DETAILED ACTION
The following Non-Final Office Action is in response to the amendment filed 4/23/2026.
Status of the claims: Claims 1-14 and 28-32 are hereby examined below.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 33 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Claim 33 is directed to a method of installing and removing a roller blind, while claims 1-14 which were previously examined are directed to a tensioning device of a roller blind. Furthermore, claim 33 does not require the same structure as claim 1 as there is no drive assembly in claim 33.
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 Accordingly, claim 33 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention.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.
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 1-5, 10, 13 and 28-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vries et al US 10,428,580.
In regard to claim 1, with reference to Figures 1-8, Vries et al ‘580 disclose a tensioning device (10, Fig. 4) for a roller blind including a tube assembly (4, Fig. 3) about which a retractable screen (2, Fig. 2) is wound, the tube assembly (4) housing an internal spring (5, Fig. 3) configured to be tensioned to provide for the extension and retraction of the screen, the internal spring (5) being operably connected to a drive receiver (8, Fig. 4) positioned at one end of the tube assembly (4) ,the drive receiver (8) being configured to rotate to adjust tension in the spring (5), the tensioning device comprising: a drive assembly (11,15,16,25,26 Fig. 4) configured to connect with and impart rotation to the drive receiver (8) to adjust tension in the spring (5), a spring lock (32, Fig. 6 and 7A) adapted to selectively prevent rotation of the tube assembly (4) and tensioning device (10) relative to one another, a mounting lock (20-5/20-4, Fig. 7A) adapted to releasably secure the tensioning device (10) to a wall mounting bracket (20, Fig. 7A), and an actuator (21, Fig. 7A) adapted to actuate the spring lock (32) and the mounting lock (20-4/20-5), the actuator (21) being moveable between a first position (within 20-4/20-5 ) and a second position (outside of 20-4/20-5).
In regard to claim 2, Vries et al ‘580 disclose wherein, in use, when the actuator (21) is in the first position (within 20-4/2-5), the tensioning device is secured to the wall mounting bracket (20) by the mounting lock (20-4/20-5), and the tube assembly (4) is released from the tensioning device (10) to permit rotation relative to tensioning device, and wherein, when the actuator (21) is in the second position (outside of 20-4/20-5), the tensioning device (10) is released from the wall mounting bracket (20), and the tube assembly (4) is secured to the tensioning device (10) to prevent rotation relative to tensioning device (as 32 locks rotation).
In regard to claim 3, Vries et al ‘580 disclose wherein the mounting lock (20-4/20-5) includes a locking tab (20-2) which is configured to abut behind a portion of the wall mounting bracket (20) to prevent the tensioning device (10) from axial movement, when the actuator (31) is in the first position (within 20-4/20-5).
In regard to claim 4, Vries et al ‘580 disclose wherein the spring lock (32) includes a retractable tongue (35) which projects axially from a housing portion (27, Fig. 7B) of the tensioning device when the actuator (21) is in the second position (outside of 20-4/20-5)
In regard to claim 5, Vries et al ‘580 disclose wherein the tube assembly (4) includes an end section, the retractable tongue (35) being configured to engage (indirectly through11,15,16,25,26) with the end section of the tube assembly to prevent rotation of the tube assembly, when the actuator (21) is in the second position (outside of 20-4/20-5).
In regard to claim 10, Vries et al ‘580 disclose wherein the mounting lock (20-4/20-5) is connected to the actuator (21), the actuator (21) being operable by a push action to move between the first (within 20-4/20-5) and second (outside of 20-4/20-5) positions.
In regard to claim 13, Vries et al ‘580 discloses wherein a housing portion (27, Fig. 7B) of the tensioning device (10) includes an arcuate slot (shown to have curved walls forming an arcuate slot) through which an arcuate portion (formed by mounting lock 20-4/20-5) of the wall mounting bracket (20) is receivable when mounting the tensioning device (10) to the wall mounting bracket (20)
In regard to claim 28, with reference to Figures 1-8, Vries et al ‘580 disclose a tensioning device (10, Fig. 4) for a roller blind including a tube assembly (4, Fig. 3) about which a retractable screen (2, Fig. 2) is wound, the tube assembly (4) housing an internal spring (5, Fig. 3) configured to be tensioned to provide for the extension and retraction of the screen, the internal spring (5) being operably connected to a drive receiver (8, Fig. 4) positioned at one end of the tube assembly (4) ,the drive receiver (8) being configured to rotate to adjust tension in the spring (5), the tensioning device comprising: a drive assembly (11,15,16,25,26 Fig. 4) configured to connect with and impart rotation to the drive receiver (8) to adjust tension in the spring (5), a spring lock (32, Fig. 6 and 7A) adapted to selectively prevent rotation of the tube assembly (4) and tensioning device (10) relative to one another, a mounting lock (20-5/20-4, Fig. 7A) adapted to releasably secure the tensioning device (10) to a wall mounting bracket (20, Fig. 7A), and an actuator (21, Fig. 7A) adapted to actuate the spring lock (32) and the mounting lock (20-4/20-5), the actuator (21) being moveable between a first position (within 20-4/20-5 ) and a second position (outside of 20-4/20-5); wherein, in use, when the actuator (21) is in the first position (within 20-4/2-5), the tensioning device is secured to the wall mounting bracket (20) by the mounting lock (20-4/20-5), and the tube assembly (4) is released from the tensioning device (10) to permit rotation relative to tensioning device, and wherein, when the actuator (21) is in the second position (outside of 20-4/20-5), the tensioning device (10) is released from the wall mounting bracket (20), and the tube assembly (4) is secured to the tensioning device (10) to prevent rotation relative to tensioning device (as 32 locks rotation).
In regard to claim 29, Vries et al ‘580 disclose wherein the mounting lock (20-4/20-5) includes a locking tab (20-2) which is configured to abut behind a portion of the wall mounting bracket (20) to prevent the tensioning device (10) from axial movement, when the actuator (31) is in the first position (within 20-4/20-5), and wherein the spring lock (32) includes a retractable tongue (35) which projects axially from a housing portion (27, Fig. 7B) of the tensioning device when the actuator (21) is in the second position (outside of 20-4/20-5)
In regard to claims 31-32, Vries et al ‘580 disclose wherein the mounting lock (20-4/20-5) is connected to the actuator (21), the actuator (21) being operable by a push action to move between the first (within 20-4/20-5) and second (outside of 20-4/20-5) positions, wherein a first press moves the actuator (21) to the first position and a second press moves the actuator to the second position.
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vries et al US 10,428,580.
In regard to claim 14, Vries et al ‘580 fails to disclose wherein the arcuate slot has a length greater than the arcuate portion of the wall mounting bracket such that the tensioning device can be rotated by hand back and forth on the wall mounting bracket. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the arcuate slot length be greater than the arcuate portion of the wall mounting bracket for the purpose of providing a fit that is not so tight as to be hard to removed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9 and 11-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that Vries fails to disclose “an actuator adapted to actuate the spring lock and the mounting lock, the actuator being movable between a first position and a second position”, the examiner respectfully disagrees. As set forth above, the actuator (21) is movable between a first position (within 20-4/20-5) and a second position (outside of 20-4/20-5). As clearly shown in the figures, the actuator actuates the spring lock (32) through engaging it with (21-4) when in the second position (outside of 20-4/20-5) and actuates the mounting lock (20-5) through engaging with (20-2) in the first position (inside 20-4/20-5). As (21) engages both the mounting lock (20-4/20-5) and the spring lock (32) this claim limitation is met.
In response to applicant’s argument that (21) is not a user operated device that toggles between two defined functional positions governing both a spring lock and a mounting lock, the examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown above, (21) is moved by a user between an outside position in which the spring lock is engaged, and an inside position in which the mounting lock is engaged. As such, the claimed limitations are met. Applicant has failed to define the spring lock or mounting lock in any way so as to distinguish from what is taught by Vries.
In response to applicants’ argument regarding claim 2, the examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown above, when in the first position (within 20-4/20-5) the device is secured by the mounting lock (20-4/20-5) and the device is released to permit relative rotation and when the actuator is in the second position (outside of 20-4/20-5) prior to being installed, the device is released from the bracket and relative rotation is prevented.
In response to applicant’s argument regarding claim 3, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant states that Vries does not disclose a locking tab configured to abut behind a portion of the wall mounting bracket to prevent axial movement in the first position. As stated in the rejection above, as shown in Figure 7A, the mounting lock (20-4/20-5) includes (20-2) to serve as a locking tab behind a portion of the wall mounting bracket (20) to prevent axial movement.
In response to applicant’s argument regarding claim 4, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant states that Vries does not disclose a retractable tongue which projects axially from a housing portion of the tensioning device, and states that the lip 34 and tongue 35 project in the radial direction from the arc shaped bridge part 37. However, as stated above, tongue 35 projects axially from the housing portion (27). Applicant’s argument is not consistent with examiners interpretation of the claim.
In response to applicant’s argument regarding claim 10, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant states that the actuator is not integral with the mounting lock. However, applicant claims in the alternative “the mounting lock is connected to OR forms parts of the actuator”. When the actuator (21) is engaged with the mounting lock (20-4/20-5) it meets the limitation of the mounting lock is connected to the actuator.
In response to applicant’s argument regarding claim 14, the applicant does not appear to be arguing the modification to have a greater arcuate slot length and instead argues that the operation of the Vries device is not an integrated dual function actuator. However, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. As shown above, the prior art teaches the limitations as claimed.
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 JEREMY C RAMSEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3133. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Wed 7:00-3:30.
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.
/JEREMY C RAMSEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3634
/DANIEL P CAHN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights