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 .
Specification
A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Examiner notes that no “traveling wave” can be found in Applicants invention.
A substitute specification in proper idiomatic English and in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52(a) and (b) is required. The substitute specification filed must be accompanied by a statement that it contains no new matter. Additionally, the term “travelling wave” is found throughout the specification. This is objected to since, as best understood, Applicants invention includes no “travelling wave”, and it is unclear what exactly is being referred to by the term. Further, the specification is objected to as identifying multiple structures with the same reference number. This includes but is not limited to: reference character “10” has been used to designate numerous different structure identified in the specification including “an extruded aluminium profile”, “a travelling shaft bearing housing”, “a bearing housing part”, and “a tubular bearing housing”; reference character “30” has been used to designate both “a travelling wave” and “a travelling shaft”; reference character “12” is identified as “the integrated floor plate”, “the base plate”, “the bottom plate”, and “a projection”. Applicant is required to review the disclosure and correct all inconsistencies of this manner
Claim Objections
Examiner notes that the claims are replete with examples of unclear claim language and the examples below are NON-LIMITING examples only. Applicant must review and amend all claims for clarity, definiteness, and grammatical accuracy
Claim 1 recites “Roller shutter drive”. Examiner recommends that this is replaced with “A roller shutter drive”, since all terminology must use a proper definite article (i.e. “a”, “the”, “said”) to ensure proper antecedent basis of the claim terms. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites the term “can” numerous times (i.e. “through which the winding cord can be guided to the outer diameter of the travelling shaft with little friction and can wrap around the outer diameter of the travelling shaft or can rest on the travelling shaft”, and “the travelling shaft can slide past the projection without touching it”), and it is unclear if these recitations are requiring structure/functionality, or merely stating the invention is capable of the recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the travelling shaft bearing housing has a tubular or circular channel cross-section for the travelling shaft bearing”. This is unclear, since “the travelling shaft bearing” lacks proper antecedent basis, and it is unclear if the terms “travelling shaft” and “travelling shaft bearing” are intended to refer to the same structure. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-9 recite “Device according to Claim”. This is unclear, since it is unclear what exactly is being referred to by “Device”, as no “Device” has been previously claimed. Examiner recommends that “Device according to Claim” is replaced with “The roller shutter drive according to claim”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 recites “the convex guide contour”. This lacks proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 recites “the pins”. This lacks proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 recites “of the guide of the lift cord serve from the center of the profile to the outer diameter AD of the travelling wave”. This is unclear as “the guide of the lift cord” and “the center of the profile” lack proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 recites “the travelling wave bearing housing is fitted in a cross-shaped or T-shaped punching”. This is unclear due to the term “a cross-shaped or T-shaped punching” (i.e. what is a “punching”?). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 recites “the opposite travelling shaft end”. This is unclear and lacks proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 recites “the sliding bearing fit”. This is unclear and lacks proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 recites “the switch-off point of the upward and downward travel of the blind”. This is unclear as “the switch-off point” and “the upward and downward travel of the blind” lacks proper antecedent basis. 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 1-9 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. Examiner notes that the claims are replete with examples of indefiniteness and the examples below are NON-LIMITING examples only. Applicant must review and amend all claims for clarity, definiteness, and grammatical accuracy.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “a louvre blind with slats held in cords”, and the claim also recites “such as ladder cords or loop cords” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the discs are held in cords such as ladder cords or loop cords”. This renders the claim indefinite, since the term “the discs” lack proper antecedent basis and are entirely unclear. Examiner notes that the only mention with regard to “discs” in Applicants specification is found in paragraph [0013] that recites “There is also no measure to prevent contact between the ladder cord and housing parts so that the ladder cords do not wear out when the discs are turned”. However, this sheds no light on what structure is being referred to by the term “discs”, and the limitation remains unclear and indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 3-7 and 9 recite the terms “the travelling wave” and “the travelling wave bearing housing”. These terms are entirely unclear, since Applicants invention does not include any “wave” when interpreted under any common definitions or understanding of the term (See definition for “wave” below). It is therefore unclear what exactly Applicant is claiming by the terms “the travelling wave” and “the travelling wave bearing housing”, since, as best understood, Applicants invention includes no “travelling wave” or “travelling wave bearing housing”. Additionally, the terms “the travelling wave” and “the travelling wave bearing housing” both lack proper antecedent basis and are unclear. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 recites “the feed of the travelling wave”. This limitation is entirely unclear and renders the claim indefinite. The term “the feed” lacks proper antecedent basis, and the only reference to a “feed” is found in Applicants paragraph [051] which recites “a feed of the travelling wave of approximately 1, 5 mm applies per 47.1 mm, which is realized by means of a screw thread feed”. This recitation is also unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 recites “the screw thread pitch is selected in such a way that a feed in the thickness of the lift cord takes place during a complete revolution”. This limitation is entirely unclear and renders the claim indefinite. the only reference to a “feed” is found in Applicants paragraph [051] which recites “a feed of the travelling wave of approximately 1, 5 mm applies per 47.1 mm, which is realized by means of a screw thread feed”. This recitation is also unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
wave
(weɪv)n., v. waved, wav•ing. n.
1. a disturbance on the surface of a liquid body, as the sea or a lake, in the form of a moving ridge or swell.
2. any surging or progressing movement or part resembling a wave of the sea.
3. a swell, surge, or rush: a wave of disgust.
4. a widespread attitude or tendency, etc.: a wave of anti-intellectualism.
5. a mass movement: a wave of settlers.
6. an outward curve in a surface or line; undulation.
7. an act or instance of waving.
8. a waviness of the hair.
9. a period of unusually hot or cold weather.
10. Physics. a progressive disturbance propagated from point to point in a medium or space without progress or advance by the points themselves, as in the transmission of sound or light.
v.i.
11. to move freely and gently back and forth or up and down, as by the action of air currents, sea swells, etc.: flags waving in the wind.
12. to curve alternately in opposite directions; have an undulating form.
13. to bend or sway up and down or to and fro.
14. to be moved, esp. alternately in opposite directions: a handkerchief waving in the distance.
15. to signal, esp. in greeting, by raising the hand and moving the fingers up and down.
v.t.
16. to cause to flutter or have a waving motion in.
17. to cause to bend or sway up and down or to and fro.
18. to cause to curve up and down or in and out.
19. to give a wavy appearance or pattern to, as silk.
20. to impart a wave to (the hair).
21. to greet or signal someone by raising and moving (the hand), esp. alternately in opposite directions.
22. to direct by a waving movement: to wave traffic around an obstacle.
23. to signify or express by a waving movement.
Source: https://www.thefreedictionary.com/wave
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 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Klein Tuente et al. (US 2013/0126108) (hereinafter Klein Tuente).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Klein Tuente discloses a roller shutter drive with a travelling shaft (element 10) and a travelling shaft bearing housing (element 20) for mounting, advancing and guiding the travelling shaft in a head rail (element 102) of a louvre blind with slats held in cords such as ladder cords or loop cords (See at least paragraph [0038]); wherein the travelling shaft is rotatably and horizontally displaceably mounted in the travelling shaft bearing housing (See Figures 3A-4B) and wherein the discs are held in cords such as ladder cords or loop cords, and wherein the travelling shaft bearing housing has a tubular or circular channel cross-section for the travelling shaft bearing and a projection (considered at least element 23) for guiding a winding cord (element 104) of the louvre blind, wherein the projection has a central slot (See Figures 5-7) with a convexly curved sliding surface, [through which the winding cord can be guided to the outer diameter of the travelling shaft with little friction and can wrap around the outer diameter of the travelling shaft or can rest on the travelling shaft, wherein a cord, a ladder cord loop or a loop cord loop of the louvre blind can be arranged on the travelling shaft between the winding cord winding and the channel cross-section of the travelling shaft bearing housing]*, and wherein the width B of the projection is equal to or narrower than the outer diameter AD of the travelling shaft, [and wherein a cord, a ladder cord loop or a loop cord loop of the louvre blind for supporting or wrapping around the travelling shaft can slide past the projection without touching it]*, and wherein the travelling shaft housing is locked in the head rail by means of a fitting (See at least paragraph [0026], Figure 6).
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 roller shutter drive, 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 roller shutter drive disclosed by Klein Tuente 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 4, as best understood, Klein Tuente discloses wherein the projection on the travelling shaft bearing housing consists of at least one round guide pin (element 26), wherein the pins are introduced into channels (see Figure 6) in the travelling shaft bearing housing, and in that the round pins of the guide of the lift cord serve from the center of the profile to the outer diameter AD of the travelling wave.
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, Klein Tuente discloses the device according to Claim 1, characterized in that a plastic sliding bearing (element 21) for receiving the travelling wave is installed in the tubular cross-section of the travelling wave bearing housing.
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Klein Tuente discloses the device according to Claim 1, characterized in that the travelling wave bearing housing is fitted in a cross-shaped or T-shaped punching (considered interior projections of element 102) fitted in the head rail, [wherein the punching out transversely to the longitudinal direction of the head rail in the slot width b is so narrow that a conductor cord loop or loop cord loop is held stationary on the travelling wave when the travelling wave is displaced]*.
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.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klein Tuente et al. (US 2013/0126108) (hereinafter Klein Tuente).
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, Examiner notes that claim 2 is considered to be a product-by-process claim (due to the limitation “the travelling-shaft bearing housing is produced from plastic by injection moulding”). Examiner notes that it has been held that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. Additionally, the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964,966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Further, 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 traveling shaft bearing housing of Klein Tuente such that it is produced from plastic by injection moulding, since the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Also see In reLeshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, Klein Tuente discloses wherein the projection with the convex guide contour projects in the longitudinal direction of the bearing housing part in order to guide the lift cords (See Figures 5-7). Additionally, Examiner notes that claim 3 is considered to be a product-by-process claim (due to the limitation “the travelling wave bearing housing is produced from an extruded aluminium profile and in that the projection takes place by separating a part from the bearing housing”). Examiner notes that it has been held that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. Additionally, the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964,966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Further, 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 travelling wave bearing housing of Klein Tuente such that it is produced from an extruded aluminium profile, since the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Also see In reLeshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klein Tuente et al. (US 2013/0126108) (hereinafter Klein Tuente) in view of Liang (US 2022/0195795)
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Klein Tuente discloses wherein the feed of the travelling wave takes place by means of a screw thread in a nut thread (elements 11 and 21), which sits on a travelling shaft end, and in that the rotation of the travelling wave takes place by means of a sliding bearing fit at the opposite travelling shaft end (See Figures 3A-4b). Klein Tuente does not explicitly disclose use of a drive motor. Liang, however, teaches that it is known in the art to configure a roller shutter drive that includes use of a drive motor (element 11), and wherein an extension of a motor drive shaft (element 14) engages in a sliding bearing (element 41), so that the travelling wave experiences a rotational movement during motor rotation and at the same time as a feed (Figures 5-6). 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 roller drive of Klein Tuente such that it includes a drive motor and wherein an extension of a motor drive shaft engages in the sliding bearing fit, as taught by Liang, as this would enable automated movement of the roller shutter of Klein Tuente, which would be desirable to particular users and applications of the system. 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
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Klein Tuente discloses wherein the screw thread pitch is selected in such a way that a feed in the thickness of the lift cord takes place during a complete revolution (See Figures 3A-4B, See at least paragraphs [0027-0030]).
Allowable Subject Matter
As best understood, Claim 9 could potentially be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as well as the various claim objections set forth in this Office action, and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. However, allowability of the claim remains unclear due to the numerous issues identified above.
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
