DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final Office Action on the merits for U.S. App. 19/031,306.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 are examined.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 3 defines the same limitations as defined in claim 1, from which claim 3 depends from, where claim 1 already defines “a bottom [of the counterweight] extending below the shelf.” Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 3-5, 7, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomason (U.S. Publication 2014/0209138) in view of Preg (U.S. Publication 2012/0304551), Cummings (U.S. Patent 2,320,413), and Freeman (U.S. Patent 5,572,830).
Regarding claim 1, Thomason discloses a hunting blind (#20; see figure 1), comprising:
a wall panel (#22);
a window frame (#54) on the wall panel (see figure 3A);
a window sash (#52) movably received in the window frame (see figures 3A and 3B);
at least one pulley (#62) connected to the wall panel (see figure 3A);
a sash cord (#60) disposed about the at least one pulley (see figure 3A), the sash cord having a first end (the upper end attached to sash #52 of figure 3A) and a second end (the bottom end with element #58), the first end connected to the window sash (see figure 3A); and
a magnetic weight (#58) having a top connected to the second end of the sash cord (see figure 3A) and a bottom (see figure 3A), the magnetic weight configured to be manually operable to move the window sash in the window frame while user movement during operation of the magnetic weight is substantially concealed from game (see figures 3A and 3B, where a person can manipulate the cord #60 and weight #58 in order to open or close the window sash #52 outside of view of the window opening #34).
However, Thomason does not disclose use of a shelf connected to the wall panel below the window frame. It is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Preg, that hunting blinds #100 can be constructed with a window opening #173, where a shelf #143 is provided below such a window opening #173 in order to allow a hunter to rest their gun or other objects thereon during a hunt. See figures 1 and 12. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the hunting blind of Thomason to comprise of a shelf below the window frame, as taught in Preg, in order to allow a hunter to rest their gun thereon during a hunt.
Furthermore, Thomason discloses use of a magnetic weight #58 which is to magnetically attract to a metallic member #56 and thus hold the window sash in any open or closed position as needed by the end user and thus does not specifically disclose use of a counterweight that is instead manipulated by the user. It is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Cummings, that counterweights #24 have been commonly used in the art in order to counter the weight of a sliding window sash #26 and thus allow the window to be slid to any open or closed position and held at such a position. See figure 6. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the magnetic weight of Thomason to instead be a counterweight, as taught in Cummings, since whether one uses a counterweight or a magnetic weight, the same predictable result of holding the window sash at any given open or closed position is provided and thus would function in the exact same manner.
Finally, Thomason depicts the weight is provided at a same level as the window opening and sash and thus does not comprise of a bottom that extends below the shelf, when modified therein as explained above. However, it is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Freeman, that such pulley cord #40 manipulators to open or close a window sash #14 can extend so as to be positioned below the window so that the manipulator is located where a user’s foot or shorter users can open and close the window as needed. See figures 4-6. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have positioned the bottom of the counterweight of Thomason so as to be positioned below the shelf of the assembly, as taught in Freeman, in order to allow shorter users or lower access for manipulation of such a window sash.
Regarding claim 3, Thomason in view of Preg, Cummings, and Freeman render obvious the bottom of the counterweight extends underneath the shelf (see the rejection of claim 1 above, where such limitations are already defined therein).
Regarding claim 4, Thomason in view of Preg, Cummings, and Freeman render obvious the counterweight is manually movable up and down from underneath the shelf to respectively lower and raise the window sash in the window frame (when Thomason is modified in view of Freeman to extend below the shelf, as taught in Thomason in view of Preg, of the window, such a counterweight, as taught in Thomason in view of Cummings, would be allowed to manually move up and down from below such a shelf).
Regarding claim 5, Thomason in view of Preg, Cummings, and Freeman render obvious the window frame defines a pair of tracks (the left and right vertical tracks of the frame #54 of Thomason which allow for vertical movement of the window sash; see paragraph 30); the window sash is slidably received in the pair of tracks (see paragraph 30 of Thomason); and the pair of tracks restrict movement of the window sash to movement along a single axis (see figure 3A and paragraph 30 of Thomason).
Regarding claim 7, Thomason in view of Preg, Cummings, and Freeman render obvious the first end of the sash cord is connected to a top rail of the window sash (see figure 3A of Thomason, where the first end of the sash cord #60 is connected to the top of the sash #52, where it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that such a window sash of Thomason would comprise of a perimeter frame with top, side, and bottom rails, as taught in Freeman, and thus attach the top rail of the sash to the first end of the cord in order to construct such a window pane of Thomason using common, structural methods to provide a strong, slidable window pane for use).
Regarding claim 15, Thomason in view of Preg, Cummings, and Freeman render obvious the at least one pulley is connected to the wall panel above the window frame (see figure 3A of Thomason at #62).
Regarding claim 16, Thomason in view of Preg, Cummings, and Freeman render obvious the at least one pulley is two laterally spaced pulleys (see figure 3A of Thomason at #62).
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomason in view of Preg, Cummings, Freeman, and Yang et al. (CN 218862480).
Regarding claim 6, Thomason in view of Preg, Cummings, and Freeman render the claimed invention obvious except for a strip of material secured to each track of the pair of tracks, the material configured to dampen vibration and absorb sound resulting from movement of the window sash in the pair of tracks. However, it is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Yang et al., that window frames #1 can comprise of strips of material #43 which are positioned within tracks #41 that allow window sashes #51 to slide therein and are configured to absorb sound while such panes move along the track. See figure 5. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a strip of material that dampens vibrations and sounds within the tracks of the window frame of Thomason, as taught in Yang et al., in order to dampen sound while the window sash slides along the tracks of the window frame.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomason in view of Preg, Cummings, Freeman, and Lancaster (U.S. Patent 1,627,789).
Regarding claim 8, Thomason in view of Preg, Cummings, and Freeman render the claimed invention obvious except for the top rail of the window sash includes a thin rib extending along a length thereof; and the first end of the sash cord is connected to a middle of the rib. However, it is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Lancaster, that the top rail #21 of a window sash #1 can comprise of a rib #4 that extends along a length thereof and comprises of an opening #8 that is configured to receive the first end #9 of a sash cord. See figures 1-4. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the top rail of the window sash of Thomason to comprise of a rib that extends along a length thereof and is configured to connect to the sash cord, as taught in Lancaster, in order to properly attach the sash cord thereto and allow for opening and closing of such a window sash as needed.
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomason in view of Hurley et al. (U.S. Patent 1,808,413).
Regarding claim 20, Thomason discloses a hunting blind (#20; see figure 1), comprising:
a wall panel (#22);
a window frame (#54) connected to the wall panel (see figure 3A);
a vertically movable window sash (#52) slidably received in the window frame (see figures 3A and 3B);
a pair of laterally spaced pulleys (#62) connected to the wall above the window frame (see figure 3A);
a sash cord (#60) disposed about the pair of laterally spaced pulleys (see figure 3A), the sash cord having a first end (the upper end attached to sash #52 of figure 3A) and a second end (the bottom end with element #58), the first end connected to the window sash (see figure 3A); and
a magnetic weight (#58) having a top connected to the second end of the sash cord (see figure 3A) and a bottom (see figure 3A), the magnetic weight configured to be manually slidable down and up to respectively raise and lower the window sash in the window frame while user movement during operation of the magnetic weight is substantially concealed from game (see figures 3A and 3B, where a person can manipulate the cord #60 and weight #58 in order to open or close the window sash #52 outside of view of the window opening #34).
However, Thomason does not disclose use of a guide tube connected to the wall panel or the magnetic weight is a counterweight received in the guide tube. It is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Hurley et al., that counterweights #21/20 have been commonly used in the art in order to counter the weight of a sliding window sash #18/19 and thus allow the window to be slid to any open or closed position and held at such a position, where the counterweight is guided along a weight guide frame #34 formed by channels #36 and rings #35. See figures 1 and 2. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the magnetic weight of Thomason to instead be a counterweight that travels along a guide frame, as taught in Hurley et al., since whether one uses a counterweight or a magnetic weight, the same predictable result of holding the window sash at any given open or closed positioned is provided and thus would function in the exact same manner. Furthermore, with respect to the limitations defining the counterweight bottom extending underneath the guide tube, the guide tube of Thomason in view of Hurley et al. can be considered one of the tubes #35 of Hurley et al. which the counterweight is slidably received within and can extend beneath, such as the middle one as depicted in figure 1 of Hurley et al., where such features would be provided within Thomason as explained above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 9-14, and 17-19 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record, such as Thomason et al., teach that sliding window sashes relative to a window frame of a hunting blind using counterweights and sash cords is known and common in the art. However, such prior art of record do not disclose nor render obvious such a counterweight is configured to extend and move through the shelf during the window sash sliding process and it would be impermissible hindsight as well as render the invention inoperable for its intended purpose if one were to modify the prior art of record to meet each and every feature as presently defined in the noted dependent claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE V ADAMOS whose telephone number is (571)270-1166. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5.
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, Brian D Mattei can be reached at (571) 270-3238. 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.
/THEODORE V ADAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights