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/Restriction
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species:
Species A, claim 10,
Species B, claim 11,
Species C, claims 12-13, and
Species D, claim 14.
The species are independent or distinct because they each recite mutually exclusive limitations. For example, species A requires a pawl and toothed structure, species B requires the operating element to be a beaded chain and the retainer comprising a trench with the body mountable to a fixed structure. Species C requires the operating element to be a cord and the guide to include a rotatable component and the retainer to be a rotatable element. Species D requires the retainer being mountable to a fixed structure and the guide mounted to the body and movable relative to the retainer. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Currently, none of the claims are generic to all three of the species.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply:
The different species require using separate and unique search terms. For example, a search for species A would require searching terms and phrases such as: “pawl”, and “toothed structure”,
a search for species B would require searching terms and phrases such as: “beaded chain”, “trench”, and “body mountable to a fixed structure”.
A search for species C would require searching terms and phrases such as: “cord”, “rotatable component”, and “rotatable element”.
A search for species D would require searching terms and phrases such as: “retainer being mountable to a fixed structure”, “guide mounted to the body”, and “movable relative to the retainer”.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
During a telephone conversation with Vera Suarez on 6/2/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Species B, and claims 1-9, and 11. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 10, and 12-14 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because figures 2A through 9C appear to be screen shots from CAD software. 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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the second locking pin, second receiving aperture, and spring member configured to bias both locking pins from claims 4-5, and 8-9 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 following claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “wherein in the first position, the looped operating element has no tension and the guide is extended to trap said one end of the looped operating element between the guide and the retainer to prevent travel of the looped operating element about the guide, and in the second position, the looped operating element is tensioned with the guide being retracted from the retainer” on line 13. First, this cannot be true as the element will have at least a little tension from its own weight due to it being suspended. This is interpreted according to the specification, in that there are two positions. In the first position, the looped operating element is trapped between the guide and the retainer due to there not being enough tension from in the looped operating element to overcome the spring force. In the second position, there is enough tension in the looped operating element to overcome the spring force, thus the guide is not trapping the looped operating element between the guide and the retainer.
Claims 2-11 recite “A tensioning device” on line 1, but should recite “The tensioning device”
Claim 4 recites “in either claim 2 or 3” on line 1. This is interpreted as “in claim 3”.
Claim 9 recites “a front housing” on line 2, but should recite “the front housing”
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(1)(2) as being anticipated by Kann (US 20250194841).
Regarding claim 1, Kann discloses a tensioning device (300 in fig. 29) for a looped operating element of an architectural covering, the tensioning device being configured to selectively lock the operating element in a position relative to the tensioning device (paragraph 109), the tensioning device comprising:
a body (302 and 304) configured to house one end of the looped operating element, the body being mountable to a fixed structure adjacent the architectural covering (via 383),
a guide (340) adapted to receive thereabout said one end of the looped operating element (see fig. 34), the guide being configured to move relative to the body (paragraph 101) between first (locked position as described in paragraph 107) and second (unlocked described in paragraph 109) positions ;
a retainer (390) configured to prevent said one end of the looped operating element from traveling about the guide (paragraph 107),
a biasing element (344) for biasing the guide towards the retainer to tension the looped operating element (it pushes the guide down),
wherein in the first position (locked position), the looped operating element has no tension (see claim objection above) and the guide is extended to trap said one end of the looped operating element between the guide and the retainer to prevent travel of the looped operating element about the guide (paragraphs 107-109), and in the second position (unlocked position), the looped operating element is tensioned with the guide being retracted from the retainer (paragraph 109), and
a locking device (made of 348, 348a, 356, and 356a) for locking the guide in the first position when the looped operating element has no tension such that the guide cannot be retracted away from the retainer to allow operation of the operating element (paragraph 114).
Regarding claim 2, Kann teaches that the locking device comprises a first locking pin (356 is considered a pin) housed within a recess of the guide (recess can be seen in fig. 32), and the body comprises a first receiving aperture (332), the first locking pin being configured to project into the first receiving aperture when the guide is in the first position to lock the guide relative to the body (shown in fig. 30).
Regarding claim 3, Kann teaches that the first receiving aperture extends through a rear housing of the body (element 304 is considered the rear housing), the first locking pin being releasable from the first receiving aperture by pushing the first locking pin from a rear of the body out of the first receiving aperture thereby releasing the guide from locked engagement with the rear housing (paragraph 109).
Regarding claim 4, Kann teaches that the locking device includes a second locking pin (356a is considered a pin) housed within the recess of the guide (recess can be seen in fig. 32), and the body comprises a second receiving aperture (332a), the second locking pin being configured to project into the second receiving aperture when the guide is in the first position to lock the guide relative to the body (shown in fig. 30).
Regarding claim 5, Kann teaches that the second receiving aperture extends through a front housing of the body (element 302 is considered the front housing), the second locking pin being releasable from the second receiving aperture by pushing the second locking pin from a front of the body out of the second receiving aperture thereby releasing the guide from locked engagement with the front body (paragraph 109).
Regarding claim 6, Kann teaches that the rear housing (304) is mountable against the fixed structure such that in use, the first receiving aperture is hidden from view and is not accessible to a user (a user is able to mount it in this orientation).
Regarding claim 7, Kann teaches that the locking device further comprises a spring member within the recess (348 and 348a make up the spring member), the spring member being configured to bias the first locking pin towards the first receiving aperture.
Regarding claim 8, Kann teaches that the locking device further comprises a spring member (348 and 348a) within the recess, the spring member being configured to bias the first locking pin towards the first receiving aperture and bias the second locking pin towards the second receiving aperture.
Regarding claim 9, Kann teaches that the retainer (390) is mounted to the body between the rear housing and a front housing of the body (as is shown in fig. 34).
Regarding claim 11, Kann teaches that the operating element is a beaded chain (200a), and that the retainer is a member comprising a trench (the space between elements 390 as described in paragraph 107, it is u-shaped) that is sized and configured to receive the chain, the trench having a narrowing region (at the bottom of the U) for supporting links between adjacent beads when the guide is in the first position to prevent travel of the beaded chain.
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.
/M.S./ Examiner, Art Unit 3634
/DANIEL P CAHN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights