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 .
Election/Restrictions
The applicant elected without traverse Species V, Figs. 1, 11, and 18-30 (window balance system 700 and shoe 704/900), and claims 2-21, in the reply filed on 12-30-2025 and as clarified in the Office action mailed 04-07-2026.
No claims are currently withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species.
Double Patenting
The terminal disclaimer filed 06-30-2026 respecting U.S. Patent No. 11,560,743 has been approved thereby overcoming the previous nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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 2, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Uken (US#2017/0211305).
Regarding claim 2, Uken discloses a shoe 210 for a “block and tackle” window balance system 600 (Fig. 3C, spring 626, pulleys 628, and cord 632) having a U- shaped channel 630 (Figs. 6), the shoe comprising: an elongate portion (vertical portion of 210 including labeled elements 211-213 as shown in Fig. 3A); an enlarged (wider) portion (horizontal portion of 210 including labeled elements 214,218,219 as shown in Fig. 3A) extending from the elongate portion (transverse to and at an end of the elongate portion) such that the shoe is substantially T-shaped (Fig. 3A); a channel connector (channel defined in the front of 211 above the enlarged portion in front view Fig. 3A) defined by a front of the elongate portion, wherein the front of the elongate portion is configured to face a base wall of the U-shaped channel (Figs. 6); and a chamber 219 defined at an intersection of the elongate portion and the enlarged portion at the front (Fig. 3A), wherein the chamber is sized and shaped to directly receive at least a portion of a head of a pivot bar 114 of a window sash 104/106 ([0044], Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 7, wherein the chamber does not extend all the way through the shoe (see rear view of shoe in Fig. 3B).
Regarding claim 10, wherein the enlarged portion includes two opposing end surfaces (end surfaces which receive ends 215 of element 214) and a bottom surface 218 (Fig. 3B) , the end surfaces (surfaces above element 214 in Fig. 3A and/or below element 215 in Fig. 3B) and the bottom surface (perimeter of 218) are at least partially curved surfaces.
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 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uken (US#2017/0211305).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Uken fails to disclose the width of the enlarged portion, specifically a width of about one inch or about 1-1/4 inch. It is noted the applicant invites change to the width of the enlarged portion ([0107], “Accordingly, it should be appreciated that the enlarged portion 902 can be tailored so as to correspond to any window jamb size while still providing the benefits of the window balance system as described herein.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Uken such that the width of the enlarged portion was about one inch or about 1-1/4 inch to optimize cooperation with a specific window jamb as a change in the size of a prior art device (e.g. width of enlarged portion) is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6, 8, and 9 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.
Claims 13-21 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3, the channel connector of Uken applied to claim 2 above fails to comprise a hook defined as a slot within the elongate portion and configured to receive a rivet of the U-shaped channel. Element 213 of Uken, not the channel connector of Uken (channel defined in the front of 211 above the enlarged portion in front view Fig. 3A), defines as a slot configured to receive a rivet.
Regarding claim 5, the elongate portion of Uken applied to claim 2 above fails to include a groove disposed adjacent the channel connector on the front, the groove shaped and sized to at least partially receive the base wall of the U-shaped channel.
Regarding claim 8, the enlarged portion of Uken applied to claim 2 above fails to include a pair of slots defined within with the elongate portion disposed in-between, the pair of slots configured to receive at least a portion of side walls of the U-shaped channel.
Regarding claim 13, the chamber 219 of Uken previously applied to claim 13 is disposed outside of the U-shaped channel 630, so there is no part of Uken's U-shaped channel 630 that defines an opening for receiving a pivot bar. The chamber 219 of Uken receives the pivot bar 114, and the chamber is located outside of the U-shaped channel 630 as shown in Figs. 8A-8B.
Response to Arguments
Regarding claim 2 and Uken (US#2017/0211305), the applicant argues the following:
“The channel connector is configured to engage with a rivet spanning between the walls of the U-shaped channel. The front of Uken's frame 211 does not engage with the rivet of the U-shaped channel. The connection pocket 213 of Uken defined on the rear surface of the frame engages with the rivet.”
The examiner agrees, however claim 2 does not require and/or recite the channel connector being configured to engage with a rivet spanning between the walls of the U-shaped channel. This argued feature is present in objected claim 3 which has not been rejected per the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 2 and Uken (US#2017/0211305), the applicant argues the following:
“Additionally, Uken's keyhole opening 219 is part of the cam 218 component of the shoe. The cam 218 is a separate component from the frame 211 and is rotatable relative thereto. As such, Uken does not disclose or suggest a chamber defined at an intersection of the elongate portion and the enlarged portion that directly receives at least a portion of a head of a pivot bar. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would not modify Uken's shoe and remove the cam 218 to directly receive the pivot bar in the shoe. The cam 218 drives operation of the locking device 214 so as to lock the shoe against the window jamb. In contrast, the claimed shoe does not include any locking function, and the locking function is at a different area of the window balance system.”
The examiner disagrees as the language of claim 2 language is broader than the above argument. Claim 2, lines 8-10, recites “a chamber defined at an intersection of the elongate portion and the enlarged portion at the front, wherein the chamber is sized and shaped to directly receive at least a portion of a head of a pivot bar of a window sash.”. The phrase “defined at” does not prohibit element 218, which includes the opening 219 being identified as the “chamber”, from being separate from element 211. The chamber is not being claimed as “integrally formed with” or “unitary with” the elongate portion and/or enlarged portion. Element 218, and thus its chamber 219, is defined at, i.e. located at, an intersection of the elongate portion and the enlarged portion at the front (see Fig. 3A), wherein the chamber 219 is sized and shaped to directly receive at least a portion of a head of a pivot bar 114 of a window sash 104/106 (see Fig. 9 and [0044], “The keyhole opening 219 is sized to accept the pivot bar 114 extending from either the pivotable lower window sash 104 or the pivotable upper window sash 106…”).
Regarding claim 13 and Uken (US#2017/0211305), the applicant arguments are persuasive in-part. Specifically, the examiner agrees the cam 218 (and thus its chamber 219) is disposed outside of the U-shaped channel 630, so there is no part of Uken's U-shaped channel 630 that defines an opening for receiving a pivot bar. The chamber 219 receives the pivot bar 114, and the chamber is located outside of the U-shaped channel 630 as shown in Figs. 8A-8B.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 WILLIAM L MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-7068. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 - 6:00 PM.
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, Jason San can be reached at (571) 272-6531. 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.
WILLIAM L. MILLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3677
/WILLIAM L MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3677
Prosecution Insights