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
Claim 13 is objected to for containing a typographical error. In the last two lines the claim reads “the rear edge is spaced is a vertical distance.” It is understood that limitation should read --the rear edge is spaced a vertical distance.--
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 7 and 9-12 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 requires “the rotatable member is an outer roller of a dual roller unit.” The covering of claim 2 is further defined as “a second covering wrappable about the outer roller. The claim fails to clearly define the subject matter of the invention. Claim 2 requires the covering to be movable and has a bottom rail received within the pocket of the rotatable member, which claim 3 further defines as the outer roller. The Applicant’s disclosure supports the covering (second covering) as being wrappable about the inner roller, not the outer roller, in order for the bottom rail to be received within the pocket. Therefore, the claim fails to particularly and clearly point out the subject matter of the invention.
Claims 9-12 refer to positions but the reference point is not clearly defined in the claims. It is not understood what corresponds to the rotational ranges.
In view of the 112 issues discussed above the claims have been examined as best understood.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 1 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,221,832. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
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 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Drew et al. (US 9,945,177), hereinafter referred to as Drew.
Regarding claim 2, Drew discloses an architectural-structure covering comprising:
a rotatable member (inner and outer rollers) (Fig 5A);
a covering (106) including a top portion and a bottom portion, the top portion operatively coupled to the rotatable member, the covering being movable between a retracted position and an extended position; and
a bottom rail (110) operatively coupled to the bottom portion of the covering (Fig 5B);
wherein the rotatable member includes a scoop (142) defining a pocket arranged and configured to maintain the bottom rail within the pocket when the rotatable member is not positioned within a predetermined or desired rotational range and, when positioned within the predetermined or desired rotational range, the scoop is arranged and configured to enable the bottom rail to deploy from the rotatable member (Figs 5A-6C; 106 moves under gravity).
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.
Claims 3-5, 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drew, as applied in claim 2 above, in further view of Buccola, Jr. et al. (US 9,567,808), hereinafter referred to as Buccola.
Regarding claim 3, Drew discloses wherein the scoop has a pocket but fails to disclose it includes a first arm and a second arm, the first arm extending away from an outer surface of the rotatable member, the second arm extending at an angle relative to the first arm so that the pocket is defined between an inner surface of the first and second arms and the outer surface of the rotatable member. However, Buccola teaches a scoop pocket (Fig 19) having a first arm (178) extending away from an outer surface of the rotatable member (arm extends away from the outer surface in the direction towards the inner roller) and a second arm (178) extending at an angle relative to the first arm (Fig 19) so that a pocket is defined between an inner surface of the first and second arms (walls of the arms) and the outer surface of the rotatable member (Fig 19; outer surface 150, first arm 181, and second arm 178 define the pocket). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to provide the scoop with pocket that includes a first arm and a second arm, the first arm extending away from an outer surface of the rotatable member, the second arm extending at an angle relative to the first arm so that the pocket is defined between an inner surface of the first and second arms and the outer surface of the rotatable member, as taught by Buccola, since it is a known arrangement for equivalently receiving a bottom rail of a covering. Such modification would not result in any new or unexpected results.
Regarding claim 4, Drew as modified with Buccola above teaches wherein the scoop includes an approximate "L" or "C" shape (Fig 14 of Buccola).
Regarding claim 5, modified Drew teaches wherein the scoop includes an opening (slot through which the covering passes) in communication with the pocket, the opening positioned in a leading direction of rotation of the rotatable member.
Regarding claim 7, in view of the 112 issues discussed above, modified Drew teaches wherein the rotatable member is an outer roller of a dual roller unit, the dual roller unit further comprising an inner roller positioned within the outer roller, the covering is a second covering wrappable about the outer roller, the architectural-structure covering further comprising a first covering wrapped about the inner roller.
Regarding claim 8, modified Drew teaches wherein the scoop is arranged and configured to maintain the bottom rail within the pocket (Fig 5C-5D) when the rotatable member is not positioned within the predetermined or desired rotational range so that the bottom rail moves past a head rail assembly of the architectural-structure covering without contacting the head rail assembly.
Regarding claim 9, in view of the 112 issues discussed above, modified Drew teaches wherein the predetermined or desired rotational range is between 8:00 and 12:00 for a rotatable member rotating in a counterclockwise direction (Fig 6A-6C; when viewed from the opposite axial side).
Regarding claim 10, modified Drew teaches wherein the predetermined or desired rotational range is between 9:00 and 11:00 for a rotatable member rotating in a counterclockwise direction (Fig 6A-6C;).
Regarding claim 11, modified Drew teaches wherein the predetermined or desired rotational range is between 12:00 and 4:00 for a rotatable member rotating in a clockwise direction (Fig 5A-5D).
Regarding claim 12, modified Drew teaches wherein the predetermined or desired rotational range is between 1:00 and 3:00 for a rotatable member rotating in a clockwise direction (Fig 5D).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drew, as applied in claim 2 above, in further view of Colson et al. (US 5,601,129), hereinafter referred to as Colson.
Regarding claim 6, Drew fails to disclose wherein the bottom rail and the scoop include corresponding bumps, the corresponding bumps arranged and configured to contact each other when the rotatable member is not positioned within the predetermined or desired rotational range to maintain the bottom rail within the pocket, the corresponding bumps arranged and configured to enable the bottom rail to deploy from the pocket when the bottom rail is positioned within the predetermined or desired rotational range. However, Colson teaches the technique of providing corresponding bumps (20 and 50) between two elements for the purpose of retaining the elements together. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Drew such that corresponding bumps are provided on the bottom rail and scoop in order to provide means of retention. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and such combination would not lead to any new or unpredictable results.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colson et al. (US 9,512,672), hereinafter referred to as Colson in view of Smith (US 9,739,089).
Regarding claim 13, Colson discloses an architectural-structure covering, comprising:
a rotatable member (126) including a front, room-facing surface and a rear surface opposite the front surface, the rear surface of the rotatable member being positioned closer to an underlying architectural-structure, in use, than the front, room-facing surface (Fig 2A); and
a covering (100) operably coupled to the rotatable member (126), the covering being wrapped about and unwrapped the rotatable member so that the covering can be moved between a retracted position and a fully deployed position,
the covering (100) including:
a front vertical sheet (118) having a height and width;
a rear vertical sheet (120) having a height and a width and operably coupled and moveable relative to the front vertical sheet (Figs 2A-2C); and
a plurality of vanes (112) extending between the front and rear sheets (Fig 6),
wherein: each vane (112) includes a top layer (114), a bottom layer (116), a front edge (132), and a rear edge (136) (Fig 3); each vane (112) is coupled to the front sheet (118) along a first horizontal line of attachment (148) and to the rear sheet along a second horizontal line of attachment (142); and in the fully deployed position, the first horizontal line of attachment (146) is spaced a vertical distance Di (H3) above the second horizontal line of attachment (144) and the front edge (132) is spaced a vertical distance from the first horizontal line of attachment (148) and the rear edge (at 136) is spaced is a vertical distance from the second horizontal line of attachment (144) (Fig 3).
Although Colson teaches the covering being wrapped about and unwrapped from the rotatable member so that the covering can be moved between a retracted position and a fully deployed position, it is not taught to be unwrapped from the rear surface of the rotatable roller and is instead unwrapped from the front surface. However, Smith teaches an analogous architectural covering having a rotatable member, a covering with front and rear vertical sheets and a plurality of vanes therebetween. Smith further teaches the covering is wrapped about and unwrapped from the rotatable member so that it is unwrapped from the rear surface of the rotatable roller (Fig 3A). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Colson such that the covering is wrapped about and unwrapped from the rotatable roller from the rear surface to provide improved positioning of the covering and blocking of light. The claimed arrangement provides a known technique and it would have been obvious to apply the teachings of Smith to the covering of Colson with no new or unexpected results.
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