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 .
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 “brackets” of claim 6 and “the track for the fly net is oriented at right angles to the track for the blind” of claim 10 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). It is noted that the drawings show the fly net track being parallel to the blind track in figures 8-11. 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 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 1-10, 12, and 14 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the linear piece” when a plurality were previously recited. It is unclear which linear piece is being referred to in the recitation since the linear pieces are not equivalent.
Claim 2 recites “the fly net designed to…” Claim 1 refers to a fly net and a blind as an intended use “for a fly net and the other for a blind.” It is therefore unclear what is required of claim 2 since a fly net is not positively recited in the claims. Should the applicant require a combination having the elements, the claims should recite the requirement. It is further unclear what is required of “designed to”, the limitation “designed” is understood to be an intention, not a requirement. Claim 3 inherits this issue. Claim 4 recites “the blind contains a material…” Claim 1 refers to a fly net and a blind as an intended use “for a fly net and the other for a blind.” It is therefore unclear what is required of claim 4 since a blind not positively recited in the claims. Should the applicant require a combination having the elements, the claims should recite the requirement. Claim 5 inherits this issue. Claims 7-9 similarly recite the structure of the intended use.
Claim 6 recites “a durable material such as plastic” The phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
In view of the 112 issues discussed above the claims have been examined as best understood.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tatro (US 6,119,756)
Regarding claim 1,Tatro discloses a single-unit double-track blind system (Fig 2) comprising:
two tracks (82 and 80 on left and right 44s; 82 is a slot for a net and 80 defines a path for a blind), one for a fly net and the other for a blind (directed to an intended use), combined in a single unit (Figs 2 and 3);
PNG
media_image1.png
1482
896
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the unit comprises four corner pieces (74; col 3, lines 48-50) connected by four linear pieces (40, 42, left 44, right 44) to form a generally rectangular outline (Fig 2);
wherein the tracks (82 and 80) are provided on the linear pieces (Figs 2, 5, and 6);
wherein at least some of the linear pieces have a stepped cross-section (all linear pieces have identical shapes, col 5, lines 9-17; as shown in Figs 2 and 3, each linear piece forms a step shape), whereby, when the unit is mounted in a suitable sized window (Fig 3) or door opening, an inner portion (80) of the linear piece can fit inside the opening, while an outer portion (56) of the linear piece can rest against a wall or frame adjacent to the opening (Fig 3).
PNG
media_image2.png
1384
986
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, wherein the fly net contains a mesh (32) that is designed to prevent insects from passing through it (Fig 2).
Regarding claim 4, wherein the blind contains a material (106) that is at least partially opaque, whereby a position of the blind can be adjusted to control the amount of light and privacy (slats 106 are adjustable in position).
Regarding claim 5, wherein the material (106) can provide thermal insulation to reduce energy consumption and improve energy efficiency (the blind material reduces heat loss and blocks heat gain when closed).
Regarding claim 10, wherein the track (82) for the fly net is oriented at right angles to the track (80) for the blind (82 opens in a direction perpendicular to the path of the blind along 80).
Regarding claim 12, wherein each linear pieces (40, 42, 44) has a uniform cross-section so that it can be cut to a desired length to adapt the unit for use in window and door openings of varying sizes (directed to an intended use) (the linear pieces have uniform cross sections and have the ability such that they can be cut).
Regarding claim 14, wherein one of the two tracks is provided on the inner portions of the linear pieces, while the other of the two tracks is provided on the outer portions of the linear pieces (Fig 3).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatro, as applied in claim 2 above, in further view of McNeill et al. (US 2021/0095521), hereinafter referred to as McNeill.
Regarding claim 3, although Tatro discloses the mesh is made of a material, it is not specifically disclosed to be made of a transparent material. However, McNeill teaches that it is known for a mesh to be of a transparent material (paragraph [0005]) in order to provide a less visible screen. 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 modify the mesh of Tatro such that it is a made of a transparent material since it is known to reduce the visibility of a mesh screen, as taught by McNeill.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatro, as applied in claim 1 above, in further view of Van Klompenburg (US 4,658,879).
Regarding claim 6, Tatro fails to disclose brackets for mounting the unit on the inside of a window or door opening, the brackets being made of a durable material such as plastic. Instead, Tatro teaches pins for mounting the unit (Figs 2 and 4). However, Van Klompenburg teaches that it is known to mount a screen unit to a window opening with brackets made of plastic (col 3, lines 36-40). 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 modify Tatro such that the mounting means are provided as brackets as taught by Van Klompenburg in order to provide a more secure attachment. As modified, instead of providing the pins, brackets are instead used to secure the unit. This modification would not lead to any new or unpredictable result since it utilizes a known technique for equivalently mounting a window unit.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatro, as applied in claim 1 above, in further view of Tribe (US 267,618).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood in view of the 112 issues discussed above although Tatro teaches a fly net and a blind, t the blind comprises an end (103) that is anchored and an opposite end (114) that is free to move along the respective track (Figs 2 and 3). Tatro discloses that the fly net is anchored but fails to disclose that the fly net comprises an opposed end that is free to move along the respective track and fails to further disclose that each free end comprises an attached pull rod, thereby allowing for independent movement of the fly net and the blind along the respective tracks. However, Tribe teaches that it is known for a unit having a fly net and blind (Fig 1) for each to have an anchored end and an opposite end that is free to move along the respective track and an attached pull rod thereby allowing for independent movement. 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 modify the arrangement of Tatro such that the fly net and blind are each provided as movable roller type coverings and that each is free to move along the tracks and each of the blind and fly net have a pull rod since it is a known means of moving and selectively blocking insects and light.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatro and Tribe, as applied in claim 7 above, in further view of Crowley et al. (US 2024/0263510), hereinafter referred to as Crowley.
Regarding claim 8, modified Tatro fails to teach wherein the blind comprises two panels that are anchored at opposing ends of the blind track, the two panels comprising respective free ends that can be moved towards or away from one another along the blind track. However, Crowley teaches that it is known for a blind to comprise two panels, each anchored to opposite ends and having a movable end (Fig 14) in order to selectively cover an opening. 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 further modify Tatro with the teaching of Crowley in order to provide an improved unit with greater control of light admittance and blockage.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatro and Tribe and Crowley, as applied in claim 8 above, in further view of Krosenbrink et al. (US 2004/0256061), hereinafter referred to as Krosenbrink.
Regarding claim 9, modified Tatro fails to disclose wherein the two blind panels comprise materials of different opacity. However, Krosenbrink teaches that it is known for two blind panels of a window unit to have materials of different opacity (Fig 2). 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 modify the blind such that the two blinds have two different opacities in order even further improve the blind and selectively block and admit light at different amounts.
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