DETAILED ACTION
The following Non-Final Office Action is in response to the application filed 7/31/2024.
Status of the claims: Claims 1-20are hereby examined below.
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 because Figures 8A-14B appear to be photographs and not black line drawings. These images are unclear and the reproducibility is questionable. 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 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.
Claim 15 is 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 15 recites “a zero gravity shade”. Based on the definition provided in the specification, a “zero gravity shade” allows for a cordless operation. However, claim 1 includes a length adjuster such as a chain clutch. It is unclear how the device can include a length adjuster but also be a zero gravity shade.
Claims are being examined as best understood.
Claim Interpretation
Based on the definition provided in the specification, examiner takes “inside reverse roll direction relative to each other” as recited in claim 2 to mean that the roller shades have opposite rotational directions such that, when mounted, the shade of each roller shade rolls and unrolls from a side of the roller shade closest to the other roller shade.
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.
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nien US 2006/0249260.
In regard to claim 18, Nien ‘260 discloses a roller shade system comprising: a pair of roller shades (formed by 50,70 Fig. 6) each having a shade (70) that can be retracted and extended between fully raised and fully lowered positions, wherein the roller shades can be independently translated left and right (along 30, Fig. 6) into fully overlapped and minimally overlapped positions relative to each other independently of the lengthwise extension or retraction of the shades, wherein the pair of roller shades can be arranged into 16 different configurations of the fully overlapped, minimally overlapped, fully raised, and fully lowered positions. (the shades can be incrementally moved 16 times to achieve this)
In regard to claim 20, Nien ‘260 discloses wherein the shade (70) has a substantially uniform appearance throughout the length and width of the shade.
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 1,3,11,14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nien US 2006/0249260 in view of Liu et al US 6,739,373.
In regard to claim 1, with reference to Figure 6, Nien ‘260 discloses a translatable roller shade system for mounting over a building opening, the roller shade system comprising: an elongated first (right half of 30) and second (left half of 30) tracks that, when mounted, are positioned adjacent each other such that they extend horizontally in parallel from a first end of the roller shade system to a second end of the roller shade system, the tracks each having a channel (31, Fig. 7) that, when mounted, has a downward-facing slot extending along at least a substantial portion of the track between the first and second ends of the roller shade system; and first and second roller shades (formed by 50,70) each comprising a tube (unnumbered, but paragraph [0022] states a roller blind which requires a tube for the shade), a shade (70, Fig. 6) wrapped on the tube, first and second roller brackets (53,41 Fig. 6) that support the tube at each end of the tube, wherein the first and second roller shades, when installed, are supported from above by the respective first and second tracks (31) for translational movement relative to the tracks and each other such that the roller shades can be moved left or right along the tracks between fully overlapped and minimally overlapped positions.
Nien ‘260 fails to disclose a length adjuster that connects between the tube and at least one roller bracket to enable adjustment of the roller shade between a lowered position in which the shade is lowered over the building opening and a raised position in which the shade is rolled up onto the tube so as to reveal the building opening.
Liu et al ‘373 disclose a length adjuster (20,30,40,50,60 Fig. 2) that connects between the tube (column 1, lines 28-30) and at least one roller bracket (10) to enable adjustment of the roller shade between a lowered position in which the shade is lowered over the building opening and a raised position in which the shade is rolled up onto the tube so as to reveal the building opening.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the device of Nien ‘260 to include a length adjuster as taught by Liu et al ‘373 for the purpose of providing a known mechanism for operating the roller blind to move up and down.
In regard to claim 3, Nien ‘260 discloses wherein the first and second roller shades (formed by 50,70), when installed, are spaced from each other by an offset distance. Nien ‘260 fails to disclose the offset distance is within the range of 3 to 5 inches. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success to make the offset distance between the roller shades be 3 to 5 inches depending on the length of the blinds so as allow adequate spacing to not interfere with each other. Such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, changes in size or shape without special functional significance are not patentable. Research Corp.v. Nasco Industries, Inc., 501 F2d 358; 182 USPQ 449 (CA 7) cert. Denied 184 USPQ 193; 43 USLW 3359 (1974).
In regard to claim 11, Nien ‘260 discloses wherein the roller brackets (53,41) each include a bracket body (53) and a glide member (horizontal portion of 41), wherein the glide members (horizontal portion of 41) each fit into the channel (31) of an associated one of the tracks from an end of the track, the glide member (horizontal portion of 41) of each roller bracket being attached to the bracket body (53) via a connecting link (vertical portion of 41) that, when mounted, extends from the glide member (horizontal portion of 41) through the slot to the bracket body (53), wherein the glide member (horizontal portion of 41) is larger than the slot such that the glide member is captured for gliding movement along the track to thereby permit translational movement of the roller shades along the length of the track.
In regard to claim 12, Nien ‘260 fails to disclose wherein the glide member of each roller bracket comprises nylon or acetal plastic. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the device of Nien ‘260 to form the glide members from nylon or acetal plastic for their strength and wear resistance. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
In regard to claim 14 Nien ‘260 discloses wherein each shade (50,70) can be retracted and extended between fully raised and fully lowered positions, wherein the roller shades can be independently translated left and right into fully overlapped and minimally overlapped positions relative to each other independently of the lengthwise extension or retraction of the shades, wherein the pair of roller shades can be arranged into 16 different configurations of the fully overlapped, minimally overlapped, fully raised, and fully lowered positions. (the shades can be incrementally moved 16 times to achieve this)
In regard to claim 15, Nien et al ‘260 discloses wherein the roller shades each comprise a zero-gravity roller shade (cordless spring roller, paragraph [0022]).
In regard to claim 16, Nien et al ‘260 as modified by Liu et al ‘373 discloses wherein the length adjuster (20,30,40,50,60) comprises a chain loop (50) and a roller shade clutch (30).
In regard to claim 17, Nien et al ‘260 discloses wherein the shade (50,70) has a substantially uniform appearance throughout the length and width of the shade.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nien US 2006/0249260 and Liu et al US 6,739,373 as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Nien et al US 2005/0087309.
In regard to claim 2, as interpreted above, Nien et al ‘260 fails to disclose wherein the roller shades, when installed, have an inside reverse roll direction relative to each other. However, Nien et al ‘309 disclose wherein the roller shades (83,84), when installed, have an inside reverse roll direction relative to each other. (Fig. 6 shows the shades rolling to the inside in the reverse manner). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the device of Nien ‘260 to make the shades have an inside reverse roll direction relative to each other as taught by Nien et al ‘309 as such is shown to be a known configuration for multiple roll shade. Such would minimize the gap between shades.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nien US 2006/0249260 and Liu et al US 6,739,373 as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Chen US 10,743,698.
In regard to claim 4, Nien ‘260 fails to disclose wherein the first and second tracks each comprise sections of aluminum track, and wherein the roller shade system further comprises a plurality of connecting brackets that attach to each track to rigidly fix the tracks together into a parallel orientation.
Chen ‘698 discloses first and second tracks each comprise sections of track (2, Fig. 2), and wherein the roller shade system further comprises a plurality of connecting brackets (1,3,4 Fig. 2) that attach to each track to rigidly fix the tracks (2) together into a parallel orientation.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the device of Nien ‘260 to make the tracks be formed from sections of track rigidly fixed to connecting brackets as taught by Chen ‘698 for the purpose of easily changing or replacing individual track sections if damaged.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the tracks to be aluminum for the purpose of providing strength while being relatively lightweight.
In regard to claim 5, Nien ‘260 as modified by Chen ‘698 disclose wherein the connecting brackets (1,3,4 Chen ‘698) are configured to attach to the tracks (2, Chen ‘698) so as to maintain the tracks in a spaced, parallel orientation relative to each other. (Fig. 2, Chen ‘698)
In regard to claim 6, Nien ‘260 as modified by Chen ‘698 disclose wherein the connecting brackets include a pair of end brackets (4, Fig. 2), wherein one of the end brackets (4) attaches to a first end of each track (2) and the other of the end brackets (4) attaches to a second end of each track (2).
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nien US 2006/0249260, Liu et al US 6,739,373 and Chen US 10,743,698 as applied to claim 6 and further in view of Bafna et al US 2023/0265662.
In regard to claim 7, Nien ‘260/Liu et al ‘373/Chen ‘698 fail to disclose wherein each of the tracks include an external T-slot rail extending between the first and second ends of the track opposite the slot, and each end bracket includes a pair of T-nuts that fit into mating engagement with the T-slot rail at the ends of the tracks.
Bafna et al ‘662 discloses tracks include an external T-slot rail (206, Fig. 2A)extending between the first and second ends of the track opposite the slot, and a T-nut (602, Fig. 6) that fits into mating engagement with the T-slot rail (206) at the ends of the tracks.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the device of Nien ‘260 to include an external T-slot rail and T-nut as taught by Bafna et al ‘662 for the purpose of providing a secure, yet adjustable connection.
In regard to claim 8, Nien ‘260 as modified by Liu et al ‘373/Chen ‘698/Bafna et al ‘662 disclose wherein the end brackets (4, Chen ‘698) each comprise an upper plate (top) having the T-nuts (as taught by Bafna et al ‘662) located on a lower side of the upper plate and a side plate (right side) extending downwardly from the upper plate adjacent the T-nuts, wherein the side plate comprises an abutment against which one end of each of the tracks (2, Chen) bear when the end bracket is attached to that end of the tracks by having the T-nuts fully inserted into the T-slot rails at that one end.
In regard to claim 9, Nien ‘260 as modified by Liu et al ‘373/Chen ‘698/Bafna et al ‘662 disclose wherein each of the end brackets (4, Chen ‘698) comprise an identical unitary piece of milled aluminum and the each of the tracks comprise identical sections. Chen ‘698 fails to disclose the brackets are milled aluminum and the tracks are extruded aluminum. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to form the end brackets and tracks from aluminum for lightweight and strength. Regarding the limitations of milled and extruded, “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985
In regard to claim 10, Nien ‘260/Liu et al ‘373/Chen ‘698 as modified by Bafna et al ‘662 disclose wherein the plurality of connecting brackets (1,3 Chen ‘698) include at least one center bracket (3) having a pair of integral T-nuts (602, Bafna et al ‘662) on a lower side of the center bracket, the T-nuts adapted to fit into mating engagement with the T-slot rails (208, Bafna et al ‘6262).
Claims 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nien US 2006/0249260 and Liu et al US 6,739,373 as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Bakalar US 6,860,064.
In regard to claim 13, Nien ‘260 fails to disclose wherein the building opening comprises first and second glazed panels positioned side by side when the building opening is closed, the glazed panels each having a width and length, and wherein each shade has a width and fully lowered length that are the same or larger than the width and length of the glazed panels, respectively.
Bakalar ‘064 discloses wherein the building opening comprises first and second glazed panels (22,24 column 6, lines 1-13 state that the doors contain windows) positioned side by side when the building opening is closed, the glazed panels each having a width and length, and wherein each shade (34) has a width and fully lowered length that are the same or larger than the width and length of the glazed panels, respectively (column 6, lines 43-57).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the device of Nien ‘260 to include first and second glazed panels wherein the shades are the same width and length of the glazed panels as taught by Bakalar ‘064 for the purpose of maximizing light blockage if desired.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nien US 2006/0249260 in view of Nien et al US 2005/0087309.
In regard to claim 19, Nien et al ‘260 fails to disclose wherein the roller shades have opposite rotational directions such that the shade of each roller shade rolls and unrolls from a side of the roller shade closest to the other roller shade. However, Nien et al ‘309 discloses wherein the roller shades (83,84) have opposite rotational directions such that the shade of each roller shade rolls and unrolls from a side of the roller shade closest to the other roller shade. (Fig. 6 shows the shades rolling to the inside in the reverse manner). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the device of Nien ‘260 to make the shades have an inside reverse roll direction relative to each other as taught by Nien et al ‘309 as such is shown to be a known configuration for multiple roll shade. Such would minimize the gap between shades.
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 JEREMY C RAMSEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3133. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Wed 7:00-3:30.
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.
/JEREMY C RAMSEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3634
/Johnnie A. Shablack/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634