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 claims are replete with objections. The following are non-limiting examples:
Claim 1 recites “the interior” on line 6, but should recite “an interior”
Claim 1 line 12 recites “a straight-bar shaped damping shear pillar”, which as best understood merely requires the pillar to extend in a straight direction.
Claim 1 line 13 recites “a longitudinal line”, but this is believed to mean “a vertical line”, as the axis of the release idlers extend vertically and not longitudinally.
Claim 1 line 15 recites “an opening”, which is believed to be referring to the opening already introduced.
Claim 1 line 17 recites “end of the two shear ridges each is provided”, but should recite “end of each of the two shear ridges is provided” for proper grammar.
Claim 1 line 18 recites “of the provided shear ridge respectfully facing toward”, but should recite “of the respective shear ridge facing toward” for proper grammar.
Claim 1 lines 21-22 recite “thereby enabling the plane on the base plate toward the opening being vertically with a turning guide-rod”. As best understood, this requires “thereby enabling a plane on the base plate toward the opening being vertical with a turning guide-rod”.
Claim 2 line 2 repeats the limitation from claim 1 that requires the corner ends provided with an arc-shaped cross section.
Claim 2 lines 2-3 recite “the cross section”, but should recite “a cross section”
Claim 6 line 2 recites “the cross section”, but should recite “a cross section”
Claim 6 line 3 and claim 8 lines 2-3 recite “the hexagonal dampening shear pillar” . These should recite “the dampening shear pillar” for consistency.
Claim 11 recites “a slat” on line 7, but as best understood this should recite “a slat”.
It is up to the applicant to find and correct all issues similar to those described above. Appropriate correction is required. The claims are examined as best understood in light of the objections.
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) 1-2, 6, 8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (US 20170022755) in view of Chou (US 6752195).
Regarding claim 1 Huang teaches
a position damping device (10) for a window blind, being applied to a window blind with a slat being expanded and collected horizontally, resulting in damping to a pull cord effectively to define a height position of the slat when the slat is lowered down at any height (functional language), comprising:
a machine part (formed by the two 1s) which is formed by two base plates (the two 1s) combined together, with two ends of the machine part being provided with an opening defining the interior (the opening is where the cords exit, see fig. 12, and the interior is where the gears and wheels and reels are located);
a spring scroll wheel (the wheels and reed in fig. 12), an axis of which is vertically pivoted on a base plate of the two base plates in the abovementioned machine part (an axis of the wheels), with the spring scroll wheel including a spring (4) to link a power wheel (2) and a feedback wheel (3), and with the power wheel and the feedback wheel being geared with two release idlers (the 13s) to release and collect a pull cord; and
a longitudinal surface (surface of the bottom element 1), which is protruded with a straight-bar shaped damping shear pillar (the element itself in fig. 12 that the cord engages with before leaving the device is considered protruded with a straight-bar shaped damping shear pillar), with a longitudinal (see claim objection) line of the damping shear pillar being parallel to an axis of one of the release idlers (see claim objection above, fig. 12), with the damping shear pillar being disposed vertically on one of the base plates between the opening and an outer circumference of one of the release idlers (as shown in figs. 9 and 12) in an outlet direction of a slot (as best understood per the claim objections above, this is true).
Huang does not explicitly teach the straight-bar shaped dampening shear pillar having at least two shear ridges, wherein a corner end of each of the two shear ridges is provided with an arc-shaped cross section and a planar angle of the respective shear ridges facing toward an overrun passage of the pull cord, wherein the damping shear pillar is provided for the pull cord to be sheared by the two shear ridges, thereby enabling a plane on the base plate toward the opening being vertical with a turning guide-rod.
Chou teaches a position dampening device for a window blind with a straight-bar shaped dampening shear pillar (element 2) with at least two shear ridges (the hexagonal shape has six), wherein a corner end of each of the two shear ridges is provided with an arc-shaped cross section (see fig. 6) and a planar angle of the respective shear ridges facing toward an overrun passage of the pull cord (as is shown in fig. 6), wherein the damping shear pillar is provided for the pull cord to be (functional language) sheared by the two shear ridges (as is shown in fig. 6), thereby enabling (functional language) a plane (surface of 10 in fig. 6) on a base plate (4) toward an opening (100) being vertical with a turning guide-rod (3).
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 Huang with the teachings of Chou by modifying the straight-bar shaped dampening shear pillar of Huang by changing its shape so it is like that of Chou, which has at least two shear ridges, wherein a corner end of each of the two shear ridges is provided with an arc-shaped cross section and a planar angle of the respective shear ridges facing toward an overrun passage of the pull cord, wherein the damping shear pillar is provided for the pull cord to be sheared by the two shear ridges, thereby enabling a plane on the base plate toward the opening being vertical with a turning guide-rod.
This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of better gripping the cord, resulting in the device better holding the shade in a desired level.
Regarding claim 2, modified Huang teaches that a corner end of the shear ridge is provided with an arc-shaped cross section (see claim objection above, and claim 1 rejection), the cross section of the damping shear pillar is provided with two shear ridges (it has 6).
Modified Huang does not explicitly teach that the cross section is a square.
The examiner notes that the courts have held that the configuration of the claimed object was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed component was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Therefore, 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 Huang so that the cross section is a square. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of ease in manufacturing, as a square is an easier shape to manufacture compared to a hexagon.
Regarding claim 6, as best understood modified Huang teaches that a cross section of the dampening shear pillar is a hexagon (see modification to claim 1 above) and a side of the dampening shear pillar is a center line that is aligned with the machine part (after the modification above, a side of the dampening shear pillar is considered a center line that is aligned with the machine part).
Regarding claim 8, modified Huang teaches that the dampening shear pillar is a hexagon (see claim 1 modification above) and a diagonal line of the hexagonal damping shear pillar is a center line parallel to the machine part (after the modification above, a diagonal line from one of the corners to the opposite would run parallel to a surface of the machine part).
Regarding claim 11, modified Huang teaches a window blind with a slat being expanded and collected horizontally (Huang includes prior art figure 1. The damping device 10 from figure 12 fits into the same device in the same way, as Huang merely teaches a modified damping device to what is shown in fig. 1), resulting in damping to a pull cord effectively to define a height position of the slat when the slat is lowered down at any height, comprising
a top truss (shown in fig. 1), an interior of which is provided with a position damping device as described in claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above);
a pull cord (14), an end of which links to the position damping device, with a free end of the pull cord being lowered down to transfix and combine with a slat through an overbend unit (shown in fig. 1); and
a bottom rail, which is assembled at a lower end of the pull cord to seal a lower part of the slat (see fig. 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The examiner notes that Huang does not explicitly teach the straight-bar shaped dampening shear pillar having at least two shear ridges, wherein a corner end of each of the two shear ridges is provided with an arc-shaped cross section and a planar angle of the respective shear ridges facing toward an overrun passage of the pull cord, wherein the damping shear pillar is provided for the pull cord to be sheared by the two shear ridges, thereby enabling a plane on the base plate toward the opening being vertical with a turning guide-rod.
Chou teaches a position dampening device for a window blind with a straight-bar shaped dampening shear pillar (element 2) with at least two shear ridges (the hexagonal shape has six), wherein a corner end of each of the two shear ridges is provided with an arc-shaped cross section (see fig. 6) and a planar angle of the respective shear ridges facing toward an overrun passage of the pull cord (as is shown in fig. 6), wherein the damping shear pillar is provided for the pull cord to be (functional language) sheared by the two shear ridges (as is shown in fig. 6), thereby enabling (functional language) a plane (surface of 10 in fig. 6) on a base plate (4) toward an opening (100) being vertical with a turning guide-rod (3).
The examiner notes that 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 make this modification for the purpose of better gripping the cord, resulting in the device better holding the shade in a desired level.
All the limitations as claimed are taught by the rejection above, as best understood in light of the replete claim objection.
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