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 content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to due to the undue length. 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) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hu (CN 105421980 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Hu teaches a screen system for use in a window of a vehicle, the screen system comprising: a screen comprising a leading edge and a trailing edge (Shown in Fig. 7); a spool mounted to the leading edge of the screen; a housing configured to be mounted at a first edge of the window (Fig. 11 element 1); one or more bands that are operatively connected to the screen and configured to apply a biasing force to the screen, the one or more bands being elastic (Fig. 7 element 30, 31 and 35); the screen movable between a retracted position and an extended position (Shown in transition between Fig. 7 extended position and Fig. 11 retracted position); wherein the retracted position comprises the screen rolled onto the spool with the screen and the spool positioned in the housing at the first edge of the window (Shown in Fig. 11); wherein the extended position comprises the screen extending across the window with the leading edge positioned at a second edge of the window and the first edge positioned at the first edge of the window (Shown in Fig. 7) and with the one or more bands extending across the window and applying the biasing force to the screen (“in order to make the coiling curtain more stiff, flexible reinforcing bars can be as shown in FIG. 7, is provided with a reinforcing effect on the winding cord 3 34 or the flexible reinforcing bar 35” Highlighted in attached PE2E translation).
Regarding Claim 2, Hu teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 1 and further discloses the one or more bands comprise a first end that is connected to the housing and a second end that is connected to the spool (Shown in Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 3, Hu teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 2 and further discloses the one or more bands are wrapped around the spool when the screen is in the retracted position (Retracted position Fig. 11).
Regarding Claim 5, Hu teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 1 and further discloses a first one of the bands is positioned at an upper edge of the screen and a second one of the bands is positioned at a lower edge of the screen (Fig. 7 elements 30 and 31).
Regarding Claim 6, Hu teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 1 and further discloses the spool comprises: an inner member (Fig. 4 element 20); an outer member that extends around the inner member (Fig. 4 element 21); a biasing member that applies a biasing force that forces the inner member and outer member apart (Fig. 4 element 22); and wherein the inner member and the outer member are telescopingly engaged (Shown in Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 9, Hu teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 1 and further discloses a mount configured to be mounted at the second edge of the window with the spool configured to connect to the mount in the extended position to maintain the screen positioned across the window (Fig. 11 element 51).
Claim(s) 10-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hu (CN 105421980 A).
Regarding Claim 10, Hu teaches a method of using a screen system with a window of a vehicle, the method comprising: mounting a trailing edge of the screen to a first edge of the window (Shown in Fig. 11); applying a force to the screen and overcoming a biasing force applied by one or more bands (Fig. 7 elements 30, 31 and 35) and moving a leading edge of the screen across the window with the trailing edge remaining mounted to the first edge of the window (Shown in transition between Fig. 11 retracted and Fig. 7 extended); extending the screen across the window and securing the leading edge of the screen to a second edge of the window (Shown in Fig. 7); and extending the one or more bands across the window from the first edge of the window to the second edge of the window and applying a biasing force to the screen to bias the screen towards the first edge of the window (Shown in extended position of Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 11, Hu teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 10 and further discloses increasing the biasing force applied by the one or more bands as the leading edge moves across the window towards the second edge of the window (Fig. 7; biasing force would increase as flexible material is stretched).
Regarding Claim 12, Hu teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 10 and further discloses mounting the trailing edge of the screen to a housing that is mounted at the first edge of the window (Fig. 11 element 1).
Regarding Claim 13, Hu teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 10 and further discloses unrolling the screen from a scroll that is attached to the leading edge of the screen while moving the leading edge across the window towards the second edge (Shown in transition between Fig. 11 retracted and Fig. 7 extended).
Regarding Claim 14, Hu teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 13 and further discloses contacting outer ends of a scroll against opposing sides of the window while moving the leading edge of the screen across the window with the scroll attached to the leading edge of the screen (Contact shown in Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 15, Hu teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 14 and further discloses reducing a length of the scroll while moving the scroll across the window towards the second edge of the window (Reduction in length shown in Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 16, Hu teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 10 and further discloses securing the leading edge of the screen to the second edge of the window and filling an entirety of the window with the screen (Fig. 11 element 51).
Claim(s) 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hu (CN 105421980 A).
Regarding Claim 17, Hu teaches a method of using a screen system with a window of a vehicle, the method comprising: positioning one or more bands in a housing that is mounted to a first edge of the window with the one or more bands (Fig. 7 elements 30, 31 and 35) connected to a spool; extending the one or more bands from the housing to a spool that supports a screen while moving the spool and the screen across the window (Shown in Fig. 7); applying a biasing force to the spool while moving the spool and the screen across the window with the biasing force pulling the spool and the screen towards the housing; securing a leading edge of the screen to a second edge of the window while the one or more bands are applying the biasing force to the spool (Secured via element 51 in Fig. 11); and extending the one or more bands across the window from the first edge of the window to the second edge of the window while the leading edge of the screen is secured to the second edge of the window (Fig. 7 shows bands extended in extended screen position).
Regarding Claim 18, Hu teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 17 and further discloses unrolling the one or more bands from around the spool while moving the spool across the window (Fig. 7 shows bands that are unrolled when transitioning between retracted and extended positions).
Regarding Claim 19, Hu teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 17 and further discloses positioning the spool in an end housing at the second edge of the window and thereby securing the leading edge of the screen to the second edge of the window (Secured via element 51 in Fig. 11).
Regarding Claim 20, Hu teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 17 and further discloses reducing a height of the spool while moving the spool across the window (Reduction in height shown in Fig. 7).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu (CN 105421980 A) in view of Taad (US 20160129765 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Hu teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Hu fails to explicitly teach the spool comprises track members mounted to ends with the track members comprising rollers configured to engage with a frame of the window.
However, Taad teaches the spool comprises track members mounted to ends with the track members comprising rollers configured to engage with a frame of the window (Shown in Fig. 3B).
Hu and Taad are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of vehicle window screen systems. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the spool of Hu to have the track members and rollers as disclosed by Taad. Doing so would provide a secure connection between the edges of the screen to the window frame, ensuring the screen does not move perpendicular to the window frame.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 8 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC ACOSTA whose telephone number is (571)272-4886. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:00pm.
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, Timothy Collins can be reached at 571-272-6886. 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.
/E.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3644
/Nicholas McFall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644