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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed November 26, 2025 with respect to amended claim 1 are moot in view of the amended claim language. New grounds of rejection have been made under Shaw, Yocum, and Foley, as discussed below. Amended claim 1 requires “the radial members extending out of the base guide” which is addressed by newly applied reference, Yocum.
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.
Claims 1-3, 14, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaw et al. (US 6,145,569), hereinafter referred to as Shaw, in further view of Yocum et al. (US 10,041,290), hereinafter referred to as Yocum, and Foley et al. (US 7,721,782), hereinafter referred to as Foley.
Regarding claim 1, Shaw discloses an automated system for controlling an extent to which at least a first window is covered based on temperatures and/or light intensities at the first window (intended use), the system comprising
a window unit (Fig 14) comprising:
a window covering (110) sized and configured to at least partially cover the first window when the window covering is in a deployed configuration thereof (Fig 14) and expose the first window when the window covering is in a stowed configuration thereof (Figs 15 and 17);
a base (112) mountable to a frame of the first window (sill 114);
a motor (150) supported on the base (112 on 18; Fig 20);
an arm assembly (Fig 19) associated with the motor and connected to the window covering (10) so that the motor is operable to rotate the window covering (col 7, lines 41-45); and
a base guide (124) mounted to the base, the base guide being configured to guide the movement of the window covering as the window covering rotates between the deployed and stowed configurations thereof (Figs 17 and 18).
Shaw fails to disclose a stiffening assembly comprising radial members and interconnecting members interconnecting the radial members, the radial members extending out of the base guide and being coupled to the window covering, the interconnecting members being collapsible under compression.
However, Yocum teaches that it is known for a window covering to have a stiffening assembly comprising radial members (18) coupled to the window covering and the radial members extending out of a base guide (16) (Fig 2). Yocum teaches that the radial members (18) provide support to the window covering. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to provide Shaw with a stiffening assembly comprising the radial members extending out of the base guide and being coupled to the window covering in the manner taught by Yocum in order to support the window covering. Such modification would not lead to any new or unpredictable results.
Further, Foley teaches that it is known for a window covering to have a stiffening assembly (Fig 2) comprising: radial members (50) coupled to the window covering (Fig 2) and interconnecting members (80) interconnecting the radial members, the interconnecting members being collapsible under compression. Foley teaches the interconnecting members (80) aid in movement of the radial members and window covering. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to provide Shaw as modified with Yocum with interconnecting members interconnecting the radial members, the interconnecting members being collapsible under compression, in the manner taught by Foley, in order to improve movement and provide support to the window covering.
Regarding claim 2, Shaw discloses wherein the window covering has at least one radial support member (144) along a radial edge thereof that is adapted to be attached to at least one arm of the arm assembly (138 connected to 144 of pivot 146; Fig 19).
Regarding claim 3, Shaw discloses wherein the window covering has a second radial edge that is opposite the radial support member and configured to be secured to the frame of the first window (col 6, lines 65-67).
Regarding claim 14, Shaw discloses wherein the window is a curved window and the window covering is sized and configured to at least partially cover the curved window (Fig 14).
Regarding claim 16, Shaw discloses wherein the base guide (124) comprises two flanges (Fig 16) between which the window covering rotates as the window covering rotates between the deployed and stowed configurations thereof.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaw, Yocum, and Foley, as applied in claim 1 above, in further view of Smith et al. (US 2011/0146919), hereinafter referred to as Smith.
Regarding claim 4, Shaw discloses wherein the window unit further comprises: a perimeter support (116) to support the window covering as the window covering is rotated between the deployed and stowed configurations thereof (Fig 17). Shaw fails to disclose guide clips. However, Smith teaches a window unit having guide clips (45 or 64) attached to an edge of the window covering and slidably coupled to the perimeter support (41) to support the window covering as the window covering is rotated between the deployed and stowed configurations thereof. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to provide Shaw with guide clips, as taught by Smith, so that guide clips are attached to an edge of the window covering and slidably coupled to the perimeter support to support the window covering as the window covering is rotated between the deployed and stowed configurations thereof. One would be motivated to improve Shaw with the teachings of Smith in order to provide guide means.
Regarding claim 5, Shaw discloses wherein the window is a curved window having an arch and the perimeter support is an arch support mounted along the arch of the window (as taught by Shaw in view of Smith).
Claims 7-13, 15, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaw, Yocum, and Foley, as applied in claim 1 above, in further view of Barnett (US 10,392,860).
Regarding claims 7-13 and 15, although Shaw teaches the automated system controls the window covering with a motor so that the window covering is rotatable between the deployed and stowed configurations thereof but fails to further disclose the details of the control and that it is based on user settings with at least one user interface device for manually inputting the user settings into the system and wherein the at least one user interface device comprises a wireless remote wherein the user settings include environmental conditions at the first window, the environmental conditions including at least one of temperature and light intensity further comprising a server operating in an intranet and a microprocessor connected to the server, the microprocessor operable to control rotation of the window covering between the deployed and stowed configurations thereof wherein the microprocessor is operable to automatically control rotation of the window covering between the deployed and stowed configurations thereof based on environmental conditions at the first window, the environmental conditions including at least one of temperature and light intensity wherein the environmental conditions further include local sunrise and sunset and the window unit further comprises a position sensor for detecting the stowed configuration of the window covering. However, Barnett teaches that it is known for an automated system having a window covering with a motor to be controlled based on user settings (col 7, lines 33-39) with at least one user interface device for manually inputting the user settings into the system and wherein the at least one user interface device comprises a wireless remote (mobile phone) wherein the user settings include environmental conditions at the first window, the environmental conditions including at least one of temperature and light intensity (col 5, lines 58-60) further comprising a server operating in an intranet and a microprocessor connected to the server (Fig 1), the microprocessor operable to control rotation of the window covering between the deployed and stowed configurations thereof (microprocessor controls motor), wherein the microprocessor is operable to automatically control rotation of the window covering between the deployed and stowed configurations (controls motor to deploy window covering) thereof based on environmental conditions at the first window, the environmental conditions including at least one of temperature and light intensity wherein the environmental conditions further include local sunrise and sunset (col 5, lines 47-57) and the window unit further comprises a position sensor for detecting the stowed configuration of the window covering (col 8, lines 23-33). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to provide the control techniques taught by Barnett since the means of control are known for automatically controlling and operating an automated window covering. The claim would have been obvious because the particular known techniques were recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
Regarding claims 18-20, Shaw as modified with Barnett above result in providing a method of using the automated system of claim 1, the method comprising initializing the system with user settings including environmental conditions at the first window, the environmental conditions including at least one of temperature and light intensity, further comprising detecting a zero angle of the window covering in the stowed configuration thereof as a reference to position the window covering at desired angles between the stowed and deployed configurations and further comprising: automatically controlling rotation of the window covering based on environmental conditions at the first window, the environmental conditions including at least one of temperature, light intensity, and local sunrise and sunset; and manually overriding automatic control of the rotation of the window covering with manual user settings.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaw, Yocum, and Foley, as applied in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 17, Shaw teaches the base guide is a first base guide that is detachable from the base. Shaw fails to teach the automated system further comprises a second base guide that is larger or smaller than the first base guide and interchangeable with the first base guide. Instead, Shaw teaches adjustable means in order to accommodate different sizes (col 6, lines 58-64). However, providing a second base guide relies on duplication of the working parts and providing it as a different size would have been obvious as Shaw teaches the desire to accommodate different sizes. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Shaw and provide a second base guide since such modification would not have led to any new or unpredictable results.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Johnnie A. Shablack whose telephone number is (571)270-5344. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 6am-3pm EST, alternate Friday.
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.
/Johnnie A. Shablack/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634