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
Election/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-9, drawn to a protective case, classified in e06b9/322.
II. Claims 10-11, drawn to a method of shipping, classified in b63b3/30.The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are directed to related a product and . The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed, the inventions do not overlap in scope and are mutually exclusive Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants. For example, the protective case can be formed as a finished product without any motors/transmission therein.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
The searches for two different and distinct inventions present serious burdens as they are different in scope.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Jason Jennings on 3/25/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of group 1 to a protective case, claims 1-9. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 10-11 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
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(s) 1-9 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Anderson (6915831).
Per claim 1, Anderson(figures 1-9) shows a protective case arranged and configured to constrain a transmission and one or more motors of an operating system in conjunction with an architectural-structure covering, the transmission and one or more motors being coupled by interlocking or intercoupling tabs, the protective case comprising: a housing(inside of 506 where 512 is, figure 8) including an inner cavity arranged and configured to partially encapsulate the transmission and one or more motors to prevent relative movement of the transmission and the one or more motors.
Per claim 2, Anderson further shows the housing includes a projection or spring (figure 9, the uppermost part to the left of 511) arranged and configured to, in use, contact an inner surface of a headrail of the architectural-structure covering.
Per claim 3, Anderson further shows the projection or spring(figures 8-9) is integrally formed with the housing.
Per claim 4, Anderson further shows the projection or spring extends from a
top surface of the housing (figure 9).
Per claim 5, Anderson further shows the housing includes one or more feet(510, figure 8) to maintain a position of the protective case within a headrail of the architectural-structure covering.
Per claim 6, Anderson further shows the one or more feet extend from a bottom
surface of the housing.
Per claim 7, Anderson further shows the housing includes one or more barbs(figure 8, bottom of where 506 or top of 502) arranged and configured to contact the transmission and/or motor(s).
Per claim 8, Anderson further shows the housing includes a barb extending
from an inner surface of the inner cavity for contacting an outer surface of the transmission to prevent the transmission from sliding out of the protective case.
Per claim 9, Anderson further shows the protective case includes one or more
Ridges (figure 8, the part to the left of 530 or the thicken part above 514) arranged and configured to provide additional rigidity.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art shows different motor housings.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHI D Tran whose telephone number is (571)272-6864. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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.
/PHI D A/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights