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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph 27, line 2, recites “is defined the outer wall of the nut”. This is improper grammar, and should recite “define the outer wall of the nut”, or something similar.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 internal thread is directly integrally formed on a wall of the inner hole” from claim 7 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 non-limiting informalities:
Claim 1 recites “the other end” on line 10, but should recite “a second end” for proper antecedence, and for clearly distinguishing between the ends.
Claim 1 recites “one end of the external threaded tube” on line 11. This is interpreted as “a second end of the external threaded tube”, because “one end” is already introduced in line 8.
Claim 1 recites “the end of the inner hole with the internal thread” on lines 11-12. This is interpreted as referring to “the second end if the inner hole”.
Claim 1 recites “keeps being always screwed” on line 14. The examiner suggests language such as “remains screwed”.
Claim 3 recites “the corresponding end” on lines 3-4. This is clearly referring to “the second end”, and the examiner suggests amending the language to recite this. Claim 4 line 3 inherits this language.
Claim 4 recites “is defined the outer wall of the nut” on line 2. This is best interpreted as “define the outer wall of the nut”, and it is suggested to amend this to recite something similar that is consistent with the disclosure.
Claims 4 and 5 both seem to have verbs that are not properly conjugated with respect to their nouns. For example, in claim 4 it is written “a plurality of guide protrusions…. is protruded”, and “the plurality of guide protrusions is…”. In claim 5 it is written “a plurality of guide protrusions…. is formed”, and “the plurality of guide protrusions is…”.
Claim 8 recites “the base is provided with two end walls at both ends” on lines 1-2. From the disclosure, this is interpreted as the base requiring two total end walls, one at one end, and a second at a second end. It is noted that claim 1 already introduces one end and one end wall, and as such, this is not interpreted as two additional walls and ends besides the ones from claim 1. It is also not interpreted as two end walls being required at each of two ends. It is suggested to amend this so it is consistent with the disclosure, and to introduce a “second” end wall, instead of reciting the word “both”.
Claim 9 recites “the end of the external threaded tube away from the reel” on line 2. It is again suggested to have the introduced end walls be labeled as “first” and “second”, for ease of reading.
Appropriate correction is required. It is up to the applicant to find and correct all similar issues.
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, and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei (US 2022/0408959), in view of Huang (US 2006/0278345).
Regarding claim 1, Lei teaches a cord winding device of a curtain (see fig. 1), comprising:
a base (1) forming one end wall (right end of the base as shown in fig. 1) on at least one end;
a reel (22 is the reel) mounted to the base (fig. 2 shows the components mounted), wherein the reel defines an inner hole (this hole is shown in figs. 3-4, the shaft 30 extends through this) extending through the reel in an axis center of the reel (fig. 2 shows this), for a transmission shaft (element 30) of the curtain extending through, a connection structure (element 24, the one on the left in fig. 1, is considered the connection structure) is provided in and at one end of the inner hole (see fig. 2), which connects the reel (22) and the transmission shaft (30) in a relatively fixed manner in a circumferential direction (paragraphs 21-22 describe how the reels are circumferentially fixed to the shaft 30) and in a relatively movable manner in an axial direction (see paragraph 26, the device works by the reels sliding relative to the shaft due to the external threaded section as they rotate with the shaft); and
an external threaded tube (20) fixed to the end wall of the base (see fig. 2) with one end (the right end), and coaxially arranged with the reel (22) for the transmission shaft extending through an axial hole of the external threaded tube (see figs. 1-2),
wherein an internal thread (10) is provided on (indicating proximity, see definition 1.d. from the freedictionary.com below) the other end of the inner hole away from the connection structure (this is interpreted as merely requiring the internal thread to be in proximity to a second end of the inner hole, which in this case would be the right end when looking at fig. 2. This is considered in proximity to this second end, as it is closer to the second end than to the first left end. This is not interpreted as requiring the internal thread to be located directly on a surface of the inner hole.),
one end of the external threaded tube (20) is screwed correspondingly with the internal thread (see fig. 2);
wherein when the reel rotates with the transmission shaft, the reel moves axially relative to the external threaded tube by spiraling and keeps being always screwed to the external threaded tube (paragraph 26, it is understood that the direct shaft rotates the reels which then are able to move axially due to the threads).
PNG
media_image1.png
192
658
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lei does not teach that one end of the external threaded tube is inserted into the inner hole from the end of the inner hole with the internal thread.
Huang teaches a cord winding device with a reel (2) and an internal thread (210) on an end of an internal hole (see fig. 1), and an external threaded element (121), that is inserted into the inner hole from the end of the inner hole with the internal thread (see fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lei with teachings of Huang so that the internal thread is found in the inner hole, and that one end of the external threaded tube is inserted into the inner hole from the end of the inner hole with the internal thread. The claim 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 would simplify assembly, as there would be less parts to connect together.
Regarding claim 6, modified Lei does not explicitly teach that the connection structure (element 24 on the left) is a plurality of protruded protrusions protruding from a wall of the inner hole and corresponding to a plurality of axial slots defined in an outer wall of the transmission shaft, or, the connection structure is a plurality of key slots defined in the wall of the inner hole, corresponding to a plurality of key bars axially extending on the outer wall of the transmission shaft.
Lei further teaches a connection structure (connection between the reel in fig. 4 and the shaft) that has a protruded protrusion (250) protruding from a wall of an inner hole and corresponding to an axial slot (300) defined in an outer wall of the transmission shaft (paragraph 26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the connection structure with teachings of Lei so that it is a plurality of protruded protrusions protruding from a wall of the inner hole and corresponding to a plurality of axial slots defined in an outer wall of the transmission shaft. The claim 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 would simplify assembly, as there would be less parts to connect together.
Regarding claim 7, modified Lei includes teachings of Huang and teaches that the internal thread is directly integrally formed on a wall of the inner hole (after the modification to claim 1 above, see fig. 1 of Huang).
Regarding claim 8, modified Lei teaches that the base is provided with two end walls at both ends (see claim objection above, this is interpreted as this is interpreted as the base requiring two total end walls, one at one end, and a second at a second end, see fig. 1 for this), and an axial movement stroke of the reel is between the two end walls (some of the axial movement happens between the two walls).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5, and 9-10 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 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. For example, the prior art is not found to teach a nut with the internal thread as is claimed in claim 2. Any modification to arrive at this would not have been obvious without impermissible hindsight. The prior art is also not found to teach much of the structure as required by claim 9. As non-limiting examples, the prior art does not teach a positioning flange that is formed radially outward at the end of the external threaded tube, nor an anti-detachment hook that is formed at a side of this positioning flange. One of ordinary skill in the art would also not have been motivated nor found it obvious to make any modifications to arrive at these claimed limitations.
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
