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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the first sentence, “A device for lowering and raising blinds relates to the technical field of blind”, is implied and also simply repeats the title. The second sentence begins with “the device includes: which is implied language as well. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limiting section comprising multiple “bumps” from claim 6 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 8-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 line 2 recites “the baffle plate”, but should recite “the baffle plates”
Claim 9 lines 6-7 recites “the usage state of the lining plate to the first usage state, and fixing the usage state of the blind at this time”. The phrase “the usage state” on line 6, as best understood, should be “a usage state”. It is also noted that “fixing the usage state of the blind at this time” should better explain which usage state it is referring to, because the blind doesn’t seem to have a usage state recited at this time. The phrase “at this time” also is not needed in the claim, and may add complications to any interpretation, and the examiner suggests removing it. It is also noted that claim 9 depends from claim 8, and if the applicant chooses to delete claim 8 because of the 112(d) rejection below, the dependency should also be corrected.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 8 merely recites limitations added to claim 1 line 21. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Theobald (US 2,345,481).
Regarding claim 1, Theobald teaches a device for lowering and raising a blind, comprising:
a fixing frame (10), wherein the fixing frame is used to connect with a blind body (capable of this); and
a lining plate (14 on the left in fig. 3), wherein the lining plate articulately connects with the fixing frame (see fig. 3-4);
the lining plate has a first usage state and a second usage state, in the first usage state, the blind body is rolled up, the fixing frame is inserted into a rolled part of the blind body and the lining plate is rotated relative to the fixing frame to be located at a rear of the blind and contacts with the blind body, so that the fixing frame and the lining plate are located at opposite sides of the blind body to prevent the blind body from being rolled down (functional language, Theobald is able to be used in the manner as described);
in the second usage state, the lining plate is rotated relative to the fixing frame to be located at a lateral side of the blind body, and the blind body is able to be rolled down and up (functional language, Theobald is able to be used in the manner as described), wherein the fixing frame comprises:
a fixing frame body (the structure of the fixing frame is considered the body), wherein one end of the fixing frame body articulately connects with the lining plate (14 on left in fig. 3, at least indirectly);
two baffle plates (shown as 10 and 22 in fig. 1), wherein an end of each of the baffle plates connects with the fixing frame body, another end of each of the baffle plates extends to a side direction of the fixing frame body (see figs. 1 and 3), and the two baffle plates are spaced apart by a distance, and a baffle bar (12), wherein an end of the baffle bar connects with the fixing frame body, another end of the baffle bar extends to the same side direction of the fixing frame body, and the baffle bar is set between the two baffle plates (see fig. 3) for cooperating with each of the two of the baffle plates to clip the blind body (functional language), wherein the baffle bar is provided in a staggered position with the baffle plates so that a plane in which the baffle bar is disposed and a plane in which the baffle plates are disposed are different (staggering as best shown in fig. 2 and 6).
Regarding claim 3, Theobald teaches that the fixing frame body rotationally connects with the lining plate (figs. 3-4 shows this rotational connection).
Regarding claim 5 Theobald teaches that the lining plate is provided with a limiting section (42) for limiting a sectional structure of the blind body.
Regarding claim 8, Theobald teaches that the baffle bar is provided in a staggered position with the baffle plate (as best shown in fig. 2 and 6).
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.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Theobald (US 234581) in view of Haarer (US 5060710).
Regarding claim 4, although Theobald teaches that the fixing frame body rotationally connects with the lining plate, it does not explicitly teach that this is through a rivet structure.
Haarer teaches a device for a blind with a frame body (50) that rotationally connects with a plate (60) through a rivet structure (element 90 is a rivet).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Theobald with teachings of Haarer so that the elements are rotationally connected through a rivet structure. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of a cheap and durable way of joining elements while allowing them to be rotated relative to one another.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Theobald (US 234581).
Regarding claim 6, Theobald teaches that the limiting section comprises a bump (see column 2 lines 45-47). Theobald doesn’t explicitly teach bumps.
The examiner notes that the courts have 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 with a reasonable expectation of success to have the limiting section contain multiple bumps. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of the multiple bumps providing a stronger securement means and a backup securement means for the device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 6/22/2026 have been 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
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 MATTHEW R SHEPHERD whose telephone number is (571)272-5657. 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.
/M.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3634
/DANIEL P CAHN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights