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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I in the reply filed on 11/12/25 is acknowledged. However, claim 1 is allowable. The restriction requirement between Species I-V, as set forth in the Office action mailed on 9/17/25 , has been reconsidered in view of the allowability of claims to the elected invention pursuant to MPEP § 821.04(a). The restriction requirement is hereby withdrawn as to any claim that requires all the limitations of an allowable claim. Specifically, the restriction requirement of 9/17/25 is withdrawn. Claims 16, 19, 22, 24-26, 29, and 30, directed to non-elected Species are no longer withdrawn from consideration because the claim(s) requires all the limitations of an allowable claim. All of the pending claims are examined below.
In view of the above noted withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Once a restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 9, 19, 22, 29, 37, and 38 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites “the transverse direction” in line 2, but a transverse direction is not previously introduced. In the context of the disclosure, it is clear that the transverse direction is defined as transverse relative to the longitudinal direction. It is recommended that claim 3 be amended to instead recite --a transverse direction--.
Claim 19 also references “the transverse direction” without previously introducing said direction, and claim 22 recites “the transverse direction T”. It is recommended that claim 19 be amended to recite --a transverse direction-- and that claim 22 be amended to recite --the transverse direction-- (removing the recitation of “T”) to ensure appropriate consistency.
Claim 9 introduces “a light source”, but a light source is previously introduced in claim 8. In the context of the disclosure, it is clear that these limitations refer to the same light source, so it is recommended that claim 9 be amended to reference --the light source-- to ensure appropriate consistency.
Claim 22 recites “aligned with switch” which should be amended to recite --aligned with the switch--.
Claim 37 recites “the respective first and second ends of the roller tube”, but said ends are not previously introduced. The limitation is clear in the context of the disclosure, but the claim should be amended to instead recite --respective first and second ends of the roller tube-- (deleting “the”).
Claim 38 introduces “an end portion of the motor drive unit” in line 5, but an end portion of the motor drive unit is previously introduced in claim 1. It is clear that the limitation in claim 38 refers to the same end portion as that recited in claim 1, so claim 38 should be amended to instead recite --the end portion of the motor drive unit--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4, 5, 7-14, 16, 24-26, 29, 30, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 4, 14, 24, and 25 each reference “the cavity” as well as a lower surface and inner surface of the cavity, but there is not sufficient antecedent basis for “the cavity”. The specification identifies multiple cavities (e.g. first and second cavities 171 and 173 of the collar, cavity 181 of the housing of the motor drive unit, and cavity 115 of the roller tube). Claim 31 also introduces a cavity as part of the motor drive unit housing. The disclosure generally identifies the “inner surface” and “lower surface” of the cavity as being defined in the cavity 181 of the housing, but the housing is not recited in claims 4, 14, 24, or 25. It is not readily clear whether or not the reference to “the cavity” in claims 4, 14, 24, and 25 also requires the housing (or the collar, or a different element) to define said cavity, or if it may be defined by a different element or space in the assembly. Claim 14 also introduces “an inner surface of the cavity”, but an inner surface of the cavity is previously introduced in claim 4. It is unclear if multiple inner surfaces are required by claim 14. Claims 24 and 25 also reference “the inner surface of the cavity”, but neither the inner surface nor the cavity have been previously introduced.
Claims 8 and 40 each reference “the elongated portion”. However, the elongated portion is first introduced in claim 2, and claims 8 and 40 each depend from claim 1 (the elongated portion is not previously introduced). There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the elongated portion”, and claims 8 and 40 are further unclear as to whether they specifically refer to the elongated portion of the actuation member, or if a different element may define the elongated portion. In the context of the disclosure, it appears that “the elongated portion” as recited in claims 8 and 40 refers to a portion of the actuation member, but this is not sufficiently clear in the claims. It also appears that claims 8 and 40 may have been intended to depend from claim 2, but this is also not sufficiently clear. Claims 8 and 40 should be amended to either depend from claim 2, or to properly introduce the elongated portion.
Claims 5, 7, 9-13, 16, 26, 29, and 30 are rejected as being dependent from a claim or claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). All claims are examined as best understood.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 19, 22, 31, 33, 35-39, and 41 are allowed.
Claims 4, 5, 7-14, 16, 24-26, 29, 30, and 40 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art discloses a motorized window treatment comprising a roller tube, a flexible material, and a motor drive unit comprising a motor, a control circuit, a battery holder, and a printed circuit board located between the battery holder and the motor in at least Blair (US 11788348) and Mullet (US 8791658). However, Blair and Mullet each fail to disclose a switch mounted on the printed circuit board and an actuation member configured to transfer a first force applied at an end portion of the motor drive unit to a second force configured to actuate the switch. At least Skinner (US 8723454) and Anthony (US 2020/0332595) disclose motorized window treatments including a printed circuit board comprising a switch mounted thereon, and an actuation member configured to transfer a first force applied in a first direction at an end portion of the motor drive unit to a second force to actuate the switch. However, Skinner and Anthony fail to disclose that the printed circuit board is located between a respective battery holder and motor--in each of Skinner and Anthony, the PCB is located at the end of the drive unit. Combining the prior art to arrive at the invention as claimed, including both the arrangement of the battery holder, motor, and PCB and the actuation member configured to transfer a force applied at an end portion of the motor drive unit to a switch on the PCB would require substantial modification that is not taught in the prior art, and would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art without impermissible hindsight.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABE L MASSAD whose telephone number is (571)272-6292. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00.
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.
/ABE MASSAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634