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 .
This Office Action is in response to the claims filed on 11/21/2025.
Status of Claims: Claims 1-2, 4-15, and 17 are currently pending and have been examined below. Claims 3 and 16 are canceled.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 11/21/2025 disclosed new matter issues, see A) and B) as non-limiting examples below and see drawing objection in C) below:
PNG
media_image1.png
853
641
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Above provides non-limiting examples, the applicant(s) must find and correct all issues similar to those discussed above.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In lines 6-7 of claim 7, “a direction transverse to the first deflection axis (8)” should read --the direction transverse to the first deflection axis (8)--.
Appropriate correction is required. Above provides non-limiting examples, the applicant(s) must find and correct all issues similar to those discussed above.
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 1-2, 4-10, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasemann et al. (IT 1099838) (hereinafter “Hasemann”) in view of Cianetti (US 20150252603).
Claim 1
(Hasemann discloses) A sliding window arrangement (figure 1), comprising:
an external frame (frame forming the opening 10) and a sliding element (13) which is displaceably mounted in the external frame (figure 1);
a cable deflection system (cable system at the right side of the sliding element) for tensioning and deflecting a cable (19, 25, and 29), the cable deflection system comprising:
a first cable deflection unit (Partial Annotated figure 1 below) with a first cable deflection device (18),
a second cable deflection unit (Partial Annotated figure 1 below) with a second cable deflection device (22), and
a guide channel (36) which extends in a direction of gravitational force (figure 1);
the first cable deflection unit is configured such that, for tensioning and deflecting the cable, the cable being insertable into the first cable deflection device, and the first cable deflection unit is mounted in a positionally fixed manner on the sliding window arrangement (figure 1), such that the cable, which is inserted into the first cable deflection device, is deflected about a first deflection axis (axis of 18) to the direction of the gravitational force (deflection device 18 deflects the cable downwards in figure 1);
the second cable deflection unit is configured such that, for tensioning and deflecting the cable, the cable being insertable into the second cable deflection device (figure 1) and, such that upon the cable being inserted into the first and second cable deflection devices, said cable being fastened to the sliding element and to a fixed power source (30) and connecting the sliding element to the fixed power source (figure 1);
upon the sliding element being displaced, the second cable deflection unit is displaced the direction of the gravitational force or to an opposing direction (figure 1), the cable being deflectable about a second deflection axis (the cable is deflected at the axis of 22) to a direction of the first cable deflection unit (figure 1), and the second cable deflection unit comprises a weight (24) such that, upon the sliding element being displaced, the second cable deflection unit and the weight are displaced to the direction of the gravitational force or to the opposing direction (figure 1);
the cable deflection system is adapted to tension the cable, which connects the sliding element to the fixed power source, by a constant weight force of the weight and, upon the sliding element being displaced, to deflect the cable which is tensioned by a uniformly constant tensioning force (figure 1); and
the cable deflection system comprises an elongated cable support element (right side 16 above the sliding element), and with the cable being inserted into the first and second cable deflection devices and said cable being fastened to the sliding element and to the fixed power source and connecting the sliding element to the fixed power source, the elongated cable support element: a) is arranged between the sliding element and the cable (shown in figure 1), b) runs parallel to a displacement direction of the sliding element (Partial Annotated figure 1 (II) below), and c) extends over a length of a maximum displacement path of the sliding element (Partial Annotated figure 1 (II) below; note that limitation ‘c)’ was interpreted such that the length is merely a certain length from the maximum displacement path) such that the tensioned cable is restricted by the elongated cable support element from sagging down even with a displacement of the sliding element over the maximum displacement path of the sliding element (see taut cable in figure 1).
Hasemann fails to disclose:
(i) the second cable deflection unit is arranged in the guide channel so as to be displaceable in the guide channel;
(ii) the second cable deflection unit is held in the guide channel against the gravitational force by the cable;
(iii) upon the sliding element being displaced, the second cable deflection unit is displaced to the direction of the gravitational force or to an opposing direction in the guide channel;
(iv) the second cable deflection unit and the weight are displaced to the direction of the gravitational force or to the opposing direction in the guide channel.
(i) (However, Cianetti teaches) a second cable deflection unit (15 and 16; Cianetti figure 3) is arranged in a guide channel (channel formed by 4) so as to be displaceable in the guide channel (Cianetti figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the second cable deflection unit of Hasemann such that it is displaceable in the guide channel as taught by Cianetti, with a reasonable expectation of success, for guiding the vertical movement of the second cable deflection unit as such it is less likely to rotate or spin as it moves thus preventing tangling of the cable.
(ii to iv) the second cable deflection unit is held in the guide channel against the gravitational force by the cable;
upon the sliding element being displaced, the second cable deflection unit is displaced to the direction of the gravitational force or to an opposing direction in the guide channel;
the second cable deflection unit and the weight are displaced to the direction of the gravitational force or to the opposing direction in the guide channel (limitations in ii to iv are taught via the combination above).
PNG
media_image2.png
658
511
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Partial Annotated figure 1
PNG
media_image3.png
676
954
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Partial Annotated figure 1 (II)
Claim 2
(Hasemann, as modified above, discloses) The sliding window arrangement as claimed in claim 1, wherein the second cable deflection unit comprises a fastening device (23), the weight being fastenable via the fastening device to the second cable deflection unit (figure 1).
Claim 4
(Hasemann, as modified above, discloses) The sliding window arrangement as claimed in claim 1, wherein the cable deflection system further comprises a cable guiding element (Partial Annotated figure 1 (II) above) which is fastened to the sliding element and is displaceably mounted on the elongated cable support element, such that the cable, which connects the sliding element to the fixed power source, is guided by the cable guiding element between the elongated cable support element and the external frame and, upon the sliding element being displaced, the cable guiding element is displaced along the elongated cable support element (figure 1).
Claim 5
(Hasemann, as modified above, discloses) The sliding window arrangement as claimed in claim 4, the cable guiding element comprises an angled-back surface region (Partial Annotated figure 1 (II) above).
Modified Hasemann fails to disclose:
(i) wherein the elongated cable support element is an elongated U-shaped profile;
(ii) with the cable guiding element being hooked by the angled-back surface region into the U-shaped profile.
(i) However, one of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with parameters so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Accordingly, it would have been no more than an obvious matter of engineering design choice, as determined through routine experimentation and optimization, for one of ordinary skill to provide the shape of the elongated cable support element as an elongated U-shaped profile, with a reasonable expectation of success, to provide better coverage for the cable guiding element thus providing improved security and fit between the two parts.
(ii) (Hasemann, as modified above, discloses) with the cable guiding element being hooked by the angled-back surface region into the U-shaped profile (this would be taught via the modification above).
Claim 6
(Hasemann, as modified above, discloses) The sliding window arrangement as claimed in claim 1, wherein the second cable deflection unit is arranged with the second deflection axis transverse to the first deflection axis (figure 1; note that ‘transverse’ was interpreted as --situated or lying across; crosswise--) and with the second deflection axis transverse to the direction of the gravitational force in the guide channel (figure 1).
Claim 7
(Hasemann, as modified above, discloses) The sliding window arrangement as claimed in claim 6, wherein the first cable deflection unit has a maximum width A (width A shown in Partial Annotated figure 1 above) in a direction transverse to the first deflection axis and parallel to the displacement direction of the sliding element (figure 1), and the second cable deflection unit has a maximum width B (width B shown in Partial Annotated figure 1 above), where A is the maximum width of the first cable deflection unit in a direction transverse to the first deflection axis (Partial Annotated figure 1 above), and B is the maximum width of the second cable deflection unit (Partial Annotated figure 1 above).
Modified Hasemann does disclose respective widths for the first and second cable deflection units, but is silent regarding the second cable deflection unit has a maximum width (B) of 0.5A ≤ B ≤ 2.0A in a direction parallel to the second deflection axis.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with parameters so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Accordingly, it would have been no more than an obvious matter of engineering design choice, as determined through routine experimentation and optimization, for one of ordinary skill to modify the width of B such that it is within 0.5A ≤ B ≤ 2.0A, with a reasonable expectation of success, for providing an optimized width proportions between the first and second deflection units therefore they function effectively and creating an improved proportion for operating the cable.
Claim 8
(Hasemann, as modified above, discloses) The sliding window arrangement as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first cable deflection unit has a fastening element (the circular discs of the roller which holds the cable in place relative to the first cable deflection unit) configured to fix a portion of the cable to the first cable deflection unit (figure 1).
Claim 9
(Hasemann, as modified above, discloses) The sliding window arrangement as claimed in claim 1, wherein both the first and second cable deflection units have a housing (the two circular discs of a pulley which holds the cable in place) and a respective housing part (the circular pin connecting both circular discs of the pulley) of the respective housing protrudes over the respective first and second cable deflection devices, such that the cable inserted into the first and second cable deflection devices is captively guided in a direction along the respective first and second deflection axis (figure 1).
Claim 10
(Hasemann, as modified above, discloses) The sliding window arrangement as claimed in claim 9, wherein the second cable deflection unit has rib (23) on the housing of the second cable deflection unit, and the rib protruding from the housing of the second cable deflection unit are adapted to guide the second cable deflection unit in the guide channel (figure 1).
Modified Hasemann is silent regarding the second cable deflection unit has more than one rib. However, examiner is directing the attention to the fact that the courts have held that “Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced”. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to duplicate the rib of modified Hasemann, with a reasonable expectation of success, for improving the attachment of the weight to the second cable deflection unit, thus it is sturdier and prevents detachment of the weight.
Claim 15
(Hasemann, as modified above, discloses) The sliding window arrangement as claimed in claim 2, wherein the fastening device (23) is a suspension device (see element 23 in figure 1) comprising a projection (the projecting element connecting fastening device 23 to weight 24) which is adapted to have the weight hooked onto the projection and unhooked from the projection (figure 1).
Claim 17
(Hasemann, as modified above, discloses) The sliding window arrangement as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first and the second cable deflection units are each produced from plastics by an additive method (this claim was interpreted as a product-by-process limitation - see MPEP 2113 disclosing "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasemann in view of Cianetti, as applied in claims 1-2, 4-10, 15, and 17 and in further view of Hutchison et al. (US 5131188) (hereinafter “Hutchison”).
Claim 11
(Hasemann, as modified above, discloses) The sliding window arrangement as claimed in claim 1.
Modified Hasemann fails to disclose wherein a first cable deflection unit has a third cable deflection device which is adapted to deflect the cable inserted therein about a third deflection axis which runs obliquely to the first deflection axis, and the second cable deflection unit has a fourth cable deflection device which is adapted to deflect the cable inserted therein about the second deflection axis and said fourth cable deflection device is arranged to be spaced apart from the second cable deflection device.
(However, Hutchison teaches) wherein a first cable deflection unit (Annotated figure II and III below) has a first cable deflection device (44; Hutchison figures 2-3) and a third cable deflection device (54) which is adapted to deflect a cable (40) inserted therein about a third deflection axis (Annotated figure II and III below) which runs obliquely to a first deflection axis (Annotated figure II and III below; see cable 40 obliquely extending to the first deflection axis in Hutchison figure 3; note that “obliquely” was interpreted as --Having a slanting or sloping direction-- and the limitation “which runs obliquely to a first deflection axis” was interpreted to be referring to the cable since it is not clearly defined regarding what element of the invention is the limitation referring to), and a second cable deflection unit (Annotated figure II and III below) has a second cable deflection device (52) and a fourth cable deflection device (56) which is adapted to deflect the cable inserted therein about a second deflection axis (both the second and fourth cable deflection devices share the same second deflection axis in Annotated figure II and III below) and said fourth cable deflection device is arranged to be spaced apart from the second cable deflection device (see 56 horizontally spaced apart from 52 in Hutchison figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to configure the first cable deflection unit of modified Hasemann such that it has a third cable deflection device and to configure the second cable deflection unit of modified Hasemann such that it has a fourth cable deflection device similarly taught by the first and second cable deflection units of Hutchison, with a reasonable expectation of success, such that the additional deflection devices increase the traveling distance of the cable without requiring additional space within the guide channel therefore the assembly can be fitted within compact areas without affecting its function of moving the sliding element between the closed and opened positions. Additionally, the provision of multiple deflection devices allow for a longer displacement path for the sliding element thus the sliding arrangement can be installed to move along a wider opening.
PNG
media_image4.png
530
829
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure II and III
Claim 12
(Hasemann, as modified above, discloses) The sliding window arrangement as claimed in claim 11, wherein the first deflection axis extends in a first plane (Annotated figure II and III above), which extends transversely to the direction of the gravitational force, the third deflection axis extends in a further plane (Annotated figure II and III above), which extends parallel to the first plane and spaced apart from the first plane (Annotated figure II and III above), and an angle alpha is defined between a projection of the first deflection axis in a direction normal to the first plane onto the further plane and the third deflection axis (the angle alpha is the angle between the first deflection axis and the third deflection axis when the first deflection axis is projected onto the further plane).
In the configuration shown in Annotated figure II and III above, modified Hasemann teaches the angle alpha as defined to be at 0° since the first deflection axis overlaps with the third deflection axis. Therefore modified Hasemann fails to disclose the angle alpha is greater than or equal to 45° and less than or equal to 90°.
However, examiner is directing the attention to the fact that the courts have held that “Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device”. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to shift the position of the third cable deflection device such that the angle alpha is greater than or equal to 45° and less than or equal to 90°, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the benefits of creating further separation between the cables as they are inserted into the second and third cable deflection devices thus they are less likely to tangle with each other during operation.
Claim 13
(Hasemann, as modified above, discloses) The sliding window arrangement as claimed in 11, wherein at least one of the first, second, third or fourth cable deflection devices is formed as a deflection roller which is rotatably mounted about the respective deflection axis (these are taught via the combination above, note that all deflection devices in Hasemann and the additional deflection devices from Hutchison were deflection rollers).
Claim 14
(Hasemann, as modified above, discloses) The sliding window arrangement as claimed in 11, wherein each of the first, second, third or fourth cable deflection devices is formed as a deflection roller which is rotatably mounted about the respective deflection axis (these are taught via the combination above, note that all deflection devices in Hasemann and the additional deflection devices from Hutchison were deflection rollers).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments directed to the drawing and specification objections were considered. Note that new drawing objections were presented above.
Applicant’s amendments directed to the claim objections and 112 rejections were also considered.
Applicant's arguments filed on 11/21/2025 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 PATRICK B PONCIANO whose telephone number is (571)272-9910. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-4:00.
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.
/PATRICK B. PONCIANO/Examiner, Art Unit 3634
/DANIEL P CAHN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3634