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 with traverse of invention I in the reply filed on December 22, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the differing technical feature is not discussed. This is not found persuasive because the shared technical feature was identified as limitations directed to the first leaf, second leaf, driving hinge mechanism (the limitations of claim 1 that are also in claim 17) and because the requirement for restriction is under unity of invention and the shared technical feature does not make over the prior art, and is taught by the art identified in the restriction requirement. Therefore the restriction requirement was made. Further, the method requires “activating the driving hinge mechanism under predefined parameters, the parameters being at least one of: angular speed, duration, angular direction, and/or angular span.” The limitations are not required of the apparatus thus requiring different search queries and different search areas. For example, the parameters that control and activate would require search in E05F 1/002, E05F 15/70, E05F15/659, E05F15/695 which are not required of the apparatus and the shared technical features were identified as not being
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 1-15 and 21 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 1 and 21 recites “the leaves have a cross-sectional outline having a beveled edge.” It is unclear if the claim intends to recite --each of the leaves-- having a beveled edge or collectively the leaves have an outline with a beveled edge. There is confusion as to the number of beveled edges as the claim later recites “the beveled edges” which only introducing “a beveled edge.” Claims 2-4 refer to “the beveled edge” and as discussed above, it is not clear how many beveled edges are required.
Claims 1 and 21 recite “the leaves have a cross-sectional outline” and later recites “the cross-sectional outline of the tubular body.” There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the cross-sectional outline of the tubular body.” It is unclear if the recitation should refer to the leaves or if the recitation should introduce a different cross-sectional outline.
Claim 8 refers to “the actuating module” which lacks antecedent basis. It is unclear if claim 8 should instead depend from a different claim or if claim 8 should introduce an actuating module.
Claims 11, 12, and 21 require a first leaf and a second leaf. The claims later refer to “a leaf.” It is unclear if “a leaf” is one of the first and second leaves or if a new leaf is being introduced.
In view of the 112 issues discussed above the claims have been examined as best understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 7, 13, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lewis et al. (US 9,879,471), hereinafter referred to as Lewis.
Regarding claim 1, Hives discloses a folding shutter system comprising:
a first leaf (10x) to be hingedly connected to a building structure (7), the first leaf being hingedly connected (via 13e and 100e) to a second leaf (10d) (Figs 9 and 10);
PNG
media_image1.png
666
1092
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
258
650
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a driving hinge mechanism (13e and 100; Figs 9 and 18, hinge movement drives the system by moving the leaves) comprising a tubular body (131a; Fig 14) longitudinally arranged between the two leaves, the two leaves being rotatably displaceable relative to each other about a longitudinal axis of the tubular body, at least a folded position and an expanded position of the leaves being defined thereby (Fig 10);
PNG
media_image3.png
574
860
media_image3.png
Greyscale
the leaves having a cross-sectional outline having a beveled edge (26b, 26d, 28b, 28d; Fig 14), the beveled edges being arranged to define a cavity (space receiving 131a) for housing at least partially the cross-sectional outline of the tubular body (30a).
Regarding claim 2, the beveled edge and the cross-sectional outline of the tubular body having cooperating shapes with each other (the shapes work together and correspond to allow rotating between the leaves, thus cooperate).
Regarding claim 3, the beveled edge and the tubular body being detachably joined through a dovetail joint (138a; Figs 14 and 15) defined along the longitudinal axis.
Regarding claim 7, the leaves comprising an extruded (product-by-process limitation) profile (20b, 20d) adjacent to the tubular body.
Regarding claim 13, comprising a guiding rail (110; Fig 9) to be fixed to the building structure, the second leaf (10d) having a projection (70, not shown in Fig 9) to follow the guiding rail when the leaves are rotatably displaced from each other (Fig 9).
Regarding claim 14, the cavity (Fig 3) being arranged to face the building structure in the expanded position (portion of the cavity is open towards the building structure).
Regarding claim 15, the second leaf (10d) being connected to a third leaf (10c) in such a way that the first, second and third leaves form a zigzag in a folded position (Fig 10A), the second and the third leaves being joined together through a bridge (40 and 42’s; Fig 7), each of the second and the third leaves being rotatably connected to the bridge.
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis, as applied in claim 7 above, in further view of Tostee (US 11,326,392).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Lewis fails to disclose the profile having a longitudinal recess to receive a power wire to feed an actuating module. However, Tostee teaches a profile having a recess to receive a power wire (electrical control and drive module 704) that feeds an actuating module (locking mechanism). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date with a reasonable expectation of success to provide the profile of Lewis with a longitudinal recess and an actuating module and a power wire received in the longitudinal recess in order to provide electrical locking means.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis, as applied in claim 1 above, in further view of Mitchell (US 11,486,177).
Regarding claim 9, although Lewis teaches a tubular body, Lewis fails to teach the tubular body having a locking module to lock the leaves with respect to the building structure. However, Mitchell teaches that it is known for a hinge mechanism to have a tubular body having a locking module (390). Mitchell teaches that the locking module locks the system in the closed position. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate a locking module in the tubular body of Lewis in order to provided locking means to secure the system in a closed position.
Regarding claim 10, Lewis as modified with Mitchell above teaches a locking pin (390) movable along the longitudinal axis between a retracted position allowing relative displacement between the leaves and the building structure, and an extended position fixing disposition of the leaves with respect to the building structure.
Regarding claim 11, Lewis as modified with Mitchell teaches the locking module being detachably connected to a leaf (removable).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 and 12 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.
Claim 21 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Johnnie A. Shablack whose telephone number is (571)270-5344. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 6am-3pm EST, alternate Friday.
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.
/Johnnie A. Shablack/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634