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 because the details are not clearly shown due to the shading of the Figures 1B-7. 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 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.
Claims 18-34 are 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “stork” in claim 18, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 34 is used by the claim to mean “an elongated tube,” as shown in the drawings while the accepted meaning is “a long-legged wadding bird.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Claims 25 and 30 require “the at least in part overlapping of the sleeve assembly with the stork is provided by at least part of the sleeve assembly being disposed within the stork.” It is unclear how the overlapping part of the sleeve assembly can be disposed within the stork. It is understood that an overlapping part is disposed outside and claim 18 sets forth for “a sleeve assembly at least in part overlapping with the stork.” How does something that overlaps be disposed within? The claims are indefinite as it is not understood what is required of the assembly.
In view of the 112 issues discussed above the claims have been examined as best understood.
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 18, 19, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak (KR 20160004077, translation provided by Applicant is relied upon) in view of Francoeur et al. (US 11,866,994), hereinafter referred to as Francoeur.
Regarding claim 18, Kwak discloses a wand (200; Fig 3) for operating a cord driven roller blind assembly having a retractable screen, the wand comprising:
an operating stork (210”) extending along a longitudinal axis of the stork (Fig 3),
PNG
media_image1.png
698
280
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the stork (210”) being securable to an operating cord (61 in Fig 3, copied above) extendable from a control mechanism (100) of the roller blind assembly (Figs 1-3; note there is mislabeling in the figures of Kwak, Fig 1 labels the cord as 62 while Fig 3 labels the cord as 61),
PNG
media_image2.png
544
870
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
690
316
media_image3.png
Greyscale
the stork (210”) being configured to be pulled downwardly (via handle) a first predetermined distance by a user to extend the retractable screen (paragraph [0015] of translation provided by Applicant) and pulled downwardly a second predetermined distance to retract the retractable screen (paragraph [0017]); and
PNG
media_image4.png
60
548
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
153
550
media_image5.png
Greyscale
a sleeve assembly (210, 210’; Fig 3) at least in part overlapping with the stork (210”),
the sleeve assembly (210, 210’) having a passage therethrough configured for passage of the operating cord (61; Fig 3, copied above) from the control mechanism (100) to the stork;
wherein the sleeve assembly (210, 210’) conceals the cord (61) between the control mechanism and the stork when the stork is pulled to operate the blind (Fig 2, copied above).
Although Kwak discloses the sleeve assembly is connected to the control mechanism via the cord), Kwak fails to further disclose a connector for connecting the wand to the control mechanism of the roller blind assembly and the connector comprising a flexible neck region to allow the wand to pivot relative to the control mechanism from a substantially upright position. However, Francoeur teaches that it is known for a wand (200) to be connected to a control mechanism (400; Fig 9 of Francoeur, copied below) by a connector (130, 132; Fig 3 of Francoeur, copied below).
PNG
media_image6.png
994
424
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
476
748
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Francoeur further discloses the connector comprises a flexible neck region (132) to allow the wand to pivot relative to the control mechanism from a substantially upright position (col 13, lines 62-66 of Francoeur, copied below).
PNG
media_image8.png
96
358
media_image8.png
Greyscale
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 Kwak such that the wand is connected to the control mechanism via a connector and the connector comprising a flexible neck region to allow the wand to pivot relative to the control mechanism from a substantially upright position, as taught by Francoeur. The modification would provide the benefit of attaching the wand and allowing movement. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 19, Kwak as modified with Francoeur above, Kwak is provided with the connector of Francoeur wherein the connector further comprises a flared portion configured to be mounted within a housing of the control mechanism (Fig 5A of Francoeur).
PNG
media_image9.png
778
802
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 25, Kwak discloses wherein the at least in part overlapping of the sleeve assembly with the stork is provided by at least part of the stork (210”) being disposed within the sleeve assembly (210, 210’); as best understood, Kwak does not disclose wherein the at least in part overlapping of the sleeve assembly with the stork is provided by at least part of the sleeve assembly being disposed within the stork. However, modification of the telescoping sleeve elements would have been obvious since such alternative arrangement is known, as taught by Francoeur. Francoeur teaches a wand having a stork (210) and a sleeve assembly (260) with at least part of the sleeve assembly (260) being disposed within the stork (210; Fig 10B). 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 wand of Kwak such that the stork and sleeve assembly are provided such that the sleeve assembly is partially disposed in the stork, as taught by Francoeur, since such modification would provide an equivalent alternative arrangement and would not lead to any new or unpredictable results as the elements would work as intended.
Claims 20-22 and 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak and Francoeur, as applied in claim 19 above, in further view of Smith et al. (US 11,136,821), hereinafter referred to as Smith.
Regarding claim 20, Kwak as modified with Francoeur above, Kwak is provided with the connector of Francoeur having a passage the passage for the cord passes through the flared portion (Fig 5A of Francoeur) and is divided in the flared portion to provide a left passage (Fig 5A). Francoeur fails to further teach a right passage, each passage providing an entry point for the cord, the left and right passages being at an acute angle to one another. However, Smith teaches that it is known for a flared portion of a connector to have left and right passages at an acute angle to one another (Fig 5D of Smith) in order to provide clockwise and counter-clockwise winding of the cord (Figs 6 and 10 of Smith).
PNG
media_image10.png
390
302
media_image10.png
Greyscale
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 Kwak and Francoeur such that two passages are formed in the connector in order to provide a single device for allowing different cord orientations. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 21, Kwak teaches the sleeve assembly has a main body, as modified with Francoeur is provided with the connector which is connected to the main body and Francoeur teaches the connector (132 of Francoeur) further comprises a socket at one end for receiving a proximal end of the main body (Fig 10AA of Francoeur), the socket comprising at least one internal clip (133 of Francoeur) for engaging with a corresponding at least one recess (261 of Francoeur) provided in the main body.
PNG
media_image11.png
642
282
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 22, Kwak as modified above teaches wherein the neck region (132 of Francoeur) of the connector is made of a flexible material (col 13, lines 62-66 of Francoeur) and is positioned between the socket and the flared portion (Fig 3 and Fig 10AA of Francoeur), the passage for the cord (of Kwak) passing through the flared portion (as taught by Smith), neck region and socket of the connector (as taught by Francoeur).
Regarding claim 26, Kwak as modified above, Francoeur teaches wherein the stork comprises a proximal end which abuts with a distal end of the socket when the cord is secured to the stork and the cord is in a retracted position (Fig 1 of Francoeur).
Regarding claim 27, Kwak discloses the stork is fastened via a handle at a distal end of the stork. Kwak fails to disclose wherein the stork comprises a cord fastening clip housed at a distal end of the stork, the cord fastening clip being configured to secure a knot provided towards an end region of the cord. However, Francoeur discloses the stork comprises a cord fastening clip (254) housed at a distal end of the stork (Fig 10A), the cord fastening clip being configured to secure a knot (col 10, line 13) provided towards an end region (240) of the cord. 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 Kwak such that the cord is secured to the stork by the means disclosed by Kwak since it provides an alternative securement means. Such modification would not lead to any new or unpredictable results as the elements would work as intended.
Regarding claim 28, Kwak as modified in claim 27, discloses wherein the cord fastening clip includes a peripheral edge which abuts with a distal end of the sleeve assembly when the cord is in a retracted position.
Regarding claim 29, Kwak as modified above in the manner discussed in regards to claim 25, Francoeur teaches wherein the main body of the sleeve assembly is exposed when the stork is pulled to operate the roller blind assembly (Fig 9 of Francoeur).
Claims 23, 24, and 30-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak and Francoeur as Smith as modified in claim 22 above, in further view of Huang (US 6,752,194).
Regarding claim 23, Kwak as modified above, Francoeur teaches wherein the neck region is tubular in shape but fails to disclose that the neck region is narrower than the socket and flared portion. However, Huang teaches a connector (56; Fig 5 of Huang) having a neck (561) that is narrower than the socket (portion receiving 562). 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 neck region such that it is narrower since such modification involves a mere change in size and it is further known to provide as narrow neck, as taught by Huang. Such modification would not lead to and new or unpredictable results as the elements would work as intended.
Regarding claim 24, Kwak as modified above with Francoeur and Smith, Smith teaches the connector is provided with left and right passage and an eyelet (opening formed by 510, see Figs 6, 7, and 10 of Smith) housed within the connector where the left and right passages intersect, the cord being configured to extend through the eyelet; wherein the eyelet is made of a smooth material (see Figures having smooth flat surfaces) to reduce friction between the cord and the eyelet as the cord moves during operation of the roller blind assembly.
Regarding claim 30, Kwak discloses wherein the at least in part overlapping of the sleeve assembly with the stork is provided by at least part of the stork (210”) being disposed within the sleeve assembly (210, 210’); as best understood, Kwak does not disclose wherein the at least in part overlapping of the sleeve assembly with the stork is provided by at least part of the sleeve assembly being disposed within the stork. However, modification of the telescoping sleeve elements would have been obvious since such alternative arrangement is known, as taught by Francoeur. Francoeur teaches a wand having a stork (210) and a sleeve assembly (260) with at least part of the sleeve assembly (260) being disposed within the stork (210; Fig 10B). 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 wand of Kwak such that the stork and sleeve assembly are provided such that the sleeve assembly is partially disposed in the stork, as taught by Francoeur, since such modification would provide an equivalent alternative arrangement and would not lead to any new or unpredictable results as the elements would work as intended..
Regarding claim 31, Kwak as modified above, Francoeur teaches wherein the stork comprises a proximal end which abuts with a distal end of the socket when the cord is secured to the stork and the cord is in a retracted position (Fig 1 of Francoeur).
Regarding claim 32, Kwak discloses the stork is fastened via a handle at a distal end of the stork. Kwak fails to disclose wherein the stork comprises a cord fastening clip housed at a distal end of the stork, the cord fastening clip being configured to secure a knot provided towards an end region of the cord. However, Francoeur discloses the stork comprises a cord fastening clip (254) housed at a distal end of the stork (Fig 10A), the cord fastening clip being configured to secure a knot (col 10, line 13) provided towards an end region (240) of the cord. 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 Kwak such that the cord is secured to the stork by the means disclosed by Kwak since it provides an alternative securement means. Such modification would not lead to any new or unpredictable results as the elements would work as intended.
Regarding claim 34, Kwak as modified above in the manner discussed in regards to claim 25, Francoeur teaches wherein the main body of the sleeve assembly is exposed when the stork is pulled to operate the roller blind assembly (Fig 9 of Francoeur).
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