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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 should recite --wherein the edge of the lower arm that extends parallel-- in lines 5-6 (adding the term “that” or similar) to ensure appropriate consistency.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nodland (U.S. Patent No. 922,501) in view of Youngs (U.S. Patent No. 3,421,568).
Regarding claim 1, Nodland discloses a roller shade system [FIG. 1], comprising:
a roller tube (10’) having an outside diameter "D" (diameter shown in the couplable to the first shade bracket and the second shade bracket along the axis of rotation defined by the first shade bracket and the second shade bracket; and
a retention bracket (1, 21) disposable about the roller tube [FIG. 1], and positionable along at least a portion of the length of the roller tube [FIG. 1],
wherein the retention bracket comprises:
a single upper arm (21) spaced apart from the roller tube [FIG. 1], the upper arm having an edge (distal end of the extending portion 22 of the upper arm) that extends parallel to the axis of rotation (the thickness direction of the edge extends parallel to the axis of rotation); and
a single lower arm (1; the bracket 1 includes base portions 2, 4 and an extending portion 5 as described on page 1, lines 68-76) spaced apart from the roller tube (the lower arm 1 is spaced from the roller tube by the rollers 9 and 9’, which meets the requirements of the limitation given a broadest reasonable interpretation) [FIG. 1], the lower arm having an edge (distal end of the extending portion 5) extending parallel to the axis of rotation (the thickness direction of the edge extends parallel to the axis of rotation), the lower arm detachably couplable to the upper arm (via fasteners 19, 20), such that, when coupled, the upper arm and the lower arm form a gap having a width "W" between the edge of the upper arm and the edge of the lower arm, the width "W" less than the outside diameter "D" of the roller tube (page 2, lines 7-16) [FIG. 1].
It is noted that the limitations “single upper arm” and “single lower arm” are presented as part of the open-ended claim using the transitional phrase “comprising”, and does not explicitly constitute a negative limitation requiring no more than one arm. Nodland does not explicitly disclose first and second shade brackets, a length of the roller tube, or a plurality of the retention brackets.
Nonetheless, Youngs discloses a roller shade system [FIG. 2] comprising a first shade bracket (30); a second shade bracket (30; on the opposing end of the system) positionable with respect to the first shade bracket such that the first shade bracket and the second shade bracket define an axis of rotation therebetween [FIG. 2]; a roller tube (28) having a length “L” couplable to the first shade bracket and the second shade bracket along the axis of rotation defined by the first shade bracket and the second shade bracket (the length and coupling between the first and second brackets 30 are shown in at least Figure 2); and a plurality of retention brackets (34) disposable about the roller tube [FIGS. 2, 3].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the roller shade system of Nodland to include the brackets and roller tube length taught by Youngs, and to have provided multiple retention brackets in the system as taught by Youngs, in order to provide a means for supporting a large format roller shade, and to provide additional support points for the roller tube at opposing ends and multiple locations along the length of the roller tube to ensure more reliable operation and more robust protection against displacements.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Nodland discloses that the upper arm is formed integral with a mounting plate (rear portion of the bracket 21 through which fastener 19 is inserted) that includes a first aperture (aperture in the bracket 21 through which the fastener 19 extends); and the lower arm is formed integral with a base (2) that includes a second aperture (aperture in the bracket 1 through which the fastener 19 extends), the second aperture aligned with the first aperture [FIG. 1] and accommodating passage of a fastener (19) to engage the first aperture (page 2, lines 7-9); wherein the fastener includes a threaded fastener (page 2, lines 7-9). Nodland does not disclose a plurality of apertures.
It nonetheless would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the bases of the upper and lower arms of Nodland to include a plurality of first and second apertures, as a basic matter of duplication of parts. It has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Providing multiple apertures in each part provides the obvious and well-known benefits of increasing the strength of the connection between the parts, and providing redundancy in the case of a failed fastener.
Regarding claim 4, Nodland discloses that the edge of the upper arm extending parallel to the axis of rotation comprises a longitudinal edge of the upper arm that extends parallel to the axis of rotation; and wherein the edge of the lower arm extending parallel to the axis of rotation comprises a longitudinal edge of the lower arm that extends parallel to the axis of rotation (as shown in Figure 2, the edges of the arms 5, 22 of the and lower arms extend parallel to the axis of rotation along their respective thickness directions; it is noted that this is consistent with the longitudinal edge disclosed with respect to the elected embodiment in the instant application).
Regarding claim 5, Nodland discloses that the upper arm includes a flexible "U"-shaped member (the upper arm 21 is formed from metal, which inherently has at least some degree of flexibility, and includes an “U”-shaped cross section as shown in Figure 1) having a length "L2" that is less than one-half of the length "L1" of the roller tube; and wherein the lower arm of each of the plurality of retention brackets includes a flexible "L"-shaped cover member (the lower arm 1 is formed from metal, which inherently has at least some degree of flexibility; the lower arm 1 further includes a cross section having a “L”-shape as shown in Figure 2). Nodland does not explicitly disclose that the length of the upper arm is less than half the length of the roller tube.
