DETAILED ACTION
This non-final Office action is in response to the claims filed on February 6, 2025.
Status of claims: claims 1-10 are hereby examined below.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/6/2025 and 11/10/2025 were considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, line 4 – shouldn’t “second torque” be amended to “a second torque”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 2, line 5 – “by the weight of the first screen and the weight bar in rotation” is unclear. Do both the first screen and weight bar rotate? Or does only the first screen rotate?
Further, claims dependent upon a rejected claim are rejected for at least being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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 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.
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2022-24585A to Aizawa et al. (hereinafter “Aizawa”).
Aizawa discloses a serial type multi roll blind comprising:
a weight bar 70a; (see FIG. 1)
a first screen 70 that has a lower end connected to the weight bar and an upper end connected to a first winding roll 72 and is wound on the first winding roll or unwound from the first winding roll by rotation of the first winding roll;
a first winding bar 71 in which the first winding roll is rotatably coupled; (see FIG. 1)
a second screen 60 that has a lower end connected to the first winding bar and an upper end connected to a second winding roll 61 and is wound on the second winding roll or unwound from the second winding roll by rotation of the second winding roll; and
a second winding bar 62 in which the second winding roll is rotatably coupled. (claim 1)
Aizawa further discloses wherein the first screen and the second screen are different in light transmissivity. (see paragraph [0013] of the machine translation of Aizawa) (claim 7)
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 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.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aizawa, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of JP 20200524233A.
Aizawa fails to disclose a torsion spring with the first winding bar.
JP 20200524233A teaches of a torsion spring 300 that is connected to a first winding roll 100 and generates first torque while being compressed by rotation of the first winding roll, thereby offsetting second torque that is generated in the opposite direction to the first torque by the weight of a first screen 200 and a weight bar 210 in rotation. (see FIGS. 1-3 and [0024] and [0029])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Aizawa first winding roll to include a torsion spring, as taught by JP 20200524233A, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve movement and control of the position of the first screen. (claim 2)
JP 20200524233A further discloses wherein the first screen is naturally fixed in an unwound state or a wound state by balance of the first torque and the second torque. (see FIGS. 1-3 and [0024] and [0029]) (claim 3)
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aizawa in view of JP 20200524233A, as applied to claim 3 above, in further view of US 2646114 to Kearny.
Aizawa, as applied above, fails to disclose a holder dispose at the weight bar.
Kearny teaches of a holder 30 disposed at a weight bar to be able to fix the weight bar to a side of a window frame. (see FIG. 1)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Aizawa weight bar with a holder as taught by Kearny with a reasonable expectation of success in order to facilitate fastening the weight bar to a window frame; thus ensuring the first screen is maintained in an extended position. (claim 4)
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aizawa in view of JP 20200524233A in view of Kearny, as applied to claim 4 above, in further view of KR 1020315261 to Kwak et al. (hereinafter “Kwak”).
Aizawa, as applied above, fails to disclose a rotation actuator.
Kwak teaches of a second winding bar includes a rotation actuator 240 adjusting positions of a second screen 400 and a first winding bar 300 by applying a rotation force to a second winding roll 210. (see FIG. 4 and [0062])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Aizawa second winding bar with a rotation actuator, as taught by Kwak with a reasonable expectation of success in order to assist with movement of at least the second screen. (claim 5)
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aizawa in view of JP 20200524233A in view of Kearny in view of Kwak, as applied to claim 5 above, in further view of US 2023/0193688 to Strand.
Aizawa, as applied above, further discloses wherein the rotation actuator includes a driving motor, but fails to disclose the driving motor is remotely controllable.
Strand teaches of a remotely controllable driving motor for a roll blind. (see [0063])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Aizawa driving motor such that the motor is remotely controllable, as taught by Strand with a reasonable expectation of success in order to allow for operation of the roll blind from a remote position in relation to the roll blind. (claim 6)
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aizawa, as applied to claim 7 above, in view of US 20070251652 to Anthony et al. (hereinafter “Anthony”) in view of US 20060048904 to Gruner.
Aizawa, as applied above, discloses the first screen and second screen made of materials of different properties, but fails to disclose wherein any one of the first screen and the second screen is made of a translucent sheet that can transmit light and the other one is made of an opaque sheet.
Anthony teaches of a screen made of a translucent sheet that ca n transmit light. (see [0053])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form any one of the Aizama first screen and the second screen out of a translucent sheet, as taught by Anthony with a reasonable expectation of success in order to allow for sunlight to pass through the screen as well as since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice.
Gruner teaches of a screen made of an opaque sheet.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form one of the Aizama screens out of an opaque sheet, as taught by Gruner with a reasonable expectation of success in order to ensure some privacy with the screen and control how much light passes through the roll blind as well as since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice. (claim 8)
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aizawa in view of Anthony in view of Gruner, as applied to claim 8 above, in view of US 20220126545 to Choi.
Aizawa, as applied above, fails to disclose wherein the translucent sheet is a transparent film having light transmissivity adjusted through tinting.
Choi teaches of a sheet 100 that is a transparent film having light transmissivity adjusted through tinting. (see at least the abstract)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the Aizawa translucent sheet as a transparent film having light transmissivity adjusted through tinting, as taught by Choi, with a reasonable expectation of success in order “for protection of the privacy together with the ultraviolet and heat insulation effect” (see [0035]) as well as since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice. (claim 9)
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aizawa in view of Anthony in view of Gruner, as applied to claim 8 above.
Aizawa, as applied above, discloses wherein any one of the first screen and the second screen is made of a translucent sheet that can transmit light and the other one is made of an opaque sheet. However, Aizawa, as applied above, fails to explicitly disclose that the first screen is made of a translucent sheet and the second screen is made of an opaque sheet.
On the other hand, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the first screen to be made of a translucent sheet and the second screen to be made of an opaque sheet for aesthetic reasons, to block sunlight from the upper half of the roller blind as well as since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice. (claim 10)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS MENEZES whose telephone number is (571)272-5225. The examiner can normally be reached on M - F 7:30 -4 PST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Daniel Cahn can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Marcus Menezes/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights