/ETAILED 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 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 1-2, 6, 10-11 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over La Garde et al. (hereinafter La Garde, WO 03/049127 A1) in view of Colson et al. (hereinafter Colson, US 2014/0262078 A1).
For claim 1, La Garde discloses an architectural covering system (Figs. 1 and 9 of La Garde disclose an architecture covering system 12 – see La Garde, Figs. 1 and 9, page 2, lines 20-21 and page 3, lines 4-8) comprising:
a motor (La Garde disclose “a shutter motor” – see La Garde, page 1, lines 6-8);
a circuit board (Lagarde discloses a control device (Fig. 1 of La Gard discloses a control device 13 -- see La Gard, Fig. 1, page 1, lines 6-8; and page 8-9. La Garde does not disclose details element included in control device, so La Garde’s control device does not have specific elements including a circuit board. However, Figs. 1-2 of Colson disclose a control device 128/216/218 having a circuit board 128 – see Colson, Figs. 1-2, paragraphs [0021], lines 11-13, and [0029], lines 5-6. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify La Garde’s control device to include a circuit board as teaching of Colson for purpose of controlling speed of the motor accurately) coupled to the motor (Fig. 1 of Coson discloses a circuit board 128 coupled to the motor 120 via wire 124 – see Colson, Fig. 1, paragraph [0020], lines 4-7);
an actuator (Fig. 3 of La Garde discloses an actuator (32-37) – see La Garde, Fig. 3, page 3, lines 17-25), the actuator positioned adjacent the circuit board (Figs. 1 and 5 of La Garde in view of Colson discloses the actuator (42, 44-45) included in box 11 positioned adjacent control device 13 that has the Colson’s circuit board 128 – see La Garde, Figs. 1 and 5, page 3, lines 5-12 and lines 30-37; and see Colson, Fig. 1, paragraph [0031]);
an end plate comprising an aperture (Figs. 3 and 5 of La Garde discloses an end plate of box 11) comprising an aperture wherein a control lever 2 is connected to lever 43– see La Garde, Figs. 3 and 5; page 3, lines 30-38) and
a control lever configured to rotate the actuator when the control lever is moved in a first direction or a second direction, wherein the control lever is mechanically coupled with the actuator via the aperture (Figs. 3 and 5 of La Garde disclose a control lever 2 configured to rotate the actuator (32, 33, 34, 36, 37) when the control lever 2 is moved in a first direction or a second direction (Figs. 3 and 5 of La Garde disclose line which indicates rotation direction of rod 1), wherein the control lever 2 is mechanically coupled with the actuator (32-34, 36-37)/(42, 44-45) via lever 35/43 – see La Garde, Figs. 3 and 5, page 3, line 17 through page 4, line 2), and wherein the control lever comprises:
a first end coupled to the actuator (Figs. 3 and 5-6 of La Garde disclose a first end of control lever 2 coupled to the actuator 36 – see La Garde, Figs. 3 and 5-6, page 3, line 36 through page 4, line 2); and
a second end, opposite the first end, comprising a connector that is configured to extend into a socket (Figs 1-2 of La Garde disclose the control lever 2 which has a second end, opposite the first end, comprising a connector (“helical connection” or “a cam”) that is configured to extend into a socket 3 – see La Garde, Figs. 1-2, page 2, lines 13-15 and page 3, lines 8-18).
For claim 2, La Garde in view of Colson disclose the architectural covering system of claim 1, wherein a first movement of the control lever in the first direction causes the motor to retract an architectural covering and a second movement of the control lever in the second direction causes the motor to extend the architectural covering (Figs. 1-2 and 3-5 of La Garde disclose a first movement of the control lever 2 via transfer device in the first direction causes the motor to retract an architectural covering and a second movement of the control lever in the second direction causes the motor to extend the architectural covering – see La Garde, Figs. 1-2 and 3-5, page 3, lines 5-26).
For claim 6, La Garde in view of Colson disclose the architectural covering system of claim 1, wherein the end plate is couplable with at least a frame, a mounting bracket, or a cassette (Fig. 1 of Colson discloses the end plate 110/ 111 is couplable with at least a mounting bracket 115 – see Colson, Fig. 1, paragraph [0018], lines 1-7).
For claim 10, La Garde in view of Colson disclose the architectural covering system of claim 1, wherein the control lever is curved (Figs. 3-7 of La Garde discloses the control lever 2 which is curved by sheath 4).
For claim 11, La Garde in view of Colson disclose the architectural covering system of claim 1, wherein the control lever is at least extended from: (i) below a front cover or a headrail of the architectural covering system or (ii) outward from the front cover or the headrail of the architectural covering system (Figs. 1-2 of La Garde discloses the control lever 2 which is at least extended from: (i) a headrail of the architectural covering system or (ii) outward from the headrail of the architectural covering system).
Claims 16-19 are "an apparatus" claims which are either same or similar to that of the "an apparatus" claims 1-2, 4 and 6, respectively. Explanation is omitted
For claim 20, La Garde in view of Colson disclose the apparatus of claim 16, wherein the control lever is disposed in a channel formed in a side of the end plate, the channel defined by an upper wall and a lower wall (Fig. 7 of La Garde discloses the control lever 2 is disposed in a channel formed in a side of the end plate 11, the channel defined by an upper wall and a lower wall).
Claim 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over La Garde et al. (hereinafter La Garde, WO 03/049127 A1) in view of Colson et al. (hereinafter Colson, US 2014/0262078 A1), further in view of Welfonder et al. (hereinafter Welfonder, US 6,158,563 A).
For claim 4, La Garde in view of Colson disclose the architectural covering system of claim 1, wherein the actuator is disposed in the housing (Figs 5 and 7 of La Garde disclose the end plate 11 is coupled to a housing 41/61 using a fastening mechanism, and wherein the actuator (42, 44-45/62, 64-65 and 67-68) is disposed in the housing 41/61 – see La Garde, Figs. 5 and 7, page 3, line 30 through page 4, line 13).
La Garde in view of Colson disclose the end plate is coupled to a housing (La Garde discloses the end plate 11 which is coupled to a housing 41 (see La Garde, Fig. 5, page 3, lines 31-33) which is silent for using a fastening mechanism.
However, Welfonder discloses the end plate is coupled to a housing using a fastening mechanism (Fig. 5 of Welfonder discloses the end plate 160 coupled to a housing 158 using a fastening mechanism 138 – see Welfonder, Fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of La Garde in view of Colson to incorporate teaching of Welfonder for purpose of resisting sideways forces in structures.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5, 7-9 and 12-15 are 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THAI T DINH whose telephone number is (571)270-3852. The examiner can normally be reached (571)270-3852.
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, EDUARDO COLON-SANTANA can be reached at (571)272-2060. 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.
/THAI T DINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2846