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 .
Election/Restrictions
1. Applicant’s election of Group ID (claims 10-12) and Species C (Fig. 27) in the reply filed on 01/23/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
2. Claims 3-6, 8, and 13-21 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37
CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions and Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Double Patenting
3. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
4. Claims 1-2, 7, and 9-12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-3 and 6-9 of copending Application No. 18/525,801 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
Claim 1 of the copending application teaches all the limitation set forth in claim 1 of the current application including the steps of providing an input device, a position detecting device, a cutting device, a manual operating member, a limit assembly and a signal processing circuit; utilizing the input device to receive a mounting mode, cutting size information and identification information …; utilizing the position detecting device to detect a position of the limit assembly …; utilizing the signal processing circuit to generate adjusted position information according to the mounting mode …, manually adjusting the manual operator member to move the limit assembly …; and making at least a first end of the window covering abut against the limit assembly, and utilizing the signal processing circuit to configure the cutting device to cut the first end of the window covering.
Regarding claim 2 of the application, claim 2 of the copending application teaches all the claimed subject matter.
Regarding claim 7 of the application, claim 3 of the copending application teaches all the claimed subject matter.
Regarding claim 9 of the application, claim 6 of the copending application teaches all the claimed subject matter.
Regarding claim 10 of the application, claim 7 of the copending application teaches all the claimed subject matter.
Regarding claim 11 of the application, claim 8 of the copending application teaches all the claimed subject matter.
Regarding claim 12 of the application, claim 9 of the copending application teaches all the claimed subject matter.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Interpretation
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
6. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable
interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by
sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“an input device,” “a position detecting device,” “a cutting device,” and “a limit device” recited in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-2, 7, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (6,412,381 B1), hereinafter Wang, in view of Kollman et al. (2008/0087152 A1), hereinafter Kollman ‘152, both references provided with the IDS filled on 07/24/2025. Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches a method of cutting a window covering, comprising: providing a window covering cutting apparatus 1 comprising an input device 51, a cutting device 14, a manual operating member 64, a limit assembly 60 and a signal processing circuit 50; and identification information (defined as the type of material of window covering being cut such as plastic or wood; Fig. 8) of the window covering to be cut; manually adjusting the manual operating member 64 to move the limit assembly 60 until the adjusted position information substantially equals to a target position; and making at least a first end of the window covering abut against the limit assembly 60, and utilizing the signal processing circuit to configure the cutting device to cut the first end of the window covering. See Figs. 5-10 in Wang.
Wang does not explicitly teach the steps of providing a position detecting device and cutting size information; utilizing the input device to receive a mounting mode; utilizing the position detecting device to detect a position of the limit assembly and generate a position detecting value corresponding to the position of the limit assembly; utilizing the signal processing circuit to generate adjusted position information and target position information according to the mounting mode, the cutting size information, the identification information and the position detecting value; move the limit assembly until the adjusted position information substantially equals to the target position information.
However, Kollman ‘152 teaches a method of cutting a window covering including the steps of providing a position detecting device 175 and cutting size information (inputted by the input device 24); utilizing an input device 24 to receive a mounting mode (32, 33; Fig. 3); utilizing the position detecting device 175 (paragraphs [0064]-[0066]) to detect a position of a limit assembly and generate a position detecting value corresponding to the position of the limit assembly; utilizing a signal processing circuit 41 to generate adjusted position information and target position information according to the mounting mode, the cutting size information, the identification information and the position detecting value; move the limit assembly until the adjusted position information substantially equals to the target position information. See Figs. 1-14 in Kollman ‘152.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide Wang’s cutting apparatus with the input information, sensor, and adjustment arrangement on the limit assembly, as taught by Kollman ‘152, in order to enhance the operation of the window cutting apparatus based on desired dimensions and user inputs.
Regarding claim 2, Wang, as modified by Kollman ‘152, teaches everything noted above including that the mounting mode (32, 33; Fig. 3 in Kollman ‘152) is one of an inside-mounting mode, an outside-mounting mode and an exact-measuring-mounting mode.
Regarding claim 7, Wang, as modified by Kollman ‘152, teaches everything noted above including that the target position information corresponds to a correct cutting size to which the window covering will be cut, and the adjusted position information comprises at least one of current position information of the limit assembly and a comparison result of the current position information and the target position information. See paragraphs [0064]-[0066] in Kollman ‘152.
Regarding claim 9, Wang, as modified by Kollman ‘152, teaches everything noted above including that the cutting size information comprises one of a final size of the window covering (defined as the consumer width measurement; Fig. 3 in Kollman ‘152) and a width of a window frame in which the window covering will be mounted, wherein the final size of the window covering is predetermined (by the customer).
Regarding claim 10, Wang teaches everything noted above including that the limit assembly 60 comprises a blocking member 63 and a moving member (61, 62) which are connected in a concurrently movable manner, and the blocking member 63 is provided to be abutted against by the first end of the window covering; when the limit assembly is driven by the manual operating member 64 to move, the moving distance of the moving member is in a constant proportional relationship with the moving distance of the blocking member. See Fig. 5 in Wang.
9. Claims 1-2, 7, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kutchmarek et al. (6,435,066 B1), hereinafter Kutchmarek, in view of Caputo et al. (2013/0021467 A9), hereinafter Caputo, and Kollman (2002/0071307 A1), hereinafter Kollman ‘307. Regarding claim 1, Kutchmarek teaches a method of cutting a window covering, comprising: providing a window covering cutting apparatus 1 comprising a cutting device 32, a limit assembly 118, making at least a first end of the window covering abut against the limit assembly (col. 4, lines 5–15); and cutting the first end of the window covering after positioning. See Figs. 1-8B in Kutchmarek.
Kutchmarel does not explicitly teaches the steps of utilizing an input device for receiving mounting mode, cutting size information, and identification information; utilizing a position detecting device configured to detect a position of the limit assembly and generate a position detecting value; utilizing a signal processing circuit configured to generate adjusted position information and target position information according to mounting mode, cutting size information, identification information, and position detecting value; and manually adjusting a manual operating member until adjusted position information substantially equals target position information.
However, Caputo teaches a method of cutting window covering including the steps of utilizing the input device 112 (as a user interface) to receive mounting mode (defined as by installation type such as inside-mount or outside-mount) , cutting size information (defined by the window measurement such as window width/dimension inputs), and identification information (defined by the product type or identification data); utilizing a position detecting device 92 to detect a position of a movable positioning member 80 and generate a position detecting value; utilizing a signal processing circuit to generate target position information based on mounting mode and cutting size information; and generating adjusted position information based on detected position and comparison with the target position. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kutchumarek’s apparatus to include the input device, position detecting device, and signal processing circuit, as taught by Caputo, in order to improve cutting accuracy and automate calculation of correct cutting dimensions based on installation parameters. Both references are directed to window covering cutting systems, and combining known electronic sizing controls with a known mechanical cutting apparatus would have yielded predictable results (improved accuracy and ease of use).
Kutchumarek in view of Caputo does not explicitly teach the step of sensing and controller comparison, it does not explicitly disclose a manually operable member for adjusting the limit assembly until the detected position substantially equals the target position.
Kollman ‘307 teaches an operating member (23, 25, 27, 29) configured to move a positioning structure relative to a cutting device. Kollman ‘307 also teaches that the adjustment of the positioning structure prior to cutting to establish proper cutting location. It should be noted that Kollman ‘307 does not explicitly teach that the operating member is a manual operating member. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to manually manipulate the operative member of Kollman ‘307, since replacing an automatic means with a manual means to accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art.
It would have been obvious to incorporate the manual operating member of Kollman ‘307 into the modified apparatus of Kutchumarek, as modified by Caputo, to permit manual adjustment of the limit assembly while receiving electronic feedback from the controller and sensor.
Regarding claim 2, Kutchumarek, as modified by Caputo, teaches everything noted above including that the mounting mode is one of an inside-mounting mode, an outside-mounting mode and an exact-measuring-mounting mode. Caputo teaches receiving installation-related parameters including inside-mount and outside-mount selections. Exact measurement modes are inherent in systems that calculate final dimensions based directly on entered measured values.
Regarding claim 7, Kutchumarek, as modified by Caputo, teaches everything noted above including that the target position information corresponds to a correct cutting size to which the window covering will be cut, and the adjusted position information comprises at least one of current position information of the limit assembly and a comparison result of the current position information and the target position information. Caputo teaches the steps of calculating a target cutting position corresponding to correct final size; detecting current position of a movable positioning member; and comparing detected position with calculated target position.
Regarding claim 9, Kutchumarek, as modified by Caputo, teaches everything noted above including that the cutting size information comprises one of a final size of the window covering and a width of a window frame in which the window covering will be mounted, wherein the final size of the window covering is predetermined. Caputo teaches receiving size information such as measured window frame width and determining final cutting size based on those inputs. The final size being predetermined based on calculation is inherent in controller-based sizing systems.
Regarding claim 10, Kutchumarek, as modified by Caputo and Kollman ‘307, teaches everything noted above including that the limit assembly comprises a blocking member and a moving member which are connected in a concurrently movable manner, and the blocking member is provided to be abutted against by the first end of the window covering; when the limit assembly is driven by the manual operating member to move, the moving distance of the moving member is in a constant proportional relationship with the moving distance of the blocking member.
Kutchumarek teaches the blocking/stop member against which the window covering abuts. Kollman ‘307 teaches a movable positioning structure driven by a manual operating member. Mechanical systems that connect a manually actuated sliding member to a stop in a fixed proportional relationship (e.g., rigid linkage or threaded drive) are well known and represent predictable mechanical design choices. The proportional relationship between connected members is inherent in rigidly connected mechanical linkages. It would have been obvious to implement the stop of Kutchumarek’s apparatus using the movable linkage structure of Kollman ‘307 to allow proportional, controlled movement.
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claims 11-12 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.
Regarding claim 11, Wang, as modified by Kollman ‘152; and Kutchumarek, as modified by Caputo and Kollman ‘307, fail to teach a backward position detector electrically coupled to the moving member; when the cutting device starts cutting and performs a feed movement, the backward position detector is triggered by the cutting device to generate an activating signal to the moving member, and the moving member brings the blocking member to move from a localization position to a backward position, in which the blocking member in the backward position is spaced from the first end of the window covering by a predetermined distance; after the cutting device has finished cutting and performs a returning movement, the backward position detector is triggered again by the cutting device to generate a resetting signal to the moving member, and the moving member brings the blocking member to move from the backward position back to the localization position.
Conclusion
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant’s disclosure.
Kollman et al. (7,806,030), Lin et al. (2003/0140756 A1), Johnson et al. (5,989,116), Zhelyaskov et al. (2018/0254717), and Chuang et al. (6,615,698), teach a method of cutting a window covering.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GHASSEM ALIE whose telephone number is (571) 272-4501. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 am-5:00 pm 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, Boyer Ashley can be reached on (571) 272-4502. 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.
/GHASSEM ALIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
March 4, 2026