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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
In the present case, the abstract exceeds 150 words, repeats information given in the title, and contains legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means”.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
The claims appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and have several grammatical and idiomatic errors.
In line 7 of claim 1, “the friction balance point brass drum’s steel rod” should be “a friction balance point brass drum’s steel rod”.
Claim 1 contains a typographical error. “a head in of each lift cord” should be “a head end of each lift cord”.
Claims should be in single sentence format. Claim 1 contains a period in the third from last line on page one.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the lift cord" in the 11th line of the claim. The antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim is unclear, as at least two lift cords have been previously introduced.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the friction balance point brass roller" in the 12-14th lines of the claim. The antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim is unclear, as at least two friction balance point brass rollers have been previously introduced.
The term “less” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “less” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “reduced” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “reduced” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 2-4 are at least rejected for depending from rejected claim 1. Dependent claims contain all limitations of the claims from which they depend, and therefore inherit their clarity issues.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. 9,708,851 – Huang (including PG Pub US 2015/0275573 A1 – Huang, hereinafter Huang573, see column 1, lines 34-36; The entire disclosure of the aforementioned commonly owned and co-pending U.S. Patent Application is incorporated herein in its entirety), in view of US Pat. 5,957,184 – Gross et al., hereinafter Gross.
Regarding claim 1.
Huang discloses a horizontal synchronized balancing system (See fig 3 of Huang573) comprising:
a rail (10, fig 3, Huang573) having an inward recessed space (See fig 3 of Huang573);
at least two (at 51 and 52, fig 3 of Huang573) friction balance point metal (column 3, lines 60-61 of Huang; protective sleeves 423 are made of metal) rollers (423, fig 2 of Huang), each of the friction balance point metal rollers including at least one metal rod (421, fig 2 of Huang; column 3, lines 62-63; The core pins 421 may be made of metal,) and at least one metal roller (423, fig 2 of Huang) fitted on the metal rod (See figs 2 and 3 of Huang) and
a tape drum support (3, fig 1 of Huang) having two recesses (one in each of 320 and 322, fig 1 of Huang), the tape drum support being secured in the two sides of the rail (as in fig 3 of Huang573),
the friction balance point metal drum’s metal rod (421, fig 2 of Huang) being secured in the recesses of the tape drum support (See fig 3 of Huang) without possibility of rotation (Column 3, lines 38-39 of Huang; Moreover, the core pin 421 may or may not be rotatable relative to the corresponding mounting seat 41.);
at least two lift cords (46 and 47, fig 3 of Huang573), a head in of each lift cord being connected on the cord reel (45, fig 5 of Huang573) of the spring box (40, fig 5 of Huang573), while a tail end of the lift cord (2, fig 3 of Huang) being conducted through a lower side of the friction balance point metal roller (as it wraps under at 400, fig 3 of Huang) and the wound up and over the friction balance point metal roller (as it wraps over at 402, fig 3 of Huang) and then downward conducted through the hole (at 311, fig 3 of Huang) at the middle of the tape drum support (see fig 3 of Huang) and conducted through a slot of each slat (31, fig 3, Huang573) to connect with a bottom rail (20, fig 3, Huang573), by means of the tension support of the cord reel (45, fig 5 of Huang573) in the spring box (40, fig 5 of Huang573) and the weight support of the bottom rail (20, fig 3, Huang573) and the slats (31, fig 3, Huang573) and the synchronization provided by the friction balance point metal rollers (423, fig 2 of Huang), the bottom rail (20, fig 3, Huang573) and the slats (31, fig 3, Huang573) being always kept in the balancing position and balancing weight, also, at least two lift cords (46 and 47, fig 3 of Huang573) having balancing synchronization tension (See fig 3 of Huang573, whereby in case the tension of the cord reel fails to match the weight of the bottom rail (20, fig 3, Huang573) and the slats (31, fig 3, Huang573) and cannot be balanced therewith so as to move the bottom rail and the slats up or down to reach a desired position. The number of the friction balance point metal rollers (423, fig 2 of Huang) is increased (See fig 3 of Huang) or (Examiner notes that the following is an alternate limitation and not required to be taught) at least one weight rod is placed into the bottom rail so as to enhance the synchronization of the balance point metal rollers so that the tension of the cord reel can match the weight of the bottom rail to achieve a stable balanced state, whereby a user can pull or touch and lift any portion of the bottom rail with a hand to spread the slats downward or collect the slats upward and achieve a locating effect, in addition, by means of rotating the metal roller of the friction balance point metal rollers, the ascending and descending operation of the slats and the bottom rail are performed with less strength.
Huang does not disclose brass rollers or steel rod.
However, Gross teaches brass rollers (48, fig 22) and steel rod (46, fig 22) (Column 5, lines 10-13; The tilter spool shaft 46, spool 48 and spool spur gear 50 may be formed of thermoplastic such as nylon, phenolic, polymide, acetal, polyester, or metal such as steel, iron, brass, aluminum, zinc composites and the like.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Huang with the brass rollers and steel rod of Gross. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of optimizing the friction characteristics of the rollers and rod.
Regarding claim 3.
The combination of Huang and Gross teaches all limitations of claim 1.
Huang further discloses a gap is defined between the brass roller (including 422 and 423, fig 2) and the steel rod (421, fig 2) fitted in the brass roller (else the roller would not roll), whereby (Examiner notes the following is functional language, and would naturally follow from the teachings of the combination) the steel rod only contacts the brass roller by a line so the brass roller is easily rotatable to save strength.
Regarding claim 4.
The combination of Huang and Gross teaches all limitations of claim 1.
Huang (in Huang573) further discloses the tension applied to the lift cord connected with the cord reel (Paragraph [0036] To sum up, during adjustment of the window shade of this invention, a user can directly apply an external force to the lower rail 20 to raise or lower the lower rail 20 to a desired position without additional operation.) is greater than the weight of the bottom rail and the slats (else the bottom rail and slats would not stay at a desired position).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Huang and Gross as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of PG Pub. US 2021/0222487 A1 – Luo et al., hereinafter Luo.
Regarding claim 2.
The combination of Huang and Gross teaches all limitations of claim 1.
The combination does not explicitly teach an outer circumferential surface of the brass roller is a polished face, whereby the frictional force between the lift cord and the brass roller is reduced so as to prolong the lifetime of the lift cord.
However, Luo teaches an outer circumferential surface of the roller (312c and d, fig 33) is a polished face (Paragraph [0081]; Understandably, if the third rotating member 312c and the fourth rotating member 312d are replaced by pins or rods made of certain materials which are smooth enough to make the friction between these components and the first cord 43a and the second cord 43b negligible), whereby (Examiner notes the following is functional language, and would naturally follow from the teachings of the combination) the frictional force between the lift cord and the brass roller is reduced so as to prolong the lifetime of the lift cord.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Huang and Gross with the polished face of Luo. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of optimizing the friction characteristics of the rollers.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN W HANES JR whose telephone number is (571)272-8840. 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.
/J.W.H./ Examiner, Art Unit 3634
/ABE MASSAD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634