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
Newly submitted claim 46 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: the claims to the different species recite the mutually exclusive characteristics of such species. As a non-limiting example, the species in claim 46 requires the longitudinal portion to have a cylindrical shape that assumes either an elliptical cross section or a circular cross section depending on whether it is received in the longitudinal portion, which is materially different than the species elected on 10/05/2025.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 46 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “10” has been used to designate both the first portion and the first longitudinal portion, reference character “20” has been used to designate the second portion, the second longitudinal portion, and the portion. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "20" and "30" have both been used to designate the portion in at least paragraph 69. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Reference character “10” has been used to designate both the first portion and the first longitudinal portion in at least paragraph 40.
Reference character “20” has been used to designate the second portion and the second longitudinal portion, as well as the portion in at least paragraphs 40 and 69.
Reference characters “20” and “30” both describe the portion in at least paragraph 69.
The specification is objected to because it fails to describe exactly what constitutes the first
longitudinal portion, the second longitudinal portion, and the third portion as described in the
specification. These elements are not assigned reference characters in the specification. It appears that
perhaps the applicant is using inconsistent terminology. As an example, as is best inferred, the first
longitudinal portion appears to be describing reference character 11 which is called a “sail” in the
specification. Please correct and use consistent terminology in the specification and the claims.
The examiner further notes that the applicant then argues that element 30 shows the third portion, but reference character 30 isn’t even found in the drawings depicting the elected species.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 32 objected to because of the following informalities:
The claim recites “when the longitudinal profile in the collapsed configuration the longitudinal profile is”, which is improper grammar. It appears that the second recitation of “the longitudinal profile could be removed.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 31, and 37-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kestelyn (EP 2426287).
Regarding claim 31, Kestelyn teaches a longitudinal profile (see fig. 2) usable in a roller blind system to connect a blind (17) to a roller tube (19, see fig. 3) that comprises
a longitudinal channel (22) defining a first axis, the longitudinal profile having an elongated shape that defines a second axis (fig. 2), the longitudinal profile comprising:
a first longitudinal portion (18) for connection to one end of the roller blind;
a second longitudinal portion (elements 12-15) configured to be entirely received into the longitudinal channel so that the first and the second axis are parallel to one another (fig. 3), the second longitudinal portion having one or more free ends that engage an inner surface of the longitudinal channel when the second longitudinal portion is disposed within the longitudinal channel (12 and 14 are one free end, and 13 and 15 is a second free end, each of these engage an inner surface of the channel as shown in fig. 3); and
a third portion (made of 14 and 15) interposed between (in fig. 3, elements 14 and 15 are between the far right portion of the first longitudinal element and the far left portion of the second longitudinal portion) the first portion and the second portion for a mutual connection thereof, wherein the third portion is made of a first material so as to enable a configuration variation of the longitudinal profile between a working configuration extended along the first axis and a collapsed transportation configuration having longitudinal dimensions smaller than longitudinal dimensions in the working configuration (functional language).
Kestelyn does not explicitly teach that the third portion is made of a first elastomeric material.
The examiner notes that the courts have held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). 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 modify Kestelyn so that that the third portion is made of a first elastomeric material. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of allowing a little spring in the device, making it easier to install into the longitudinal channel.
Regarding claim 37, Kestelyn teaches that the second portion can be removably inserted into the longitudinal channel (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 38, Kestelyn teaches that the longitudinal channel has the inner surface with first (left) and second (right) end edges arranged on opposite sides of a median plane passing through the first axis (see fig. 3), the first and the second end edges having a first predetermined distance therebetween (at mouth of opening), the one or more free ends of second portion comprising a first and a second opposite end, and wherein, after the second portion is inserted into the longitudinal channel, the first and second end of the second portion being arranged on opposite sides with respect to the median plane and having a second distance (at widest portion of the second portion) therebetween that is larger than the first distance so as to prevent a disinsertion of the second portion from the longitudinal channel (see fig. 3).
Regarding claim 39, Kestelyn teaches that a first end (left) of the second portion has a first operative surface configured to come into contact with the inner surface of the longitudinal channel at the first end edge (fig. 3), a second opposite end (right) of the second portion having a second operative surface configured to come into contact with the inner surface of the longitudinal channel at the second end edge so as to prevent the disinsertion of the second portion from the longitudinal channel (functional language, fig. 3).
Regarding claim 40, Kestelyn teaches that at least one part of the second portion is elastically deformable (see abstract) so that after the second portion is inserted into the longitudinal channel, the first end and the second opposite end are elastically forced against the inner surface of the longitudinal channel to cooperate therewith so as to avoid the disinsertion of the second portion from the longitudinal channel (fig. 3, this happens during insertion).
Regarding claim 41, Kestelyn teaches that the second portion is configured to be inserted into the longitudinal channel by a radial transaction along a direction parallel to, or lying in, the median plane (capable of).
Claim(s) 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kestelyn (EP 2426287) in view of Lew (US 4809760).
Regarding claim 32, Kestelyn does not explicitly teach that when the longitudinal profile is in the collapsed configuration it is helical or spiral-shaped (see claim objection above).
Lew teaches a shade system with a longitudinal profile what when in a collapsed configuration, it helical or spiral shaped (column 2 lines 9-40). 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 Kestelyn with teachings of Lew so that when the longitudinal profile is in the collapsed configuration it is helical or spiral-shaped. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of the element taking up less space, aiding in transportation of the component.
Claim(s) 33 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kestelyn (EP 2426287).
Regarding claim 33, Kestelyn does not explicitly teach that the first elastomeric material has a Shore A hardness measured in accordance with the ISO 868 standard comprised between 75 Sh A and 95 Sh A.
It is noted that the courts have held that "It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions." In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device so the that the first elastomeric material has a Shore A hardness measured in accordance with the ISO 868 standard comprised between 75 Sh A and 95 Sh A. This alteration provides the predictable and expected result of optimizing the material to provide an optimized or desired strength.
Regarding claim 35, Kestelyn does not explicitly teach that the first portion and the second portion are made of a second and respectively a third elastomeric material, with the first, the second and the third elastomeric materials being the same elastomeric material. The examiner notes that the courts have held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). 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 modify Kestelyn so that that the first portion and the second portion are made of a second and respectively third elastomeric material, with the first, second, and third elastomeric materials being the same elastomeric material. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of simplifying manufacturing.
Claim(s) 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kestelyn (EP 2426287) in view of Marocco (US 20170009519).
Regarding claim 34, Kestelyn does not teach that the first elastomeric material is a thermoplastic elastomeric material.
Marocco teaches a shade device made of a thermoplastic elastomeric material (paragraph 57). 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 Kestelyn so that the first elastomeric material is a thermoplastic elastomeric material. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of a cheap and easy to manufacture material with the desired flexibility.
Claim(s) 44 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kestelyn (EP 2426287) in view of Ponder (US 20090314441).
Regarding claim 44, although Kestelyn teaches a longitudinal profile according to claim 31 (see above), it does not teach a transportation kit comprising: a container, with a plurality of longitudinal profiles being inserted into the container in the collapsed transportation configuration.
The examiner notes that the courts have held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). 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 have a plurality of longitudinal profiles. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of having a backup in case multiple are needed.
Ponder teaches a transportation kit comprising a container, with screen element inserted into the container in a collapsed transportation configuration (paragraph 25). 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 Kestelyn so that there is a transportation kit comprising a container, with longitudinal profiles inserted into the container in a collapsed transportation configuration. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of making it easier for a user to transport the device.
Claim(s) 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kestelyn (EP 2426287) in view of Braybrook (GB 2398334).
Regarding claim 45, Kestelyn teaches a system for anchoring a blind (9) to a support structure at an opening thereof (paragraph 5), the blind being movable between an extended position in which the blind covers the opening and a shortened position (paragraphs 4-5), the system comprising:
a roller tube (19) configured to be installed at the support structure, the roller tube comprising a longitudinal channel (22);
a first longitudinal profile according to claim 31 (see claim 31 rejection above) having the first portion fixed at one end of the blind and the second portion configured to be inserted into the longitudinal channel of the roller tube (see claim 31 rejection above and fig. 3).
Kestelyn does not teach a longitudinal fastening bar on an opposite side of the opening from the roller tube, with the fastening bar comprising a longitudinal channel, and a second longitudinal profile according to claim 31 having the first portion fixed to the other end of the blind and the second portion configured to be removably inserted into the longitudinal channel of the longitudinal fastening bar so as to removably lock the blind in the extended position.
Braybrook teaches a system for anchoring a blind with a longitudinal fastening bar (10’) with the fastening bar comprising a longitudinal channel (22’), and a second longitudinal profile (16’) having a first portion fixed an end of a blind and a second portion configured to be removably inserted into the longitudinal channel of the longitudinal fastening bar (fig. 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 Kestelyn so that there is a longitudinal fastening bar on an opposite side of the opening from the roller tube, with the fastening bar comprising a longitudinal channel, and so there is a second longitudinal profile according to claim 31 having the first portion fixed to the other end of the blind and the second portion configured to be removably inserted into the longitudinal channel of the longitudinal fastening bar so as to removably lock the blind in the extended position. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of the bottom bar adding weight to the blind to keep it hanging down.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The above rejection teaches all the limitations as claimed by the applicant.
Regarding claim 31, Kestelyn teaches… a first longitudinal portion (18) for connection to one end of the roller blind; a second longitudinal portion (elements 12-15) configured to be entirely received into the longitudinal channel so that the first and the second axis are parallel to one another (fig. 3), the second longitudinal portion having one or more free ends that engage an inner surface of the longitudinal channel when the second longitudinal portion is disposed within the longitudinal channel (12 and 14 are one free end, and 13 and 15 is a second free end, each of these engage an inner surface of the channel as shown in fig. 3); and
a third portion (made of 14 and 15) interposed between (in fig. 3, elements 14 and 15 are between the far right portion of the first longitudinal element and the far left portion of the second longitudinal portion) the first portion and the second portion for a mutual connection thereof.
The examiner further notes that Kestelyn is not used to teach the elastomeric material in the rejection above.
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
Prosecution Insights