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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final First Office Action on the Merits in application 18/651,721, filed 5/1/2024.
Claims 1-10 are pending and examined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the second driving component installed on the bottom beam(see claim 4 and para. [0010], the second driving component is on the shell not bottom beam) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the bottom beam equipped with a power board(see claim 7 and para. [0013], the power board is on the shell not bottom beam) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in para. [0003], line 1, “includes” should be “include” and “and an” should be “and a”, and in line 13, change “, which include” to “include”; in para. ]0004], line 12, “structural for limiting” should be “limiting structures”, and line 3, “significant shorten” should be “significantly shortens”; in para, [0008], line 1, “the driving” should be “The driving”, in para. [0026], line 6, “cove” should be “cover”; in para. [0038], lines 8-11 it is not clear what is being defined; in para. [0039], line 4, “can includes” should be “can include”; and in para. [0040], line 1, “opened all automatically that reduces” should be “opened automatically reducing.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1, “the driving” should be changed to “the second driving”, and in line 3, “.” Should be changed to “,”. 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.
Claims 1-10 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.
In claim 1, line 8, it is not clear what data is being received by “a distance between the bottom” and renders the metes and bounds of the claim unclear.
In claim 4, it is not clear how the second driving component is installed on the bottom beam when the element and interrelated components are in the shell, as shown in the Figs.).
In claim 7, it is not clear how the bottom beam is equipped with a power board when the element and interrelated components are in the shell, as shown in the Figs.).
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ter Haar(U.S. Pat Appl. Publ. 2019/0032402; cited on PTO 892).
Ter Haar discloses a new motorized two-layer structure shade(1, see Fig. 1; 401, see Fig. 5; 601; see Fig. 6), comprising:
a bottom beam(6, see Fig. 1; 406, see Fig. 5; 606, see Fig. 6); and
a shell(2, see Fig. 1; 402, see Fig. 4; 602; see Fig. 6 ), a top of the shell equipped with a first lifting component(32, 36, Figs. 1-2; 632, Fig. 7), a light-filtering fabric(screen material 8 is capable of light filtering and meets the claim limitation) installed on the first lifting component(see Figs. 1-2 and 5-6), and located between the bottom beam and the shell(see Figs. 1-2 and 5-6), a first driving component(14, 16, 18, 22, see Fig. 1; and motors 611 and 621, see para. [0051] and Figs. 5-6) is set on the shell(see Figs. 1-2 and 5-6), and a controller(610/614, 620/624) connected to the driving component(see Fig. 7) also installed on the shell(602, see Fig. 7), the controller(610, 620) configured to receive feedback data about position data of a distance between the bottom(as best understood, see para. [0051]).
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 2-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ter Haar, as evidenced by Mullet(U.S. Pat. Appl. Publ. 2012/0111509; cited on PTO 892).
Regarding claim 2, Ter Haar discloses the new motorized two-layer structure shade of claim 1, wherein the driving component comprises a first outer tube(around motor 611) fixed on the shell(see Figs. 6 and 7) through a first bracket(leftmost element on left side of 611, see Figs. 6 and7), a first motor(611) is installed inside the first outer tube(see Figs. 6 and 7) with a first motor outer cover(element between first bracket and tube, see Fig. 7), a first shaft(622) is mounted on an output shaft of the first motor(621, see para. [0053]).
Ter Haar lacks the shape of the shaft and a first lithium battery set on the first bracket.
Applicant’s lends no criticality to the specific shaft used.
The use of V-shaped shafts to allow for a motor compact size, smooth operation and power is considered well known in the art.
Therefore, the specific shaft used is considered a feature best determined by a skilled artisan given the intended use of the motor/system and specific design requirements thereof.
The use of a battery in shades is considered well known the shade art to allow for use during a power outage or conserve energy(see Mullet).
Therefore, the addition of a battery, and the specific placement thereof, is considered a feature best determined by a skilled artisan given the intended use of the motor/system and specific design requirements thereof.
Regarding claim 3, Ter Haar discloses the new motorized two-layer structure shade of claim 2, wherein the first lifting component includes a first cord reel(632, see Fig. 7) installed on the first shaft(see Fig. 7), and a first lifting rope(636) is mounted on the cord reel(see Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 4, Ter Haar discloses, as best understood, the new motorized two-layer structure shade of claim 3, wherein the first lifting rope(636) is equipped with a middle beam(404, 604, see Figs. 5-7), and a fabric(409, see Fig. 5) is installed between the middle beam(409, 604) and the shell(402, 602), the top of the shell is equipped with a second lifting component(630, see Fig. 7), and a second driving component(621) is installed on the bottom beam(the disclosure sets forth the second driving component and is met by the second driving component of Ter haar).
Ter Haar lacks the specific fabric between the middle beam and shell.
Applicant’s lends no criticality to the specific material fabric used.
Therefore, the specific fabric used is considered a feature best determined by a skilled artisan given the intended use of the motor/system and specific design requirements thereof.
Regarding claim 5, Ter Haar discloses the new motorized two-layer structure shade of claim 4, wherein the second driving component includes a second outer tube (around motor 621) fixed on the shell(see Figs. 6 and 7) through a second bracket(rightmost element on right side of 621, see Figs. 6 and713), a second motor(621) is installed inside the outer tube(see Figs. 6 and 7) via a second motor outer cover(element between second bracket and second outer tube, see Fig. 7), a second shaft(between 630 and 621, see Fig. 7) is mounted on an output shaft of the second motor.
Ter Haar lacks the shape of the shaft and a second lithium battery set on the second bracket.
Applicant’s lends no criticality to the specific shaft used.
The use of V-shaped shafts to allow for a motor compact size, smooth operation and power is considered well known in the art.
Therefore, the specific shaft used is considered a feature best determined by a skilled artisan given the intended use of the motor/system and specific design requirements thereof.
The use of a battery in shades is considered well known the shade art to allow for use during a power outage or conserve energy.
Therefore, the addition of a battery, and the specific placement thereof, is considered a feature best determined by a skilled artisan given the intended use of the motor/system and specific design requirements thereof.
Regarding claim 6, Ter Haar discloses the new motorized two-layer structure shade of claim 5, wherein the second lifting component(630) includes a second cord reel(630) installed on the second shaft (14), and a second lifting rope(634) is mounted on the second cord reel(630, see Figs. 6 and 7).
Regarding claim 7, Ter Haar discloses the new motorized two-layer structure shade of claim 1, wherein the shell(602) is equipped with an outer end cover(see left and right of 611 and 621 in Fig. 7), and the controller(610, 620) is installed inside the outer end cover(see Figs. 6-7).
Ter Haar lacks the use of a power board (19) electrically connected to the controller.
The use of power boards is considered well known in the art(see Mullet).
Therefore, the use of a power board, and placement thereof, with the shade of Ter Haar is considered a feature best determined by a skilled artisan given the intended use of the motor/system and specific design requirements thereof.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ter Haar, as evidenced by Skinner(U.S. Pat. Appl. Publ. 2010/0018654; cited on PTO 892).
Ter Haar discloses the new motorized two-layer structure shade of claim 1, but lacks the use of an angular velocity sensor is mounted to a bottom of the light-filtering fabric (3), the angular velocity sensor is electrically connected to the controller (27).
The use of sensors to detect the movement of elements of a shade are considered well known in the art(see Skinner).
Therefore, the use of a velocity sensor, and the detection and control thereof, is considered a feature best determined by a skilled artisan given the intended use of the motor/system and specific design requirements thereof.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ter Haar, as evidenced by Gruner(U.S. Pat. Appl. Publ. 2006/0048904; cited on PTO 892).
Ter Haar discloses the new motorized two-layer structure shade of claim 1, but lacks the shell having dust-proof insert pieces/cover and mounting components.
Applicant’s lends no criticality to the use of covers.
The use of covers to keep debris and other objects from entering the shell/headrail and mounting components to attach the shell/shade to a structure are considered well known in the art(see 24 and 28 of Gruner).
Therefore, the use of covers and mounting components, and specific placement and number, with the shell of Ter Haar is considered a feature best determined by a skilled artisan given the intended use of the motor/system and specific design requirements thereof.
Prior Art
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 BETH A. STEPHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1851. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a-4:30p.
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, Brian Glessner can be reached at 571-272-6754. 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.
BETH A. STEPHAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3633
/Beth A Stephan/