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 18/907,478, filed 10/5/2024.
Claims 1-136 and 177-277 were canceled in the preliminary amendment.
Claims 137-176 are pending and examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/4/2026 is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the specifications filed 10/5/2024 are different(see at least paras. [0007], [07], and [0009]) with no amendment to either specification filed. Applicant should clarify which amendment is the correct specification in the application.
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 137-176 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 137, line 12, “the structure” has no antecedent basis.
In claim 137, line 14, “the first attachment member” has no antecedent basis and should be changed to “the attachment member”.
In claim 137, lines 18-19, it is not clear how the trench is “configured to be connected to receive electrical wiring” rending the metes and bounds of the claim unclear with respect to the trench. By changing the phrase to “configured to receive electrical wiring” the rejection would be overcome.
In claim 139, the term “radial direction” is not clear since the arms of the connector in Figs. 7A-C for example are shown extending in the longitudinal direction not the radial direction. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear.
In claim 141, “between the first/second flange” are not clear as to what is being defined. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. By changing the phrase to “by the first/second flange” the rejection would be overcome.
In claim 150, line 3, it is not clear “a base” and “a base in claim 137 interrelate rendering the metes and bounds of the claim indefinite.
In claim 157, line 6, “the structure” has no antecedent basis.
In claim 157, line 8, “the first attachment member” has no antecedent basis and should be changed to “the attachment member”.
In claim 157, line 13, it is not clear how the trench is “configured to be connected to receive electrical wiring” rending the metes and bounds of the claim unclear with respect to the trench. By changing the phrase to “configured to receive electrical wiring” the rejection would be overcome.
In claim 159, the term “radial direction” is not clear since the arms of the connector in Figs. 7A-C for example are shown extending in the longitudinal direction not the radial direction. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear.
In claim 161, “between the first/second flange” are not clear as to what is being defined. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. By changing the phrase to “by the first/second flange” the rejection would be overcome.
In claim 170, line 3, it is not clear “a base” and “a base in claim 137 interrelate rendering the metes and bounds of the claim indefinite.
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 137 and 157 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Giri(U.S. Pat. Appl. Publ. 2018/0310745; cited on PTO 892).
Regarding claims 137 and 157, Giri discloses a motorized window treatment(see Figs. 1 and 4) comprising:
a roller tube(110) having flexible material(120) that is attached thereto, the roller tube having first and second ends, the roller tube configured to rotate about a longitudinal axis that defines a longitudinal direction;
a motor drive unit(160) located within the roller tube adjacent the first end of the roller tube(see Fig. 4), the motor drive unit configured to rotate the roller tube to adjust the flexible material between a raised position and a lowered position(see para. 0156]), the motor drive unit comprising an end portion that is accessible via the first end of the roller tube(see Figs. 4 and 5); and
a mounting bracket(130, see Figs, 8A and 8B and 9E; 230, see Figs. 10A and 10B and 11E) configured to support the first end of the roller tube(see Fig. 2B), the mounting bracket comprising:
a base(132);
an arm(135) configured to extend from the structure;
an attachment member(134) extending from the arm;
a channel(138) defined by the attachment member, the channel configured to receive the end portion of the motor drive unit(see para. [0019] and Fig. 4), wherein the channel defines a rear wall(146) that is proximate to the arm and a first opening(141) that is distal from the rear wall in a radial direction; and
a first trench(133) formed in an edge surface(see Fig. 9E) of the arm(extending thru the attachment member thru arm and out the edge surface of arm, considered “in an edge surface” meeting the claim limitation, see Figs. 8A and 8B and 9E), wherein the first trench is configured to be connected to receive electrical wiring for powering the motor drive unit(see para. [0083]); and
a connector(182) connected to the electrical wiring(180) and configured to be disposed in the channel(the wiring is considered inherently within the channel when the bracket and tube are connected meeting the claim limitation), the connector further configured to be received within a second opening on the end portion of the motor drive unit to electrically connect the motor drive unit(via 116) to the electrical wiring for powering the motor drive unit when the end portion of the motor drive unit is received within the channel(see para. [0009]), and wherein the mounting bracket is configured to mount the roller tube to a structure(see Fig. 1).
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 138-140, 144-146, 149, 158-160, 164-166, 169 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giri.
Regarding claims 138, 144, 158 and 164, Giri discloses the motorized window treatment/system of claims 137 and 157, wherein the connector comprises a plug portion(182) configured to be received within the second opening on the end portion of the motor drive unit and a base portion(end of 182 opposite sockets), but lacks the base specifically to abut the rear wall of the channel.
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 plug of Giri abutting the attachment member (abutting the rear wall removably attached for adjustment thereof), in order to have allowed for easy attachment of the drive unit while providing a secure attachment between the wiring and drive unit.
Regarding claims 139 and 159, Giri discloses the motorized window treatment of claim 138, wherein the connector comprises a pair of arms(top and bottom projections of 182, see Fig. 8A) that are configured to extend within the channel in the radial direction(the arms/projections of Giri extend into the channel and considered to extend in “the radial direction” as much as the arms of the disclosure extend and meet the claim limitation as best understood).
Regarding claims 140 and 160, Giri discloses the motorized window treatment of claim 139, wherein the channel is defined by a first flange(one of 128, see Fig. 89A), a second flange(other of 128, see Fig, 8A), and a side wall(128 or back wall 146) that is distal from the first and second flanges in the longitudinal direction.
Regarding claims 145 and 165, Giri discloses the motorized window treatment of claim 138, wherein the plug portion comprises a plurality of openings(see Figs. 6 and 8A for receiving 116) that are configured to receive conductors located within the second opening when the end portion of the motor drive unit is received within the channel of the mounting bracket.
Regarding claims 146, 149, 166 and 169, Giri discloses the motorized window treatment of claims 138 and 158, wherein the first trench extends to the channel(see Figs. 8A and 8B and 9E) wherein the arm defines a bore that extends from the channel to the first trench, and wherein the bore is configured to receive the electrical wiring.
Claims 156 and 176 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giri in view of Nichols(U.S. Pat. Appl. Publ. 2005/0087313; cited on PTO 892).
Giri discloses the motorized window treatment/system of claims 138 and 158, wherein the roller tube comprises a first roller tube;
wherein the attachment member comprises a first attachment member but lacks the motorized window treatment comprises a second roller tube having flexible material that is attached thereto, the second roller tube configured to rotate about the longitudinal axis; and
wherein the mounting bracket further comprises a second attachment member extending from the arm and opposite the first attachment member, the second attachment member configured to support the second roller tube.
Nichols discloses a window treatment having a brackets and roller tubes with flexible material.
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 treatment/system of Giri with multiple tubes/material, such as disclosed by Nichols, with a reasonable degree of success in order to have allowed for a multiple tube shade to cover a larger area. It would also have been obvious for a skilled artisan to have used a single bracket with multiple attachment members, one on each side of the bracket for use with the tube, in order to have saved on material costs and hidden wiring.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 141-143, 147-148 and 150-155 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
No prior art of record shows a treatment/system having a roller tube, motor drive unit, and mounting bracket with a base, an arm and an attachment member with a channel defined by flanges in the member, the flanges have slots, a trench, and a connector, with claim 141 comprising the connector having a pair of arms, the arms located in the slots, with claim 147 comprising the attachment member with a notch, and claim 150 comprising a second trench in a rear surface of the base, nor any motivation to do so.
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. AUBREY 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. AUBREY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3633
/Beth A Aubrey/
Prosecution Insights