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 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 2-4, 8-11, 17, 18, and 20 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.
Claims 2, 8, and 18 recite “a small wheel units.” It is unclear how many small wheel units are required as the recitation reads “a” implying singular but also recites “units” implying a plurality. It is unclear what is required.
Claims 2, 8, and 18 recite “a small wheel units connected to the large wheel unit having an L-shape.” It is unclear if the small wheel unit has an L-shape or the large wheel unit has a L-shape or if the small wheel unit together with the large wheel unit have an L-shape.
Claims 4, 11, and 17 recite “a full rotation of the controlling cord.” It is unclear how a controlling cord rotates. As best understood the controlling cord rotates the wheel. It is not understood how a controlling cord has a full rotation.
Claim 20 requires “that the controlling cord is broken into a line.” It is not understood how the controlling cord “is broken into a line.” How does the cord break and how is it into a line?
In view of the 112 issues discussed above the claims have been examined as best understood.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,044,067. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the pending claims recite all limitations of the patented claims in broader terms.
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 1, 4-7, 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai (US 6,648,048) in view of Lai (US 7,926,540), hereinafter referred to as Lai ‘540.
Regarding claims 1, 7, and 14 Lai discloses a window blinds system and a method of providing a variety of shading arrangements using a windows blinds system, the windows blinds system, comprising:
a set of slats extending downwards from a headrail at a top end of the window blinds system (Fig 7), the set of slats comprising:
a first section, a plurality of double slats within the first section, a second section below the first section, a plurality of single slats within the second section, a third section below the second section, and a plurality of double slats within the third section (see annotated Fig 7);
PNG
media_image1.png
861
1026
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a first lift cord and a second lift cord portion (242’ on left and right sides), wherein the first lift cord and the second lift cord each are controllable for raising and lowering at least a portion of the window blinds system;
a plurality of outer supporting cords (Fig 6), each outer supporting cord extending around a front side of the blinds system and a back side of the blinds system, such that an outer supporting cord front section and an outer supporting cord back section are provided;
a plurality of inner supporting cords, each inner supporting cord extending around the front side of the blinds system and the back side of the blinds system, such that an inner supporting cord front section and an inner supporting cord back section are provided (Fig 6);
a plurality of transverse cords (234’, 324’), comprising:
a plurality of upper transverse cords (234’) associated with the plurality of outer supporting cords (232’, 233’), wherein each upper transverse cord is spaced evenly from the top end to a bottom end of the window blinds system between the outer supporting cord front section and the outer supporting cord back section;
a plurality of lower transverse cords (324’) associated with the plurality of inner supporting cords, wherein each upper transverse cord is spaced evenly from the top end to a bottom end of the window blinds system between the inner supporting cord front section and the inner supporting cord back section;
wherein pairs of transverse cords are provided by one upper transverse cord and one lower transverse cord alongside each other along the blinds system (Fig 6);
a first set of cords (left side) on a first side of the window blinds system, and a second set of cords (right side) on a second side of the windows blinds system;
wherein the first set of cords and the second set of cords are separated by a center portion of the blinds system;
wherein the first set of cords comprises the first lift cord (242’), a left outer supporting cord (232’, 233’), a left inner supporting cord (322’), a left set of upper transverse cords (234’), and a left set of lower transverse cords (324’), wherein the left inner supporting cord (322’) is positioned towards the center portion of the blinds system relative to the left outer supporting cord;
wherein the second set of cords (right side) comprises the second lift cord, a right outer supporting cord, a right inner supporting cord, a right set of upper transverse cords, and a left set of lower transverse cords, wherein the right inner supporting cord is positioned towards the center portion of the blinds system relative to the right outer supporting cord;
wherein a maximum amount of space between the double slats is a double gap and a maximum amount of space between the single slats is a single gap when the windows blinds system is in a fully opened shading arrangement, and wherein the double gap is larger than the single gap (Fig 7);
wherein the double gap (222’) is created between neighboring double slats, between the first section and the second section, and between the second section and the third section, by providing an empty pair of transverse cords not supporting any slat within the double gap;
wherein the single gap is created between neighboring single slats by mounting single slats onto each pair of transverse cords within the second section with no empty pairs of transverse cords within the second section (Fig 7);
wherein each double slat comprises a top double slat (22’) and a bottom double slat (32’) each arranged on a single pair of transverse cords such that the top double slat (22’) is supported by a single upper transverse cord (234’), and the bottom double slat (32’) is supported by a single lower transverse cord (324’) (Fig 6);
wherein each single slat (22’) is arranged on a single pair of transverse cords such that the single slat is supported by both the upper transverse cord and the lower transverse cord of the pair of transverse cords (Fig 6; 334’ lifted and supports single slats 22’);
wherein the window blinds system is configured to be positioned into a variety of shading arrangements.
Although Lai discloses first and second lift cord portions and a controlling cord portion, the cords are not separate cords with the controlling cord associated with shaft controlling elements within an interior of the headrail. However, Lai ‘540 teaches that it is known for a window blinds system having first and second lift cords and a controlling cord to be provided as separate and distinct cords for controlling the lifting of the window blinds system (Fig 1) and are associated with shaft controlling elements. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cord portions of Lai such that they are provided as separate cords, as taught by Lai ‘540 since it is a known alternative equivalent arrangement for controlling a windows blinds system without resulting in any new or unexpected results. As modified, providing separate cords provides the system with the shaft controlling elements of Lai ‘540 in order to control the separate cords.
As modified, Lai in view of Lai ‘540 teaches the method comprising pulling the controlling cord in a first direction to adjust a tilt angle of the plurality of double slats and the plurality of single slats and to adjust a distance between neighboring slats of the set of slats.
Regarding claims 4 and 17, modified Lai discloses wherein a full rotation of the controlling cord in a first direction causes changes in the tilt angle of the plurality of double slats and the plurality of double slats from the fully opened shading arrangement to a fully closed shading arrangement.
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 16, modified Lai discloses wherein the variety of shading arrangements comprises:
the fully opened shading arrangement (Fig 7), wherein each double slat of the plurality of double slats is arranged in a pair such that the top double slat and the bottom double slat are resting against each other and the double gaps are provided between the double slats, and wherein the single gaps are provided between the single slats, and wherein the tilt angle of the slats of the set of slats is substantially parallel with the headrail;
a fully closed shading arrangement, wherein each slat of the set of slats is overlapping with neighboring slats and no gaps are provided between neighboring slats, and wherein the tilt angle of the slats of the set of slats is substantially perpendicular with the headrail; and a partially open shading arrangement, wherein the slats of the set of slats is angled with respect to the headrail and wherein the top double slat and the bottom double slat of each of the plurality of double slats are overlapping with each other and a partial gap is provided between neighboring slats (col 4, line 66 – col 5, line 12).
Regarding claims 6 and 13, modified Laid discloses wherein the first lift cord passes through a first set of holes on each slat of the set of slats along the first side of the window blinds system, and wherein the second lift cord passes through a second set of holes on each slat of the set of slats along the second side of the window blinds system (Figs 6 and 7).
Regarding claim 15, Lai discloses wherein pulling the controlling cord in the first direction decreases the distance between neighboring slats of the set of slats, and wherein pulling the controlling cord in a second direction opposite to the first direction increases the distance between neighboring slats of the set of slats.
Claims 2, 3, 8-11, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai and Lai ‘540, as applied in claims 1, 7, 14 above, in further view of Lombard (US 3,111,164).
Regarding claims 2, 8, and 18, as modified above, providing separate cords provides the system with the shaft controlling elements of Lai ‘540 in order to control the system. Lai ‘540 teaches a plurality of wheel assemblies, each wheel assembly comprising: a large wheel unit associated with an outer supporting cord of the plurality of outer supporting cords (Fig 2 of Lai ‘540); as best understood, a small wheel units connected to the large wheel unit having an L-shape, and associated with an inner supporting cord of the plurality of inner supporting cords (Fig 2 of Lai ‘540); a shaft associated with each wheel assembly of the plurality of wheel assemblies. Lai in view of Lai ‘540 fails to show a shaft controlling wheel associated with the shaft and configured to rotate the shaft and rotate the wheel assemblies. However, Lombard teaches that it is known for shaft controlling elements to include a shaft controlling wheel (Figs 4 and 5) associated with the shaft and configured to rotate the shaft and rotate wheel assemblies. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Lai such that the shaft controlling elements include a shaft controlling wheel as taught by Lombard since it is a known element for allowing the rotation of a shaft and control of a window blinds system. Such modification would not lead to any new or unpredictable result since the elements would allow for equivalent functions.
Regarding claim 3 (best understood to depend from claim 2), Lai as modified above teaches wherein the tilt angle is controllable by manipulating the controlling cord (controlling cords control the shaft as modified with Lombard); wherein the controlling cord is associated with the shaft controlling wheel of the shaft controlling elements (as taught by Lombard); and wherein the plurality of outer supporting cords and the plurality of inner supporting cords are controlled by a rotation of the shaft.
Regarding claim 9, modified Lai teaches a controlling cord associated with shaft controlling wheel.
Regarding claim 10, Lai as modified above teaches wherein the tilt angle is controllable by manipulating the controlling cord (controlling cords control the shaft as modified with Lombard); wherein the controlling cord is associated with the shaft controlling wheel of the shaft controlling elements (as taught by Lombard); and wherein the plurality of outer supporting cords and the plurality of inner supporting cords are controlled by a rotation of the shaft.
Regarding claim 11, as modified above, wherein a full rotation of the controlling cord in a first direction causes changes in the tilt angle of the plurality of double slats and the plurality of double slats from the fully opened shading arrangement to a fully closed shading arrangement (rotation of the controlling cord rotates the shaft which changes the tilt).
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai and Lai ‘540, as applied in claim 14 above, in further view of Cross et al. (US 6,792,999), hereinafter referred to as Cross, and Faught (US 132,205).
Regarding claims 19 and 20, modified Lai with Lai ‘540 fails to disclose the method further comprising providing a first hook system on a left side of the window blinds system and a second hook system on a right side of the window blinds system, wherein each hook system comprises a mounting strip, a hook, and a ring; and providing an openable locking end on the controlling cord. However, hooks systems are known in the art for retaining cords, as taught by Cross. Cross teaches a hook system having a mounting strip, a hook, and a ring (Fig 2B) with an end (shown as line on 18) on the controlling cord (18).
PNG
media_image2.png
772
611
media_image2.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 provide the system and method of Lai with the hook system of Cross in order to provide tensioning means to the control cord. As modified, it would have been obvious to provide the hook system on left and right sides of the system to allow for the multiple cords to be retained since duplicating working parts of the invention would be obvious without producing any new or unexpected results. Further, although Cross fails to disclose an openable locking end on the controlling cord, it is well known in the art, as taught by Faught to provide a cord with an openable locking end (a,b; Figs 1 and 2) in order to provide the cord with means for disconnecting. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controlling cord such that it has an openable locking end in order to allow the cord to be passed through the ring and reconnected. The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. As modified with Faught, the method includes comprising: opening the locking end on the controlling cord such that the controlling cord is broken into a line; passing one end of the controlling cord through the right of the second hook system; closing the locking end on the controlling cord such that the controlling cord is an unbroken loop passing through the ring.
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