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 .
Claim Objection
Claim 4 recites in the preamble “claims 1” which instead should read --claim 1--.
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 4-7, 11, 17 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.
Claim 4 refers to “the engagement lug”, claim 5 refers to “the resiliently deformable arm” and “the locating member”, claim 6 refers to “the stop surface” and “the skirt” and claim 7 refers to “the locating member”, “the resiliently deformable arm” and “the skirt.” The claims depend from claim 1 which sets forth a plurality of each of the recited elements. It is unclear which elements is “the” recited element and if a respective element is of the first or second connector assembly.
Claim 11 and 17 recites “correctly aligns.” It is not understood what is meant by “correctly.” The term is subjective with no clear standard.
In view of the 112 issues discussed above the claims have been examined as best understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 1-4, 6-8, 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greening et al. (CA 3 119 525), hereinafter referred to as Greening, in further view of Cox et al. (US 4,099,815), hereinafter referred to as Cox.
Regarding claim 1, Greening discloses a snap-fit corner bracket for a window blind frame, the corner bracket (2) including:
a central body element (4) and extending from the central body element a first connector assembly (6) and a second connector assembly (8) (Fig 1a),
PNG
media_image1.png
512
504
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the second connector assembly (8) is angled (perpendicularly) relative to the first connector assembly (6);
wherein each connector assembly (6, 8) includes a locating member (10);
a resiliently deformable arm (arm 12 having 22, 24; the material is a moulded polymeric material which has a degree of resilient deformation);
a stop surface (between 16 and 22 of Fig 1a); and
a skirt (see annotated Fig 1b), wherein the resiliently deformable arm (arm having 22, 24) is spaced from the locating member (10); and
PNG
media_image2.png
524
628
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the skirt is spaced from the resiliently deformable arm and covers the stop surface (Figs 1a and 1b).
Greening fails to disclose an engagement lug carried at the distal end of the resiliently deformable arm and that the resiliently deformable arms curves relative to the locating member. However, Cox teaches an engagement lug carried at the distal end of a resiliently deformable arm (31) (Fig 3) in order to flex and be retained and further teaches that the arm curves (col 3, lines 15-18). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the arm of Greening as a resiliently deformable arm with an engagement lug that is curved in order to improve retention of the corner bracket in a frame. The technique of a flexible member being curved and provided with an engagement lug for retention is known, as disclosed by Cox, and it would be obvious to apply the technique to Greening for an improved assembly.
Regarding claim 2, Greening discloses wherein the angle between the first connector assembly and the second connector assembly is from 100 to 1700 (page 2).
Regarding claim 3, Greening discloses wherein the angle between the first connector assembly and the second connector assembly is from 800 to 1000 (page 2).
Regarding claim 4, Greening as combined with Cox above teaches wherein the engagement lug includes a tapered leading edge.
Regarding claim 6, Greening discloses wherein the central body element (4) defines a depth dimension; a portion of the central body element defines the stop surface (Fig 1a); the stop surface extends along the entire depth dimension (Figs 1a and 1b) ; and the skirt covers the entire stop surface.
Regarding claim 7, Greening discloses wherein the locating member (10), the resiliently deformable arm and the skirt all extend away from the central body element in the same direction (Fig 1a).
Regarding claim 8, Greening discloses wherein each of the locating members (10) includes one or more crushable ribs (26, 28).
Regarding claim 12, modified Greening discloses a window blind frame (Figs 3 and 4) comprising a pair of frame members (30) having adjacent ends that are joined together by a snap-fit corner bracket (2) according to claim 1 above, wherein each frame member includes a wall (32) which defines therein a slot (38), and a channel-defining portion which defines a channel (40), wherein the channel-portion (34, 40) is spaced from the wall (32); the locating member (10) of a respective connector assembly is located within the channel defined by each frame member (Figs 2a and 2b); an end face of each frame member contacts a respective one of the stop surfaces (Fig 2b); the slot of each frame member wall receives therein a respective engagement lug (12 of Greening modified with the lugs of Cox discussed above); and the skirts cover the respective end portions of the frame members (Fig 2b).
Regarding claim 13, modified Greening discloses wherein the frame comprises four frame members having a rectangular arrangement, and wherein adjacent ends of the frame members are joined together by respective corner brackets (Figs 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 14, modified Greening discloses a combination of a window blind frame according to claim 12 and a window blind (Fig 4), wherein the window blind is secured to the window blind frame (Fig 4).
Regarding claim 15, modified Greening discloses wherein the window blind is a roller blind, a vertical blind, a Venetian blind, a Roman blind, a cellular blind or a pleated blind (Fig 4).
Regarding claim 16, modified Greening discloses a combination of a window blind frame according to Claim 13 and a window blind, wherein the window blind is secured to the window blind frame (Fig 4).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greening and Cox, as applied in claim 1 above, in further view of Hetzer (DE 4403389A1).
Regarding claim 5, although Greening as combined with Cox above teaches a resiliently deformable arm that curves relative to the locating member, it is not disclosed to curve away. However, Hetzer teaches a resilient deformable arm that curves away to provide resilient locking. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the resiliently arm such that it curves away from the locating member in order to resiliently lock the arm in place. It would have been obvious to apply the known technique without producing any new or unexpected results.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greening and Cox, as applied in claim 1 above, in further view of Allsopp (US 8,074,698).
Regarding claim 9, modified Greening fails to teach wherein the bracket further includes a cover; the central body element includes a first cover connector; the cover includes a second cover connector; and the cover is detachably coupled to the central body element via interengagement of the first and second cover connectors. However, Allsopp, which is directed to the same field of endeavor of providing a corner bracket (Fig 5b), further discloses a cover (50), a central body element (145) including a first cover connector (190), the cover including a second cover connector (225), and the cover is detachable coupled to the central body element via interengagement of the first and second cover connectors. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Greening such that it is provided with a cover in order to hide the corner joint from view and the central body includes a first cover connector that interengages with a second cover connector on the cover. The modification would have not led to any new or unpredictable results. The improvement would provide means for hiding the corner joints with no change in function of the device of Greening.
Claims 10, 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greening, Cox, and Allsopp, as applied in claim 9 above, in further view of Spiro et al. (US 10,813,478), hereinafter referred to as Spiro.
Regarding claims 10, 11, and 17, Greening as modified with Allsopp above teaches a first cover connector but fails to disclose wherein the first cover connector comprises a resiliently deformable hook and the second cover connector comprises a hook receiver. However, Spiro teaches interengaging elements with one being a resiliently deformable hook and the second being a hook receiver (Figs 8 and 9) and the cover connectors being sets of two spaced apart connector. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the connector elements of Greening as modified with Allsopp with the connector elements of Spiro in order to provide a secure releasable connection. As modified, the central body element includes two spaced-apart first cover connectors; and the cover includes two corresponding spaced apart second cover connectors, wherein the interengagement of the first cover connectors with the respective second cover connectors correctly aligns the cover with the central body element and wherein the central body element includes two spaced-apart first cover connectors; and the cover includes two corresponding spaced apart second cover connectors, wherein the interengagement of the first cover connectors with the respective second cover connectors correctly aligns the cover with the central body element.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Johnnie A. Shablack whose telephone number is (571)270-5344. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 6am-3pm EST, alternate Friday.
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.
/Johnnie A. Shablack/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights