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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on 5/22/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim 22-24 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 22 line 3 recites “between the input pulley and the drive shaft”. There is no drive shaft previously recited. It is unclear if drive shaft is what was meant or if output pulley was meant as the twist in figure 8A appears to be between the pulleys as the output pulley is on the drive shaft.
Regarding claim 23, the phrase "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 24 depends from claim 23. Claim 23 defines the position sensor as detecting the angular position sensor of the motor, however, claim 24 describes the position sensor as being between frame and operator assembly. Such a sensor could not detect an angular position of the motor. For purposes of examination claim 24 will be read broadly as defining the magnetic sensor detecting the motor shaft position, i.e. the optional Hall sensor of claim 23. Also there is no antecedent basis for “the frame” in claim 24.
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(s) 17, 21, 22, and 43-52 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub 2020/0370355 to Bernhagen (hereinafter Bernhagen) in view of GB 2338028 to Bailey (hereinafter Bailey) and KR 101187938 to Park (hereinafter Park).
Regarding claim 17, the operator system for a fenestration unit is shown in Bernhagen in the embodiment of figures 9-12B (with generic details from figures 1A-1B) with
an operator (390’);
an operator assembly having an input pulley (288’); and
a drive belt (400’) extending between the operator (390’) and the input pulley (288’) to operably couple the operator (390’) to the operator assembly (with input pulley 288’).
However, Bernhagen shown a manual pulley drive with the operator connected to the belt.
A motor drive with output pulley is shown in Bailey in figures 1-4 with an operator motor (30) having an output pulley (34) and a drive belt (36) extending between the output pulley (34) and the input pulley (38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the operator system of Bernhagen with the motor and output pulley of Bailey because motor operated systems provided the known benefit of easier operation by user with less user force.
Bailey is silent as to whether the motor spins freely in an unpowered state.
A free spinning motor is shown in Park in figures 1a-4c with operator motor (14) for a fenestration unit having a powered state and an unpowered state, the operator motor spinning freely in the unpowered state (further taught in page 6 second paragraph of the translation provided herewith).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the operator system of Bernhagen, having the motor and output pulley of Bailey, with the unpowered free spinning motor of Park because the motor being able to spin when not powered allowed for manual operation of the fenestration unit without unnecessary force on the motor in case of power outage.
Regarding claim 21, the fenestration unit (10) includes a sill (36) and a jamb (32) where the operator (390’) is located on the jamb (when provided with motor of Bailey, motor would drive pulley in 402’, i.e. pulley at opposite end of belt as shown in Bailey) and the operator assembly (with input pulley 288’) is located on the sill in Bernhagen.
Regarding claim 22, as best understood, the pulleys both have horizontal axes in Bernhagen and as such there is no twist in the belt. A vertical axis pulley is shown in Bailey in figures 1-4 where the input pulley (38) has a vertical axis (i.e. input pulley and operator moving the fenestration member have parallel axes). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the operator system of Bernhagen, having the motor and output pulley of Bailey and the unpowered free spinning motor of Park, with a vertical axis input pulley resulting in a belt twist because both vertical and horizontal axis pulleys would function equally well and the vertical axis would allow more direct driving of the operator system moving the sash.
Regarding claim 43, a fenestration unit is shown in Bernhagen in the embodiment of figures 9-12B (with generic details from figures 1A-1B) with
A frame (22) including a first jamb (32), a second jamb (34), a sill (36), and a head (30);
a sash (24) coupled to the frame (22) and movable between an open position and a closed position; and
an operator system operable to move the sash (24) between open and closed position, the system comprising:
an operator (390’);
an operator assembly having an input pulley (288’); and
a drive belt (400’) extending between the operator (390’) and the input pulley (288’) to operably couple the operator (390’) to the operator assembly (with input pulley 288’).
However, Bernhagen shown a manual pulley drive with the operator connected to the belt.
A motor drive with output pulley is shown in Bailey in figures 1-4 with an operator motor (30) having an output pulley (34) and a drive belt (36) extending between the output pulley (34) and the input pulley (38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the operator system of Bernhagen with the motor and output pulley of Bailey because motor operated systems provided the known benefit of easier operation by user with less user force.
Bailey is silent as to whether the motor spins freely in an unpowered state.
A free spinning motor is shown in Park in figures 1a-4c with operator motor (14) for a fenestration unit having a powered state and an unpowered state, the operator motor spinning freely in the unpowered state (further taught in page 6 second paragraph of the translation provided herewith).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the operator system of Bernhagen, having the motor and output pulley of Bailey, with the unpowered free spinning motor of Park because the motor being able to spin when not powered allowed for manual operation of the fenestration unit without unnecessary force on the motor in case of power outage.
Regarding claim 44, when provided with the motor (30 of Bailey having a mount (figure 1), the mount would attach to the frame (22, similar to mounting of upper pulley block 402’ as motor would need to drive the pulley) in Bernhagen.
Regarding claim 45, when provided with motor of Bailey, motor would drive pulley in (402’), i.e. pulley at opposite end of belt as shown in Bailey, and pulley mount (402’) is mounted to first jamb (32) in Bernhagen.
Regarding claim 46, the operator (390’) and pulley mount (402’) are not on the sill in Bernhagen (i.e. the operator is on the jamb while the operator system and input pulley are on the sill).
Output and input pulleys on the same frame member are shown in Bailey in figures 1-4 where motor (30) and both output (34) and input (38) pulleys are all located on the same frame member.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the operator system of Bernhagen, having the motor and output pulley of Bailey and the unpowered free spinning motor of Park, with the motor, output pulley, and input pulley on the same frame member because the drive members on one frame member (sill) allows for a more compact driving system.
Regarding claim 47, the motor (30) includes an output shaft (figure 2) coupled to the output pulley (34) in Bailey.
Regarding claim 48, the operator assembly (with input pulley 288’ and linkage system 262’) is positioned proximate the sill (36) in Bernhagen.
Regarding claim 49, the operator assembly (with input pulley 288’ and linkage system 262’) is positioned proximate a first portion (left in figure 9) the sill (36) in Bernhagen.
However, the operator (390’) and pulley mount (402’) are not on the sill in Bernhagen (i.e. the operator is on the jamb while the operator system and input pulley are on the sill).
Output and input pulleys on the same frame member are shown in Bailey in figures 1-4 where motor (30) and both output (34) and input (38) pulleys are all located on the same frame member. When provided to Bernhagen the motor assembly would be proximate a second portion of the sill, similar to the location of motor and output pulley separate from input pulley in Bailey.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the operator system of Bernhagen, having the motor and output pulley of Bailey and the unpowered free spinning motor of Park, with the motor, output pulley, and input pulley on the same frame member because the drive members on one frame member (sill) allows for a more compact driving system.
Regarding claim 50, the input pulley (288’) and output pulley (in 402’) are parallel in Bernhagen.
Regarding claim 51, when provided with motor of Bailey, motor would drive pulley in (402’), i.e. pulley at opposite end of belt as shown in Bailey, and pulley mount (402’) is mounted to first jamb (32) in Bernhagen.
Regarding claim 52, the pulleys both have horizontal axes (i.e. are parallel, not angularly offset) in Bernhagen. A vertical axis pulley is shown in Bailey in figures 1-4 where the input pulley (38) has a vertical axis (i.e. input pulley and operator moving the fenestration member have parallel axes). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the operator system of Bernhagen, having the motor and output pulley of Bailey and the unpowered free spinning motor of Park, with a vertical axis input pulley because both vertical and horizontal axis pulleys would function equally well and the vertical axis would allow more direct driving of the operator system moving the sash.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernhagen, Bailey, and Park as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of US patent 11261644 to Eccleston (hereinafter Eccleston).
Regarding claim 18, Bailey and Park are silent as to whether the motor is a stepper motor.
A stepper motor is shown in Eccleston in figure 3 where motor (306) for driving a fenestration member is a stepper motor (further taught in column 11 lines 64-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the operator system of Bernhagen, having the motor and output pulley of Bailey and the unpowered free spinning motor of Park, with the stepper motor of Eccleston because stepper motors were well-known, readily available, and easy to use motor options.
Claim(s) 19, 23, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernhagen, Bailey, and Park as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of US patent 12146360 to Imai (hereinafter Imai).
Regarding claim 19, Bailey and Park are silent as to whether the motor is configured to be driven off a sinusoidal waveform.
A sinusoidal waveform drive is shown in Imai in figures 1-4 where motor (24) for driving a fenestration member is driven off a sinusoidal waveform (further taught in column 5 lines 58-62).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the operator system of Bernhagen, having the motor and output pulley of Bailey and the unpowered free spinning motor of Park, with the sinusoidal waveform driven motor of Imai because sinusoidal waveform driving provided the benefit of lower vibration and reduced noise as taught in Imai in column 5 lines 58-62.
Regarding claims 23 and 24, as best understood, Bailey and Park are silent as to whether the motor includes a position sensor.
A position sensor is shown in Imai in figures 1-4 where motor (24) includes a magnetic Hall sensor (54u-w).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the operator system of Bernhagen, having the motor and output pulley of Bailey and the unpowered free spinning motor of Park, with the magnetic Hall sensor of Imai because Hall sensor were known position sensors for rotary members such as motor shafts and motor position sensors provided the benefit of facilitating fenestration member position detection as taught in Imai in column 8 lines 1-13.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernhagen, Bailey, and Park as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of US PG pub 2023/0203881 to Burton (hereinafter Burton).
Regarding claim 20, Bailey and Park are silent as to the motor operating noise.
An operating noise less than 10dB is shown in Burton 1-13 where motor unit (190) operates at less than 10 dB (further taught in paragraph [0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the operator system of Bernhagen, having the motor and output pulley of Bailey and the unpowered free spinning motor of Park, with noise level of Burton because a quiet motor operation (<10 dB) makes for a more pleasant user experience.
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 CATHERINE A KELLY whose telephone number is (571)270-3660. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30am-5:30pm.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
/CATHERINE A KELLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights