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 Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 3 be found allowable, claim 8 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 3-6 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rice (U.S. Patent No. 4,301,787) in view of McKinzie (U.S. Patent No. 8,640,690).
Regarding claim 1, Rice discloses a solar energy collecting blind arrangement (10) comprising:
a blind housing (at 35) configured to be mounted on a wall adjacent a window (18) [FIG. 1];
blind slats (12) suspended from said blind housing by cords (28, 32, 33);
a retraction arrangement (37, 34) being operatively connected to said blind slats to permit a user to retract said blind slats upwardly toward said blind housing to partially or fully expose a window (column 2, line 63-column 3, line 1 disclose a fully raised position of the blind slats 12) and extend said blind slats downwardly away from said blind housing to partially or fully cover a window [FIG. 2];
each of said blind slats comprising a top layer (22) and a bottom layer (24);
said top layer being configured to be disposed to face substantially toward a window and said bottom layer being configured to be disposed to face substantially toward an interior space (the orientation of the slats 12 with the top layer 22 facing the window 18 and the bottom layer 24 facing the interior is shown in at least Figure 3);
said top layer comprising a solar-collecting material configured to absorb solar energy (column 2, lines 47-52); and
said bottom layer comprising a heat-emitting material (column 2, lines 52-53; it is noted that all materials emit at least some amount of heat; the material required to be considered “heat-emitting” is not defined in the claims, and is not specified in the disclosure) configured to transfer heat energy into passing air in an interior space to thereby heat the interior space (column 3, lines 37-55; Abstract).
Rice does not disclose a middle layer disposed between said top and bottom layers.
Nonetheless, McKinzie discloses a solar energy collecting blind including blind slats (120), each blind slat comprising at least one middle layer (main body of the slat 120) disposed between a top layer (122) and a bottom layer (124; column 4, lines 8-12 discloses that surfaces 122 and 124 may be provided as coatings, which defines different layers on the top and bottom of the blind slats), said at least one middle layer abutting each of said top layer and said bottom layer (the top and bottom layers are coatings applied to the middle layer, which reads on the limitation “abutting”); and wherein said at least one middle layer comprises a thermally-conductive material (column 3, lines 4-8 discloses an aluminum composition, which is inherently thermally-conductive) configured to conduct heat energy from said top layer to said bottom layer (column 3, lines 50-61).
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 blind slats of Rice to include distinct top, bottom, and middle layers, as taught by McKinzie, in order to maximize solar heat collection for the assembly, and to ensure efficient heat transfer to the interior space.
Regarding claims 3 and 8, Rice discloses the blind slats, but does not explicitly disclose that they are curved.
Nonetheless, McKinzie discloses blind slats that are curved [FIG. 6] such that said top layer (122) presents a concave profile to aim more of said top layer toward the sun (the curved and concave shape of the top layer 122 shown in Figure 6 inherently performs the claimed function) and said bottom layer (124) presents a convex profile to increase the surface area in contact with passing air in an interior space (the curved and convex shape of the bottom layer 124 shown in Figure 6 inherently performs the claimed function).
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 blind slats of Rice to have the curved shape taught by McKinzie, in order to maximize heat collection and air flow across the slats to improve the efficiency of the system.
Regarding claims 4 and 9, Rice discloses that said top layer is colored black to maximize absorption of solar energy (column 2, lines 47-52), but does not disclose that the bottom layer is colored white.
Nonetheless, McKinzie discloses blind slats having a top layer that is colored black and a bottom layer that is colored white (column 4, lines 8-12).
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 blind slats of Rice to have the white bottom layer taught by McKinzie, in order to provide a reflective color that can be used to reduce incoming heat during summer months.
Regarding claims 5 and 10, Rice discloses the blind slats, but does not explicitly disclose a surface area of the blind slats.
It nonetheless 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 blind slats of Rice to have a surface area of 8 to 12 square feet, either by increasing the size of the slats or providing more slats. Such a modification constitutes a routine change in size or a routine duplication of parts. It has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8, and it has also been held that a change in shape of a disclosed element is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed element is significant In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Please note that in the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations. Providing the blind slats with a surface area of 8 to 12 square feet provides the obvious benefits of maximizing solar heat collection while still enabling the blind arrangement to fit within a particular size of window.
Regarding claims 6 and 11, Rice discloses that said blind slats are spaced apart from one another to permit air flow therebetween [FIGS. 2, 3].
Claims 7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rice (U.S. Patent No. 4,301,787) in view of McKinzie (U.S. Patent No. 8,640,690), as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Chou (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0396999).
Regarding claims 7 and 12, Rice, as modified above, discloses a retraction arrangement configured to retract said cords connecting said blind slats (column 2, line 56-column 3, line 5), but does not explicitly disclose a spool shaft and a cord loop.
Nonetheless, Chou discloses a blind [FIG. 4] comprising a retraction arrangement [FIG. 1] comprising a spool shaft (2) configured to roll up respective cords (5, 50, 51, 52) connecting said blind slats; and said retraction arrangement comprises a cord loop (26) operatively connected to said spool shaft (paragraphs 0041, 0046) to permit a user to rotate said spool shaft to retract and extend blind slats (4; paragraph 0046).
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 retraction arrangement of Rice, as modified above, to include the spool shaft and cord loop taught by Chou, in order to provide means for manual adjustment of the position of the blind arrangement, so as to allow a user to selectively adjust the light blocking or transmission for the room.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/10/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Rice, as modified by McKinzie, fails to disclose the at least one middle layer abutting the top and bottom layers of the slats, but this argument is not found persuasive. Applicant argues that McKinzie relies upon ambient air between the middle layer and the outer sheath. However, the outer sheath 110 is not the element/component relied upon in the rejection to teach the claimed top and bottom layers. In column 4, lines 1-20, McKinzie discloses that the body 120 of the slat may be provided with a black coating on the energy absorbing surface 122, and with a white coating on the opposing surface 124. The coatings are applied directly to these surfaces, which are shown in at least Figure 6 as being the outer surfaces of the slat body 120 (which defines the middle layer). The coatings themselves are the top and bottom layers, and are provided in an abutting configuration on the middle layer, as they are coated directly on the opposite surfaces of the body 120. The outer sheath 110 is not relied upon in the rejection to teach either the top or bottom layers, so Applicant’s arguments directed to the configuration of the sheath are not found persuasive.
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