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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final First Office Action on the Merits in application 18/834,051, filed 7/29/2024.
Claims 1-10 are pending and examined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/29/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in para. [0011], “patterns the” should be “patterns than the”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-7 and 9-10 objected to because of the following informalities: in claims 1, 3-7, and 9, line 1, “A blockout” should be “The blockout”; in claims 2 and 10, line 1, “A blockout blind” should be “The blockout blind system”; and in claim 7, line 2, “patterns the” should be “patterns than the”. 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 1-10 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.
In claim 8, line 2, “the roller blind” has no antecedent basis.
In claim 1, line 3, “the top” has no antecedent basis.
In claims 2-3, it is not clear if ”a first side” and “a (free) second side” is
referring to “a first side” and “a second side” in claim 1 or to an additional feature of the claim rendering the metes and bounds of the claim unclear. By deleting “attached along a first side to the pelmet” in claim 2, line and changing “a free second side” to “the second side” in claim 2, line 3, and changing “a first side and a second side” to “the first side and the second side” in claim 3, line 3, the rejections would be overcome.
In claim 6, line 2, “the light blocking strips” has no antecedent basis since “at least one light blocking strip” was set forth in claim 1. By changing the phrase to “the at least one light blocking strip comprises at least two light blocking strips, each of the strips” the rejection would be overcome. It is also unclear how the apertures are positioned “towards” the sides”. See claim 7 for similar language of “towards the" rendering the meters and bounds of the claim unclear as to how, and where, the pattern is different “towards” the sides.
In claim 9, line 4, “the first thickness” has no antecedent basis.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Riemelmoser(AU2020277286; cited on IDS filed 7/29/2024).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Riemelmoser discloses a blockout blind system(see Figs. 5-6) comprising a roller blind(20) fitted to a pelmet(60), and further comprising at least one light blocking strip(70, 72) attached along a first side to a top of the pelmet and is in contact with the roller blind to form a light seal between the light blocking strip and the blind(72 is in contact with the roller blind, see Fig. 6), wherein a second side of the at least one light blocking strip is positioned away from the roller blind to prevent unwanted dislodgement(see Fig. 6), and
a bottom cross rail(80) having a cavity therein to receive a bottom end(23) of the roller blinds(see Fig. 7A and 7B) ), the bottom end(23) of the roller blind(22) is retained within the bottom cross rail(80) in a manner such that the bottom cross rail can move vertically with respect to the bottom end of the roller blind(a height of the bottom end 23 is less than a height of the cavity and therefore the bottom cross a rail is considered to be capable of moving vertically with respect to the bottom end meeting the claim limitation).
Regarding claims 6-7, Riemelmoser discloses the blockout blind system as in claim 1, wherein the light blocking strips(72) comprise apertures(see para. [0075) positioned towards the first side and the second side(the strips are spaced and therefore meet the claim limitation as best understood), the apertures towards the first side are formed in different patterns than the apertures towards the second side(see para. [0075]).
Regarding claim 9, Riemelmoser discloses the blockout blind system as in claim 8, wherein the bottom cross rail(80) comprises a cavity(81, see Fig. 7A) of a first height and an access passage(82) to the cavity of a first width, and wherein the bottom end(23) of the blind comprises a thickened section of a second thickness which is greater than the first thickness and a second height which is less than the first height(see Figs. 7A and 7B).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ng(9,976,346; cited on PTO 892).
Ng discloses a blockout blind system(1, see Figs. 1-2) comprising a bottom cross rail(5, 6, see Fig. 2), wherein a bottom end of the roller blind(2, 3, see Figs. 3-5) is retained within the bottom cross rail in a manner such that the bottom cross rail can move vertically with respect to the bottom end of the roller blind(see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 9, Ng discloses the blockout blind system as in claim 8, wherein the bottom cross rail comprises a cavity of a first height and an access passage to the cavity of a first width(see Fig. 5), and wherein the bottom end of the blind comprises a thickened section(within 15) of a second thickness which is greater than the first thickness and a second height which is less than the first height.
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 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riemelmoser in view of Tachikawa(JP2016211361; cited on IDS filed 7/29/2024).
Regarding claims 2-4, Riemelmoser discloses the blockout blind system as in claim 1, but lacks the specific strip.
Applicant’s disclosure lends no criticality to the specific number and location of the strips(see numerous embodiments in paras. [0006] – [0010] and different embodiments in Figs. 2-4).
Tachikawa discloses a blockout blind system(see Figs. 15-16) comprising a roller blind(3) fitted to a pelmet(6), and further comprises a plurality of embodiments having at least one light blocking strip(9), the strip being semi-rigid(the strip 9 of Figs. 15-16 is considered semi -rigid by definition as “rigid to some degree or in some parts” meeting the claim limitation), the strip attached along a first side to the pelmet and a second side is positioned away from the roller blind side and resting against a front wall of the pelmet, wherein the blind is positioned to deflect the strip to form the light seal to prevent unwanted dislodgement(see Figs. 15-16), and the at least one light blocking strip(9) is a single flexible light blocking strip(see at least Figs 12A-C) and is attached along a first side and a second side to the top of the pelmet, and wherein the at least one flexible light blocking strip drapes over the roller blind between the rear side of the blind and the front side of the blind.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have substituted the strip of Riemelmoser with the strip of Tachikawa given that KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ.2d 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2005), cert. granted, 547 U.S. __ (2006) has found that the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 5, Riemelmoser and discloses Tachikawa disclose the blockout blind system as in claim 3, wherein the at least one flexible light blocking strip(70, 72, of Riemelmoser in Fig. 6) comprises a rear flexible light blocking strip(one of 70 and 72) draping over the rear side of the blind and a front flexible light blocking strip(other of 70 and 72) draping over the front side of the blind.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ng view of McNeill(11,180,951; cited on PTO 892).
Ng discloses the blockout blind system as in claim 9, wherein at least one clip(15) envelopes the thickened section of the blind but lacks the thickened section of the blind formed by the blind being wrapped around a spline, and wherein such that the spline is free to move laterally relative to the blind.
McNeill discloses a bottom cross rail having a cavity receiving an end of a roller blind, the end having a spine wrapped within ends of the blind such that the spline is moveable laterally.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the thickened end of the blind with a spline, as disclosed by McNeil, with a reasonable degree of success, in order to have allowed for thermal expanding of the blind given the intended use and specific design requirements of the blind system.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riemelmoser in view of Ng and McNeill.
Riemelmoser discloses the blockout blind system as in claim 9, but lacks the thickened section having a spline and a clip therearound.
Ng and McNeill disclose the bottom cross rail as discussed above.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have substituted the bottom cross rail of Riemelmoser with the bottom cross rail of Ng and McNeill given that KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ.2d 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2005), cert. granted, 547 U.S. __ (2006) has found that the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Prior Art
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 BETH A. STEPHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1851. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a-4:30p.
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, Brian Glessner can be reached at 571-272-6754. 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.
BETH A. STEPHAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3633
/Beth A Stephan/