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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on January 14, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claim 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101). MPEP 2106.03 states "Subject matter that the statute expressly prohibits from being patented, such as humans per se, which are excluded under The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA ), Public Law 112-29, sec. 33, 125 Stat. 284 (September 16, 2011). The claim recites “users.”
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.
Claim 14 is 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 14 requires ineligible subject matter via the phrase "wherein users display images and pictures on the screen" - "users" in this context is ineligible subject matter per the 'humans per se' prohibition: MPEP 2106.03 states "Subject matter that the statute expressly prohibits from being patented, such as humans per se, which are excluded under The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA ), Public Law 112-29, sec. 33, 125 Stat. 284 (September 16, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 12-14, 16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Souffrain (US 2021/0233443).
Regarding claim 1, Souffrain discloses a computer screen blind device that offers multifunctional usage for homes and offices (directed to an intended use), the computer screen blind device comprising:
a body component (130) comprised of a computer screen (132; paragraph [0024]);
PNG
media_image1.png
1238
970
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a window blind component (paragraph [0026], blinds over body component 130);
PNG
media_image2.png
498
528
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the computer screen is secured within a window frame (150, 160 encloses window 10 and computer screen 132) (Fig 3);
wherein the window blind component acts to cover the computer screen; and further wherein when the window blind component is retracted, the computer screen is exposed (paragraph [0026]).
Regarding claim 2, Souffrain discloses wherein users display images and pictures on the computer screen (paragraph [0028]).
Regarding claim 3, Souffrain discloses wherein the window blind component is pulled down to block out sunlight and maintain a desired aesthetic (paragraph [0026]).
Regarding claim 4, Souffrain discloses wherein the window blind component is a series of vertical blinds or horizontal blinds (paragraph [0026], cords pulled).
Regarding claim 12, Souffrain discloses the window blind component and the computer screen are one integral component (paragraph [0026], all received in the same frame).
Regarding claim 13, Souffrain discloses wherein the computer screen (132) is configured as a roller assembly comprising a housing (122) with a rolled screen wrapped around a roller (124) and positioned in an interior region of the housing (Fig 3).
Regarding claim 14, Souffrain discloses a computer screen blind device that offers multifunctional usage for homes and offices, the computer screen blind device comprising:
a body component (130) comprised of a computer screen (132; paragraph [0024]);
a window blind component (paragraph [0026], blinds over body component 130);
wherein the computer screen is secured within a window frame (150, 160 encloses window 10 and computer screen 132) (Fig 3);
wherein the computer screen (132) is configured as a roller assembly comprising a housing (122) with a rolled screen wrapped around a roller (124) and positioned in an interior region of the housing (Fig 3),
wherein the window blind component acts to cover the computer screen; and further wherein when the window blind component is retracted, the computer screen is exposed (paragraph [0026]);
wherein users display images and pictures on the computer screen (paragraph [0028]);
and further wherein the window blind component is pulled down to block out sunlight and maintain a desired aesthetic (paragraph [0026], blinds deployed and have a specific appearance).
Regarding claim 16, Souffrain discloses wherein the computer screen communicates with a computer via Bluetooth or another wireless device to project images and pictures (paragraph [0024]).
Regarding claim 18, Souffrain discloses wherein the computer screen also functions as a screen saver, a blackout blind (paragraph [0018]), or a projector.
Regarding claim 19, Souffrain discloses the window blind component and the computer screen are one integral component (paragraph [0026], all received in the same frame).
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 5-8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Souffrain in view of Cheng (US 8,002,012).
Regarding claim 5, although Souffrain discloses a window blind component is integrated in the computer screen blind device and that it includes a plurality of horizontal slats just as traditional blinds, Souffrain does not specifically disclose the window blind component comprises a headrail, a bottom rail, and a transmission unit. However, traditional blinds, as taught by Cheng, have a plurality of horizontal slats (51) (Fig 3), a headrail (30), a bottom rail (40) and a transmission unit (within 30). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date with a reasonable expectation of success that the traditional horizontal blinds of Souffrain be provided with the elements disclosed by Cheng since they are traditionally known and would not lead to any new or unexpected results.
Regarding claim 6, Souffrain as modified with Cheng above discloses wherein the headrail is fixed on a window frame, the plurality of slats are parallel and arranged between the headrail and the bottom rail, and connecting components (524, 525) connect the plurality of slats to the headrail and the bottom rail.
Regarding claim 7, Souffrain as modified with Cheng above discloses wherein each of the plurality of slats is provided with two elongated bores (openings in slats) and two cords (521, 522) to lift and retract the plurality of slats.
Regarding claim 8, Souffrain discloses wherein the computer screen communicates with a computer via Bluetooth or another wireless device to project images and pictures (paragraph [0024]).
Regarding claim 11, Souffrain discloses wherein the computer screen also functions as a screen saver, a blackout blind (paragraph [0018]), or a projector.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Souffrain and Cheng, as applied in claim 7 above, in further view of Lee (US 6,337,769).
Regarding claim 9, although Souffrain discloses the computer screen displays images and pictures it is not disclosed that it communicates with an LCD projector via Bluetooth or another wireless device to project images and pictures. However, projecting images and pictures using an LCD projector (50) via a wireless device (col 3, lines 55-56) is known as taught by Lee. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize an LCD projector and wireless device, as taught by Lee in order to selectively display images and pictures onto blind devices.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Souffrain and Cheng, as applied in claim 7 above, in further view of Pecorino et al. (US 5,264,765), hereinafter referred to as Pecorino.
Regarding claim 10, Souffrain fails to disclose a plurality of indicia. However, providing any sort of indicia or decorations on a screen is known, as taught by Pecorino. Pecorino teaches a screen (30) having indicia (32) as desired. 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 device of Souffrain with indicia since it is a known technique as taught by Pecorino and such modification would not lead to any new or unpredictable results.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Souffrain, as applied in claim 14 above, in further view of Pecorino.
Regarding claim 15, Souffrain fails to disclose a plurality of indicia. However, providing any sort of indicia or decorations on a screen is known, as taught by Pecorino. Pecorino teaches a screen (30) having indicia (32) as desired. 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 device of Souffrain with indicia since it is a known technique as taught by Pecorino and such modification would not lead to any new or unpredictable results.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Souffrain, as applied in claim 14 above, in further view of Lee.
Regarding claim 17, although Souffrain discloses the computer screen displays images and pictures it is not disclosed that it communicates with an LCD projector via Bluetooth or another wireless device to project images and pictures. However, projecting images and pictures using an LCD projector (50) via a wireless device (col 3, lines 55-56) is known as taught by Lee. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize an LCD projector and wireless device, as taught by Lee in order to selectively display images and pictures onto blind devices.
Conclusion
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