DETAILED ACTION
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
Claims 1-11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “the tensioner being of the type mounted in use to a vertical surface for throughpassage”. This is unclear, as it is unclear what “type” of tensioner is intended to be claimed (i.e. is Applicant claiming a specific “type” of tensioner?). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites “a lock arrangement which, in use, is adapted to arrest throughpassage of the actuator in the event of slack”. This limitation is unclear due to the phrase “in the event of slack” (i.e. what exactly is being claimed by the phrase “in the event of slack”? What is “the event of slack”?). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 recites “a retracted position that is elevated in relation to the extended position being adapted” and “and being biased for movement towards the extended position is adapted”. These limitations are awkwardly worded and appear to possibly be missing punctuation (i.e. a comma or semicolon). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 recites “to receive the actuator in the manner of a pulley”. This phrase is awkwardly worded and unclear (i.e. what is “in the manner of a pulley”?). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 recites “for smooth operation of the shade”. This is unclear (i.e. the term “smooth” is considered to be a relative term. What exactly is considered “smooth operation”?). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 recites “upon movement of the plunger to the extended position, to arrest movement of the plunger towards the retracted position”. This phrase is awkwardly worded (i.e. what is being claimed by “arrest movement of the plunger towards the retracted position”? How is movement arrested “towards the retracted position” when the plunger is in the extended position? How can movement be arrested “towards” a different position?). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 recites “the lock arrangement, upon movement of the plunger to the extended position, arrests movement of the plunger towards the retracted position”. This phrase is awkwardly worded (i.e. what is being claimed by “arrests movement of the plunger towards the retracted position”? How is movement arrested “towards the retracted position” when the plunger is in the extended position? How can movement be arrested “towards” a different position?). Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 6 and 7 recite “the plunger”. This is unclear since “the plunger” lacks proper antecedent basis (i.e. what is “the plunger”?). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 recites “the expanded configuration”. This is unclear since “the expanded configuration” lacks proper antecedent basis (i.e. what is “the expanded configuration”?). Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 4-5 and 8-11 are objected to as depending from a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Marocco (US 2019/0264501).
Regarding claim 1, Marocco discloses a tensioner for a roller shade, [the tensioner being of the type mounted in use to a vertical surface for throughpassage in taut relation of a clutch actuator selected from ball chain and cord (See paragraph [0052])]*, the tensioner comprising: a lock arrangement (element 30) [which, in use, is adapted to arrest throughpassage of the actuator in the event of slack]* (See at least paragraph [0066]).
Examiner’s note: *The above/below statements in brackets are examples of an intended use statement that fails to further limit the structure of the claimed invention. Since the claimed invention is directed solely to the structure of a tensioner, the prior art must only be capable of meeting the structural recitation in order to be applicable, and in this case, the examiner maintains that the tensioner disclosed by Marocco is entirely capable of the intended use statement. Note that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Marocco discloses further comprising a spring (element 64) that biases the plunger (element 60) for movement towards the expanded configuration.
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Marocco discloses wherein the lock arrangement further comprising a jaw (at least element 66) which, in combination with the plunger, grips the actuator when the plunger is in the extended position.
Regarding claim 8, Marocco discloses wherein the jaw has a ball shaped hollow for use with a ball chain (See at least Figure 3A).
Regarding claim 9, Marocco discloses wherein the jaw has gripping teeth (element 66) for use with a cord (element 24).
Regarding claim 10, Marocco discloses wherein the gripping teeth are removable (See at least paragraph [0066], “Alternatively the slide lock 60 may eliminate teeth 66 and present a surface to contact the endless loop. In yet another embodiment the engaging means 66 and slide lock 60 may be eliminated”).
Claims 1-3, 6-7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Randall et al. (US 2008/0251622) (hereinafter Randall).
Regarding claim 1, Randall discloses a tensioner for a roller shade, [the tensioner being of the type mounted in use to a vertical surface for throughpassage in taut relation of a clutch actuator selected from ball chain and cord (element 22)]*, the tensioner comprising: a lock arrangement (Figure 4, element 24”) [which, in use, is adapted to arrest throughpassage of the actuator in the event of slack]* (Examiner notes that the tensioner of Randall is entirely capable of arresting throughpassage of the actuator in the event of slack).
Examiner’s note: *The above/below statements in brackets are examples of an intended use statement that fails to further limit the structure of the claimed invention. Since the claimed invention is directed solely to the structure of a tensioner, the prior art must only be capable of meeting the structural recitation in order to be applicable, and in this case, the examiner maintains that the tensioner disclosed Randall is entirely capable of the intended use statement. Note that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, Randall discloses wherein the lock arrangement: includes a plunger (Figure 4, considered at least element 46”) having a bearing surface, [the plunger, in use, being adapted for vertical movement between an extended position and a retracted position that is elevated in relation to the extended position being adapted, when in the retracted position, to receive the actuator in the manner of a pulley (See Figure 4), for smooth operation of the shade; and being biased for movement towards the extended position is adapted, in use, upon movement of the plunger to the extended position, to arrest movement of the plunger towards the retracted position; and is adapted, in use, when the plunger is in the extended position, to arrest throughpassage of the actuator]* (See Figure 4, See paragraph [0023]).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, Randall discloses wherein: the plunger is biased for movement towards the extended position (See Figure 4, See paragraph [0023]); [the lock arrangement, upon movement of the plunger to the extended position, arrests movement of the plunger towards the retracted position; the lock arrangement, when the plunger is in the extended position, arrests throughpassage of the actuator]*; and the lock arrangement includes a release (element 33), [that selectively allows movement of the plunger toward the retracted position from the extended position]* (See Figure 4, See paragraph [0023]).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Randall discloses further comprising a spring (Figure 4, element 33) that biases the plunger for movement towards the expanded configuration.
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Randall discloses wherein the lock arrangement further comprising a jaw (Figure 4, area of element 78) which, in combination with the plunger, grips the actuator when the plunger is in the extended position.
Regarding claim 9, Randall discloses wherein the jaw has gripping teeth for use with a cord (See Figure 4).
Regarding claim 10, Randall discloses [wherein the gripping teeth are removable]* Examiner notes that the assembly is entirely capable of being disassembled and removed.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a2 as being anticipated by Hendriks (US 2025/0250850).
Regarding claim 1, Hendriks discloses a tensioner for a roller shade, [the tensioner being of the type mounted in use to a vertical surface for throughpassage in taut relation of a clutch actuator selected from ball chain and cord]*, the tensioner comprising: a lock arrangement (element 1) [which, in use, is adapted to arrest throughpassage of the actuator in the event of slack (See at least Figures 3A-4B)]*.
Examiner’s note: *The above/below statements in brackets are examples of an intended use statement that fails to further limit the structure of the claimed invention. Since the claimed invention is directed solely to the structure of a tensioner, the prior art must only be capable of meeting the structural recitation in order to be applicable, and in this case, the examiner maintains that the tensioner disclosed Hendriks is entirely capable of the intended use statement. Note that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, Hendriks discloses wherein the lock arrangement: includes a plunger (at least element 21) having a bearing surface, [the plunger, in use, being adapted for vertical movement between an extended position and a retracted position that is elevated in relation to the extended position being adapted, when in the retracted position, to receive the actuator in the manner of a pulley, for smooth operation of the shade; and being biased for movement towards the extended position is adapted, in use, upon movement of the plunger to the extended position, to arrest movement of the plunger towards the retracted position; and is adapted, in use, when the plunger is in the extended position, to arrest throughpassage of the actuator]* (See at least Figures 2-4B, paragraphs [0039-0046]).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, Hendriks discloses wherein: the plunger is biased for movement towards the extended position; [the lock arrangement, upon movement of the plunger to the extended position, arrests movement of the plunger towards the retracted position; the lock arrangement, when the plunger is in the extended position (Figure 4A), arrests throughpassage of the actuator]*; and the lock arrangement includes a release (at least element 23), [that selectively allows movement of the plunger toward the retracted position from the extended position]*.
Regarding claim 4, Hendriks discloses wherein the tensioner comprises a backer (element 10B) and a cover (element 10A) and wherein the lock arrangement comprises a passage defined in one of the backer and the cover and a resilient finger (element 23) carried by the plunger, the passage including a socket (considered interior portion of element 13 that engages directly with element 23, See at least Figure 4B, paragraph [0042], “the locking element 23 and the receiving space 13 form a snap-fit connection”) that presents interiorly and a keyway (considered exterior portion of element 14 and surrounding exterior area, See at least paragraph [0044]) that presents exteriorly, the resilient finger springs into the socket when the plunger reaches the extended position.
Regarding claim 5, Hendriks discloses wherein the deformable finger defines the re- lease.
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Hendriks discloses further comprising a spring (element 30) that biases the plunger for movement towards the expanded configuration.
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Hendriks discloses wherein the lock arrangement further comprising a jaw (element 15) which, in combination with the plunger, grips the actuator when the plunger is in the extended position.
Regarding claim 9, Hendriks discloses wherein the jaw has gripping teeth for use with a cord (See Figures 3A and 3B).
Regarding claim 10, Hendriks discloses wherein the gripping teeth are removable (Examiner notes that the entire assembly is “removeable”).
Regarding claim 11, Hendriks discloses wherein the passage is defined in the cover (Examiner note that the “passage” is at least partially defined in element 10A).
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hendriks (US 2025/0250850) in view of Marocco (US 2019/0264501).
Regarding claim 8, Examiner believes that the jaw of Hendriks can be considered to include a ball shaped hollow for use with a ball chain (See Figures 3A-4B, Examiner notes that the “hollow” is sized and shaped to receive several balls from the ball chain).
However, if Applicant disagrees, Examiner notes that Marocco teaches that it is known in the art to configure a tensioner for a roller shade, [the tensioner being of the type mounted in use to a vertical surface for throughpassage in taut relation of a clutch actuator selected from ball chain and cord (See paragraph [0052])]*, the tensioner comprising: a lock arrangement (element 30) [which, in use, is adapted to arrest throughpassage of the actuator in the event of slack]* (See at least paragraph [0066]), wherein the lock arrangement further comprising a jaw (at least element 66) which, in combination with a plunger, grips the actuator when the plunger is in the extended position, and wherein the jaw has a ball shaped hollow for use with a ball chain (See at least Figure 3A). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the hollow of the jaw of Hendriks such that it is at least partially rounded in order to more exactly conform to the shape of the balls of the chain, since this could provide a more secure locking engagement between elements 20 and 15 when in the locked position (Figure 4A), and since it has been held that changes in shape, form, or configuration of components of a device are obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape, form, or configuration would be found significant to a person of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Such modifications are not critical to the design and would have produced no unexpected results. In addition, the prior art element performs the function specified in the claim in substantially the same manner as the function is performed by the corresponding element described in the specification, and such structure are considered art recognized equivalent structures and would have functioned at least equally as well. It would have been obvious to modify the device in this way for the purpose of providing an alternative arrangement that would have functioned at least equally as well.
Additionally, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art as evidenced above, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed, or substituted one known element for another, using known methods with no change in their respective functions. Such a combination or substitution would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, since the elements perform as expected and thus the results would be expected. MPEP 2143
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN B REPHANN whose telephone number is (571)270-7318. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:30pm.
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.
/JUSTIN B REPHANN/Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights