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
The examiner repeats the following from the Non-Final Rejection mailed on 10/30/2025:
Applicant’s election of Species A in the reply filed on 10/06/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 15-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
The examiner notes that the applicant should mark claims 15-17 as withdrawn on any future claim sheets.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.
Drawings
The drawings dated 1/27/2026 are accepted.
Specification
The abstract dated 1/27/2026 is accepted.
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) 1-14, 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.
Blair teaches a screen device with a locking element (745) for locking a slidable member (720) in a locked 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, 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 6, 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.
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. 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 Randall so that there is an unlocking element adapted for unlocking the slidable member from the locked position to a free position. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of making it easier to unlock the sliding member.
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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that with Randall, in the locked position, the cord is still operable. The examiner directs attention to paragraph 23 where it is described that when in the non-operating position, the cord is prevented from being moved.
In response to applicant's argument that Blair lacks a biasing member, and that it locks the slidable member into an operating position, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Blair teaches a screen device with a locking element (745) for locking a slidable member (720) in a locked position (this position is considered a locked position because it is locked in 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, 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.
This combination teaches all the limitations as claimed.
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