Nonetheless, Youngs discloses a retention bracket (34) having a length that is less than one-half of the length of the roller tube (28) [FIG. 2]. As set forth with respect to claim 1 above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Nodland to have the roller tube and retention bracket configuration taught by Youngs, in order to provide sufficient support for a larger assembly.
Regarding claim 6, Nodland, as modified above, discloses that the upper arm (21) of each of the plurality of retention brackets includes a first flexible arc-shaped member (at least arm 22 is arc-shaped); and wherein the lower arm (1) of each of the plurality of retention brackets includes a second flexible arc-shaped member (at least arm 5 is arc-shaped; the arc-shapes of the upper and lower arms are shown best in Figure 2).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Nodland, as modified above, discloses that the upper arm of each of the plurality of retention brackets further includes a rectangular-shaped plate (rear plate of the upper arm 21 through which the fastener 19 is inserted) formed integral with the first flexible arc-shaped member (page 1, lines 68-76), the rectangular-shaped plate having an aperture (at 19) formed therethrough; wherein the first flexible arc-shaped member (22) is disposed at a 90° angle with respect to the rectangular-shaped plate [FIG. 2]. It would have been obvious to have provided multiple apertures formed through the plate of the upper arm as a basic matter of duplication of parts. It has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Providing multiple apertures in each part provides the obvious and well-known benefits of increasing the strength of the connection between the parts, and providing redundancy in the case of a failed fastener.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Nodland, as modified above, discloses that the upper arm mounting plate includes a rectangular-shaped plate [FIG. 2] formed integral with the first flexible arc-shaped member (page 1, lines 68-76), the rectangular-shaped mounting plate having the first plurality of apertures and a third plurality of apertures formed therethrough [FIGS. 1, 2]; wherein the lower arm base includes a rectangular-shaped base (the rectangular shape of the base 2 is shown in Figures 1-2) formed integral with the second flexible arc-shaped member, the rectangular-shaped base having the second plurality of apertures formed therethrough [FIG. 2]; wherein the first flexible arc-shaped member is disposed at a 90° angle with respect to the rectangular-shaped mounting plate [FIG. 2]; and wherein the second flexible arc-shaped member is disposed at a 90° angle with respect to the rectangular-shaped base (page 1, line 75) [FIG. 2].
Regarding claim 13, Nodland, as modified by Youngs above, discloses that the plurality of retention brackets are disposed symmetrically about a center point of the length “L” of the roller tube (Youngs, Figure 2).
Regarding claim 14, Nodland, as modified by Youngs above, discloses the plurality of retention brackets, but does not disclose that they are disposed asymmetrically about a center point of the length “L” of the roller tube. It nonetheless would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have positioned the retention brackets asymmetrically, as a basic matter of repositioning parts. It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. It is further noted that the retention brackets of Nodland, as modified above, are inherently capable of being arranged asymmetrically, and doing so would provide the obvious benefits of allowing installation in a location where more secure connection points are not located at regular or symmetric intervals (e.g. a building with multiple windows of different sizes).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nodland (U.S. Patent No. 922,501) in view of Youngs (U.S. Patent No. 3,421,568), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mullet (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0312920).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Nodland, as modified above, discloses the roller tube, but does not disclose a motor drive disposed within the roller tube member or an energy storage device disposed with in the roller tube member.
Nonetheless, Mullet discloses a roller shade system comprising a motor drive (40) and a roller tube (32) comprising a hollow roller tube member with the motor drive disposed at least partially within the hollow roller tube member (paragraph 0067) [FIG. 4]; and an energy storage device (80) electrically conductively coupled to the motor drive (paragraph 0069), the energy storage device disposed at least partially within the hollow roller tube member [FIG. 4].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the shade system of Nodland, as modified above, to include the motor drive and energy storage device taught by Mullet, in order to provide means for remotely operating the shade, and to facilitate retraction and deployment of the shade with minimal manual effort.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/12/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Nodland, as modified by Youngs, fails to disclose a retention bracket using a single upper arm and a single lower arm. This argument is not found persuasive, as the term “single” as it is used in the claims does not specifically limit the assembly to only a single arm (i.e. it is not presented as a negative limitation explicitly precluding the use of additional arms). The claims are presented as open-ended claims using the transitional phrase “comprising”, and therefore are not limited to only the elements explicitly set forth in the claims (as opposed to the close-ended transitional phrase “consisting of”).
In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., retention brackets having one and only one upper and lower arm) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
It is noted that should a limitation be presented that clearly sets forth a negative limitation excluding the presence of more than one element extending outwardly from the base and/or mounting plate of the two parts, then the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nodland in view of Youngs would likely be overcome. However, a system comprising retention brackets having only a single upper arm and only a single lower arm is taught by at least Geiger (US 2018/0195342) and/or Combis (US 477512).
Applicant is also advised that a limitation introducing a shade fabric wound on the roller tube and further requiring that the retention brackets be spaced from the roller tube and the shade fabric would likely overcome both the current rejection and the relevant prior art mentioned above. However, further consideration and/or search may be required before a determination of patentability can be made. Applicant is invited to contact the Examiner to schedule an interview for discussion of possible amendments to this end.
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 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