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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/3/2026 has been entered.
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) 1-9, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooper (US 5377738) in view of Hotaling (US 1050459).
Regarding claim 1, Cooper teaches a wind lock (element 38 is considered a wind lock) to hold rods of a closure and prevent removal of the closure from guides of the closure (functional language, this device is capable of this, see fig. 1), comprising:
a body (fig. 1);
a first aperture (through which top rod extends in fig. 1) formed through the body configured to receive a first rod of the rods of the closure (capable of this);
a second aperture (through which bottom rod extends in fig. 1) formed through the body configured to receive a second rod of the rods of the closure (capable of this); and
Cooper does not teach a plurality of flanges protruding from the body, wherein a first pair of the plurality of flanges protrudes from opposite sides of the body and is in-line with the first aperture and a second pair of the plurality of flanges protrudes from the opposite sides of the body and is in-line with the second aperture, wherein each flange of the first pair of the plurality of flanges and the second pair of the plurality of flanges has a tapered shape to be positioned in a space between the rods when the closure is coiled about itself and a length of each flange of the first pair of the plurality of flanges and the second pair of the plurality of flanges extends away from the closure.
Hotaling teaches (fig. 6) a wind lock (this element in its pre-bent form as is shown in fig. 6 is considered a windlock) with a body and a first aperture (26 on left in fig. 6) formed through the body configured to receive a first rod of the rods of the closure (capable of this);
a second aperture (26 on right in fig. 6) formed through the body configured to receive a second rod of the rods of the closure (capable of this); and
a plurality of flanges (there are four flanges) protruding from the body, wherein a first pair (two flanged on the left in fig. 6) of the plurality of flanges protrudes from opposite sides of the body and is in-line with the first aperture (fig. 6) and a second pair (two flanges on the right in fig. 6) of the plurality of flanges protrudes from opposite sides of the body and is in-line with the second aperture (fig. 6), wherein each flange of the first pair of the plurality of flanges and the second pair of the plurality of flanges has a tapered shape (starting at each respective aperture and following the length of each respective flange, it can be said that each flange is tapered as the width of each flange is less at each end compared to at each respective aperture, see fig. 6 of Hotaling) to be positioned in a space between the rods when the closure is coiled about itself (functional language).
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 Cooper with teachings of Hotaling by modifying the shape of the windlock with that of Hotaling so that there are a plurality of flanges protruding from the body, wherein a first pair of the plurality of flanges protrudes from opposite sides of the body and is in-line with the first aperture and a second pair of the plurality of flanges protrudes from opposite sides of the body and is in-line with the second aperture, wherein each flange of the first pair of the plurality of flanges and the second pair of the plurality of flanges has a tapered shape to be positioned in a space between the rods when the closure is coiled about itself.
This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of the shape with the flanges and tapered shape using less material making the device lighter.
It is noted that after this modification, a length of each flange of the first pair of the plurality of flanges and the second pair of the plurality of flanges extends away from the closure.
Regarding claim 2, modified Cooper teaches that the first pair (two flanged on the left in fig. 6 of Hotaling) of the plurality of flanges, comprises: a first flange (top) formed on a first side of the body; and a second flange (bottom) formed on a second side of the body, wherein the second side is opposite the first side and the first aperture is between the first flange and the second flange (fig. 6).
Regarding claim 3, modified Cooper teaches that the second pair (on right in fig. 6 of Hotaling) of the plurality of flanges comprises: a third flange (top) formed on the first side of the body; and a fourth flange (bottom) formed on the second side of the body, wherein the second aperture is between the third flange and the fourth flange (fig. 6).
Regarding claim 4, modified Cooper teaches a first space is formed between the first flange and the third flange and a second space is formed between the second flange and the fourth flange (as is shown in fig. 6 of Hotaling).
Regarding claim 5, modified Cooper teaches a respective end of each one of the plurality of flanges is tapered as the each one of the plurality of flanges extends away from the body (after the modification to claim 1 above this is true).
Regarding claim 6, modified Cooper teaches that each one of the plurality of flanges, comprises: an end wall (see annotated fig. 6 below, note that after the claim 1 modification that the inner and outer walls are tapered); an outer wall (annotated fig. 6) positioned at an outer angle relative to a first end of the end wall; and an inner wall (annotated fig. 6) positioned at an inner angle relative to a second end of the end wall (see modification to claim 1 above).
PNG
media_image1.png
376
302
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, modified Cooper does not explicitly teach that the inner angle of each one of the plurality of flanges is greater that the outer angle of each one of the plurality of flanges.
The examiner notes that the courts have held that the configuration of a claimed object was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant. 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 further modify Cooper so that the inner angle of each one of the plurality of flanges is greater that the outer angle of each one of the plurality of flanges. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of a shape as required by a designer.
Regarding claim 8, modified Cooper does not explicitly teach that the inner angle of each one of the plurality of flanges is less than that the outer angle of each one of the plurality of flanges .
The examiner notes that the courts have held that the configuration of a claimed object was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant. 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 further modify Cooper so that the inner angle of each one of the plurality of flanges is less than that the outer angle of each one of the plurality of flanges. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of a shape as required by a designer.
Regarding claim 9, modified Cooper teaches that the inner angle of each one of the plurality of flanges and the outer angle of each one of the plurality of flanges are about 70 degrees to 120 degrees (after the modification above, they are considered about in this range).
Regarding claim 21, modified Cooper does not explicitly teach that the inner angle of each one of the plurality of flanges is equal to the outer angle of each one of the plurality of flanges.
The examiner notes that the courts have held that the configuration of a claimed object was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant. 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 further modify Cooper so that the inner angle of each one of the plurality of flanges is equal to the outer angle of each one of the plurality of flanges. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of a shape as required by a designer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that “The alleged combination (as disclosed by Hotaling) fails to render obvious independent claim 1, because the cited portions of the alleged combination fail to describe or suggest a wind lock to hold rods of a closure and prevent removal of the closure from guides of the closure comprising a first aperture formed through the body configured to receive a first rod of the rods of the closure, a second aperture formed through the body configured to receive a second rod of the rods of the closure, and a plurality of flanges protruding from the body, wherein a first pair of the plurality of flanges protrudes from opposite sides of the body and is in- line with the first aperture and a second pair of the plurality of flanges protrudes from the opposite sides of the body and is in-line with the second aperture, wherein each flange of the first pair of the plurality of flanges and the second pair of the plurality of flanges has a tapered shape to be positioned in a space between the rods when the closure is coiled about itself and a length of each flange of the first pair of the plurality of flanges and the second pair of the plurality of flanges extends away from the closure. The Examiner asserts that the blank 23 disclosed by Hotaling is equivalent to the wind lock of the present disclosure.”
The examiner notes that all of the limitations as claimed are taught by the rejection above, and directs attention above to review how the combination teaches the limitations as claimed.
The applicant argues that “First, it should be noted that the blank 23 in Hotaling is not a wind lock. (See Hotaling, p. 2, col. 1, II. 52-54). Second, the apertures 26 that are in-line with the alleged flanges do not receive any rods of a closure. Rather, the apertures 26 are adapted to receive a fastening pin or rivet. (See Hotaling, p. 3, col. 1, II. 2-3). Lastly, the alleged flanges in Hotaling do not have a tapered shape. It is clear that the alleged inner wall and the outer wall remain an equal distance apart through the entire length of the alleged inner wall and the outer wall. (See Hotaling, FIG. 6). Moreover, the alleged inner wall and the outer wall of the blank 23 in Hotaling do not have a tapered shape to be positioned in a space between the rods when the closure is coiled about itself. Rather, the blank 23 is shaped to form the side and rear walls of a fixture head illustrated in FIGs. 3 and 4.”
The examiner notes that Cooper is found to teach a wind lock that has two apertures configured to receive rods of a closure, as is required by the claim. Hotaling is also found to teach a wind lock, be it the blank from fig. 6, as this component is used in a screening device to hold a screen in place, and would function as such in the case of a force applied by wind. This is merely used to modify the shape of Cooper for the purpose of making the device lighter and using less material, as is explained above. The examiner disagrees with the notion that Hotaling does not contain flanges with a tapered shape, as starting at each respective aperture and following the length of each respective flange, it can be said that each flange is tapered as the width of each flange is less at each end compared to at each respective aperture, see fig. 6 of Hotaling. The combination as described above has the required tapered shape to be positioned in a space between the rods when the closure is coiled about itself, as the examiner notes that this is functional language.
In response to applicant's argument that Cooper fails to teach elements such as the flanges and the tapered shape, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the alteration provides the predictable and expected results of the shape with the flanges and tapered shape using less making the device lighter.
Regarding the orientation of the length of each flange, the examiner notes that when Cooper is modified with the teachings of Hotaling, a length of each flange…. extends away from the closure, as is claimed. This is because the device is oriented so that the above listed first and second apertures of the references line up, which results in the flanges extending as if claimed.
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
/DANIEL P CAHN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3634