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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/31/2026.
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, the flange of the drive drum having a greater height than the flange of the storage drum from claim 8 and claim 26, the storage drum being flangeless from claim 27, and the second housing engaging with the housing from claim 31 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 Objections
The claims are replete with objections. The following examples are considered non-limiting.
Claim 1 recites “the covering material” on line 2, but should recite “a covering material”.
Claim 6 and claim 24 both recite “the drive drum includes a flangeless drive drum” on line 3. It is clear the applicant is not intending on introducing a second drive drum, so this is interpreted as “the drive drum does not have a flange” which is disclosed.
Claim 7 recites “the longitudinal centerline” on line 6, claim 25 recites it on line 6, and claim 28 recites it on line 6. These should read “a longitudinal centerline”.
Claim 9 recites “the surface” on line 4, claim 24 recites it on line 5, and claim 27 recites it on line 5. These should recite “a surface”. Claim 9 also recites that “the storage drum includes a drum”, which clearly is not introducing a second drum.
Claim 27 recites “the storage drum includes a flangeless storage drum” on line 3. It is clear the applicant is not intending on introducing a second storage drum, so this is interpreted as “the storage drum does not have a flange” which is disclosed.
Claim 29 recites “the passage” on line 2, but should recite “a passage” for proper antecedence.
Claim 31 recites “surface the housing” on lines 3-4, but should recite “surface of the housing”. It also recites “a surface” on line 5, but this is believed to mean “the external surface”.
It is up to the applicant to find and correct all similar issues. Appropriate correction is required.
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(s) 18-20, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang (US 2017/0350188).
Regarding claim 18, Huang discloses a motorized window treatment lift assistance subsystem (see figs. 3-4, this is interpreted as merely requiring a lift assistance subsystem usable with a motorized window treatment, with the motorized window treatment being intended use language and not required structure) comprising:
a lift assistance spring (533) having a first end (top end in fig. 4) and a second end (bottom end);
a drive drum (532) coupled to the first end of the lift assistance spring;
a storage drum (531) coupled to the second end of the lift assistance spring;
a housing (made of 51 and 52) disposed about the lift assistance spring, the drive drum, and the storage drum (fig. 4), the housing including:
one or more bumpers (the 512s) disposed proximate at least one side of at least one of: the drive drum or the storage drum (fig. 5), each of the one or more bumpers positioned to align the lift assistance spring with a respective one of: the drive drum or the storage drum (paragraph 43).
Regarding claim 19, Huang discloses that each of the one or more bumpers integrally formed on an interior surface of the housing (see fig. 5).
Regarding claim 20, Huang discloses that the one of more bumpers include a plurality of bumpers integrally formed on an interior surface of the housing (see fig. 5).
Regarding claim 30, Huang discloses that the housing comprises: a first enclosure portion (51) physically couplable to a second enclosure portion (52);
wherein the first enclosure portion includes one or more latching members (see annotated fig. 5 below) to physically engage a complimentary recess (found behind the hooks see annotated fig. 5 below) on the second enclosure portion; and wherein the first enclosure portion includes one or more recesses to physically engage a complimentary latching member on the second enclosure portion.
PNG
media_image1.png
666
972
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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(s) 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dahlgren (US 2020/0284093) in view of Huang (US 2017/0350188).
Regarding claim 1, Dahlgren teaches a window treatment system comprising:
a motor drive unit (402, fig. 4) operatively coupled to a covering material (406) for adjusting the covering material between a fully-lowered position and a fully-raised position;
a lift assistance subsystem (counterbalance spring system with spring 420, fig. 4) couplable to the motor drive unit, the lift assistance subsystem configured to provide variable lift assistance to the motor drive unit (paragraphs 189, 190, 225, and 275), the lift assistance subsystem including:
a lift assistance spring (420) having a first end (left end) and a second end (right end).
Dahlgren does not teach a drive drum coupled to the first end of the lift assistance spring; a storage drum coupled to the second end of the lift assistance spring; a housing disposed about the lift assistance spring, the drive drum, and the storage drum, the housing including: a plurality of bumpers disposed proximate at least one side of at least one of: the drive drum or the storage drum, each of the plurality of bumpers positioned to align the lift assistance spring with at least one of: the drive drum or the storage drum.
