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 Objections
The following claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 56 recites “the cord” on line 2, but since a cord is not yet positively recited, this should recite “a cord”
Claim 58 is missing a “.” at the end of the claim.
Claim 62 recites “the cord” on line 1, but since a cord is not yet positively recited, this should recite “a cord”
Claim 63 recites “the plurality of walls”, but these have not been positively recited yet.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 48, 55-57, 62, and 64 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ko (US 20200196790).
Regarding claim 48, Ko teaches a fabric-support car (105) for a drapery system (paragraph 1) that is configured to operate within a track (paragraph 29) of the drapery system to operate a drapery fabric between a fully-extended position and a fully-retracted position, the car (105) comprising:
a pair of wheels (711, 713) configured to operate along grooves of the track;
a lower portion (bottom of 105) that is configured to extend through an elongated slot of the track;
an upper portion (top of 105) having a recess (805) that is configured to receive a cord fastener (715) to attach the fabric-support car (105) to a cord of the drapery system; and
a pair of guides (see fig. 7, left and right of recess 805 which is shown in fig. 9) disposed on opposed sides of the recess (805), each of the guides comprising a pair of arms (arms found on opposite sides of the cord 109 in fig. 7) that define a channel (into which the cord 109 runs), wherein the channel is configured to receive the cord.
Regarding claim 55, Ko teaches that the pair of arms (arms found on opposite sides of the cord 109 in fig. 7) extend from an outer surface of the upper portion on opposed sides of the channel (see fig. 7).
Regarding claim 56, Ko teaches that the pair of guides define an exit point for the cord (shown in fig. 7).
Regarding claim 57, Ko teaches that the pair of guides are configured to prevent relative movement of the fabric-support car with respect to the cord fastener (they hold it all together).
Regarding claim 62, Ko teaches that the cord is a cord assembly comprising the cord and a plurality of cord fasteners at predetermined spacing along the cord (as is shown in fig. 1).
Regarding claim 64, Ko teaches that the lower portion defines a cavity (between 703a and 703b) that is configured to receive a connector (707) to connect the drapery fabric to the fabric-support car.
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.
Claim(s) 49-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko (US 20200196790) in view of Chen (US 20190352961).
Regarding claim 49, Ko does not teach a plurality of teeth that extend from the arms into the channel, the plurality of teeth configured to retain the cord within the channel.
Chen teaches a shading system with a component (10, fig. 3) with a plurality of teeth (36s) that extend from arms (as shown in fig. 3) into a channel (space between the arms), the plurality of teeth configured to retain a cord (48) within the channel. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Ko so that there is a plurality of teeth that extend from the arms into the channel, the plurality of teeth configured to retain the cord within the channel. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of better securing the cord in the channel.
Regarding claim 50, modified Ko teaches that the plurality of teeth are configured to prevent the cord from exiting the channel (after the modification above).
Regarding claim 51, modified Ko teaches that a first arm of the pair of arms defines one or more first teeth of the plurality of teeth and a second arm of the pair of arms defines one or more second teeth of the plurality of teeth (after the modification above, see fig. 3 of Chen).
Regarding claim 52, modified Ko teaches that each of the plurality of teeth abut the cord, when the cord is within the channel (fig. 3 of Chen shows that there is a position where the cord abuts both teeth at once).
Regarding claim 53, modified Ko teaches that the plurality of teeth are configured to pinch the cord, when the cord is within the channel (after the modification above, when the cord is being inserted past the teeth this happens).
Regarding claim 54, modified Ko teaches that the plurality of teeth are configured to extend over the cord, when the cord is within the channel (as is shown in fig. 3 of Chen).
Claim(s) 58-61, and 63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko (US 20200196790) in view of Kao (US 20150129141).
Regarding claim 58, Ko does not teach a plurality of walls that partially surround the pair of wheels, the plurality of walls configured to prevent a cord of the drapery system from entangling with the pair of wheels.
Kao teaches a fabric support car with a plurality of walls (see fig. 2 where there is a circular wall that surrounds each wheel 21) that partially surround the pair of wheels (fig. 4 shows it on both sides), the plurality of walls configured to prevent a cord of the drapery system from entangling with the pair of wheels (capable of this).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further modify Ko so that there is a plurality of walls that partially surround the pair of wheels, the plurality of walls configured to prevent a cord of the drapery system from entangling with the pair of wheels. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of protecting the wheels and the cords from each other.
Regarding claim 59, modified Ko teaches that each of the plurality of walls define a substantially constant gap between the respective wall and the respective wheel from an upper edge of the respective wall to a lower edge of the respective wall (as is shown in fig. 3 of Kao).
Regarding claim 60, modified Ko teaches that each of the plurality of walls defines a radiused edge that is distal from a midsection of the fabric-support car, and wherein the radiused edge is configured to prevent fraying if the cord slides along the radiused edge (as is shown in fig. 3 of Kao).
Regarding claim 61, modified Ko teaches that each of the plurality of walls defines an extended portion proximate to the upper edge that defines a furthermost portion of the respective wall (the is the outside edge), but does not explicitly teach that the extended portion comprises a chamfered corner that is configured to prevent the cord from catching on the wall.
The examiner notes that the courts have held that the particular configuration a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further modify Ko so that the extended portion comprises a chamfered corner that is configured to prevent the cord from catching on the wall. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of softening the edge so prevent fraying of the cord.
Regarding claim 63, Ko does not teach a plurality of walls are curved about the wheels.
Kao teaches a fabric support car with a plurality of walls (see fig. 2 where there is a circular wall that surrounds each wheel 21) curved about wheels (fig. 4 shows it on both sides).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further modify Ko so that there is a plurality of walls are curved about the wheels. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of protecting the wheels and the cords from each other.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW R SHEPHERD whose telephone number is (571)272-5657. 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.
/M.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3634
/DANIEL P CAHN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights