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
Claims 2 and 20 are objected to for the following reasons:
Claim 2 recites inconsistent terminology; claim 1 require “a plurality of blocking elements but claim 2 recites “the multiple blocking elements” and it is understood claim 2 should refer to the plurality of blocking elements.
Claim 13 recites “blocking elements” which should instead read --blocking element--.
Claim 20 recites “The operating device” while being an independent claim, it is understood the claim should recite --An operating device…--
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 19 refers to “the primary connector” which lacks proper antecedent basis in the claim. It is unclear if the claim should refer to --a primary connector-- or if the claim should depend from another claim in which a primary connector was defined.
In view of the 112 issues discussed above the claims have been examined as best understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11-15, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Liang (US 12,297,694).
Regarding claim 1, Liang discloses an operating device for a window covering such as a horizontal blind, comprising:
at least one carrying structure (top rail 40; Fig 1, copied below);
PNG
media_image1.png
912
558
media_image1.png
Greyscale
at least one pull cord (5) connected or connectable to a bottom rail (20) of a window covering (Fig 1), wherein operating the pull cord (5) enables lowering and/or raising of the bottom rail with respect to the carrying structure (col 3, lines 23-28, copied below; the pull cord 5 drives the ladder unit which supports the slats as the slats lower and/or raise, thus lowering and/or raising the bottom rail);
PNG
media_image2.png
94
348
media_image2.png
Greyscale
at least one lifting element (60) configured for guiding the pull cord at least during lowering and/or raising the window covering (Fig 1, copied above);
at least one ladder cord (1) configured for supporting at least part of the window covering (Figs 1 and 3; ladder supports slats);
wherein the operating device comprises a plurality of blocking elements (4), wherein at least one blocking element (4) at least engages or is attached to at least one pull cord (5) such that movement of the pull cord relative to the ladder cord (1) is restricted (Fig 3A, copied below).
PNG
media_image3.png
920
568
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Liang discloses wherein the multiple blocking elements (4) are positioned at a distance from another over the length of the pull cord (Fig 3).
Regarding claim 4, Liang discloses wherein at least one blocking element (4) is positioned between two adjacent rungs (12 of one slat and 12 of an adjacent slat) of the ladder cord (Fig 4).
PNG
media_image4.png
886
518
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Liang discloses at least one blocking element (4) is attached to at least one pull cord (5) and to at least one ladder cord (11 of 1; Fig 4).
Regarding claim 7, Liang discloses at least part of at least one blocking element (4) is flexible (flexible wire).
Regarding claim 9, Liang discloses wherein at least part of at least one blocking element (4) pierces through at least one pull cord (5; Fig 3A).
Regarding claim 11, Liang discloses wherein at least one blocking element is made of the same material as the ladder cord and/or the pull cord (5; Fig 3A).
Regarding claim 12, Liang discloses wherein at least one blocking element forms integral part of the pull cord (5; Fig 3A).
Regarding claim 13, Liang discloses wherein at least part of at least one blocking elements (4) extends in a direction away from the longitudinal direction of the pull cord (5; Fig 3).
Regarding claim 14, Liang discloses comprising at least one sleeve (2) configured to at least partially enclose the at least one pull cord (5; Fig 3).
Regarding claim 15, Liang discloses comprising at least one connector (60) for connecting the at least one sleeve (2) to the carrying structure (Fig 6).
Regarding claim 17, Liang discloses at least part of the at least one sleeve (2) comprises a braided structure (Fig 3).
Regarding claim 20, Liang discloses an operating device for a window covering comprising:
at least one carrying structure (top rail 40; Fig 1, copied above);
at least one pull cord (5) directly or indirectly connected or connectable to a bottom rail of a window covering (Fig 1), wherein operating the pull cord enables lowering and/or raising of the bottom rail with respect to the carrying structure (col 3, lines 23-28, copied below; the pull cord 5 drives the ladder unit which supports the slats as the slats lower and/or raise, thus lowering and/or raising the bottom rail);
at least one lifting element (60; Fig 1, copied above) configured for guiding the pull cord (5) at least during lowering and/or raising the window covering;
wherein the operating device comprises a plurality of blocking elements (4), positioned along the length of the pull cord (5), which blocking elements (4) cooperate between at least part of the pull cord (5) and part of the window covering (via ladder 1), such that movement of the pull cord relative to the window covering is restricted (via ladder 1).
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.
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang, as applied in claim 1 above, in further view of Lin (US 2013/0048233).
Regarding claim 3, Liang discloses at least two adjacent blocking elements are attached to the ladder cord (1). Liang fails to disclose the at least two adjacent blocking elements enclose at least one rung of the ladder cord. However, Lin teaches alternative arrangements for blocking members (21, Fig 4; 23, Fig 5, 55, Fig 9). In one embodiment, blocking elements (21) are attached to the ladder cord (7; Fig 4) and in an alternative embodiment, Lin teaches blocking elements (2 or 55) enclosing at least one rung (10) of the ladder cord (Fig 5 or Fig 9). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify the blocking elements of Liang such that the at least two adjacent blocking elements enclose at least one rung of the ladder cord since such arrangement is a known alternative, as taught by Lin. Such modification would not lead to any new or unpredictably results.
Regarding claim 5, Liang teaches the at least one blocking element (4) is attached to at least part of at least one ladder cord (1), Liang fails to disclose wherein at least one blocking element encloses at least part of at least one ladder cord. Lin teaches that it is known for at least one blocking element (21) to enclose part of at least one ladder cord (7; Fig 4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date with a reasonable expectation of success to modify the blocking members of Liang such that they enclose at least part of at least one ladder cord, since it is a known arrangement taught by Lin. Such modification would not lead to any new or unpredictable results.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang, as applied in claim 1 above, in further view of Nien (US 2018/0073295).
Regarding claim 8, Liang fails to disclose wherein at least part of at least one blocking element is rigid. However, Nien teaches that it is known for at least one blocking element to be rigid (540, Fig 7) as an alternative to flexible blocking elements (Fig 6). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Liang such that the at least one blocking element is rigid since it is a known equivalent alternative blocking element form, as taught by Nien.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang, as applied in claim 1 above, in further view of Huang et al. (US 2018/0112460), hereinafter referred to as Huang ‘460.
Regarding claim 10, Liang disclose the at least one blocking member is attached to the at least one pull cord but fails to disclose wherein at least one blocking element encloses at least one pull cord. However, Huang ‘460 teaches that it is known for at least one blocking element (122) to enclose at least one pull cord (5). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date with a reasonable expectation of success to modify the blocking members such that they enclose at least one pull cord since it is a known arrangement as taught by Huang ‘460. Such modification would not lead to any new or unpredictable results.
Claims 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang, as applied in claim 15 above, in further view of Huang et al. (US 11,525,300), hereinafter referred to as Huang ‘300.
Regarding claims 16 and 19, Liang discloses a connector (60) but fails to disclose wherein the connector is at least partially resilient and the primary connector part comprises multiple outwardly extending protrusions. However, Huang ‘300 discloses a connector (Fig 11) being partially resilient (col 4, lines 63-64). And as best understood, the primary connector part (30) having multiple outwardly extending protrusions for securing the elements (91). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Liang such that the connector (60) is substituted with the known connector (30, of Huang ‘300) since it is a known equivalent attachment means.
Claims 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang, as applied in claim 15 above, in further view of Bogan (US 2,086,461).
Regarding claim 18, Liang discloses wherein the connector comprises a primary connector part and a secondary connector part wherein the sleeve is enclosed between the primary connector part and the secondary connector part. However, Bogan teaches a technique of connecting a sleeve (7) having a primary connector part (17) and a second connector part (10) with the sleeve enclosed between. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Liang with known connecting means, as taught by Bogan, for equivalently securing the sleeve.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Johnnie A. Shablack whose telephone number is (571)270-5344. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 6am-3pm EST, alternate Friday.
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.
/Johnnie A. Shablack/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634