Huang teaches a window treatment system (figs. 3-5) with a lift assistance subsystem (50) with a lift assistance spring (533) having a first end (top end in fig. 4) and a second end (bottom end in fig. 4), with a drive drum (532) coupled to the first end of the lift assistance spring; a storage drum (531) coupled to the second end of the lift assistance spring;
a housing (made of 51 and 52) disposed about the lift assistance spring, the drive drum, and the storage drum (fig. 4), the housing including:
a plurality of bumpers (the 512s) disposed proximate at least one side of at least one of: the drive drum or the storage drum (see fig. 5), each of the plurality of bumpers positioned to align the lift assistance spring with at least one of: the drive drum or the storage drum (paragraph 43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dahlgren with teachings of Huang by replacing the lift assistance subsystem with that of Huang. This alteration would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results making it easier to access and repair the subsystem due to it being more accessible to a user.
Regarding claim 2, modified Dahlgren includes teachings of Huang which teaches that each of the plurality of bumpers are formed integral with the housing (see fig. 5).
Claim(s) 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dahlgren (US 2020/0284093) in view of Huang (US 2017/0350188) as applied above, and further in view of Mullet (US 2014/0305601).
Regarding claim 3, modified Dahlgren does not explicitly teach that the lift assistance spring comprises a lift assistance gradient spring.
Mullet teaches a window treatment system with a lift assistance gradient spring (paragraph 21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Dahlgren so that the spring is a gradient spring. This alteration would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. These results may be to allow the device to wind faster as the spring is extended, meeting a user’s expectation of quickly adjusting the blind.
Regarding claim 4, modified Dahlgren does not explicitly teach that the lift assistance spring comprises a lift assistance negative gradient spring.
Mullet teaches a window treatment system with a lift assistance negative-gradient spring (paragraph 21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Dahlgren so that the spring is a negative-gradient spring. This alteration would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. These results may be to allow more torque at the start, reducing wear and tear on the motor.
Claim(s) 5-6, and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dahlgren (US 2020/0284093) in view of Huang (US 2017/0350188) as applied above, and further in view of Chen (US 2019/0017321).
Regarding claim 5, modified Dahlgren does not teach that the storage drum includes a flange having a first height disposed on at least one side of the storage drum and the drive drum includes a flange having a second height less than the first height.
Chen teaches a lift assistance subsystem for a window system with a storage drum (31) that includes a flange having a first height disposed on at least one side of the storage drum (see fig. 3) and a drive drum (32) includes a flange having a second height less than the first height (fig. 3 clearly shows the storage drum being significantly larger than the drive drum, with the differences in height between the flanges).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Dahlgren with teachings of Chen so that the storage drum includes a flange having a first height disposed on at least one side of the storage drum and the drive drum includes a flange having a second height less than the first height. Further the applicant’s specification does not advance any evidence that it would be non-obvious to have these specific flange dimensions. In fact, paragraph 106 describes many permutations of different flange dimensions. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the above claimed configuration is merely a preferred embodiment. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of further securing the spring on the drums.
Regarding claim 6, modified Dahlgren teaches that the drive drum includes a flangeless drive drum (see claim objection above, and see how paragraph 36 of Huang states that there are no baffles on either side of either drum). It does not teach a storage drum that includes a flange having a first height disposed on at least one side of the storage drum.
Chen teaches a lift assistance subsystem for a window system with a storage drum (31) that includes a flange having a first height disposed on at least one side of the storage drum (see fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Dahlgren with teachings of Chen so that the storage drum includes a flange having a first height disposed on at least one side of the storage. Further the applicant’s specification does not advance any evidence that it would be non-obvious to have these specific flange dimensions. In fact, paragraph 106 describes many permutations of different flange dimensions. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the above claimed configuration is merely a preferred embodiment. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of further securing the spring on the drum.
Regarding claim 8, modified Dahlgren does not teach that the storage drum includes a flange having a first height disposed on at least one side of the storage drum and the drive drum includes a flange having a second height greater than the first height.
Chen teaches a lift assistance subsystem for a window system with a storage drum (32) that includes a flange having a first height disposed on at least one side of the storage drum (see fig. 3) and a drive drum (31) includes a flange having a second height greater than the first height (fig. 3 clearly shows the differences in height between the flanges).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Dahlgren with teachings of Chen so that the storage drum includes a flange having a first height disposed on at least one side of the storage drum and the drive drum includes a flange having a second height greater than the first height. Further the applicant’s specification does not advance any evidence that it would be non-obvious to have these specific flange dimensions. In fact, paragraph 106 describes many permutations of different flange dimensions. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the above claimed configuration is merely a preferred embodiment. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of further securing the spring on the drums.
Regarding claim 9, modified Dahlgren teaches that the storage drum includes a drum (see claim objection above) that lacks an extension perpendicular to at least one side edge of the surface of the storage drum that carries the lift assistance spring (paragraph 36 of Huang states that there are no baffles on either side of either drum). It does not teach that the drive drum includes a flange having a first height disposed on at least one side of the drive drum;
Chen teaches a lift assistance subsystem for a window system with a drive drum (32) includes a flange having a first heigh on at least one side of the drive drum (fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Dahlgren with teachings of Chen so that the drive drum includes a flange having a first height. Further the applicant’s specification does not advance any evidence that it would be non-obvious to have these specific flange dimensions. In fact, paragraph 106 describes many permutations of different flange dimensions. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the above claimed configuration is merely a preferred embodiment. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of further securing the spring on the drum.
Claim(s) 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Huang (US 2017/0350188) and further in view of Mullet (US 2014/0305601).
Regarding claim 21, modified Dahlgren does not explicitly teach that the lift assistance spring comprises a lift assistance gradient spring.
Mullet teaches a window treatment system with a lift assistance gradient spring (paragraph 21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Dahlgren so that the spring is a gradient spring. This alteration would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. These results may be to allow the device to wind faster as the spring is extended, meeting a user’s expectation of quickly adjusting the blind.
Regarding claim 22, modified Dahlgren does not explicitly teach that the lift assistance spring comprises a lift assistance negative gradient spring.
Mullet teaches a window treatment system with a lift assistance negative-gradient spring (paragraph 21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Dahlgren so that the spring is a negative-gradient spring. This alteration would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. These results may be to allow more torque at the start, reducing wear and tear on the motor.
Claim(s) 23-24, and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (US 2017/0350188), and further in view of Chen (US 2017/350188).
Regarding claim 23, Huang does not teach that the storage drum includes a flange having a first height disposed on at least one side of the storage drum and the drive drum includes a flange having a second height less than the first height.
Chen teaches a lift assistance subsystem for a window system with a storage drum (31) that includes a flange having a first height disposed on at least one side of the storage drum (see fig. 3) and a drive drum (32) includes a flange having a second height less than the first height (fig. 3 clearly shows the differences in height between the flanges).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to Huang with teachings of Chen so that the storage drum includes a flange having a first height disposed on at least one side of the storage drum and the drive drum includes a flange having a second height less than the first height. Further the applicant’s specification does not advance any evidence that it would be non-obvious to have these specific flange dimensions. In fact, paragraph 106 describes many permutations of different flange dimensions. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the above claimed configuration is merely a preferred embodiment. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of further securing the spring on the drums.
Regarding claim 24, Huang teaches that the drive drum includes a flangeless drive drum (see claim objection above, and see how paragraph 36 of Huang states that there are no baffles on either side of either drum) wherein the flangeless drive drum includes a drum that lacks an extension perpendicular to at least one side edge of the surface of the drive drum that carries the lift assistance spring (see paragraph 36).
It does not teach that the storage drum includes a flange having a first height disposed on at least one side of the storage drum.
Chen teaches a lift assistance subsystem for a window system with a storage drum (31) that includes a flange having a first height disposed on at least one side of the storage drum (see fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Huang with teachings of Chen so that the storage drum includes a flange having a first height disposed on at least one side of the storage. Further the applicant’s specification does not advance any evidence that it would be non-obvious to have these specific flange dimensions. In fact, paragraph 106 describes many permutations of different flange dimensions. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the above claimed configuration is merely a preferred embodiment. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of further securing the spring on the drum.
Regarding claim 26, Huang does not teach that the storage drum includes a flange having a first height disposed on at least one side of the storage drum and the drive drum includes a flange having a second height greater than the first height.
Chen teaches a lift assistance subsystem for a window system with a storage drum (32) that includes a flange having a first height disposed on at least one side of the storage drum (see fig. 3) and a drive drum (31) includes a flange having a second height greater than the first height (fig. 3 clearly shows the differences in height between the flanges).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Huang with teachings of Chen so that the storage drum includes a flange having a first height disposed on at least one side of the storage drum and the drive drum includes a flange having a second height greater than the first height. Further the applicant’s specification does not advance any evidence that it would be non-obvious to have these specific flange dimensions. In fact, paragraph 106 describes many permutations of different flange dimensions. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the above claimed configuration is merely a preferred embodiment. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of further securing the spring on the drums.
Regarding claim 27, Huang teaches that the storage drum includes a flangeless storage drum (see claim objection above, and see how paragraph 36 of Huang states that there are no baffles on either side of either drum); wherein the flangeless storage drum includes a drum that lacks an extension perpendicular to at least one side edge of the surface of the storage drum that carries the lift assistance spring (paragraph 26).
It does not teach that the drive drum includes a flange having a first height disposed on at least one side of the drive drum and
Chen teaches a lift assistance subsystem for a window system with a drive drum (32) that includes a flange having a first height disposed on at least one side of the drive drum (see fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Huang with teachings of Chen so that the drive drum includes a flange having a first height disposed on at least one side of the storage. Further the applicant’s specification does not advance any evidence that it would be non-obvious to have these specific flange dimensions. In fact, paragraph 106 describes many permutations of different flange dimensions. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the above claimed configuration is merely a preferred embodiment. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of further securing the spring on the drum.
Claim(s) 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (US 2017/0350188), and further in view of DeWard (US 2010/0319860).
Regarding claim 31, Huang does not explicitly teach that the housing further comprises: at least one multi-unit latching member extending from an external surface the housing to engage at least one recess on an external surface of a second housing; and at least one recess disposed on a surface of the housing to engage at least one multi-unit latching member disposed on the external surface of the second housing.
DeWard taches a spring lift assistance device with a housing (element 61 on the left in fig. 3) that comprises: at least one multi-unit latching member (hook at end of element 20 on the housing on the left in fig. 3) extending from an external surface the housing to engage at least one recess (cranny where hook element 20 engages found on element 61 on the right) on an external surface of a second housing (element 61 on the right in fig. 3); and at least one recess (cranny where element 20 engages found on element 61 on the left) disposed on a surface of the housing to engage at least one multi-unit latching member (hook at end of element 20 extending from the second housing) disposed on the external surface of the second housing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Huang with teachings of DeWard so that the housing further comprises: at least one multi-unit latching member extending from an external surface the housing to engage at least one recess on an external surface of a second housing; and at least one recess disposed on a surface of the housing to engage at least one multi-unit latching member disposed on the external surface of the second housing. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of allowing multiple spring units to be attached if more power is needed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 10, 25, and 28-29 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
None of the prior art teaches all the elements of the claimed invention and one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine the art to arrive at the claimed invention. The orientation of the bumpers is claimed in a way that would require hindsight reasoning to modify the art to read on the claim, as the orientations are completely different between the art and the instant claims, and is found to be novel. None of the art also may be combined in a way that teaches the aperture of the housing accommodating passage of a drive shaft coupled to a motor when the drive drum includes an aperture to physically couple the drive drum to the drive shaft that is coupled to the motor. It is noted that the language “to accommodate” and “to physically couple” is not merely treated as intended to language, but rather positively requiring the structure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW R SHEPHERD whose telephone number is (571)272-5657. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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.
/MATTHEW R. SHEPHERD/Examiner, Art Unit 3634
