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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment to the claims filed on 05/06/2026 does not comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.121(c) because the status identifiers for claims 26 and 27 are inaccurate. Amendments to the claims filed on or after July 30, 2003 must comply with 37 CFR 1.121(c) which states:
(c) Claims. Amendments to a claim must be made by rewriting the entire claim with all changes (e.g., additions and deletions) as indicated in this subsection, except when the claim is being canceled. Each amendment document that includes a change to an existing claim, cancellation of an existing claim or addition of a new claim, must include a complete listing of all claims ever presented, including the text of all pending and withdrawn claims, in the application. The claim listing, including the text of the claims, in the amendment document will serve to replace all prior versions of the claims, in the application. In the claim listing, the status of every claim must be indicated after its claim number by using one of the following identifiers in a parenthetical expression: (Original), (Currently amended), (Canceled), (Withdrawn), (Previously presented), (New), and (Not entered).
(1) Claim listing. All of the claims presented in a claim listing shall be presented in ascending numerical order. Consecutive claims having the same status of “canceled” or “not entered” may be aggregated into one statement (e.g., Claims 1–5 (canceled)). The claim listing shall commence on a separate sheet of the amendment document and the sheet(s) that contain the text of any part of the claims shall not contain any other part of the amendment.
(2) When claim text with markings is required. All claims being currently amended in an amendment paper shall be presented in the claim listing, indicate a status of “currently amended,” and be submitted with markings to indicate the changes that have been made relative to the immediate prior version of the claims. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived. Only claims having the status of “currently amended,” or “withdrawn” if also being amended, shall include markings. If a withdrawn claim is currently amended, its status in the claim listing may be identified as “withdrawn—currently amended.”
(3) When claim text in clean version is required. The text of all pending claims not being currently amended shall be presented in the claim listing in clean version, i.e., without any markings in the presentation of text. The presentation of a clean version of any claim having the status of “original,” “withdrawn” or “previously presented” will constitute an assertion that it has not been changed relative to the immediate prior version, except to omit markings that may have been present in the immediate prior version of the claims of the status of “withdrawn” or “previously presented.” Any claim added by amendment must be indicated with the status of “new” and presented in clean version, i.e., without any underlining.
(4) When claim text shall not be presented; canceling a claim.
(i) No claim text shall be presented for any claim in the claim listing with the status of “canceled” or “not entered.”
(ii) Cancellation of a claim shall be effected by an instruction to cancel a particular claim number. Identifying the status of a claim in the claim listing as “canceled” will constitute an instruction to cancel the claim.
(5) Reinstatement of previously canceled claim. A claim which was previously canceled may be reinstated only by adding the claim as a “new” claim with a new claim number.
Since the reply filed on 05/06/2026 appears to be bona fide, the claims will be treated on their merits. However, if repeated, applicant may receive a notice of non-compliant amendment.
Claim Objections
Claims 25 and 26 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 25 and 26 recite in part “the first portion has a radius of curvature of infinity relative to of the slat body”. This is grammatically incorrect.
Claim 26 contains a typographical error. In line 4, “each of the main slates” should be “each of the main slats”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 25 and 26 recite in part “the nub projection having an engaging surface to engage the hook to limit rotation of the hinge.” There is insufficient support for this limitation as originally filed.
Claims 25 and 26 recite in part “the first portion transitions directly into the second portion substantially at the midpoint of the slat body”. There is insufficient support for this limitation as originally filed. Paragraph [0027] of the applicant’s specification recites in part “The two portions 310/312 are each shown as roughly half of the slat body 308,”. The recitation of “roughly half” is broader than “substantially at the midpoint”, and the line of transition shown in figs 4 and 6b appears to be substantially one third of the total distance from the top of the slat to the bottom of the slat.
Claim 27 is at least rejected for depending from rejected claim 26. Dependent claims contain all limitations of the claims from which they depend, and therefore inherit their new matter issues.
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 25-27 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 25 and 26 recite in part “the nub projection having an engaging surface to engage the hook to limit rotation of the hinge.” It is not clear how the nub projection can engage the hook. Please clarify.
Claims 25 and 26 also recite in part “the slat body having a cross section extending from the first end to the second end along the left end”. There is insufficient basis for “the left end”, such that it is unclear as to what is intended to be claimed.
Claims 25 and 26 recite “the first end”, “the second end, and “the first and second end”, in the 13th and 14th lines of claim 25, and the 17th and 18th lines of claim 26. It is not clear as to whether these recitations refer to the first and second ends of the slat bodies, or the first and second ends of the main slats previously introduced. Please clarify.
Claim 27 is at least rejected for depending from rejected claim 26. 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) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by PG Pub. US 2019/0128056 A1 – Miller.
Regarding claim 25.
Miller discloses a main slat (201, fig 11) for a roller shutter system (Paragraph [0007]; A slat for a rolling shutter is disclosed), comprising:
a hook end (See annotated fig 11) on a first end of the main slat, the hook end including a hook (212, fig 11) and nub projection (See annotated fig 11);
a receiving end (214, fig 11) on second end (See annotated fig 11) of the main slat;
a screw boss (230, fig 11) adjacent to and distinct from the receiving end (See fig 11);
the hook end and the receiving end each being shaped such that the hook end is laterally insertable into a receiving end of an adjacent main slat and when so inserted forms a hinge (See fig 11), the nub projection having an engaging surface to engage the hook to limit rotation of the hinge (See fig 11);
a slat body (See annotated fig 11) having a first end adjacent to and distinct from the hook end (See annotated fig 11), and a second end adjacent to and distinct from the screw boss (See annotated fig 11);
the hook end, the receiving end, the screw boss, and the slat body each extending between a left and right side of the main slat (See annotated fig 11);
the slat body having a cross section (See fig 11) extending from the first end to the second end along the left end with a midpoint (See annotated fig 11) between the first and second end, the slat body including along the cross section:
a first portion and a second portion (See annotated fig 11), the first portion beginning at the first end of the slat body and ending at the second portion (See annotated fig 11), the second portion beginning at the second end of the slat body and ending at the first portion (See annotated fig 11);
the first portion transitions directly into the second portion substantially at the midpoint of the slat body (See annotated fig 11);
the first portion has a radius of curvature of infinity relative to of the slat body such that the first portion is substantially linear (See annotated fig 11); and
the second portion has a finite radius of curvature relative to the central axis of the slat body such that the second portion is curved (See annotated fig 11).
PNG
media_image1.png
726
778
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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) 26 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of US Pat. 8,857,497 – Konrad et al., hereinafter Konrad.
Regarding claim 26.
Miller discloses a roller shutter system (See fig 10), comprising:
a reel tube (140, fig 10);
a plurality of identical main slats (201, fig 11), each of the main slates comprising:
a hook end (See annotated fig 11) on a first end of the main slat, the hook end including a hook (212, fig 11) and nub projection (See annotated fig 11);
a receiving end (214, fig 11) on second end (See annotated fig 11) of the main slat;
a screw boss (230, fig 11) adjacent to and distinct from the receiving end (See fig 11);
the hook end and the receiving end each being shaped such that the hook end is laterally insertable into a receiving end of an adjacent main slat and when so inserted forms a hinge (See fig 11), the nub projection having an engaging surface to engage the hook to limit rotation of the hinge (See fig 11);
a slat body (See annotated fig 11) having a first end adjacent to and distinct from the hook end (See annotated fig 11), and a second end adjacent to and distinct from the screw boss (See annotated fig 11);
the hook end, the receiving end, the screw boss, and the slat body each extending between a left and right side of the main slat (See annotated fig 11);
the slat body having a cross section (See fig 11) extending from the first end to the second end along the left end with a midpoint (See annotated fig 11) between the first and second end, the slat body including along the cross section:
a first portion and a second portion (See annotated fig 11), the first portion beginning at the first end of the slat body and ending at the second portion (See annotated fig 11), the second portion beginning at the second end of the slat body and ending at the first portion (See annotated fig 11);
the first portion transitions directly into the second portion substantially at the midpoint of the slat body (See annotated fig 11);
the first portion has a radius of curvature of infinity relative to of the slat body such that the first portion is substantially linear (See annotated fig 11); and
the second portion has a finite radius of curvature relative to the central axis of the slat body such that the second portion is curved (See annotated fig 11).
Miller does not disclose a reel tube having a lengthwise recess; or
a driver configured to drive the reel tube;
However, Konrad teaches a reel tube (114, fig 7) having a lengthwise recess (Konrad teaches a
tube with an octagonal cross-section seen best in fig 8, and the flats of the tube are recessed as
compared to the points.); and
a driver (112, fig 7) configured to drive the reel tube;
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 system of Miller with the recessed reel tube and driver of Konrad. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of facilitating the use of the slats of Miller in a roll up door.
Regarding claim 27.
The combination of Miller and Konrad teaches all limitations of claim 26.
Miller further discloses:
the roller shutter system having (a) a retracted state in which the starter slat and the curtain are wound around the reel tube (Paragraph [0003]; When not in use, the rolling shutter is retracted by winding the slats about the spindle to form a roll.) (b) a deployed state in which at least a portion of the curtain is unwound from the reel tube and extends across a portal (Paragraph [0003]; The rolling shutter is made of a series of linked slats that hang from a spindle to cover a doorway, window or other opening of a building or fixture.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that the rationale of the rejection is flawed due to an improper and arbitrary placement of lines in the slat of figure 11 of Miller. Applicant is reminded that per MPEP 2111, “During patent examination, the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.", and that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues that claim 1 recites the presence of two, and only two portions between the first and second ends of the ends of the slat body, and that fig 11 of Miller teaches four (4) areas of different curvatures between the ends of curved body, and that the presence of four different portions does not meet the claim language. This is not persuasive for a couple of reasons. Firstly, the use of “comprising” as a transition phrase in claims 1 and 25 is open language which does not preclude additional structure beyond that which is claimed. Secondly, applicant’s argument that the slat body must begin immediately adjacent to and distinct from the nub projection is a feature that does not appear in the rejected claims.
In response to applicant’s arguments regarding how the drawings are described in Miller, MPEP 2125 states “Drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). However, the picture must show all the claimed structural features and how they are put together. Jockmus v. Leviton, 28 F.2d 812 (2d Cir. 1928). The origin of the drawing is immaterial. For instance, drawings in a design patent can anticipate or make obvious the claimed invention as can drawings in utility patents. When the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979). See MPEP § 2121.04 for more information on prior art drawings as "enabled disclosures."”.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
/DANIEL P CAHN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights