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 .
Response to Amendment
The preliminary amendment received July 11, 2025 is examined below. Claims 1-10 were cancelled. Claims 11 and 12 are addressed herein.
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 (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 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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Byszenski et al. (US 11,015,349), hereinafter referred to as Byszenski.
Regarding claim 11, Byszenski discloses a retractable sunshade apparatus (Fig 1) comprising:
a roof frame (Fig 1) comprising a pair of crosswise frames (52, 53, shown in Fig 1) and a pair of lengthwise frames (51, 54 ,not shown, col 7, lines 37-46) which define an open ceiling (2);
PNG
media_image1.png
1342
904
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a plurality of movable blades (3) which are rotatable relative to the crosswise frames (Fig 3), are movable in a longitudinal direction of the pair of crosswise frames (Figs 1 and 2), and are interconnected so as to be moved in linkage via a link (76, 77; Figs 16-17);
an opening drive unit (10) connected to at least one of the plurality of movable blades and movable in the longitudinal direction of the crosswise frames (col 16, lines 46-57);
a motor (12) configured to supply rotative force;
a drive belt (18) which is operated to move the opening drive unit (10) by the motor (12) (Figs 4, 8, and 9);
a blade wheel (17) coupled to one of rotating shafts of the movable blades (Fig 5); and
PNG
media_image2.png
578
1078
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a guide frame (part of 5 below 17) provided at at least one of the crosswise frames under the blade wheel (17) to form a rail (wall under 17 and 18 in Fig 5) configured to guide movement of the blade wheel,
wherein the opening drive unit comprises:
a belt carrier (carriage 10) connecting the one of the rotating shafts of the movable blades to the drive belt (18) (Fig 5); and
a carrier wheel (11a) rotatably coupled to the belt carrier (carriage 10) under the blade wheel (17) and disposed on the guide frame (part of 5 below 17) so as to be movable while rotating about a predetermined axis parallel to the one of the rotating shafts of the movable blades (Fig 5),
wherein the guide frame (part of 5 below 17) comprises a carrier wheel guide (8), which is provided under the rail to define a space receiving the carrier wheel and an inner surface of which, defining the space, guides movement of the carrier wheel (11a) (Fig 5), and
wherein the carrier wheel guide(8) is constructed such that a portion of the inner surface, which defines the space and is positioned above the carrier wheel, is maintained in a state of being in contact with the carrier wheel during movement of carrier wheel (Fig 5).
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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Byszenski, as applied in claim 11 above, in further view of Bomba (US 5,550,349).
Regarding claim 12, Byszenski fails to disclose a weather sensor configured to detect rainfall or snowfall; and a heat generator disposed on the movable blades, wherein activation of the motor and the heat generator are controlled according to a result of detection of the weather sensor. However, Bomba teaches that it is known for a sunshade to have a weather sensor (detection devices sense accumulated snow) and a heat generator (heater elements) in order to remove the snow from the blades. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to provide Byszenski with a weather sensor and a heat generator since such elements are known in the prior art, as taught by Bomba. One would be motivated to modify Byszenski in order to provide automatic detection by the sensors and the automatic removal of snow in order to improve the sunshade’s operation in different weather conditions. As modified wherein activation of the motor and the heat generator are controlled according to a result of detection of the weather sensor.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Johnnie A. Shablack whose telephone number is (571)270-5344. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 6am-3pm EST, alternate Friday.
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.
/Johnnie A. Shablack/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634