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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/02/2026 has been entered.
Examiner’s Note
Again, it is noted that claims 15-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
The examiner notes that the applicant should mark claims 15-17 as withdrawn on any future claim sheets. During prosecution, a rejoinder may be possible upon allowance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 11-14, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kann (US 20250194841.
Regarding claim 1, Kann teaches a tension device (300 in fig. 29) for an endless operating loop of a screen, wherein the tension device comprises:
- a housing (302 and 304) for receiving part of the endless operating loop (fig. 29);
- a slidable member (340) arranged in the housing;
- wherein the slidable member is provided with a loop guide (bottom as shown in fig. 34) for the endless operating loop;
- a biasing member (344) arranged in the housing to push against the slidable member to apply tension to the endless operating loop;
- one or more immobilization elements (390) arranged in the housing that substantially immobilize the endless operating loop in a non-operating position upon engagement with the endless operating loop (paragraph 107); and
- a locking element (made of 348, 348a, 356, and 356a) for locking the slidable member in a locked position in the housing (paragraph 114), wherein in the locked position of the slidable member the one or more immobilization elements immobilize the endless operating loop in the non-operating position, wherein the biasing member pushes the slidable member towards the locked position (paragraphs 107-109, and 114),
wherein the tension device further comprises an unlocking element (the tool as described in paragraph 109) adapted for unlocking the slidable member from the locked position to a free position, in which free position the endless operating loop is in an operating position (paragraph 109).
Regarding claim 2, Kann teaches that the locking element (made of 348, 348a, 356, and 356a) is arranged on the slidable member (340) and the housing comprises a receiving space for the locking element (332).
Regarding claim 3, Kann teaches that the receiving space is located in a lower part of the housing (as is shown in fig. 33, element 332 is in a lower part of the housing compared to the top of the housing).
Regarding claim 4, Kann teaches that the locking element comprises a hook (element 356 is considered a hook) and the receiving space comprises a recess in a wall of the housing (as is shown in fig. 33).
Regarding claim 5, Kann teaches that the locking element is part of a snap-fit connection (the interaction as described in paragraphs 107-109 and 114 is considered a snap fit connection).
Regarding claim 7, Kann teaches that the unlocking element (the tool from paragraph 109) is arranged on the housing (on is interpreted as indicating proximity, which is a use per the freedcitionary.com. For example, a town on the border is a town nearby the border).
Regarding claim 11, Kann teaches that the one or more immobilization elements are adapted for clamping the operating loop (paragraph 107, between 390 and 340).
Regarding claim 12, Kann teaches that the one or more immobilization elements comprise first engaging elements (388b) adapted for engaging a bead chain.
Regarding claim 13, Kann teaches that the slidable member (340) in the locked position and the first engaging elements (388b) enclose the endless operating loop (paragraph 107).
Regarding claim 14, Kann teaches that the first engaging elements (388b) comprise one or more forks to engage on the beaded chain between adjacent beads (the 388bs are each considered a prong of a “fork” or “forks”).
Regarding claim 18, Kann teaches that the biasing member comprises one or more springs (fig. 35).
Regarding claim 19, Kann teaches that the screen is a window covering (see paragraph 53).
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, 7-14, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Randall (US 20080251622) in view of Blair (US 20210363822).
Regarding claim 1, Randall teaches (fig. 4) a tension device for an endless operating loop of a screen, wherein the tension device comprises:
a housing (26’’) for receiving part of the endless operating loop;
a slidable member (46’’) arranged in the housing;
wherein the slidable member is provided with a loop guide (see fig. 4) for the endless operating loop;
a biasing member (33) arranged in the housing to push against the slidable member to apply tension to the endless operating loop;
one or more immobilization elements (top portions of 30’’) arranged in the housing that substantially immobilize the endless operating loop in a non-operating position upon engagement with the endless operating loop (as described in paragraph 19, describing the various embodiments including that of fig. 4). Randall does not teach a locking element for locking the slidable member in a locked position in the housing, wherein in the locked position of the slidable member the one or more immobilization elements immobilize the endless operating loop in the non-operating position, wherein the biasing member pushes the slidable member towards the locked position, nor that the tension device further comprises an unlocking element adapted for unlocking the slidable member from the locked position to a free position.
Blair teaches a screen device with a locking element (745) for locking a slidable member (720) in a locked position, and an unlocking element (release button, paragraph 147) adapted for unlocking the slidable member (720) from the locked position to a free position. 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 Randal with teachings of Blair so that there is a locking element for locking the slidable member in a locked position in the housing, and an unlocking element adapted for unlocking the slidable member from the locked position to a free position, wherein in the locked position of the slidable member the one or more immobilization elements immobilize the endless operating loop in the non-operating position, wherein the biasing member pushes the slidable member towards the locked position. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of a user able to lock the device in a child-safe non-operating position.
It is noted that after this modification, the biasing member (33 of Randall) pushes the slidable member (46’’ of Randall) toward the locked position (see fig. 4 of Randall), as the device cannot be in the locked position without also being in the non-operating position.
Regarding claim 2, modified Randall teaches that the locking element (745 from Blair) is arranged on the slidable member and the housing comprises a receiving space for the locking element (after the modification to claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 3, modified Randall teaches that the receiving space is located in a lower part of the housing (after the modification to claim 1 above, this is true).
Regarding claim 4, modified Randall teaches that the locking element comprises a hook (745 from Blair) and the receiving space comprises a recess in a wall of the housing (note that in Blair the receiving space is a recess in a wall, which after the modification is in the housing of Randall).
Regarding claim 5, modified Randall teaches that the locking element is part of a snap-fit connection (after the modification above).
Regarding claim 7, modified Randall teaches that the unlocking element is arranged on the housing (after the modification to claim 7).
Regarding claim 8, modified Randall teaches that the housing comprises a receiving space for the locking element (it is in the housing) and the unlocking element is arranged to enlarge the receiving space (after the modification above, the unlocking element is arranged to enlarge the receiving space as it allows the looking element to snap out of the receiving space).
Regarding claim 9, modified Randall teaches that the unlocking element is a push button (paragraph 147 of Blair).
Regarding claim 10, modified Randall teaches that the unlocking element comprises a flexible wall part in the housing (the element is considered a wall part in the housing and is considered flexible).
Regarding claim 11, modified Randall teaches that the one or more immobilization elements are adapted for clamping the operating loop (paragraph 23).
Regarding claim 12, modified Randall teaches that the one or more immobilization elements comprise first engaging elements (the portions that touch the loop) adapted for engaging a bead chain (capable of).
Regarding claim 13, modified Randall teaches that the slidable member in the locked position and the first engaging elements enclose the endless operating loop (after the modification to claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 14, modified Randall teaches that the first engaging elements comprise one or more forks (they are considered forks) to engage on the beaded chain between adjacent beads (functional language, it is noted that this does not require there to be a beaded chain).
Regarding claim 18, modified Randall teaches that the biasing member comprises one or more springs (33 is a spring).
Regarding claim 19, modified Randall teaches that the screen is a window covering (paragraph 26).
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kann (US 20250194841 in view of Blair (US 20210363822).
Regarding claim 10, Kann is not found to teach that the unlocking element comprises a flexible wall part in the housing.
Blair teaches a screen device with a locking element (745) for locking a slidable member (720) in a locked position, and an unlocking element (release button, paragraph 147) adapted for unlocking the slidable member (720) from the locked position to a free position, where the unlocking element comprises a flexible wall part in the housing (the element is considered a wall part in the housing and is considered flexible). 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 Kann with teachings of Blair so that the unlocking element comprises a flexible wall part in the housing. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of a user able to lock the device in a child-safe non-operating position.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is 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.
Response to Arguments
The applicant argues that “Applicant points out that Randall provides a tensioner that must be attached to a fixed structure (the wall), while the problem that the invention solves applies particularly to a free-hanging tensioner.
In Blair the slider 720 is not automatically spring-operated but works by pulling/pushing the tube with a force higher than a threshold value.
In Blair page 15 at paragraph [0146] it is stated that “When a force greater than the first threshold force is applied in the radial direction, the locking tab 745 may release (e.g., disengage) from the operating position cavity 762 such that the roller tube can be moved to the extended position.”
This combination of Randall and Blair leads to a safety tensioner whose lock would break if the user
were to apply a force above a certain threshold value. As that is against the child safety regulations, there is, in fact, no motivation to combine Blair with Randall.
Consequently, a person having ordinary skills in art lacks the motivation to combine Randall with Blair.
The feature of original claim 6 "wherein the tension device further comprises an unlocking element adapted for unlocking the slidable member from the locked position to a free position" added to the amended claim 1 is therefor essential to meet the latest child safety regulations.
In this respect it is noted that Blair does not disclose any unlocking element. Although Blair mentions the wording "release button" it is nowhere shown nor described.”
The examiner notes that Randall is found to teach much of the required structure, but acknowledges that it fails to teach a locking element for locking the slidable member in a locked position in the housing, wherein in the locked position of the slidable member the one or more immobilization elements immobilize the endless operating loop in the non-operating position, wherein the biasing member pushes the slidable member towards the locked position.
Blair clearly teaches a screen device with a locking element (745) for locking a slidable member (720) in a locked position. The modification is to modify Randal with teachings of Blair so that there is a locking element for locking the slidable member in a locked position in the housing of Randall. With this, in the locked position of the slidable member of Randall, the one or more immobilization elements immobilize the endless operating loop in the non-operating position, wherein the biasing member pushes the slidable member towards the locked position, as is claimed. It is noted that after this modification, the biasing member (33 of Randall) pushes the slidable member (46’’ of Randall) toward the locked position (see fig. 4 of Randall), as the device cannot be in the locked position without also being in the non-operating position. It is noted that with enough force, any locking device will break, thus this combination is a reasonable one that would not go against child safety regulations.
The motivation for this is that the alteration provides the predictable and expected results of a user able to lock the device in a child-safe non-operating position.
It is also noted regarding the limitations of former claim 6, that, modified Randall does not explicitly teach that the tension device further comprises an unlocking element adapted for unlocking the slidable member from the locked position to a free position, but it was further pointed out that Blair further teaches an unlocking element (release button, paragraph 147) adapted for unlocking the slidable member (720) from the locked position to a free position. One of ordinary skill would be able to make this combination to provides the predictable and expected results of making it easier to unlock the sliding member. The functionality of the release button is described in paragraph 115 of Blair, and is found to also be common feature in the art that one of ordinary skill would have no problem understanding.
All the limitations as claimed are taught by the combination as described.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights