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 .
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because the drawings filed 07/18/2024 are not proper black and white line drawings. This is frequently the result of drawings which are filed in a very dark grey (so dark that it is appears black such as RGB value 37, 37, 37) instead of pure black (RGB value 0, 0, 0). While very dark grey may appear black, it causes artifacts and inconsistent line thickness. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Lines and strokes of different thicknesses may be used in the same drawing where different thicknesses have a different meaning.
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 roller blind of claim 9 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
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
In the instant case, the abstract contains the implied phrase “The present invention provides”.
Claim Objections
The claims appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
The claims are further objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites in part “A winding structure, wherein: comprising a control head”. This is grammatically incorrect.
Claim 4 recites in part “two closely adjacent elastic modules”. This is redundant.
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 4-9 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.
Claim 4 recites in part “two closely adjacent elastic modules are connected and transmitted through the second fixture blocks and the second clamping grooves”. It is unclear as to how a module can be transmitted through fixture blocks and clamping grooves. Please clarify.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
The term “precipitation tank” in claim 6 is used by the claim to mean “cavity,” while the accepted meaning is “a vessel for holding rain water.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
The term “bayonet” in claim 8 is used by the claim to mean “opening,” while the accepted meaning is “a blade that may be fixed to the muzzle of a rifle.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Claims 5-9 are at least rejected for depending from rejected claim 4. Dependent claims contain all limitations of the claims from which they depend, and therefore inherit their clarity issues.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by PG Pub US 2025/0034939 A1 – Timmins.
Regarding claim 1.
Timmins discloses a winding structure (fig 3), wherein:
comprising a control head (326, fig 3), an elastic module group (322, fig 3) and a stabilizer (324, fig 3) connected sequentially along a same axis (328, fig 3);
the elastic module group (322, fig 3) is configured to provide main winding elastic force for a roller blind (Paragraph [0042]; Referring to FIG. 3, roller tube assembly 300 includes a roller tube 320 into an interior of which a torque generator 322 and a travel limiter 324 are inserted.);
the control head (326, fig 3) is configured to adjust and strengthen rolling elastic force of the elastic module group (Paragraph [0042]; A torque adjustment input 326 extends from a first end of roller tube 320 (see FIG. 2C).); and
the stabilizer (324, fig 3) is configured to provide buffer damping in winding process (Paragraph [0042]; a travel limiter 324).
Regarding claim 2.
Timmins discloses all limitations of claim 1.
Timmins further discloses:
the elastic module group (322, fig 3) comprises at least one elastic module (including one each of 342, 352, 354, 356, fig 6a); and
the at least one elastic module (including one each of 342, 352, 354, 356, fig 6a) can be spliced and superposed to change elastic force of the elastic module group (See fig 6a).
Regarding claim 3.
Timmins discloses all limitations of claim 2.
Timmins further discloses:
the at least one elastic module (322, fig 3) comprises at least one first supporting shaft (362, fig 7) and at least one coil spring (342, fig 7), wherein the at least one first supporting shaft is rotatably arranged on at least one housing (350, fig 7), the at least one coil spring is arranged in the at least one housing (See fig 6a), an end portion (358 fig 7) of an inner ring of the at least one coil spring is connected to the at least one first supporting shaft (via 360, fig 8), and an end portion of an outer ring (356, fig 7) of the at least one coil spring is connected to the at least one housing (See figs 6 and 8); and
a first drivepipe (504, fig 7) is fixedly provided at one end (364, fig 7) of the at least one first supporting shaft (362, fig 7), and an inner diameter of the first drivepipe is adapted to a diameter of the at least one first supporting shaft (See fig 8).
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.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Timmins in view of US Pat. 8,807,196 – Mullet et al., hereinafter Mullet.
Regarding claim 4.
Timmins discloses all limitations of claim 3.
Timmins does not disclose:
second clamping grooves are provided on an outer wall of one end surface of the at least one housing, and second fixture blocks are provided on an outer wall of the other end surface, a shape of the second fixture blocks is matched with that of the clamping grooves, and positions of the second fixture blocks correspond to positions of the second clamping grooves; and
two closely adjacent elastic modules are connected and transmitted through the second fixture blocks and the second clamping grooves.
However, Mullet teaches:
second clamping grooves (48, fig 3) are provided on an outer wall of one end surface (42, fig 5) of the at least one housing (38, fig 3), and second fixture blocks (50, fig 4) are provided on an outer wall of the other end surface (40, fig 4), a shape of the second fixture blocks is matched with that of the clamping grooves (Column 7, lines 40-41; Connector 50 cooperates with receiver 48 to lock two separate housings together), and positions of the second fixture blocks correspond to positions of the second clamping grooves (Compare figs 4 and 5); and
two closely adjacent elastic modules are connected and transmitted through the second fixture blocks and the second clamping grooves (Column 7, lines 40-41; Connector 50 cooperates with receiver 48 to lock two separate housings together).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure of Timmins with the blocks and grooves of Mullet. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of allowing releasable attachment of adjacent elastic modules, allowing for scaling of the elastic module group to accommodate coverings of different weights.
Regarding claim 5.
The combination of Timmins and Mullet teaches all limitations of claim 4.
Timmins further discloses:
a control head comprises a first sleeve (380, fig 7), a supporting sleeve (370, fig 9), and a pre-tightening member (372, fig 9;
the first sleeve is rotatably sleeved on an outer side of the supporting sleeve (See fig 8), a second drivepipe is provided at an end portion of the supporting sleeve (See along axis in fig 9), an inner diameter of the second drivepipe is adapted to a diameter of the first supporting shaft (via 390, see fig 8), and is configured to connect with the elastic module group (See fig 8); and
the pre-tightening member is rotatably inserted in the supporting sleeve (See fig 8), and the pre-tightening member and the supporting sleeve cooperate in unidirectional rotation to tighten and adjust at least one coil spring (Paragraph [0057]; the step of adjusting the torque level of the torque generator 322 relative to the roller tube 320 includes the step of moving the operator actuatable input 374 relative to the roller tube 320. (Examiner notes that although Timmins discloses bidirectional adjustment, only one of those directions will tighten the coil springs, and thus meets the limitation as claimed.)).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Timmins and Mullet as applied to claims 4-5 above, and further in view of US Pat. 11,866,994 – Francoeur et al., hereinafter Francoeur.
Regarding claim 6.
The combination of Timmins and Mullet teaches all limitations of claim 5.
The combination does not teach:
at least one elastic clamping strip is provided at an end portion of the pre-tightening member to serve as a pawl;
a precipitation tank is correspondingly provided on an end surface of the supporting sleeve, a plurality of clamping teeth are provided on a tank wall of the precipitation tank, and the plurality of clamping teeth are distributed in a circular array around an axis of the supporting sleeve to serve as a ratchet wheel; and
the pre-tightening member and the supporting sleeve cooperate in unidirectional rotation through the at least one elastic clamping strip and the clamping teeth.
However, Francoeur teaches:
at least one elastic clamping strip (556, fig 23) is provided at an end portion of the pre-tightening member (550, fig 3) to serve as a pawl (See figs 23 and 24);
a precipitation tank (355, fig 2) is correspondingly provided on an end surface of the supporting sleeve (350, fig 2), a plurality of clamping teeth (358, fig 23) are provided on a tank wall of the precipitation tank, and the plurality of clamping teeth are distributed in a circular array around an axis of the supporting sleeve to serve as a ratchet wheel (See figs 23 and 24); and
the pre-tightening member and the supporting sleeve cooperate in unidirectional rotation through the at least one elastic clamping strip and the clamping teeth (See figs 23 and 24).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination of Timmins and Mullet with the ratcheting interface of Francoeur. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of providing positive, tactile, stepwise, unidirectional adjustment of the coil springs.
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Timmins, Mullet, and Francoeur as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of US Pat. 11,306,535 – Lu.
Regarding claim 7.
The combination of Timmins, Mullet, and Francoeur teaches all limitations of claim 6.
Timmins further discloses:
a stabilizer (324, fig 3) comprises a second supporting shaft (532, fig 7), and a second sleeve (540, fig 7);
the second supporting shaft is rotatably arranged on the second sleeve (Paragraph [0052]; Roller tube support 540 is rotated relative to support 532 and rotates with roller tube 320 while support 532 remains stationary relative to roller tube 320 due to a fixed connection with base 370 through output 376 and elongated shaft 502.); and
a diameter of an end portion of the second supporting shaft passing through the second sleeve (See fig 8) is adapted to a diameter of the first supporting shaft to connect with the elastic module group (via 502, fig 7; see also fig 8).
Timmins does not disclose: a torsion spring, the torsion spring is sleeved onto the second supporting shaft, the torsion spring is provided in the second sleeve, a clamping strip at an end portion of the torsion spring is clamped on an inner wall of the second sleeve and rotates with the second sleeve, and buffer damping is formed through rotational friction between the torsion spring and the second supporting shaft.
However, Lu teaches: a torsion spring (55, fig 3), the torsion spring is sleeved onto the second supporting shaft (52, fig 3), the torsion spring is provided in the second sleeve (541, fig 3), a clamping strip (551, fig 3) at an end portion of the torsion spring (See fig 3) is clamped on an inner wall (at 542, fig 3) of the second sleeve and rotates with the second sleeve (Column 7, lines 24-28; a torsion spring 55 sleeved on the outer side of the second adjusting core 52, wherein the end of the torsion spring is provided with a second lead-out part 551 and the second lead-out part 551 is clamped in the positioning groove 542 of the second rotating plug 54.), and buffer damping is formed through rotational friction between the torsion spring and the second supporting shaft (See fig 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Timmins, Mullet, and Francoeur with the torsion spring arrangement of Lu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of increasing dynamic damping of the stabilizer, enhancing smooth operation of the curtain.
Regarding claim 8.
The combination of Timmins, Mullet, Francoeur, and Lu teaches all limitations of claim 7.
Timmins further discloses:
a maximum outer diameter (See fig 8) of the second sleeve (540, fig 7), and a maximum outer diameter (See fig 8) of at least one housing (350, fig 7), are equal, and bayonets (352, fig 7) that can rotate to a same straight line are arranged thereon (See fig 8).
Timmins does not disclose: a maximum outer diameter (See fig 8) of a first sleeve (380, fig 7) is equal to the other maximum diameters.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Timmins, Mullet, Francoeur, and Lu by making the maximum outer diameter (See fig 8) of a first sleeve (380, fig 7) to be equal to the other maximum diameters. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of simplifying manufacturing.
Regarding claim 9.
The combination of Timmins, Mullet, Francoeur, and Lu teaches all limitations of claim 8.
Timmins further discloses: A roller blind (See fig 2a).
Conclusion
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 JOHN W HANES JR whose telephone number is (571)272-8840. 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, 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.
/J.W.H./ Examiner, Art Unit 3634
/ABE MASSAD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634