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 .
Drawings
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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 because the characters of the lines and numbers in the drawings
don’t provide satisfactory reproduction characteristics. This applies to all the figures, and fig. 7 is copies below as an example. The lines forming the elements aren’t clear and parts are missing as the lines have faded away, which results in drawings that are difficult to understand as details are not discernable. This issue persists throughout the drawings. Appropriate correction is required. For reference see the ‘satisfactory reproduction characteristics’ paragraph from the MPEP inserted below:
1.84 Standards for drawings.
[examiner has cut out iterations between the title and "(l)" for simplicity]
(l) Character of lines, numbers, and letters. All drawings must be made by a process which
will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Lines and strokes of different thicknesses may be used in the same drawing where different thicknesses have a different meaning.
PNG
media_image1.png
558
626
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to because of the following non-limiting informalities:
Claims 2-5 begin with “An adjustable clamp”, but should recite “The adjustable clamp”
Claim 2 recites “a first curved arm and a second, opposite curved arm”. This is not interpreted as introducing two more curved arms than what is introduced in claim 1.
Claim 3 recites “comprising two curved arms and a third, opposite curved arm that is articulated relative to the clamp body”. This is interpreted as the total number of curved arms being three, with the third arm being the one that is opposite and articulated relative to the clamp body.
Claim 4 recites “a connector”, but should recite “the connector”
Claim 6 recites “the at least one opposing curved” and is missing the word “arm”
Claim 7 recites “A clamp”, but should recite “The clamp”
Claim 8 recites “the cross-member”, but should recite “a cross-member”
Claim 8 recites “and posterior arm” on lines 6-7, but should recite “and the posterior arm”
Claim 11 recites “a cross member”, but should recite “the cross-member”
It is up to the applicant to find and correct all issues similar to those described above. 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) 1-4, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chang (US 20180187704).
Regarding claim 1, Chang discloses an adjustable clamp (2 and 5 in fig. 1) adapted for anchoring a connector (33 is considered a connector), the clamp having a clamp body (20) and opposed curved arms (32 and the 21s), at least one of the curved arms being articulated relative to the clamp body (arm 32).
Regarding claim 2, Chang discloses a first curved arm (see claim objection above, one of the 21s) and a second, opposed curved arm (see claim objection above, 32) that is articulated relative to the clamp body (20).
Regarding claim 3, Chang discloses two curved arms (see the claim objection above, the 21s) and a third, opposed curved arm (32) that is articulated relative to the clamp body (20).
Regarding claim 4, Chang discloses a recess (52) adapted to releasably retain at least part of the connector (33).
Regarding claim 6, Chang discloses a clamp (2 and 5) for removably retaining a cross-member of a retractable shade (capable of this), the clamp having;
a clamp body (see fig. 1) comprising at least one curved arm (one of the 21s), and at least one opposing curved arm (22) which is articulated relative to the clamp body, and a recess (52) for releasably retaining the connector (33), and
an adjuster (41) for applying clamping force between the at least one curved arm and the at least one opposing curved arm (when in use clamping the cross member) to clamp the cross member and anchor the connector to the cross member.
Regarding claim 8, Chang discloses a clamp (2 and 5) for retaining the cross-member of a retractable shade (capable of this), the clamp comprising;
a clamp body (see fig. 1) comprising two integral anterior curved arms (the 21s), and an articulated posterior arm (22),
the clamp body defining a conduit (area through which element 41 traverses in fig. 2) for receiving at least part of a connector (element 43 is a connector), and
an adjuster (41) for applying clamping force between the anterior arms and posterior arm (when in use clamping something),
the adjuster passing through the clamp body (fig. 3) and through at least part of the connector and traversing the conduit (as shown in fig. 3).
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) 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (US 20180187704) in view of Shargani (US 20170328068).
Regarding claim 5, Chang does not teach that the connector is a pulley or shackle.
Shargani teaches a connector being a pulley (shown in fig. 27). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Change with teachings of Shargani so that the connector was a pulley. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of the clamp being able to be hung overhead from a cable.
Regarding claim 7, Chang does not teach that the connector is a pulley or shackle.
Shargani teaches a connector being a pulley (shown in fig. 27). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Change with teachings of Shargani so that the connector was a pulley. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of the clamp being able to be hung overhead from a cable.
Claim(s) 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (US 20180187704) in view of Moore (US 4057211).
Regarding claims 8-9, Chang discloses a clamp (2 and 5) for retaining the cross-member of a retractable shade (capable of this), the clamp comprising;
a clamp body (see fig. 1) comprising two integral anterior curved arms (the 21s), and an articulated posterior arm (22),
the clamp body defining a conduit (area through which element 41 traverses in fig. 2) for receiving at least part of a connector (element 43 is a connector), and
an adjuster (41) for applying clamping force between the anterior arms and posterior arm (when in use clamping something),
the adjuster passing through the clamp body (fig. 3) and through at least part of the connector and traversing the conduit (as shown in fig. 3). Chang does not teach that the connector is a pulley or a shackle.
Moore teaches a pulley (44 and 34 in fig. 12) that is a connector. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chang with teachings of Moore by adding a connector that is a pulley, in a way so that the adjuster also passes through at least a part of the connector. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of the device better being able to hang overhead.
Claim(s) 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shargani (US 20170328068) in view of Chang (US 20180187704).
Regarding claims 10, Shargani teaches a pulley system for a Roman shade (see fig. 1A, note that all the element 9s are the pulleys from the embodiment in fig. 27), the system comprising:
a series of pulleys (fig. 27, the 9s),
a cable (4) passing through the series of pulleys, wherein each pulley is retained in a respective clamp (element 2 is considered a clamp), and is thus anchored to a cross member (3) of the roman shade. Shargani does not teach that the clamp is of claim 1.
Chang discloses an adjustable clamp (2 and 5 in fig. 1) adapted for anchoring a connector (33 is considered a connector), the clamp having a clamp body (20) and opposed curved arms (32 and the 21s), at least one of the curved arms being articulated relative to the clamp body (arm 32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the clamp of Shargani with teachings of Chang so that the clamp is that of Chang as described in the claim 1 rejection above. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of the clamp being able to be quickly adjusted or tightened.
Regarding claim 11, Shargani teaches a pulley system for a roman shade (see fig. 1A, note that all the element 9s are the pulleys from the embodiment in fig. 27), the system comprising;
a series of pulleys (fig. 27, the 9s),
a cable (4) passing through the series of pulleys, wherein each pulley is retained in a respective clamp (element 2 is considered a clamp), and is thus anchored to a cross member (element 3 from fig. 1b of Shargani) of the roman shade.
Shargani does not teach that the clamp is of claim 6.
Chang discloses a clamp (2 and 5) for removably retaining a cross-member of a retractable shade (capable of this), the clamp having;
a clamp body (see fig. 1) comprising at least one curved arm (one of the 21s), and at least one opposing curved arm (22) which is articulated relative to the clamp body, and a recess (52) for releasably retaining the connector (33), and
an adjuster (41) for applying clamping force between the at least one curved arm and the at least one opposing curved arm (when in use clamping the cross member) to clamp the cross member and anchor the connector to the cross member.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the clamp of Shargani with teachings of Chang so that the clamp is that of Chang as described in the claim 6 rejection above. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of the clamp being able to be quickly adjusted or tightened.
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