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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “spring” from claims 6-10 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show a figure with both the entire gearbox and the motor as described in the specification. The examiner recommends adding the motor to fig. 2 or fig. 4 to best show the interaction between the components. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “a guide rail disposed in a lower portion of the shaft” on line 9. It appears that the applicant meant to recite “a guide rail disposed at a lower side of the shaft”, as the disclosure does not describe the guide rail in the shaft, and a lower side of the shaft is referred to in other parts of the claim.
Claim 1 recites “a lower side of the shaft” on lines 15-16, but this should recite “the lower side of the shaft”.
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) 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (DE 102011006994, translation provided by examiner), in view of Dekker (US 11002069).
Regarding claim 1, Lin teaches a door curtain (fig. 1) comprising:
a curtain unit including a shaft (paragraph 12 describes the blind being rewindably arranged, the shaft is that upon which the curtain is wound), a curtain blind (21) wound around an outer surface of the shaft (paragraph 12), and a shade bar (22) fixed to an upper portion of the curtain blind (fig. 2) to support the curtain blind, and configured to selectively shield a window of a vehicle from an outside as the curtain blind is wound around and unwound from the shaft (functional language); and
a driving unit (element 3) configured to move the shade bar upward and downward to allow the curtain blind to be wound around and unwound from the shaft (functional language), wherein the driving unit includes: a guide rail (32) disposed in a lower portion of the shaft (see claim objection above), facing in a direction intersecting the shaft (fig. 3), and having a predetermined length;
a slider (331) installed so as to be movable upward and downward along the guide rail; an antenna (333) having one end fixed to one side of the slider (fig. 2) and an opposite end fixed to the shade bar (fig. 2); a fixed pulley (35) installed so as to be fixed or rotatable at a position adjacent to a lower side of the shaft (fig. 2); a wire (36) having one end fixed at a position (the end attached to the slider) adjacent to the lower side of the shaft (fig. 2), and configured to pass through the fixed pulley (35) via a movable pulley (one of ordinary skill would be able to add a movable pulley into the system, the examiner notes that a movable pulley is not explicitly required by the claim); and a winding device (34) configured to wind an opposite end of the wire (36) to adjust a length of the wire .
Lin does not teach the device being electric powered, nor a movable pulley installed inside the slider so as to be fixed or rotatable.
Lin teaches that electrically powered door curtains are known in the art (paragraph 2 of the translation). 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 Lin so that the device is electric powered as is taught by Lin. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of less effort on the part of a user during use.
Dekker teaches a shade device with a movable pulley (110, column 6 lines 49-50 teaches that element 110 can be a pulley) installed on a slider (101) so as to be rotatable, with an end of a cord going around the movable pulley before being anchored. 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 further modify Lin so that there is a movable pulley installed inside the slider so as to be rotatable, as is taught by Dekker, with the one end of the wire going around the movable pulley before anchoring to the bottom of the housing of Lin.
This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of smoother movement of the slider due as the pulley more evenly transfers load to the rail.
Regarding claim 6, modified Lin teaches that the curtain blind (21) is pressed (by being connected that are considered to have been pressed) on the outer surface of the shaft in a direction in which the curtain blind is wound around the outer surface of the shaft by elasticity caused by a spring (paragraph 12 of the examiner provided translation) so that the curtain blind is automatically wound around the outer surface of the shaft when a tension caused by the wire is removed (paragraph 12).
Claim(s) 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (DE 102011006994, translation provided by examiner), in view of Dekker (US 11002069) as applied above, and further in view of Chen (US 20050061454).
Regarding claim 2, modified Lin does not explicitly teach that the winding device includes: a driving motor including a driving shaft on which a worm gear is rotatably installed; and a gear unit engaged with the worm gear so as to be rotatably driven, and around which the wire is wound by a rotation of the worm gear.
Chen teaches a winding device (30) for a door curtain that includes: a driving motor (32) including a driving shaft on which a worm gear (35) is rotatably installed; and a gear unit (elements 35 and 36) engaged with the worm gear (35) so as to be rotatably driven, and around which a wire (34) is wound by a rotation of the worm gear (see fig. 7). 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 further modify Lin so that the winding device includes: a driving motor including a driving shaft on which a worm gear is rotatably installed; and a gear unit engaged with the worm gear so as to be rotatably driven, and around which the wire is wound by a rotation of the worm gear, as is taught by Chen.
This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of an efficient way to provide a high torque means of winding a cord.
Regarding claim 7, modified Lin teaches that the curtain blind (21) is pressed (by being connected that are considered to have been pressed) on the outer surface of the shaft in a direction in which the curtain blind is wound around the outer surface of the shaft by elasticity caused by a spring (paragraph 12 of the examiner provided translation) so that the curtain blind is automatically wound around the outer surface of the shaft when a tension caused by the wire is removed (paragraph 12).
Claim(s) 3-5, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (DE 102011006994, translation provided by examiner), in view of Dekker (US 11002069) and Chen (US 20050061454), as applied above, and further in view of Hawkins (US 20090025298) and Masayuki (JP2005319866, translation provided by applicant).
Regarding claim 3, modified Lin includes teachings of Chen, which teaches that the gear unit (shown in fig. 7) includes: a gearbox (shown in fig. 7) forming an inner space; a gear (36) installed in the inner space of the gearbox so as to be rotatably engaged with the worm gear (35), and connected to a winding drum (33) around which the wire (34) is wound. Modified Lin does not explicitly teach that; the gear is a helical gear, nor a rotation restraint device configured to restrain a rotation degree of the helical gear.
Hawkins teaches a worm gear (18) that interacts with a helical gear (32). 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 further modify Lin so that the worm gear interacts with a helical gear. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of a strong and non-slip interaction between the gears, and a more efficient power transmission.
Masayuki teaches a rotation restraint device (gear 25 that interacts with gear 23 which is driven by work gear 22) configured to restrain a rotation degree of the helical gear. 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 further modify Lin by incorporating the rotation restraint device of Masayuki. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of controlling the amount of rotation of the device, making the device last longer due to not overextended the shade.
Regarding claim 4 modified Lin includes teachings of Masayuki which teaches that the rotation restraint device includes: a spur gear (23) installed coaxially with the helical gear (after the modification above) so as to be rotatable together with the helical gear; a stop gear (25) installed in the inner space of the gearbox so as to be rotatably engaged with the spur gear (fig. 1), and including a gear side stopper (27) protruding from one side plate surface of the stop gear; and a gearbox side stopper (13) protruding from a plate surface of the gearbox (fig. 2), and engaged with one side surface and an opposite side surface of the gear side stopper according to a rotation of the stop gear.
Regarding claim 5 modified Lin includes teachings of Masayuki which teaches that the diameter of the spur gear (23) is relatively smaller than a diameter of the stop gear (25) so that the wire is able to be wound around or unwound from the winding drum by a predetermined degree.
Regarding claim 8, modified Lin teaches that the curtain blind (21) is pressed (by being connected that are considered to have been pressed) on the outer surface of the shaft in a direction in which the curtain blind is wound around the outer surface of the shaft by elasticity caused by a spring (paragraph 12 of the examiner provided translation) so that the curtain blind is automatically wound around the outer surface of the shaft when a tension caused by the wire is removed (paragraph 12).
Regarding claim 9, modified Lin teaches that the curtain blind (21) is pressed (by being connected that are considered to have been pressed) on the outer surface of the shaft in a direction in which the curtain blind is wound around the outer surface of the shaft by elasticity caused by a spring (paragraph 12 of the examiner provided translation) so that the curtain blind is automatically wound around the outer surface of the shaft when a tension caused by the wire is removed (paragraph 12).
Regarding claim 10, modified Lin teaches that the curtain blind (21) is pressed (by being connected that are considered to have been pressed) on the outer surface of the shaft in a direction in which the curtain blind is wound around the outer surface of the shaft by elasticity caused by a spring (paragraph 12 of the examiner provided translation) so that the curtain blind is automatically wound around the outer surface of the shaft when a tension caused by the wire is removed (paragraph 12).
Conclusion
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
/GREGORY J STRIMBU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights