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
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 central axis, as claimed in Claim 1 [as one example] 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6, 9, 15-17, and 24 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 (also found in claims 9 and 17) recites the limitation "the receiving end of an adjacent main slat" in line 7. This should be limitation "a receiving end of an adjacent main slat" in order to maintain appropriate antecedence.
There is a typographical error in line 8 of claim 1. “stat” should be “slat”
Claim 6 recites in part “wherein screw boss”. This is grammatically incorrect.
There is a typographical error in line 13 of claim 9. “stat” should be “slat”
There is a typographical error in line 15 of claim 9. “have” should be “having”
There is a grammatical error in line 17 of claim 9. “being shaped laterally engage” should be “being shaped to laterally engage”
Claim 15 recites in part “wherein screw boss”. This is grammatically incorrect.
Claim 16 lacks a comma separating the preamble from the body of the claim.
There is a typographical error in line 16 of claim 17. “have” should be “having”
There is a grammatical error in lines 16-17 of claim 17. “being shaped laterally engage” should be “being shaped to laterally engage”
Claim 24 lacks a comma separating the preamble from the body of the claim.
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 10,16,17, and 24 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.
Line 1 of Claim 10 contains the limitation “the main slat”. This is indefinite, as it is unclear as to which of the plurality of main slats is being referred to. This rejection can be overcome by amending the claim to recite “each of said main slats”.
Claims 16 and 24 are unclear, as “and/or” includes the option of “and” such that all 3 of “a motor, a spring and a crank” would be required. It is unclear how the applicant’s disclosure supports having all 3 options together. Please amend for clarity.
Claim 17 contains the limitation “starter slat being shaped to insert into within the reel tube”. It is unclear what structure the starter slat is shaped to insert or engage with within the reel tube. Please amend for clarity.
Dependent claims are at least rejected as they depend from a rejected independent claim.
Above provides non-limiting examples, the applicant(s) must find and correct all issues similar to those discussed above.
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) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by PG Pub. US 2019/0128056 A1 – Miller.
Regarding claim 1.
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 slat body (202, fig 11) having a first end (at 212, fig 11) and a second end (at 214, fig 11);
a hook end (212, fig 11) connected to the first end of the slat body (See fig 11);
a screw boss (230, fig 11) connected to the second end of the slat body (See fig 11);
a receiving end (214, fig 11) connected to the screw boss (See fig 11);
the hook end and the receiving end each being shaped such that the hook end is laterally insertable into the receiving end of an adjacent main slat and when so inserted forms a hinge (See as in fig 9); and
the slat body having a first end to second end cross section (See fig 11) along a central axis (G, fig 11) of the stat body, the cross section including at least a first portion (See annotated fig 11) and a second portion (See annotated fig 11) each having a different radius of curvature (See annotated fig 11).
PNG
media_image1.png
710
594
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2.
Miller discloses all limitations of claim 1.
Miller further discloses the first portion (See annotated fig 11) has a radius of curvature of infinity such that the first portion is substantially linear (See annotated fig 11).
Regarding claim 3.
Miller discloses all limitations of claim 2.
Miller further discloses the first portion (See annotated fig 11) of the slat body (202, fig 11) extends from the hook end (See annotated fig 11) to the second portion (See annotated fig 11) of the slat body, and the second portion (See annotated fig 11) of the slat body extends from the first portion of the slat body to the screw boss (See annotated fig 11).
Regarding claim 4.
Miller discloses all limitations of claim 1.
Miller further discloses the first portion (See annotated fig 11) of the slat body (202, fig 11) extends from the hook end (See annotated fig 11) to the second portion (See annotated fig 11) of the slat body, and the second portion (See annotated fig 11) of the slat body extends from the first portion of the slat body to the screw boss (See annotated fig 11).
Regarding claim 5.
Miller discloses all limitations of claim 1.
Miller further discloses the screw boss (230, fig 11) is closed (The screw boss of Miller is at least closed along its length on a rear side of the slat) along its length (See fig 11).
Regarding claim 6.
Miller discloses all limitations of claim 1.
Miller further discloses screw boss (230, fig 11) has an inner wall with a non-circular shape (See adjacent 246a, fig 11).
Regarding claim 7.
Miller discloses all limitations of claim 1.
Miller further discloses the screw boss (230, fig 11) has an inner wall with a circular shape (along the rear side of the screw boss, See fig 11).
Regarding claim 8.
Miller discloses all limitations of claim 1.
Miller further discloses the first portion (See annotated fig 11) has a radius of curvature of infinity such that the first portion is substantially linear (See annotated fig 11), and the second portion (See annotated fig 11) has a finite radius of curvature such that the second portion is curved (See annotated fig 11).
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) 9-24 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 9.
Miller discloses a roller shutter system kit (as in fig 10), comprising:
a reel tube (for example, 140 in fig 10);
a plurality (as in fig 9) of identical main slats (201, fig 11), each main slat comprising:
a slat body (202, fig 11) having a first end (at 212, fig 11) and a second end (at 214, fig 11);
a hook end (212, fig 11) connected to the first end of the slat body (See fig 11);
a screw boss (230, fig 11) connected to the second end of the slat body (See fig 11);
a receiving end (214, fig 11) connected to the screw boss (See fig 11);
the hook end and the receiving end each being shaped such that the hook end is laterally insertable into the receiving end of an adjacent main slat and when so inserted forms a hinge (as in figs 9 and 10);
the slat body having a first end to second end cross section (See fig 11) along a central axis (G, fig 11) of the stat body (202, fig 11), the cross section including at least a first portion (See annotated fig 11) and a second portion (See annotated fig 11) each having a different radius of curvature (See annotated fig 11);
Miller does not disclose a reel tube having a lengthwise recess;
a driver configured to drive the reel tube;
a starter slat have a first end and a second end, the first end of the starter slat being shaped to insert into the lengthwise recess within the reel tube, and the second end of the starter slat being shaped laterally engage with a hook end of an adjacent main slat; and a pair of guide rails shaped to receive at least portions of the main slats.
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.);
a driver (112, fig 7) configured to drive the reel tube;
a starter slat (including 5a, 116, and 115, fig 8) have a first end and a second end, the first end (115, fig 8) of the starter slat being shaped to insert into the lengthwise recess within the reel tube (Fig 8); and the second end of the starter slat being shaped laterally engage with a hook end of an adjacent main slat (Fig 8) a pair of guide rails (100 and 102, Fig 7, shaped to receive at least portions of the main slats (See fig 7).
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 kit of Miller with the recessed tube, driver, starter slat, and guide rails 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 allowing the use of the slat of Miller in a roll up door as suggested by fig 7 of Konrad.
Regarding claim 10.
The combination of Miller and Konrad teaches all limitations of claim 9.
The combination, in Konrad, further teaches the receiving end of the main slat (5n, fig 8 of Konrad) has the same shape as the second end (at 5a, fig 8 of Konrad) of the starter slat (See fig 8 of Konrad).
Regarding claim 11.
The combination of Miller and Konrad teaches all limitations of claim 9.
Miller further discloses the first portion (See annotated fig 11) has a radius of curvature of infinity such that the first portion is substantially linear (See annotated fig 11).
Regarding claim 12.
The combination of Miller and Konrad teaches all limitations of claim 11.
Miller further discloses the first portion (See annotated fig 11) of the slat body (202, fig 11) extends from the hook end (See annotated fig 11) to the second portion (See annotated fig 11) of the slat body (202, fig 11), and the second portion (See annotated fig 11) of the slat body extends from the first portion of the slat body to the screw boss (See annotated fig 11).
Regarding claim 13.
The combination of Miller and Konrad teaches all limitations of claim 9.
Miller further discloses the first portion (See annotated fig 11) of the slat body (202, fig 11) extends from the hook end (See annotated fig 11) to the second portion (See annotated fig 11) of the slat body (202, fig 11), and the second portion (See annotated fig 11) of the slat body extends from the first portion of the slat body to the screw boss (See annotated fig 11).
Regarding claim 14.
The combination of Miller and Konrad teaches all limitations of claim 9.
Miller further discloses the screw boss (230, fig 11) is closed (The screw boss of Miller is at least closed along its length on a rear side of the slat) along its length (See fig 11).
Regarding claim 15.
The combination of Miller and Konrad teaches all limitations of claim 9.
Miller further discloses screw boss (230, fig 11) has an inner wall with a non-circular shape (See adjacent 246a, fig 11).
Regarding claim 16.
The combination of Miller and Konrad teaches all limitations of claim 9.
The combination, in Konrad, further teaches the driver (112, fig 7) is a motor (136, fig 7), a spring and/or a crank.
Regarding claim 17.
Miller discloses a roller shutter system (as in fig 10), comprising:
a reel tube (as at 140 in fig 10);
a plurality (as in fig 9) of identical main slats (201, fig 11) interconnected to form a curtain (as in fig 9), each main slat comprising:
a slat body (202, fig 11) having a first end (at 212, fig 11) and a second end (at 214, fig 11);
a hook end (212, fig 11) connected to the first end of the slat body (See fig 11);
a screw boss (230, fig 11) connected to the second end of the slat body (See fig 11);
a receiving end (214, fig 11) connected to the screw boss (See fig 11);
the hook end and the receiving end each being shaped such that the hook end is laterally insertable into the receiving end of an adjacent main slat and when so inserted forms a hinge (as in figs 9 and 10);
the slat body (202, fig 11) having a first end to second end cross section (See fig 11) along a central axis (G, fig 11) of the slat body, the cross section including at least a first portion (See annotated fig 11) and a second portion (See annotated fig 11) each having a different radius of curvature (See fig 11); and
the roller shutter system having (a) a retracted state in which the starter slat and the curtain are wound around the reel tube (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]; Rolling shutters are commonly used in commercial, retail and residential applications as doors or to cover windows or other openings. 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. When not in use, the rolling shutter is retracted by winding the slats about the spindle to form a roll.)
Miller does not disclose a reel tube having a lengthwise recess;
a driver configured to drive the reel tube;
a starter slat have a first end and a second end, the first end of the starter slat being shaped to insert into within the reel tube, and the second end of the starter slat being shaped laterally engage with a hook end of an adjacent main slat;
a pair of guide rails receiving at least lateral end portions of the curtain;
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.);
a driver (112, fig 7) configured to drive the reel tube;
a starter slat (including 5a, 116, and 115, fig 8) have a first end and a second end, the first end (115, fig 8) of the starter slat being shaped to insert into the lengthwise recess within the reel tube (Fig 8); and the second end of the starter slat being shaped laterally engage with a hook end of an adjacent main slat (Fig 8) a pair of guide rails (100 and 102, Fig 7, shaped to receive at least portions of the main slats (See fig 7).
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 kit of Miller with the recessed tube, driver, starter slat, and guide rails 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 allowing the use of the slat of Miller in a roll up door as suggested by fig 7 of Konrad.
Regarding claim 18.
The combination of Miller and Konrad teaches all limitations of claim 17.
The combination, in Konrad, further teaches the receiving end of the main slat (5n, fig 8 of Konrad) has the same shape as the second end (at 5a, fig 8 of Konrad) of the starter slat (See fig 8 of Konrad).
Regarding claim 19.
The combination of Miller and Konrad teaches all limitations of claim 17.
Miller further discloses the first portion (See annotated fig 11) has a radius of curvature of infinity such that the first portion is substantially linear (See annotated fig 11).
Regarding claim 20.
The combination of Miller and Konrad teaches all limitations of claim 19.
Miller further discloses the first portion (See annotated fig 11) of the body extends from the hook end to the second portion of the body (See annotated fig 11), and the second portion (See annotated fig 11) of the body extends from the first portion of the body to the screw boss (See annotated fig 11).
Regarding claim 21.
The combination of Miller and Konrad teaches all limitations of claim 17.
Miller further discloses the first portion (See annotated fig 11) of the body extends from the hook end to the second portion of the body (See annotated fig 11), and the second portion (See annotated fig 11) of the body extends from the first portion of the body to the screw boss (See annotated fig 11).
Regarding claim 22.
The combination of Miller and Konrad teaches all limitations of claim 17.
Miller further discloses the screw boss (230, fig 11) is closed along its length (the screw boss is at least closed along its length on the rear of the slat (See fig 11)).
Regarding claim 23.
The combination of Miller and Konrad teaches all limitations of claim 17.
Miller further discloses screw boss (230, fig 11) has an inner wall with a non-circular shape (See adjacent 246a, fig 11).
Regarding claim 24.
The combination of Miller and Konrad teaches all limitations of claim 17.
The combination, in Konrad, further teaches the driver (112, fig 7) is a motor (136, fig 7), a spring and/or a crank.
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
/DANIEL P CAHN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3634