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
Figures 1-2 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) in view of Wyrebek (US 2020/0010739).
Regarding claim 1, AAPA shows the structure of a known roller shade comprising
a roller tube (105) comprising a roller shade clutch (110) and an end plug (115) connected through a cylindrical body, the clutch configured to rotate the roller tube; a shade material (120) extending between a first end attached to the roller tube and a second end extending away from the roller tube wherein the shade material is configured to rotate about the cylindrical body of the roller tube to roll or unroll the shade; wherein unrolling the shade from the roller tube covers at least a portion of a window. (figure 1)
AAPA fails to show the shade material comprising a radio frequency and electromagnetic shielding material. Wyrebek shows an RF shielding material comprising a shielding layer (20) attached to a side of a base layer (30) and comprising a conductive material [0016], thereby shielding from the radio frequency and electromagnetic interference at an attenuation of at least about 30 dB at a frequency of at least about 10 KHz [0017]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to apply the material layers of the tape to the material of the shade in order to provide “shielding against electromagnetic waves” as taught by Wyrebek [0002-3]. Please note it is well known in the art to shield windows from RF/EM. See US 2022/0019117 for support. This reference is solely used as a supportive reference and not part of the rejection.
Regarding claim 2, AAPA in view of Wyrebek shows the radio frequency and electromagnetic interference shielding window shade according to claim 1, wherein the shade material further comprises at least one of: a plurality of base layers; and a plurality of shielding layers (20,30,40).
Regarding claim 3, AAPA in view of Wyrebek shows the radio frequency and electromagnetic interference shielding window shade according to claim 1, wherein the shade material further comprises a second shielding layer (40), wherein the base layer (30) is sandwiched between the shielding layer (20) and the second shielding layer (40).
Regarding claim 4, AAPA in view of Wyrebek shows the radio frequency and electromagnetic interference shielding window shade according to claim 1, wherein the shade material further comprises a second base layer, wherein the shielding layer is sandwiched between the base layer and the second base layer. Please note the base layer can be considered (20) in claim 1 and the shielding layer is (30) and the second base layer would then be (40).
Regarding claim 5, AAPA in view of Wyrebek shows the radio frequency and electromagnetic interference shielding window shade according to claim 1, wherein at least one of: the radio frequency and electromagnetic interference attenuation ranges from about 30 dB to about 120 dB, and the frequency ranges from about 10 KHz to about 100 GHz [0017].
Regarding claim 6, AAPA in view of Wyrebek shows the radio frequency and electromagnetic interference shielding window shade according to claim 1, wherein at least one of: the base layer comprises a nylon 6, a nylon 66, a polyester, a polyethylene, a polyurethane, a fluorocarbon rubber, a viton, a carbon fiber, and combinations thereof, and the conductive material comprises an intrinsically conductive polymer, a metal, a carbon, a metal oxide, a polyaniline, a graphene, a carbon nanotube, a silver, a nickel, a copper, and a combination thereof [0016-0017].
Regarding claim 7, the radio frequency and electromagnetic interference shielding window shade according to claim 1, further comprising: a pass-through plate (130) positioned directly below the roller tube, the pass-through plate comprising: a horizontal flat plate spanning a length and a width of the roller tube; and a slot (slot in 130) configured to permit passage of the shade material as it unrolls from the roller tube to extend away from the roller tube, thereby covering at least the portion of the window (fig 1).
Claim(s) 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) in view of Wyrebek (US 2020/0010739) and further in view of Finley (WO 2011/063194).
Regarding claim 8, AAPA in view of Wyrebek shows the radio frequency and electromagnetic interference shielding window shade according to claim 7, including a gasket (figure 2) but fails to show a conductive gasket. Finley shows it is well known in the art to provide a conductive gasket having shielding properties in order to protect the surrounding environment (page 3, line 64).
Regarding claim 9, AAPA, Wyrebek and Finley shows the radio frequency and electromagnetic interference shielding window shade according to claim 8. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the gasket from any of the listed materials in order to provide sealing and shielding properties as taught by Finley. It is considered to be within the level or ordinary skill in the art to select a known material base on its suitability for its intended use.
Claim 10 is rejected as applied to claim 9 above.
Claims 11-14 is rejected as applied to claim 10 above where AAPA explains multiple gaskets are typically used around the channels of the windows. Claim 9 above applies the conductive fabric material of the gasket.
Regarding claim 15, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make gaskets within a range to fit the length, width and thickness of the spaces they fill in order to properly seal. A change in size has been held to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 16 is rejected as applied to claim 1,6 and 10 above.
Claim 17 is rejected as applied to claim 1 and 10 above.
Claim 18 is rejected as applied to claim 1, 10 and 2 above.
Claim 19 is rejected as applied to claim 1, 7 and 10 above.
Claim 20 is rejected as applied to claims 1 and 10 above where the AAPA shows a rod (145) at the bottom of the shade. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make this from steel in order to provide greater strength and durability. AAPA shows an indicator (front face of 130) to interact with the rod (145) as rod 145 enters, the indicator covers the rod (145) indicating the roller has been lowered.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTINA ROSE FULTON whose telephone number is (571)272-7376. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6-3pm.
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, Joseph can be reached at 571-272-8004. 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.
/KRISTINA R FULTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675