DETAILED ACTION
The following Non-Final Office Action is in response to the application filed 4/3/2024.
Status of the claims: Claims 36-50 are hereby examined below.
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
Claim 36 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 36, line 23 recites “the conversion further comprises”. Examiner presumes this should read – the conversion mechanism further comprises --.
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 49 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 49 states a connection between the connection member and the actuator is closer to the elongate mounting member, when the conversion mechanism is in the extended state, than the rotation axis and the connection axis of the connection member whereby the biasing part urges the actuator and connection member into a locked condition. It is unclear where this is described in the specification or shown in the drawings. Examiner does not know how the connection between the connection member and the actuator is closer than the rotation axis and connection axis.
Claims are being examined as best understood.
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.
Claims 36-37,39-41,43,45-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pham US2009/0242143 in view of Krebs et al US 5,269,576.
In regard to claim 36, Pham ‘143 discloses a mounting element for mounting an architectural covering between two opposing mounting surfaces, the mounting element comprising: an elongate mounting member (12,13, Fig. 1) which is elongated along a longitudinal direction, and an extension mechanism arranged (43,44,45,46, Fig. 2) at an end of the elongate mounting member (12,13), the extension mechanism (43,44,45,46) being operable between: i) a retracted state (44 is up), and ii) an extended state (44 is down) wherein the extension mechanism (43,44,45,46) comprises: an actuator (44) having a rotation axis about which said actuator (44) is rotatable relative to said elongate mounting member (12,13), the rotation axis being substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal direction, and a conversion mechanism (45) configured to convert rotation of the actuator (44) into a translatory movement of the rotation axis along the longitudinal direction from the retracted state to the extended state and vice versa, the extension mechanism (43,44,45,46) is arranged to abut one of the opposing mounting surfaces in the extended state when the mounting element is mounted between the opposing mounting surfaces (on the left of unnumbered frame in Fig. 1); the conversion mechanism (45) further comprises a biasing part (46,31, Fig. 2) coupled to the actuator (44); and the actuator (44), the biasing part (46,31) are arranged so that the biasing part (spring, paragraph [0020]) exerts a locking torque on the actuator (44) relative to the connection axis, the locking torque being oriented counter to a rotation direction of the actuator (44) from the extended state to the retracted state.
Pham ‘143 fails to disclose the conversion mechanism comprising a connection member operably connected between the elongate mounting member and the actuator such that the connection member moves relative to said elongate mounting member with rotation of said actuator, the connection member being hingedly coupled to the elongate member to allow the connection member to pivot relative to the elongate member about a connection axis, the connection axis being fixed in position relative to the elongate mounting member in the longitudinal direction.
Krebs et al ‘576 discloses a conversion mechanism comprising a connection member (88, Fig. 3) operably connected between the elongate mounting member (38, Fig. 5) and the actuator (94, Fig. 5) such that the connection member (88) moves relative to said elongate mounting member (38) with rotation of said actuator (94), the connection member (88) being hingedly coupled to the elongate member (38) to allow the connection member (88) to pivot relative to the elongate member (38) about a connection axis (at 86, Fig. 4), the connection axis being fixed in position relative to the elongate mounting member (38) in the longitudinal direction.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the device of Pham ‘143 to include the connection member as taught by Krebs et al ‘576 as such would provide support for the actuator handle to help ensure stable movement.
In regard to claim 37 Pham ‘143 discloses wherein the conversion mechanism further comprises a compression part (31, Fig. 2) configured to transmit a compression force along the longitudinal direction towards one of the opposing mounting surfaces, the biasing part (spring) being configured to generate the compression force when the extension mechanism (43,44,45,46) is in the extended state.
In regard to claim 39, Pham ‘143 discloses wherein the actuator (44) directly actuates the biasing part (spring).
In regard to claim 40, Pham ‘143 as modified by Krebs et al ‘576 disclose wherein the actuator (44, Pham ‘143) and the connection member (88, Krebs et al ‘576) have substantially elongated shapes, the actuator (44) and the connection member (88) being substantially parallel when the extension mechanism is placed in the extended state (as shown in Fig. 5 of Krebs et al ‘576).
In regard to claim 41, Pham ‘143 as modified by Krebs et al ‘576 disclose wherein the connection axis (86, Krebs et al ‘576) is oriented orthogonal to the longitudinal direction.
In regard to claim 43, Pham ‘143 as modified by Krebs et al ‘576 disclose wherein the actuator (44, Pham ‘143) is at least partly arranged between the connection member (88, as taught by Krebs et al ‘576) and the biasing part (spring, Pham ‘143).
In regard to claim 45, Pham ‘143 discloses wherein the actuator (44)comprises a control portion (top half) which is arranged for an actuation of the actuator.
In regard to claim 46, Pham ‘143 discloses wherein the actuator (44) protrudes from the elongate mounting member (12,13) when the extension mechanism is in the retracted state. (Fig. 2)
In regard to claim 47, Pham ‘143 as modified by Krebs et al ’576 disclose a friction member (40, Fig. 2 Pham ‘143) arranged on an outer end portion of the extension mechanism (43,44,45,46) so as to abut one of the opposing mounting surfaces when the extension mechanism is in the extended state, the friction member (40) being mechanically linked to the conversion mechanism (88, as taught by Krebs ‘576) such that an upwardly-oriented friction force is generated between an end face of the friction member and the one of the opposed mounting surfaces when the friction member abuts against said opposing mounting surface.
In regard to claim 48, Pham ‘143 discloses wherein the elongate mounting member (12,13) comprises a housing part configured to substantially accommodate the extension mechanism (43,44,45,46) in the extended state.
As best understood, in regard to claim 49, Pham ‘143 as modified by Krebs et al ‘576 discloses wherein a connection between the connection member (88, Krebs et al ‘576) and the actuator (44, Pham ‘143) is closer to the elongate mounting member (12,13 Pham ‘143), when the conversion mechanism (88) is in the extended state, than the rotation axis and the connection axis of the connection member whereby the biasing part urges the actuator and connection member into a locked condition.
In regard to claim 50, Pham ‘143 discloses an architectural covering comprising a covering member (10, Fig. 1) for covering an architectural recess.
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pham US2009/0242143 and Krebs et al US 5,269,576 as applied to claim 36 and further in view of Hall et al US 2017/0362889.
In regard to claim 38, Pham ‘143 discloses wherein the biasing part is a spring. (paragraph [0020]). Pham ‘143 fails to disclose, that the biasing part comprises at least two compression springs arranged in parallel. Hall et al ‘889 discloses the biasing part (516, Fig. 5) comprises at least two compression springs arranged in parallel (paragraph [0205]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the device of Pham ‘143/Krebs et al ‘576 to make the biasing part comprise two springs in parallel as taught by Hall et al ‘889 in order provide an improved distribution of force on the friction member. Furthermore, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Claim 44 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pham US2009/0242143 and Krebs et al US 5,269,576 as applied to claim 36 and further in view of Levin US 6,131,638,
In regard to claim 44, Pham ‘576 fails to disclose wherein the conversion mechanism further comprises a guide having at least one guiding slot which extends at least partly along the longitudinal direction, and wherein the actuator further comprises at least one pin configured to move in the at least one guiding slot in translation along the longitudinal direction and in rotation about the rotation axis.
Levin ‘638 discloses wherein the conversion mechanism further comprises a guide (60) having at least one guiding slot (shown below) which extends at least partly along the longitudinal direction, and wherein the actuator (44,48) further comprises at least one pin (52) configured to move in the at least one guiding slot in translation along the longitudinal direction and in rotation about the rotation axis.
PNG
media_image1.png
290
538
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the device of Pham ‘576 to include the guide having a guide slot as taught by Levin ‘638 as such would help to limit movement and ensure smooth operation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 42 is 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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