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 .
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, with a reference character. Therefore, the second induction coil from claim 3, and the antenna from claim 7 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The second induction coil from claim 3, and the antenna from claim 7 need their own respective reference characters in the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 requires a “control component” on line 12-13. There doesn’t appear to be an exact “control component” in the applicant’s disclosure. With this, the power switch, as described in the claim 5 rejection below is considered the control component, as a power switch can reasonably be considered a control component. It is noted that in the applicant’s original disclosure, there does not appear to be a third element in addition to the power switch and network configuration key that could be considered a control component, and any amendment that incorporates this would be considered new matter.
Claim 2 recites “a motor” on line 2. In the disclosure there is clearly only a single motor, thus this is interpreted as referring to the motor from line 11 of claim 1.
Claims 5 and 6 both recite “the motor has a terminal, the terminal has a first terminal surface perpendicular to a rotation axis of the curtain rod”, which is already recited in independent claim 1. The applicant is clearly not intending on introducing a second terminal surface, nor rotation axis. These are interpreted as referring to the terminal surface and the rotation axis introduced in claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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(s) 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poirier (WO2019043565) in view of Zeng (US 11317544).
Regarding claim 1, Poirier teaches an electric curtain, comprising:
a curtain fabric (paragraph 66), and a curtain rod (fig. 8) for rolling up the curtain fabric; wherein a first inductive device (102, control system from fig. 14) is disposed at a position of the curtain rod opposite to a surface of the curtain fabric (the device is considered disposed at a position of the rod opposite to a surface of the fabric, as the device is not on the fabric. This appears to be consistent with the applicant’s disclosure.), the first induction device is electrically connected to a battery (230) disposed in the curtain rod (the battery is found in element 730, which fig. 8 shows is inside the curtain rod), and the first induction coil is configured to be combined with a second induction coil configured with an external power supply to form an inductive charging device, so as to inductively charge the battery from the external power supply (capable of),
wherein the curtain rod comprises a motor (250) having a terminal (motors are well known to have terminals) with a terminal surface perpendicular to a rotation axis of the curtain rod (motor terminal surfaces are well known to be perpendicular to a rotation axis of the motor, which is the same as the rotation axis of the curtain rod), and a control component (power switch from paragraph 4, see claim objection above).
Poirier does not explicitly teach that the first inductive device is an induction coil, nor that the control component is disposed on said terminal surface, thereby minimizing a length of the terminal to reduce a gap between an edge of the curtain fabric and a window frame.
Zeng teaches an inductive charger that is an induction coil (see fig. 7 and 8). 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 modify Poirier with teachings of Zeng so that the first inductive device is an induction coil. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of a known type of inductive device that is easy to source.
It is noted that the courts have held that the particular placement of a component in a device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice (in re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Poirier so that the control component is disposed on the terminal surface. This alteration provides the predictable and expected result of the switch being easy to find for a user. After this alteration, this orientation minimizes a length of the terminal to reduce a gap between an edge of the curtain fabric and a window frame.
Regarding claim 2, modified Poirier teaches that the curtain rod includes: a roller (it is well understood that in roller shades the curtains are connected to a roller), and the motor (250, see claim objection above) is disposed in the roller (as described in paragraph 47, the whole control system may be inside the roller) and configured to provide a rotational power to the roller (functional language);
wherein the first induction coil is fixed to the motor (at least via the electrical connections).
Modified Poirier does not explicitly teach that a position of the roller corresponding to the first induction coil is provided with a through hole. Zeng further teaches a through hole for the induction coil (fig. 11). 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 further modify Poirier so that a position of the roller corresponding to the first induction coil is provided with a through hole. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of allowing access to the inductive coil, resulting in a more efficient power transmission.
Regarding claim 3, modified Poirier teaches that the second induction device (802) is magnetic (735 is a magnetic connection). Modified Poirier does not explicitly teach that the second induction device is an induction coil.
Zeng teaches an inductive charger that is an induction coil (see fig. 7 and 8). 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 modify Poirier with teachings of Zeng so that the second inductive device is an induction coil. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of a known type of inductive device that is easy to source.
Regarding claim 4, modified Poirier teaches that the first induction coil is further configured in a manner that after the electric curtain is mounted on a window frame, the first induction coil is located on a side of the curtain rod away from a wall or a side away from a glass (the coil is in the curtain rod, intended use).
Regarding claim 5, modified Poirier teaches that the motor has a terminal (see claim 1 rejection above, and claim objection above), the terminal has a terminal surface perpendicular to a rotation axis of the curtain rod (same as in claim 1 rejection above, see claim objection above), the electric curtain comprises a power switch (the control component from claim 1 above is the power switch, see claim objection above) that is disposed on the terminal surface (after modification to claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 7, modified Poirier teaches that the electric curtain comprises an antenna (32) configured to receive a remote control signal, and the antenna is disposed at a position of the curtain rod opposite to a surface of the curtain fabric (the antenna is consider in a position opposite to a surface of the curtain fabric).
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poirier (WO2019043565) in view of Zeng (US 11317544) as applied above, and further in view of Feldstein (US 20150362896).
Regarding claim 6, modified Poirier teaches that the motor has a terminal (see claim 1 rejection above, and claim objection above), the terminal has a terminal surface perpendicular to a rotation axis of the curtain rod (same as in claim 1 rejection above, see claim objection above), but does not explicitly teach that the electric curtain comprises a network configuration key, and the network configuration key is disposed on the terminal surface.
Feldstein teaches an electric curtain with a network configuration key (described in paragraph 158). 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 further modify Poirier so that the electric curtain comprises a network configuration key, and the network configuration key is disposed on the terminal surface. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of allowing a user to operate the device remotely.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that Zeng is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Zeng is pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, which is inductive charging.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the alteration provides the predictable and expected result of the switch being easy to find for a user.
All of the limitations as claimed are taught by the combination above.
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