to be an effective construction for providing an operating element for a blind that acts on a pull cord but will not become entangled in itself. (paragraph [0006]). Furthermore, it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1993). Making the rod integrally formed as single body with the handle would possibly increase strength of the components.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang US 6,752,194 in view of Manske US 2015/0300083 and Tuzmen et al US 5,513,687.
In regard to claim 22, Huang ‘194 discloses an actuating system for a window shade, comprising: A control module adapted to couple to a transmission axle, the control module being actuatable to rotate the transmission axle for adjusting a shading structure of a window shade, wherein the control module includes: a wand (571)(578) having a hollow interior extending between a first end and a second end of the wand, a flexible operating element (58) extending outside the wand at the first end thereof, and a handle (534) coupled to the operating element (58) and disposed at the second end of the wand, the handle (534) being operable to pull the operating element (58) for actuating the control module, an anti-winding guard (533) of an elongate shape, wherein the operating element (58) , the handle (534) and the anti-winding guard (533) are movable in unison relative to the wand, and the anti- winding guard (533) is configured to extend outside the wand (571)(578) between the handle (534) and the second end of the wand (571)(578) when the handle moves away from the second end of the wand, wherein the anti-winding guard (533) is a tube fixedly connected to the handle (534) and the operating element (58) is threaded through a hollow interior of the tube and has an end anchored to the anti-winding guard (533), the tube (533) being provided as a separate part fastened to the handle (534)at one end.
Huang ‘194 fails to disclose the end of the operating element being anchored to the handle and engaged with a retaining structure provided in the handle, wherein the handle has a channel and an inner cavity connected to each other, the inner cavity having a width greater than a width of the channel, the end of the tube being disposed inside the channel, and the end of the operating element extending outside the end of the tube into the inner cavity of the handle, the end of the operating element being entirely received inside the inner cavity of the handle.
Manske ‘083 discloses the end of the operating element (440) being anchored to the handle (140) and engaged with a retaining structure provided in the handle, wherein the handle has a channel and an inner cavity connected to each other (shown below), the inner cavity having a similar width as the channel, the end of the tube (130) being disposed inside the channel, and the end of the operating element (440) extending outside the end of the tube into the inner cavity of the handle (paragraph [0034]).
PNG
media_image1.png
276
318
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Tuzmen et al ‘687 discloses the end (19) of the operating element being entirely received inside the inner cavity (65) of the handle (50).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the device of Huang ‘194 to make the end of the operating element be anchored to retaining structure in the handle as taught by Manske ‘083 as such is shown to be a known configuration for anchoring an operating element. Such would keep the operating element accessible if removal is needed.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have an inner cavity with a width greater than a width of the channel since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, changes in size or shape without special functional significance are not patentable. Research Corp.v. Nasco Industries, Inc., 501 F2d 358; 182 USPQ 449 (CA 7) cert. Denied 184 USPQ 193; 43 USLW 3359 (1974). Making the channel smaller would allow a thinner tube to be used which may be preferable for a desired look of the device.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the device of Huang ‘194/Manske ‘083 to make the operating element be entirely received inside the inner cavity of the handle as taught by Tuzmen ‘687 for the purpose of providing a clean aesthetic as well as protecting it from damage.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument regarding claim 1 that there is no motivation to combine Claypool with Kovach, the examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the combination of Claypool with Kovach is not made to replace the structure of Claypool with that of Kovach, only for the teaching that a rigid link can also be flexible.
In response to applicant’s argument regarding claim 21 that the modification to replace the tube 533 of Huang with the solid rod of Kovach would fail to disclose “the solid rod having a distal end that is disposed inside the wand and is anchored to an end of the operating element”, the examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown above, Huang discloses that the tube has a distal end that is disposed inside the wand and is anchored to an end of the operating element. Modifying the tube of Huang to be a solid rod would not change this construction.
In response to applicant’s argument that the handle and anti-winding guard of Huang are separate elements and are not formed integrally, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The expression “integral” has a somewhat broad connotation and is not necessarily restricted to a one-piece article. In re Kohno 55 CCPA 998, 391 F.2d 959, 157 USPQ 275 (CCPA 1968 As such, the claimed limitations are met.
In regard to applicant’s argument regarding claim 22, this argument is moot in view of the new grounds of rejection above.
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 JEREMY C RAMSEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3133. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Wed 7:00-3:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Daniel Cahn can be reached at 571-270-5616. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JEREMY C RAMSEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3634
/Johnnie A. Shablack/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634