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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 8, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tsuji (JP 2017-2477). Note: A copy of a machine translation of the Tsuji patent document was provided with the Office action dated 3/3/26. References to the disclosure of Tsuji are directed to the translation.
Regarding claim 1, Tsuji discloses a screen guide frame structure [FIG. 1], comprising: a plurality of pivot moving members (63), said pivot members being pivotally connected in series to form a guide frame (60; the pivotal connection is provided by strip 69 as described in paragraph 0018 and shown in Figures 1 and 4), an inner sidewall of each said pivot moving member having an extended piece extended therefrom (extended piece defined by upper wall 62; see annotated drawing below), a front edge of said extended piece protruding out of said pivot moving member and being abutted against another said pivot moving member (extension of the extended piece is shown in Figure 5c; abutment of the extended piece against an adjacent one of said pivot moving members is shown in at least Figure 4), each of said pivot moving members being provided with a shifting slot (61a) therein, and said shifting slots forming an interconnected passage in said guide frame (slots 61a form a guide slot 61 as shown in Figure 4 and described in paragraph 0017), said extended piece of each said pivot moving member extending towards one side of said interconnected passage (as shown in Figures 5b and 5d, the extended pieces defined by the upper wall extend inwardly towards the opposing edge of the interconnected passage).
PNG
media_image1.png
297
432
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Tsuji discloses a screen device (1) in which the screen guide frame structure as claimed in claim 1 is applied (as set forth above), comprising a first frame (10), a second frame (40), said guide frame (60) and a screen (50), wherein one end of said first frame is provided with a first guide block (lower portion of the frame at 13 to which a first end of the guide frame 60 is connected; paragraph 0013), at least one end of said second frame is provided with a second guide block (lower end of the frame 40 at 45) which is communicated to an interior space of said second frame (as shown in Figure 1, the lower guide block at 45 allows extension of the guide frame 60 through the opening and into the interior space of the frame 40, thereby defining a communicated space), one end of said guide frame is secured to said first frame (paragraph 0013) and another end of said guide frame enters and exits said second frame through said second guide block [FIG. 1], and two opposite sides of said screen are respectively secured to said first frame and said second frame (paragraph 0012).
Regarding claim 12, Tsuji discloses that each of said pivot moving members is provided with a shifting slot (61a) therein, and said shifting slots from a passage in said guide frame (slots 61a form a guide slot 61 as shown in Figure 4 and described in paragraph 0017).
Claims 5, 6, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuji (JP 2017-2477) in view of Li (CN 211231432). Note: A copy of a machine translation of the Li patent document was provided with the Office action dated 3/3/26. References to the disclosure of Li are directed to the translation.
Regarding claims 5, 6, 13, and 14, Tsuji discloses the pivot moving members of said guide frame, but does not disclose an elastic pushing device.
Nonetheless, Li discloses a guide frame structure comprising at least one elastic pushing device (7, 8, 9; paragraphs 0038-0039) provided between two adjacent pivot moving members [FIG. 2]; wherein said elastic pushing device at least has an elastic member (7, 9; paragraph 0038 discloses that strip 7 is elastic and includes end 9), and said elastic member includes a root part (9) and a free end (7), wherein said root part is disposed on one said pivot moving member and said free end is abutted to another said pivot moving member of said guide frame (paragraphs 0038-0039; the free end defined by strip 7 abuts against the walls of groove 8 to provide an elastic damping to the relative movements of the adjacent pivot moving members).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the guide frame structure of Tsuji to include the elastic pushing device taught by Li, in order to reduce rattling or vibration that causes noise during operation of the guide frame structure.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuji (JP 2017-2477) in view of Vittore (WO 2017/033127).
Regarding claim 7, Tsuji discloses a screen guide frame structure [FIG. 1], comprising: a plurality of pivot moving members (63), said pivot moving members being pivotally connected in series to form a guide frame (60; the pivotal connection is provided by strip 69 as described in paragraph 0018 and shown in Figures 1 and 4), an inner sidewall of each said pivot moving member having an extended piece extended therefrom (extended piece defined by upper wall 62; see annotated drawing above), a front edge of said extended piece protruding out of said pivot moving member (the front edge of the extended piece protrudes out of the pivot moving member 63 as shown in at least Figure 5c) and being abutted against another said pivot moving member (abutment of the extended piece against an adjacent one of said pivot moving members is shown in at least Figures 1 and 4).
Tsuji does not disclose a guide line securing member.
Nonetheless, Vittore discloses a screen guide frame structure (structure shown in Figure 1), comprising: a plurality of pivot moving members (2), said pivot moving members being pivotally connected in series to form a guide frame (the links 2 are pivotally connected via elastic strip 3 to form the guide frame 1, shown in Figure 2 and described in at least page 4, line 27-page 5, line 3), one end of said guide frame being provided with a guide line securing member (4) thereon, said guide line securing member being provided with at least one threaded hole (hole in the guide line securing member 4 and corresponding nut 6 shown in Figure 43) and an engaging protrusion (8), said engaging protrusion having a pierced hole at a position that corresponds to said threaded hole (as shown in Figures 43 and 45, the pierced hole is formed in the engaging protrusion 8, and aligns with the threaded hole of the securing member 4 such that bolt 7 can extend therethrough), a threaded securing component (7) passing through said pierced hole of said engaging protrusion and being threadedly secured in said threaded hole of said guide line securing member (page 10, lines 8-19) [FIGS. 43, 45].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the screen guide frame structure of Tsuji to have the guide line securing member and threaded securing component configuration taught by Vittore, in order to provide a secure connection point for an operating cable of the screen, that is easily installed and removed/replaced. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art as evidenced above, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed, using known methods with no change in their respective functions. Such a combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, since the elements perform as expected and thus the results would be expected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Tsuji and Vittore fail to disclose the claimed pivot connection required by the claims, but this argument is not found persuasive. Claims 1 and 7 each recite “said pivot moving members being pivotally connected”. A pivotal connection in the context of the art, and treated with a broadest reasonable interpretation, requires a connection between the pivot moving members that enables pivoting or rotation of the pivot moving members relative to each other. The connecting strip 69 of Tsuji and the elastic element 3 of Vittore therefore read on the claimed limitation, as they each provide a connection between the pivot moving members that enables relative pivoting of said members. Applicant argues that Tsuji and Vittore fail to disclose a discrete pin or shaft defining a pivot point, but this structure is not required by the claims. The claims do not recite a “pin” or “shaft” connection, and the flexible strips of Tsuji and Vittore do define respective pivot points that allow the pivot members to rotate relative to each other. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a pin or shaft connection) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant also argues that the extended pieces of Tsuji are spaced apart from each other, and that they do not extend towards one side of the interconnected passage but this argument is also not found persuasive. It is noted that the annotated version of Figure 4 of Tsuji that was provided in the remarks is not entirely clear (the scanning of the reply reproduces the image in black-and-white, so a green circle is not visible). However, the limitation requiring that the extended pieces extend towards one side of the interconnected passage is met by Tsuji, and is shown in at least Figure 5d (see annotated drawing below).
PNG
media_image2.png
423
425
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The extended pieces extend from the respective sides of the passage (generally defined at the interior sides of the walls 64), and extend toward the opposite side as shown in the annotated drawing above. This meets the requirements of the limitation given a broadest reasonable interpretation.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but are not found persuasive. It is noted that the new ground of rejection was necessitated by the amendments to the claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ABE L MASSAD whose telephone number is (571)272-6292. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00.
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.
/ABE MASSAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights