DETAILED ACTION
The following Non-Final Office Action is in response to the election of species filed 1/14/2026.
Status of the claims: Claims 1-9 are hereby examined below.
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 Group I, Species II in the reply filed on 1/14/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious search burden on the examiner. This is not found persuasive because the invention of Group II is much broader than the invention of group I, and classes and subclasses not searched for Group I would need to be searched, thus there is a search burden on the examiner. Regarding the applicant’s argument that there is no search burden between the claimed species, the examiner respectfully disagrees, as each species requires its own tension structure and at least different text searches would be required.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 10-14 and 16-19 are withdrawn as being non-elected.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means,” and are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “attachment means” in claim 3 and “.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Examiner believes the attachment means to be clevis (as set forth in paragraph [0039]) and the biasing means to be a spring (as set forth in paragraph [0038])
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Krupke et al US 5,632,317.
In regard to claim 1, with reference to Figures 1-16, Krupke et al ‘317 discloses a motorized retractable screen system comprising: a screen axle (32, Fig. 3) disposed adjacent a first end of a framed area (22,24 Fig. 1) that is configured to be rotated by a motor (40, Fig. 1); at least one spool (54, Fig. 2) operatively connected to the screen axle (32) such that the screen axle (32) and the at least one spool (54) are operable to rotate together; a cable (75, Fig. 3) including a first end (top) and a second end (bottom), wherein the first end is at least partially wound around the at least one spool (54) and wherein the cable is run through a series of pulleys between its first end and its second end, the series of pulleys including a first pulley system (98, 102 Fig .5) disposed adjacent the first end of the framed area (22,24) and a second pulley system (78, Fig. 3) disposed adjacent a second end of the framed area (22,24); a screen (34, Fig. 1) including a first end (top) operatively connected to the screen axle (32), a second end (bottom) operatively connected to a bottom bar (82, Fig. 1), a first side (right), and a second side (left), the second end (bottom) of the cable (75) being operatively connected to the screen adjacent to the second end (bottom) of the screen (34); and a corner tensioning system including a tensioning arm (134,88) having a first end (right side, Fig. 7) configured to be operatively connected (indirectly) to the screen (34) adjacent a corner of the first side of the screen (34) and a second end (left side, Fig. 7) configured to be operatively connected to the bottom bar (82) adjacent a first side of the bottom bar; wherein, the screen axle (32) is operable to be rotated in either a first direction or a second direction by the motor (40) such that the cable (75) is operable to pull the second end (bottom) of the screen between a deployed position (down) and a retracted position (up) while the corner tensioning system maintains downward and outward tension on the screen.
In regard to claim 2, Krupke et al ‘317 discloses wherein the corner of the first side (right) of the screen (32) includes a stirrup (notched arear, Fig. 1) configured to receive the first end of the tensioning arm (134,88) for operatively connecting the first end of the tensioning arm to the corner of the first side of the screen.
In regard to claim 3, Krupke et al ‘317 discloses wherein the corner tensioning system further includes attachment means (77,518 Fig. 16) for operatively connecting the second end of the cable (75) to the screen via the tensioning arm (134,88), the attachment means (77,518) being configured to provide for a pivotable connection (at 518) between the second end of the cable (75) and the tensioning arm (134,88).
In regard to claim 4, Krupke et al ‘317 disclose wherein the tensioning arm includes a plurality of attachment positions (where 77 and 518 are affixed) for altering the position of the pivotable connection between the second end of the cable and the tensioning arm.
In regard to claim 6, Krupke et al ‘317 disclose wherein the corner tensioning system includes a biasing means (150, Fig.8) for providing a biased outward force (towards the left) to the second end (left) of the tensioning arm (134,88).
In regard to claim 7, Krupke et al ‘317 disclose wherein the corner tensioning system further includes a housing (142) configured to be disposed within the bottom bar (82) and a carriage (138, Fig. 8) disposed within the housing that is operable to move laterally with respect to the bottom bar (82) and housing (142), wherein the biasing means (150) is operatively connected to the carriage (138) and the second end of the tensioning arm (134,88) is operatively connected to the carriage (138) such that the biasing means (150) provides the biased outward force to the second end of the tensioning arm via the carriage (138).
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krupke et al US 5,632,317 in view of One Monroe Aerospace.
In regard to claim 5, Krupke et al ‘317 fail to disclose wherein the attachment means includes becket connection (77,518). Krupke et al ‘317 fails to disclose a clevis connection for pivotally connecting the second end of the cable to the tensioning arm. One Monroe Aerospace discloses that clevis connections are known connections. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the device of Krupke et al ‘317 to use a clevis connection as taught by One Monroe Aerospace for the purpose of providing easy installation and removal while absorbing lateral stresses and allowing objects to move if needed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMY C RAMSEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3133. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Wed 7:00-3:30.
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.
/JEREMY C RAMSEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3634
/ABE MASSAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights