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 18/766,598, filed 7/8/2024.
Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected bracket, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 4/20/2026.
Claims 1-17 are pending and examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/272025 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 12, “a pattern” should be changed to “the pattern”. 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 12-13 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 12-13, the term “platelike” renders the metes and bounds of the claim unclear and should be deleted(all occurrences thereof) to overcome the rejections.
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 § 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 1-7 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nurre(9,476,255; cited on PTO 892) in view of Garcia(U.S. Pat. Appl. Publ. 2022/0195797; cited on PTO 892).
Regarding claims 1 and 14-16, Nurre discloses a screen system, comprising:
a screen(roller blind 22 considered to “Screen” and therefore meet the claim limitation) having a first edge and an opposing second edge(see Figs. 1 and 1A);
a mounting track(18) having a cradle(for receiving portion of 71 or 72, see Fig. 1A) extending between the first edges of the screen; and
at least one bracket(71 or 72, see Figs. 1 and 1A)) interfitted within the cradle of the track.
Nurre lacks side rails for receiving edges of the screen.
Garcia discloses a screen system, comprising:
a first side rail(left rail 3) having a first end(top end) and a second end(bottom end, see Fig. 1);
a second side rail(right rail 3) having a first end(top end) and a second end(bottom end);
a screen(roller blind) having a first edge configured to slide along the first side rail, and an opposing second edge configured to slide along the second side rail(see claim1);
a mounting track(2) extending between the first ends of the first and second side rails; and
at least one bracket(4) interfitted with the track,
a first alignment bushing(left bottom of 5, see Fig. 1) connected to the first end of the first side rail and configured to guide the first edge into a slide channel of the first side rail; and a second alignment bushing(right bottom of 5) connected to the first end of the second side rail and configured to guide the opposing second edge into a slide channel of the second side rail, each of the first and second alignment bushings includes: a stem(50, see Figs. 2 and 3) inserted into an opening of the associated one of the first and second rails; and a slotted funnel(extending from opposite from 51, see Fig. 3) axially offset from the stem and aligned with the slide channel, the first and second rails are substantially identical and assembled in mirrored opposition to each other(see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the system of Nurre with side rails and interfittting elements, such as disclosed by Garcia, with a reasonable degree of success, in order to have allowed for guiding of the screen during opening and closing to ensure there is no gap between the screen and sides of opening to be screened given the intended use of the system and design requirements thereof.
Regarding claim 2, Nurre and Gracia disclose the screen system of claim 1, wherein: the screen system(of Nurre) further includes a spindle(79);
the screen includes a third edge extending between the first and second edges(see Fig. 1A), the third edge being attached to the spindle along an axial length of the spindle; and
the at least one bracket includes: a first bracket(71) connecting a first end of the spindle to the mounting track; and
a second bracket(72) connecting a second end of the spindle to the mounting track(see column 14, lines 43-54).
Regarding claims 3-7, Nurre and Gracia disclose the screen system of claim 2, wherein the spindle/screen is attached to the track thru the mounting bracket via a mounting feature but lack the use of multiple attach points between the spindle and bracket.
The examiner contends that the addition of multiple attachment points, and the placement thereof, would be well within the purview of a skilled artisan in order to have allowed for further adjustability in the length of the screen used given the intended use of the system and design requirements thereof.
Regarding claim 11, Nurre and Gracia disclose the screen system of claim 1, wherein the at least one bracket is generally L-shaped(71, 72, see Fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 12, Nurre and Garcia disclose the screen system of claim 1, wherein the at least one bracket(71, 72) includes: a first portion oriented generally parallel with the mounting track after assembly(portion interfitting with track 18, see Fig. 1); and a second portion that extends orthogonally from an edge of the first platelike portion(portion perpendicular to 18, see Fig, 1).
Regarding claim 13, Nurre and Garcia disclose the screen system of claim 12, wherein: the first portion is slidingly received within a cradle formed in the mounting track(portion received between flanges on 18, see Fig. 1 and 1A); and the second portion is operatively connected to the screen(via 70, see Fig. 1A).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10 are 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.
Claim 17 is allowed.
No prior art of record shows a screen system having a spindle with a screen, side rails, a mounting track and at least one bracket adjustable within the track, and first and second spindle supports rotationally attaching the spindle to the bracket, nor any motivation to do so.
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. AUBREY 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. AUBREY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3633
/Beth A Aubrey/
Prosecution Insights