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
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in FIG.5 it is entirely unclear to what element of the invention the lead lines for reference numerals “16” and “27” are pointing. The specification describes these features as a “drainage pipe” for “16” and a “anti-leaf system” for “27” but it appears both reference numerals are pointing only the panels/slats 2 of the invention and neither of the features of the “drainage pipe” nor the “anti-leaf system” are well shown. It is unclear what constitutes these features.
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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 26, the “polygonal shaped element” of page 6, lines 13.
The drawings are objected to because in FIG.6b, there is a lead line pointing to the center of the shaft without any reference number associated therewith. Reference numeral 26 should apparently be added to the end of this lead line.
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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 30, new reference number 30 has been added to the drawings figures to represent the manual lever but the “manual actuator 26” (page 7, line 26) and “lever 26” (page 7, line 30) are still provided in the specification and there is no mention of the reference number “30” (newly added). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On page 2, lines 29-30, it is unclear where there is a large gap/line space between “manually” and “operated”. In addition, on page 2, line 21, it is unclear if applicant intended to include reference numeral “1” to the “curtain”. No other reference numerals are provided until later in the specification but the occurrence of numeral “1” is not improper.
On page 6, line 4, “polygonal shaped element 26” is described where later the same reference numeral is used to describe the manual lever (see page 7, lines 26 and 30).
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 1-14 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In claim 1 the recitation that the one or more collapsible curtain engaging means are hingedly and slidably mounted to the one or more sleeve elements are unclear (as set forth above) and make the claim indefinite. The boundaries of the functional language are unclear because the claim does not provide a discernable boundary on what performs the function. The recited function does not follow from the structure recited in the claim, i.e., the engaging means, so it is unclear whether the function requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the engaging means in a certain manner. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim. See MPEP 2173.05(g) for more information.
The same is true for the clamping system of claims 5 and 7, as well as the retaining member of claim 14. The boundaries of the functional language are unclear. The boundaries of the functional language are unclear because the claim does not provide a discernable boundary on what performs the function of slidably and removably receiving the torsion spring-loaded assembly or electric motor assembly of claims 5 and 7; and what performs the functions of movement between the two distinct positions of claim 14. The recited function does not follow from the structure recited in the claim so it is unclear what performs the function (what features or components of the invention perform the function) and/or whether the function requires some other/additional structure. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim. See MPEP 2173.05(g) for more information.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b), as set forth above in this Office action.
The primary reason for the indication of allowable subject matter for the claims in this application was set forth in the prior art mailed 3/26/26 and will not be repeated here.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/15/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Objections to the specification
The changes to the specification obviate the objections previously presented. Some additional objections have been set forth.
Objections to the drawings
With regard to the repositioning of the lead lines for reference numerals 16 and 27, this does not overcome the objections set forth above. Namely, the lead lines still appear to be pointed to slats and not to the described “drainage pipe” for “16” and a “anti-leaf system” for “27”.
Applicant makes no further remarks regarding this issue, which is maintained.
To overcome this objection, examiner proposes removing the reference numerals from both the specification and drawing figures and removing the corresponding lead lines. Since this subject matter is not recited in the claims, there is no requirement to show these features.
For the “polygonal shaped element” 26 and the clamping system 24, applicant merely states the numerals are visible in FIG.8. However, reference numeral “26” as disclosed is described as a part of the second end section 17b of the torsion spring-loaded assembly 17 and not the manual lever as shown in FIG.8. Applicant’s argument that the feature is shown in FIG.8 is not persuasive.
To overcome this objection, application should amend FIG. 6b to include “26” at the end of the specific lead line which has no numeral. In addition, reference number “30” should be added to the specification.
Objections to the claims
Amendments obviated the claim objections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC§ 112
Applicant argues FIGS. 3 and 4 illustrate the hinged and slidable connection between the collapsible curtain engaging means and the sleeve elements and describes that the collapsible curtain engaging means (9) pivots (as about a “hinge”) and slides along the sleeve element (7) during winding and unwinding as called for in independent claim 1. However, these remarks to not obviate the rejection because, as applicant makes clear in the response, the collapsible curtain engaging means comprises a hinge and additional features to allow for the components to slide along the sleeve element.
Applicant is aware that additional features are needed to allow for recited functioning of hinging and sliding. As set forth above, the boundaries of the functional language are unclear because the claim does not provide a discernable boundary on what performs the function. The recited function does not follow from the structure recited in the claim, i.e., the engaging means, so it is unclear whether the function requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the engaging means in a certain manner. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim. See MPEP 2173.05(g) for more information.
For the clamping system of claims 5 and 7, applicant points to FIG.8 and reference numeral 24 and states that the clamping system (24) “includes a hole having a profile” corresponding to the opposing ends of the torsion spring loaded assembly (17) or electric motor assembly (18) such that the respective assembly inserts into the housing box via the hole with the “posts” (described in the specification as engaging means and labelled 22 in the Figures) on the terminal end of the respective assembly clamping into the opposing protrusion about the hole.
It is apparent then that additional features, not recited in the claim, are required to perform the function.
Turning to the engaging means called for in claim 13, Applicant notes that the engaging means, illustrated in FIG. 6B with reference to number 22, includes “a profiled end geometry” (which in FIG. 6B is in the form of a pair of opposing posts) which align and engage with “the protrusions” about “the hole” of the clamping means of the transverse rotatable shaft to secure the torsion spring loaded assembly to the clamping system. Here again, it appears that additional features, not recited in the claim, are required to perform the recited function.
Finally, with respect to the retaining member, applicant has included in the replacement drawings reference numeral 30 (not added to the specification). However, it is wholly unclear what rotation of the lever 30 affects in the drawing figures. The lever is shown in two different positions in FIGS. 8 and 9 but it is unclear how to correspond or translates to the other features of the invention. What is happening when the lever is moved? What features of the invention are engaging or disengaging by the rotation of the lever? Since no exploded view is provided a PHOSITA can only guess as to what is occurring. It is unclear how the movement of lever (30) causes the retaining member (25) to lock and unlock the shaft from the housing box. What is happening to the retaining member as the lever (30) moves? Is the retaining member also moving? This movement is unclear from the drawing figures. Further explanation is requested. The rejections above are maintained. Examiner welcomes a phone call from applicant to provide clarity.
It is unclear how to best overcome the rejections set forth above and the examiner does not have a good suggestion. It is impermissible to add new matter to the disclosure. With regard to the dependent claims, the easiest solution would be to cancel that subject matter thereby obviating the rejections. However, with regard to claim 1, without additional features, the boundaries of the functionality of the invention are unclear.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 HILARY L GUTMAN whose telephone number is 571.272.6662. 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, VIVEK KOPPIKAR can be reached on 571.272.5109. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the 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. Should you have questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HILARY L GUTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612B
Prosecution Insights