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
Claim 14 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/27/25.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 6, 9, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites “a vertical dimension is substantially greater than a horizontal dimension of the outer body”. In the context of the disclosure, it is clear that the limitation “a vertical dimension” refers to a vertical dimension of the outer body. It is also clear that the limitation “substantially greater” requires that the vertical dimension be larger than the horizontal dimension, and the term “substantially” does not specify a particular degree or scale of difference in the dimensions. However, the limitation should be amended to instead recite --a vertical dimension of the outer body is greater than a horizontal dimension of the outer body-- to ensure appropriate clarity and consistency with the disclosure.
Claim 6 recites “a plurality of switches” in lines 1-2 and later recites “the switch” in line 3. It is understood that the limitation “the switch” refers to one of the plurality of switches. The recitation in line 3 should be amended to instead recite --one of the plurality of switches-- or a similar recitation.
Claim 9 depends from claim 7 but also references “the plurality of latches”, which are introduced in claim 8 and not in claim 7. Claim 9 is treated as being dependent from claim 8, but appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 recites “wherein its width is less than 55 mm”. The claim does not specify what the term “its” refers to, but in the context of the disclosure it is clear that this refers to the curtain apparatus as a whole. A recommended correction is to instead recite ---wherein a width of the curtain apparatus is less than 55 mm-- or a similar recitation.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless 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 assembly” in claims 1 and 5.
It is noted that the limitation “attachment assembly” is accompanied by sufficient structure in claims 7-9, and is therefore not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) in said claims.
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.
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, 2, 4-9, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jiang (CN 219147312). Note: A copy of a machine translation of the Jiang patent document has been provided with this Office action. References to the disclosure of Jiang are directed to the machine translation.
Regarding claim 1, Jiang discloses a retrofittable curtain apparatus (1; the apparatus is capable of being installed in a retrofit manner, and therefore meets the requirements of the functional limitation) adapted to be attached to a curtain track (track II shown in Figure 11) comprising: an outer body (housing formed by front and rear members 12, 13), a drive wheel (3), and a track attachment assembly (side assemblies 2); an internal assembly (internal rotation assembly shown in Figure 6 coupling the motor 37 to the outer wheel body 35, 36) adapted to couple rotational energy from an internal motor (37) to the drive wheel (paragraph n0034); wherein the attachment assembly engages the apparatus to the curtain track (paragraph n0035) [FIG. 11]; and wherein the apparatus is adapted to be driven along the curtain track (paragraphs n0032, n0034, n0039).
Regarding claim 2, Jiang discloses that a vertical dimension is substantially greater than a horizontal dimension of the outer body (as shown in at least Figure 1, the vertical height of the body is larger than the horizontal width of the body; the term “substantially” is treated with a broadest reasonable interpretation, and is understood to not require a particular difference in dimension).
Regarding claim 4, Jiang discloses that the apparatus is attached to the curtain track between a pair of curtain carriers located on the track (the curtain carriers are defined by the curtain rings shown unnumbered in Figure 11 to which the hooks 23 attach, and described in at least paragraph n0039).
Regarding claim 5, Jiang discloses that the attachment assembly engages the apparatus to the curtain track through a clamping force (the clamping force is provided by the springs 246 of the attachment assemblies 2; paragraph n0039 further discloses the clamping force between the drive roller 3 and the curtain track).
Regarding claim 6, Jiang discloses a plurality of switches (18, 16) located adjacent to a base of the outer body [FIGS. 2, 3]; wherein the switch may be actuated to control an operation of the apparatus (as set forth in the claim objection above, “the switch” is understood to refer to one of the plurality of switches; switch 16 is actuated to control operation of the apparatus as disclosed in paragraph n0040).
Regarding claim 7, Jiang discloses that the attachment assembly comprises a plurality of wheels that engage the curtain track (curtain rings disclosed in paragraph n0039 and shown generally in Figure 11).
Regarding claim 8, Jiang discloses that the attachment assembly comprises a plurality of latches (latches defined by teeth 211 and 2421); wherein the attachment assembly is adapted to provide a clamping force when the latches are in an engaged state (paragraph n0038).
Regarding claim 9, Jiang discloses a plurality of pull tabs (24) affixed to the plurality of latches [FIGS. 7-9]; wherein the pull tabs pull the attachment assembly downwards to provide a clamping force between the apparatus and the curtain track when the plurality of latches are engaged (paragraphs n0037-n0038).
Regarding claim 11, Jiang discloses an energy source (15) to provide power to the internal motor; wherein the internal energy source is capable of being recharged (via charging interface 19; paragraph n0040).
Regarding claim 13, Jiang discloses that the driving wheel engages the curtain track vertically [FIGS. 1, 11].
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 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang (CN 219147312).
Regarding claim 16, Jiang discloses a width of the curtain apparatus, but does not explicitly disclose that it is less than 55 mm.
It nonetheless would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the curtain apparatus of Jiang to have a width less than 55mm, in order to provide a compact configuration that is easily installed and concealed behind a curtain. It is noted that it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claims 3, 10, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang (CN 219147312) in view of Lagarde (FR 3133733). Note: A copy of a machine translation of the Lagarde patent document has been provided with this Office action. References to the disclosure of Lagarde are directed to the machine translation.
Regarding claims 3 and 15, Jiang discloses the curtain apparatus, but does not explicitly disclose a plurality of vertically adjacent gears of that the motor is a worm drive motor.
Nonetheless, Lagarde discloses a curtain apparatus comprising an internal assembly [FIG. 5] that comprises a plurality of vertically adjacent gears (31, 32, 34) affixed to an internal motor (11); wherein the gears transfer the rotational energy from the internal motor to a drive wheel (13; paragraph 0187); and wherein the motor is a worm drive motor (the motor 11 drives a worm gear system 30 as disclosed in paragraph 0187 and shown in Figure 5).
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 motor and internal assembly of Jiang to include the worm drive motor and gear arrangement taught by Lagarde, in order to provide a more compact arrangement for the drive mechanism, or to allow for the use of a larger and more powerful motor in a similar footprint by reorienting the drive output.
Regarding claims 10 and 12, Jiang discloses the curtain apparatus, but does not explicitly disclose a magnetic field sensor or control of the motor through a wireless operation.
Nonetheless, Lagarde discloses a magnetic field sensor (Hall effect sensor disclosed in paragraph 0167); whereupon detection of a predetermined magnitude of a magnetic field (detection of a magnetic field is an inherent capability of a Hall effect sensor) a movement of the apparatus along the track is halted (paragraph 0171); and wherein an operation of the internal motor may be controlled through a wireless operation (paragraph 0147).
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 apparatus of Jiang to include the magnetic field sensor and wireless operation taught by Lagarde, in order to enable automated or remote actuation of the curtain, so as to allow for scheduled operations that automatically open or close the curtain at certain times of day without driving the curtain past an end-of-travel position.
Conclusion
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