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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding IDS: IDS of 12/3/2024 has been considered, as was annotated on the copy responded to applicant. Applicant asserts the GB reference and ISR were provided on 16 October 2023 in parent case 17/892628, which is the case. Examiner has signed the complete IDS and these references are considered.
Regarding drawings: examiner thanks applicant for clarifying amendments. Applicant does not clarify that either latch 92 or 96 “extends from the front of the body”, as figures 6 and 4b indicate the latches do not extend wider than the front or back of the body.
Regarding 112a rejections: examiner thanks applicant for clarifying amendments.
Regarding Westfall, applicant asserts the second latch 73 “projects upwardly”, and points to the same figure that indicates “parallel to the ends”. This argument is not persuasive to indicate the latch 73 “projects upwardly” any more than it “projects downwardly”. Applicant asserts latch 73 is not an engagement feature; this is not persuasive, since the second hole in the coil spring of the primary reference Baker AND the second hole of the coil spring of the secondary reference Westfall must have the second latch inserted into the second holes, and therefore, is considered “an engagement feature”. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, neither latch 92 or 94 “extends from the front of the body” in either figure 4b or figure 6. This must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 21, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 8561260 Baker in view of 5353548 Westfall.
Regarding claims 1 and 22, Baker discloses a window balance configured to be disposed in a jamb of a hung window assembly (as shown in figures 1 and 6) and configured to connect to a moveable sash of the hung window assembly (as shown in figure 7), the window balance comprising:
a carrier 40 comprising an upper end, a lower end and a housing, the housing comprising a first housing portion and a second housing portion which together define an interior space (left and right of the curl spring 42, figure 3), and a receiver 50 disposed near the lower end of the carrier 40 and configured to receive a pivot bar of the moveable sash of the hung window assembly (in the manner shown in figure 1); and
a constant force curl spring 42 comprising a curled portion 45 within the interior space of the housing of the carrier and an uncurled end portion 47 extending from the curled portion outside of the interior space of the housing of the carrier; and
a mounting bracket 44 comprising a body having a first surface, a second surface, a top, a bottom, a front, a rear, and an opening 111 through the body configured to receive a fastener 114 for attaching the mounting bracket to a wall of the jamb (as shown in figure 6);
a first latch 100 extending from the front of the body at a non- perpendicular angle (figure 3) and comprising/terminating at an upwardly projecting first distal end, the first distal end configured to selectively engage the uncurled end portion of the curl spring (as shown in figure 2);
wherein in an uninstalled, assembled configuration of the window balance, the mounting bracket is retained with the carrier (figures 2 and 4).
Baker figures 3-11 do not disclose a second latch engaging the end portion of the curl spring in the embodiment of figures 2-10. Baker does disclose other embodiments of brackets shown in figure 12, which utilizes two “latch members” 406/408, each latch member engaging one of two holes 410/412 of the distal end of the curl spring. The upper latch member of figure 12 is an upwardly facing hook 406, and the lower latch member 408 is not clear with the inclination of its structure.
Westfall discloses a window balance which has a carrier 30 with a constant force curl spring extending from the carrier and engaging the bracket 70, the bracket 70 has a through hole 76 to accept a fastener to join the bracket to a well of the jamb, the bracket having two latches 72/73, the upper/first latch 72 extending from the body comprising an upwardly projecting first distal end (figure 20), the first distal end configured to engage the uncurled portion of the curl spring 11; and
the second latch 73 extending from the same side of the body at a generally perpendicular angle (figure 20), and comprising a downwardly projecting second distal end (the distal surface projects “downwardly” as figure 20 obstructs the angle of the latch), the second distal end configured to engage the uncurled end of the curl springs (as shown in figures 20 and 21). The internal surface of the latch 73 is configured to engage the hole of the uncurled end portion of the coil spring.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply a second hook/latch as taught on window balance brackets which attach to a curl spring in Westfall, onto the window balance brackets which attach to a curl spring of Baker. Examiner contends that Baker teaches that the second attachment mechanism for the second existing hole of the curl spring of Baker is old and well known in the art taught by the other embodiments of Baker, and as taught by Westfall. Examiner notes that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI) (b).
Should applicant continue to assert the lower latch of Westfall is “upward”, examiner disagrees with “upward” assertion. Both Westfall and Baker disclose the upper latch having an upward angle, and the lower latch having a different non-upward angle. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to change the angle of the lower latch of Baker as modified by Westfall should be any angle that is capable of engaging the second hole of the end of the coil spring in the manner taught by both Westfall and Baker, so long as it is not an upward angle, since no reference that has two latches engaging holes in a coil spring indicates that both latches should be “upward”. Examiner contends that a “downward” angle would be considered equivalent in function to retain the coil spring as the “perpendicular” angle that is arguably shown by Baker and Westfall.
Regarding claim 2, Baker as modified discloses the window balance assembly of claim 1 wherein the first latch/hook (100 of Baker) comprises a first inside surface; wherein the second latch (73 of Westfall as suggested by Baker’s other embodiments) comprises a second inside surface (between 72 and 73 in Westfall); wherein the uncurled end portion comprises a first aperture comprising a first inside edge and a second aperture comprising a second inside edge (as shown in both figure 3 of Baker, figure 12 of Baker, and figure 21 of Westfall); wherein in the uninstalled, assembled configuration of the window balance, the first distal end of the first latch extends through the first aperture and the second distal end of the second latch extends through the second aperture (as taught in figure 12 of Baker and figure 21 and Westfall).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Baker as modified discloses the window balance assembly of claim 2 wherein the first inside surface (of the upper hook/latch) engages the first inside edge of the first aperture (as taught in both Bakers and Westfall) and the second inside surface engages the second inside edge of the second aperture (as taught in figure 21 of Westfall).
Regarding claim 5, Baker as modified discloses the window balance assembly of claim 4, wherein the mounting bracket (44 of Baker figure 3) further comprises: a polyhedron-shaped head 109 extending from the front of the body; and a planar-shaped foot 108 extending from the front of the body.
Regarding claim 6, Baker as modified discloses the window balance assembly of claim 5, wherein the body (of the bracket 44) comprises a body thickness, the head 109 comprises a head width measured between a first side face and a second side face, and the foot 108 comprises a foot width measured between a first side edge and a second side edge; wherein the head 109 width is greater than the body thickness (as shown in figures 3 and 6 of Baker), the foot width is greater than the body thickness and the head width is substantially the same as the foot width (figure 5 of Baker).
Regarding claim 7, Baker as modified discloses the window balance assembly of claim 6, wherein the foot 108 comprises a front foot surface oriented perpendicular to the front of the body (as shown in figure 3); and wherein the second latch (as suggested in Baker and taught by Westfall) extends from the front foot surface (because this is where the second aperture of the curl spring of Baker lands when assembled, please see figure 4).
Regarding claim 8, Baker as modified discloses the window balance assembly of claim 7, wherein the mounting bracket (44 of Baker) further comprises: a first boss 111 protruding from the first surface of the body and surrounding the opening; and a second boss 111 protruding from the second surface of the body and surrounding the opening.
Regarding claim 21, Baker as modified discloses a window assembly (figure 1) comprising: a window frame comprising a first window jamb comprising a first jamb channel, a second window jamb comprising a second jamb channel, a first sash, a second sash, a first window balance and a second window balance (on left and right sides of the window panes, figure 1); wherein each of the first window balance and the second window balance is a window balance according to claim 1; wherein the first window balance is disposed in the first jamb channel and coupled to the window frame and a first side of the first sash and a second window balance is disposed in the second jamb channel and coupled to the window frame and a second side of the first sash.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 EMILY M MORGAN whose telephone number is (303)297-4260. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8-5 MST.
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.
/EMILY M MORGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3677
Prosecution Insights