DETAILED ACTION
Examiner apologizes for errors made in the previous office action. The subject matter of claim 8 which was previously indicated as allowable and has been incorporated into amended claim 1 nor is the subject matter of claim 9 considered allowable in view of reconsideration of the prior art. A second non-final action is made herein. The allowable subject matter that is maintained is noted below.
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.
Claims 10-12 are 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 10 requires “first and second tracks comprise toothed racks.” However, claim 10 depends from claim 1 which requires the first and second tracks include “a ball chain.” It is not understood how each track can comprise both a toothed rack and a ball chain. Claims 11-12 depend from claim 10 and inherit this issue.
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, 9-15, 17, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knowles (US 6,186,211) and further in view of Jelic et al. (US 6,571,851), hereinafter referred to as Jelic.
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Knowles discloses a device for automating a window blind having a shade operatively connected to a vertically adjustable pull bar, characterized by:
a housing (18; Fig 6);
a fastener (Fig 10 – elements 53, 54, 55, 56 interact with snap fastening means) for attaching the housing to the pull bar (37);
a first track (25 on 75) attachable to a window frame (Fig 1) comprising toothed racks (Fig 6); a second track (25 on 77) attachable to the window frame comprising toothed racks; and
a first drive (4) at a first end of the housing and a second drive (4) at a second end of the housing,
each of the first and second drives including paired drive wheels (21 and 13) having cooperating pockets (space between teeth) (Figs 6),
PNG
media_image1.png
514
1224
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the first and second drives are operably engageable with the first and second tracks (25), respectively, for raising and lowering the pull bar and shade.
Knowles fails to disclose wherein the first and second tracks comprise ball chains but instead teaches toothed racks. However, Jelic teaches that it is known for ball chains (beaded chain, Fig 16) to be an alternative to a toothed rack (Fig 20). 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 modify Knowles with the teachings of Jelic and provide the first and second tracks as ball chains since it is a known alternative to toothed racks, as taught by Jelic.
Regarding claim 2, Knowles discloses wherein the first and second drives comprise electrical motors (58).
Regarding claim 9, Knowles discloses the paired drive wheels (13 and 21) further include gearing (teeth) having intermeshing teeth for maintaining synchronous operation of the cooperating pockets.
Regarding claim 11, as best understood, Knowles discloses wherein each of the first and second drives includes a pinion (13 or 21) for engaging a respective toothed rack (25) as the housing is raised and lowered along the toothed racks.
Regarding claim 12, as best understood, Knowles discloses wherein each of the first and second drives includes a guide (14 or 22) which rotatably receives the pinion and slides along the toothed rack to keep the pinion engaged with the toothed rack (Fig 5).
Regarding claim 13, Knowles further comprising a control unit (60) in electronic communication with the electrical motors.
Regarding claim 14, Knowles discloses wherein the control unit is carried by the housing (Fig 6).
Regarding claim 15, Knowles discloses wherein the control unit is a remote control (col 7, lines 10-12).
Regarding claim 17, Knowles discloses wherein the control unit further comprises a microprocessor (col 10, line 26) for controlling the electrical motors in response to programming stored in a memory or commands inputted into the control unit.
Regarding claim 20, Knowles discloses wherein the first and second drives are reversible drives (they drive the shade both up and down).
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knowles and Jelic, as applied in claim 17 above, in further view of Conway (US 2018/0258692).
Regarding claim 18, Knowles fails to disclose a leveling sensor in communication with the microprocessor for causing at least one of the first and second drives to raise or lower at least one of the first and second ends of the housing and move the housing to a substantially horizontal position. However, Conway teaches that it is known to provide a shade device with a leveling sensing in communication with a microprocessor (paragraphs [0046], [0047]) to control the drive to ensure the housing is horizontal. 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 modify Knowles with the teachings of Conway in order to provide known leveling means and improved shade operation.
Regarding claim 19, Knowles as modified with Conway above, Conway teaches any suitable leveling sensor (paragraph [0047]) and therefore it would be obvious that wherein the leveling sensor is selected from the group comprising a bubble level wherein a photo sensor senses the position of a bubble in the bubble level, a ball bearing in a channel wherein a photo sensor senses the position of the ball bearing in the channel, a magnet wherein a magnetic sensor senses the position of the magnet, and an inertial measurement unit sensor.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knowles and Jelic, as applied in claim 1 above, in further view of Stahl (US 2,266,479).
Regarding claim 24, Knowles teaches the blind is a pleated shade and fails to disclose blind slats and upwardly directed slat stacking guides on the housing to guide blind slats to stack atop one another as the housing, pull bar and shade move upward. However, Stahl teaches that it is known for slats to be a known shade and for upwardly directed slat stacking guides (35, 36) be provided on a housing to stack atop one another as the housing, pull bar and shade move upward. 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 modify Knowles and substitute the pleated shade with the known slat shade and provide slat stacking guides, as taught by Stahl since it provides an improved shade.
Allowable Subject Matter
As previously indicated, the subject matter of claims 21-23 and 26 are allowed.
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