DETAILED ACTION
This final Office action is in response to the claims filed on September 15, 2026..
Status of claims: claims 2 3 are cancelled; claims 1 and 4-15 are hereby examined below.
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 1, 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2022-24585A to Aizawa et al. (hereinafter “Aizawa”) in view of JP 20200524233A.
Aizawa discloses a 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.
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.
Furthermore, by combining to teachings of JP 20200524233A with Aizawa, Aizawa, as applied above, further discloses wherein the rotation of the second winding roll moves the second screen up or down and changes a position of the first winding bar connected to the lower end of the second screen, such that the first winding bar, the first screen, and the second screen are moved up or down together.
(Note – this last recitation of “the first winding bar, the first screen, and the second screen are moved up or down together” occurs during vertical adjustment of elements 8 and 9, when combined with the teachings of JP 20200524233A. Put another way, when elements 8 and 9 are not in a vertically fixed position and considering the torsion spring of JP 20200524233A, Aizawa, as applied above, discloses the recitation of “the first winding bar, the first screen, and the second screen are moved up or down together.”)
Also, by combining the teachings of JP 20200524233A with Aizawa, Aizawa, as applied above, further discloses wherein the first screen is 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] of JP 20200524233A) (claim 1)
Aizawa, as applied above, 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)
Aizawa, as applied above, further discloses where a first end of the torsion spring 300 is fixed to a first end cap 112 of the first winding bar through a spring-fixing cap (element directly to the left of the rotary block 322 in FIG. 2 of JP 20200524233A) and a spring-fixing shaft 320, a second end of the torsion spring is coupled to the first winding roll through a fitting block 320 fitted in the first winding roll 100, and the spring-fixing shaft passes through a rotary block inserted in an end of the first winding roll and serves as a rotation shaft of the first winding roll. (claim 14)
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aizawa in view of JP 20200524233A, as applied to claim 1 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 and configured 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)
Aizawa, as applied above, further discloses wherein, in a state in which the weight bar is fixed to the window frame by the holder, the rotation of the second window roll moves the first window bar up or down such that an extended length of the second screen and an extended length of the first screen are changed simultaneously in directions opposite to each other, while the balance between the first torque and the second torque is maintained as the first screen is wound on or unwound from the first winding roll. (claim 11)
(Note: when elements 8 and 9 of Aizawa are not in a vertically fixed position, Aizawa, as applied above, discloses the recitation of claim 11.)
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 connected to one end of the second winding roll, 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 in view of JP 20200524233A, 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 one of the first screen or the second screen is made of a translucent sheet that can transmit light and the other 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 of the Aizawa 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 Aizawa 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 JP 20200524233A 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 JP 20200524233A 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 the translucent sheet that can transmit light and the other one is made of the 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)
Claim 12 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 US 20230193688 to Strand.
Aizawa, as applied above, fails to disclose wherein the holder is a magnet disposed in the weight bar.
Strand teaches of a holder as magnets 94 disposed in a weight bar 14. (see [0057] and FIG. 6 of Strand).
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 holder with at least a magnet, as taught by Strand with a reasonable expectation of success in order to further assist with holding the weight bar in certain desirable positions via magnetic attraction. (claim 12)
Claim 13 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 in further view of US 2023/0193688 to Strand, as applied to claim 6 above, in further view of US 11180954 to Jang.
Aizawa, as applied above, discloses the driving motor is connected to one end of the second winding roll, but fails to disclose an assistant spring with the second winding bar.
Jang teaches of a winding bar 100 with an assistant spring 400 connected to an end thereof, the assistant spring being configured to accumulate elastic energy during the rotation of the winding roll, and to assist the rotation of the winding roll using the accumulated elastic energy.
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 include an assistant spring on a second end of the Aizawa second winding roll, as taught by Jang, in order to assist with movement control of at least the second screen.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 15, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 7 of the applicant’s response filed September 15, 2026, the applicant contends:
PNG
media_image1.png
226
650
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the applicant failed to explain how “JP ‘233 would change Aizawas intended operating principle.” Second, modifying Aizawa with JP ‘233 does not preclude maintaining “the upper screen in its operative position” and does not mean replacing elements 8 and 9 of Aizawa, but simply constitutes adding the torsion spring taught by JP’233 to Aizawa.
On page 7-8 of the applicant’s response filed September 15, 2026, the applicant contends:
PNG
media_image2.png
424
674
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted in the rejection of claim 1 above, the recitation of “the first winding bar, the first screen, and the second screen are moved up or down together” occurs during vertical adjustment of elements 8 and 9, when combined with the teachings of JP 20200524233A. Put another way, when elements 8 and 9 are not in a vertically fixed position and considering the torsion spring of JP 20200524233A, Aizawa, as applied above, discloses the recitation of “the first winding bar, the first screen, and the second screen are moved up or down together.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 M - F 7:30 -4 PST.
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.
/MARCUS MENEZES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights