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 .
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
The following clams are objected to for these non-limiting objection:
Claim 17 recites “a first shaft” on line 2, and “a second shaft” on line 5. Claim 14 also introduces “a shaft” on line 5, and this shaft from claim 17 is interpreted as being the second shaft. Please correct.
Claim 17 recites “a first spring member” and a “second spring member”. These are interpreted as being “the spring of the first spring assembly”, and “the spring of the second spring assembly” that are already introduced in claim 14.
Claim 17 introduces “a second housing”, which is interpreted as referring to “the housing” already introduced in claim 14.
Appropriate correction is required. The examiner recognizes that claim 17 is withdrawn and as such was not examined. In order to facilitate compact prosecution, these objections have been pointed out.
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.
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) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Costello (US 20060137837).
Regarding claim 14, Costello teaches (figs. 5-8) a connection assembly (figs. 5-8) configured to connect a pair of roller shade springs in series comprising:
a connector (102) defining a plurality of projections (132 and 134, see fig. 8 where this is shown in respect to element 100 which has the same plurality of projections) and a recess (opening on left wall), the plurality of projections and the recess are oriented on opposing sides of the connector (as shown in figs. 6 and 8),
wherein the plurality of projections are configured to (capable of) directly engage a shaft (the housing part 110 of element 100 that it engages can be considered a “shaft”) connected to one end of a spring (50) of a first spring assembly (100 itself), and the recess is configured to (capable of) receive and interlock with a housing (110) of a second spring assembly (104), the housing (110) connected to one end of a spring of the second spring assembly (can at least indirectly) to connect the first spring assembly and the second sporting assemble in series (see fig. 6a), and
wherein in response to rotation of the connector, the spring of the first spring assembly and the housing of the second spring assembly rotate (paragraph 25 describes how force originating at B works its way to the roller tube causing the required rotation).
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) 1-11, 13, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Costello (US 20060137837) in view of Huang (US 20180080278).
Regarding claim 1, Costello teaches (figs. 5-8) a roller shade comprising:
a roller tube (C);
a first spring assembly (104 is the first spring assembly) received by the roller tube, the first spring assembly including a first housing (each spring unit has a housing 110 per paragraph 25), a first shaft (each spring unit has a shaft 130 inside the housing extending from an adjacent unit) received by the first housing, a first spring member (each spring unit has a torsion spring 50) connected at one end to the first housing, and at an opposite end to the first shaft (as shown in fig. 7), wherein the first shaft is configured to rotate relative to the first housing (paragraph 25);
a second spring assembly (100) received by the roller tube, the second spring assembly including a second housing, a second shaft received by the second housing, a second spring member connected at one end to the second housing, and at an opposite end to the second shaft, wherein the second shaft is configured to rotate relative to the second housing (in the same way as the first spring assembly per paragraph 25); and
a connection assembly (102) including a third housing (110), a connector (132 and 134) received by the third housing (inside the housing), the connector defines a shaft (130) and a locking member (134), the connector is configured to rotate relative to the third housing (capable of this).
Costello does not explicitly teach that the first shaft of the first spring assembly is configured to directly couple to the shaft defined by the connector, and the second housing of the second spring assembly is configured to directly couple to the locking member defined by the connector to connect the first spring assembly and the second spring assembly in series.
Huang teaches a roller shade comprising a first shaft (142) of a first spring assembly (138 on right in fig. 13) is configured to (capable of) directly couple to a shaft (146) defined by a connector (fig. 13), and a second housing (150) is configured to (capable of) directly couple to a locking member (right ends of 146) defined by the connector to connect the first spring assembly and a second housing. 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 Costello with teachings of Huang so that the first shaft of the first spring assembly is configured to directly couple to the shaft defined by the connector, and the second housing of the second spring assembly is configured to directly couple to the locking member defined by the connector to connect the first spring assembly and the second spring assembly in series. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of a strong connection between the components.
Regarding claim 2, modified Costello teaches that in response to rotation of the roller tube, the first shaft of the first spring assembly is configured to rotate, and wherein in response to rotation of the first shaft of the first spring assembly, the connector responsively rotates the second housing of the second spring assembly (paragraph 25 describes how force originating at B works its way to the roller tube. This works in the way claimed above in reverse with a force originating at the roller tube and working its way in the claimed manner to element B).
Regarding claim 3, modified Costello teaches that the first shaft (130 on 104) rotates relative to the first housing (described in paragraph 25).
Regarding claim 4, modified Costello teaches that the second housing (110 on 100) rotates relative to the second shaft (paragraph 25).
Regarding claim 5, modified Costello teaches that the first spring assembly and the second spring assembly are configured to apply a counterbalancing force to the roller tube (this is the force described in paragraph 25).
Regarding claim 6, modified Costello teaches a spring drive (110 on the left of fig. 6) received by the roller tube, the spring drive including a drive shaft (116), the drive shaft is configured to engage the first shaft (130 of 104) of the first spring assembly (per paragraph 25), and the spring drive is configured to engage the roller tube (paragraph 25).
Regarding claim 7, modified Costello teaches that in response to rotation of the roller tube, the spring drive is configured to rotate with the roller tube, the first shaft of the first spring assembly is configured to rotate in response to rotation of the spring drive, the connector is configured to rotate in response to rotation of the first shaft of the first spring assembly, and the second housing of the second spring assembly is configured to rotate in response to rotation of the connector (paragraph 25 describes how force originating at B works its way to the roller tube. This works in the way claimed above in reverse with a force originating at the roller tube and working its way in the claimed manner to element B).
Regarding claim 8, modified Costello teaches that the first shaft of the first spring assembly is configured to interlock with the shaft defined by the connector (see claim 1 rejection above, capable of).
Regarding claim 9, modified Costello teaches that the first shaft of the first spring assembly is configured to axially interlock with the shaft defined by the connector (see claim 1 rejection above, capable of).
Regarding claim 10, modified Costello teaches that the second housing (110 on 100) defines one of a projection (at left end near where arrow 56 is pointing in fig. 6), and the locking member (see claim 1 rejection above) defined by the connector defines a recess (near where the hook/ far right piece of element 146), the projection and recess are configured to interlock (capable of).
Regarding claim 11, Costello teaches a roller shade (figs. 5-8) comprising:
a roller tube (C);
a drive (110 and 116 on the left in fig. 6) received by the roller tube, the drive including a drive shaft (116) and a housing (110 on the left in fig. 6), the housing engaged with the roller tube (per paragraph 25);
a first spring assembly (104 is the first spring assembly) received by the roller tube, the first spring assembly including a first housing (each spring unit has a housing 110 per paragraph 25), a first shaft (each spring unit has a shaft 130) received by the first housing, a first spring member (each spring unit has a torsion spring 50) connected at one end to the first housing, and at an opposite end to the first shaft (as shown in fig. 7), wherein the first shaft is configured to rotate relative to the first housing (paragraph 25), and the first shaft is configured to engage the drive shaft of the drive (paragraph 25);
a second spring assembly (100) received by the roller tube, the second spring assembly including a second housing, a second shaft received by the second housing, a second spring member connected at one end to the second housing, and at an opposite end to the second shaft, wherein the second shaft is configured to rotate relative to the second housing (in the same way as the first spring assembly per paragraph 25); and
a series connection assembly (102) including a third housing (110) and a connector (132 and 134) defining a shaft (130) and a locking member (134), the connector received by the third housing (fig. 6), the connector configured to rotate relative to the third housing (paragraph 25),
Costello does not explicitly teach that the first shaft of the first spring assembly is configured to directly engage the shaft defined by the connector, and the second housing is configured to engage the locking member defined by the connector to connect the first spring assembly and the second spring assembly in series.
Huang teaches a roller shade comprising a first shaft (142) of a first spring assembly (138 on right in fig. 13) is configured to (capable of) directly engage a shaft (146) defined by a connector (fig. 13), and a second housing (150) is configured to (capable of) directly engage a locking member (right ends of 146) defined by the connector to connect the first spring assembly and a second housing. 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 Costello with teachings of Huang so that the first shaft of the first spring assembly is configured to directly engage the shaft defined by the connector, and the second housing is configured to engage the locking member defined by the connector to connect the first spring assembly and the second spring assembly in series. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of a strong connection between the components.
Regarding claim 13, modified Costello teaches that in response to rotation of the roller tube, the drive is configured to rotate with the roller tube, the first shaft of the first spring assembly is configured to rotate in response to rotation of the drive, the connector is configured to rotate in response to rotation of the first shaft of the first spring assembly, and the second housing of the second spring assembly is configured to rotate in response to rotation of the connector (paragraph 25 describes how force originating at B works its way to the roller tube. This works in the way claimed above in reverse with a force originating at the roller tube and working its way in the claimed manner to element B).
Regarding claim 21, modified Costello teaches that the second housing (110 on 100) defines a recess (opening on the left), and the locking member (right end of 146) defined by the connector defines a projection, the projection and the recess are configured to interlock (after the modification above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding the claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues the combination presented above. The examiner begins by noting that the independent claims contain lots of “configured to” language, which does not necessarily define required structure. All the limitations as claimed are taught by the combination presented above.
Costello is found to teach much of the required structure and limitations, including
a roller tube (C); a first spring assembly (104 is the first spring assembly) received by the roller tube, the first spring assembly including a first housing (each spring unit has a housing 110 per paragraph 25), a first shaft (each spring unit has a shaft 130 inside the housing extending from an adjacent unit) received by the first housing, a first spring member (each spring unit has a torsion spring 50) connected at one end to the first housing, and at an opposite end to the first shaft (as shown in fig. 7), wherein the first shaft is configured to rotate relative to the first housing (paragraph 25);
a second spring assembly (100) received by the roller tube, the second spring assembly including a second housing, a second shaft received by the second housing, a second spring member connected at one end to the second housing, and at an opposite end to the second shaft, wherein the second shaft is configured to rotate relative to the second housing (in the same way as the first spring assembly per paragraph 25); and a connection assembly (102), which is noted by the examiner to be a broad but reasonable interpretation of this component, which is including a third housing (110), a connector (132 and 134) received by the third housing (inside the housing), the connector defines a shaft (130) and a locking member (134), the connector is configured to rotate relative to the third housing (capable of this).
The examiner admits that Costello does not explicitly teach that the first shaft of the first spring assembly is configured to directly couple to the shaft defined by the connector, and the second housing of the second spring assembly is configured to directly couple to the locking member defined by the connector to connect the first spring assembly and the second spring assembly in series.
Huang teaches a roller shade comprising a first shaft (142) of a first spring assembly (138 on right in fig. 13) is configured to (capable of) directly couple to a shaft (146) defined by a connector (fig. 13), and a second housing (150) is configured to (capable of) directly couple to a locking member (right ends of 146) defined by the connector to connect the first spring assembly and a second housing.
The combination is to modify Costello with teachings of Huang so that the first shaft of the first spring assembly is configured to directly couple to the shaft defined by the connector, and the second housing of the second spring assembly is configured to directly couple to the locking member defined by the connector to connect the first spring assembly and the second spring assembly in series. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of a strong connection between the components.
It is noted that 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). This combination would not render Costello unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
The applicant further argues that Costello does not teach all the limitations as claimed in claim 14. The examiner respectfully disagrees, and notes again that claim 14 contains “configured to” language, which does not necessarily define required structure. All the limitations as claimed are taught by the rejection above, which the examiner directs attention up to.
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
Prosecution Insights