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 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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bonini et al. (US 2015/0151425), hereinafter referred to as Bonini.
Regarding claim 1, Bonini discloses a window blind headrail (145), wherein the headrail includes a headrail body (145) that defines a longitudinal axis;
wherein the headrail body (145) includes a front wall;
wherein the headrail further includes a pair of end covers (135, 140), the end covers being slidably coupled to the front wall of the headrail body (Fig 3);
wherein the end covers (135, 140) slide axially along the front wall (paragraph [0074]); and
PNG
media_image1.png
166
522
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein each end cover has an extended configuration in which a part of the end cover projects beyond a respective end of the headrail body (Fig 4; paragraph [0074]).
Regarding claim 2, Bonini discloses wherein each end cover (135, 140) has a cross-sectional shape which corresponds to the cross-sectional shape of the front wall of the headrail body (145) (Fig 2).
Regarding claim 4, Bonini discloses wherein the front wall of the headrail body includes one or more upper engagement portions that extend axially along at least a portion of the front wall (wall above groove; Fig 2); and each of the end covers engages the or a respective one of the upper engagement portions.
Regarding claim 6, Bonini discloses wherein the upper engagement portion includes a downwardly projecting skirt (wall below groove; Fig 2) and each of the end covers is slidably coupled to the or a respective one of the downwardly projecting skirts.
Regarding claim 8, Bonini discloses wherein the front wall of the headrail body includes one or more lower engagement portions (wall below groove) that extends axially along at least a portion of the front wall and each of the end covers engages the or a respective one of the lower engagement portions (Fig 2).
Regarding claim 9, Bonini discloses wherein the front wall includes a single lower engagement portion (wall below groove) that extends the entire length of the front wall.
Claims 1-2, 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Attal (US 5,042,548).
Regarding claim 1, Attal discloses a window blind headrail, wherein the headrail (Fig 1) includes a headrail body (22) that defines a longitudinal axis (Fig 2);
wherein the headrail body includes a front wall (44);
wherein the headrail further includes a pair of end covers (42); the end covers being slidably coupled (via 90) to the front wall (44) of the headrail body;
wherein the end covers slide axially along the front wall (via 90);
and wherein each end cover has an extended configuration in which a part of the end cover projects beyond a respective end of the headrail body (42 has a portion extending beyond the end of 44).
Regarding claim 2, Attal discloses wherein each end cover has a cross-sectional shape (shape of 90) which corresponds to the cross-sectional shape (of 68) of the front wall (44) of the headrail body.
Regarding claim 4, Attal discloses the front wall of the headrail body includes one or more upper engagement portions (68) that extend axially along at least a portion of the front wall (Fig 2); and each of the end covers engages the or a respective one of the upper engagement portions.
Regarding claim 5, Attal discloses wherein the front wall includes a single upper engagement portion (68) that extends the entire length of the front wall.
Regarding claim 6, Attal discloses wherein the upper engagement portion (68) includes a downwardly projecting skirt (64) and each of the end covers is slidably coupled to the or a respective one of the downwardly projecting skirts (Fig 3).
Regarding claim 7, Attal discloses wherein each of the end covers includes a skirt (90) receiving portion which forms a snap-fit with the or a respective one of the downwardly projecting skirts (col 1, lines 54-59; elements are snapped together).
Regarding claim 8, Attal discloses wherein the front wall of the headrail body includes one or more lower engagement portions (70) that extends axially along at least a portion of the front wall and each of the end covers engages the or a respective one of the lower engagement portions (Fig 2).
Regarding claim 9, Attal discloses wherein the front wall includes a single lower engagement portion (70) that extends the entire length of the front wall.
Regarding claim 10, Attal discloses wherein the or each lower engagement portion (70) includes an upwardly projecting rib (66) and each of the end covers is slidably coupled to the or a respective one of the upwardly projecting ribs.
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Attal, as applied in claim 1 above, in further view of Schaefer (US 3,372,728).
Regarding claim 3, Attal fails to disclose wherein the front wall of the headrail body is curved and each of the end covers defines a complementary curved surface. However, Schaefer teaches that it is known for a headrail to have a curved body that is complementary to a curved surface (31 and 51; Fig 5). 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 elements of Attal with curved complementary shapes since curved shapes are known in the art and the modification of shape would not lead to any new or unpredictable result.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Attal, as applied in claim 10 above, in further view of Benthin (US 5,636,674).
Regarding claim 11, although Attal discloses the end covers couple to the lower engagement portion which includes an upwardly projecting rib, Attal fails to teach wherein each of the end covers includes a rib coupling portion which includes a recess that receives a portion of the or a respective one of the upwardly projecting ribs. However, Benthin teaches end covers having coupling portions that couple to engagement portions and that the coupling portions are rib coupling portions (42) that include a recess (space below 62 extending on 42; Fig 1) that receives a portion of an upwardly projecting rib (rib of 50; Fig 3). Benthin teaches that the configuration provides engagement between the elements. 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 end covers of Attal such that it includes a rib coupling portion having a recess in order to engage since it is a known equivalent means of attachment.
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