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 .
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.
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 1-20 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 contains the limitation “the fixing support is arranged between the casing and the cover, so as, on the one hand, to be able to slide the fixing support between the casing and the cover according to a movement in translation and, on the other hand, to hold the fixing support in position by the holding device, during the cooperation of said at least one second locking element with one of the first locking elements”. The claim uses the language “on the one hand” and “on the other hand” which is unclear. For the purpose of this Office Action, claim 1 will be treated as if the limitations “on the one hand” and “on the other hand” were removed.
Claims 2-20 are additionally rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim and including all of the limitations thereof.
Claim 3 contains the limitation “a first lug, the or each first lug being arranged along the first edge, the or each first lug being elastically deformable, and a second lug, the or each second lug being arranged along the second edge, and the fixing of the cover on the casing is implemented by inserting the or each first lug into the first groove and by inserting the or each second lug into the second groove”. The limitation “the or each” renders the claim unclear. For the purpose of this Office Action, “the or each” in claim 3 will be treated as if it reads “the”.
Claims 12, 14 and 17 are additionally rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim and including all of the limitations thereof.
Claims 4, 11 and 12 set forth “at least one slot” in line 3 and subsequently refers to “the slot” in line 5 which is unclear. For the purpose of this Office Action, “the slot” in claims 4, 11 and 12 will be treated as reading “the at least one slot”.
Claims 15 and 18 are additionally rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim and including all of the limitations thereof.
Claims 7 and 16-20 set forth “at least one electric motor” in line 6 and subsequently refers to “the electric motor” in line 10 which is unclear. For the purpose of this Office Action, “the electric motor” in claims 7 and 16-20 will be treated as reading “the at least one electric motor”.
Claims 8-10 are additionally rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim and including all of the limitations thereof.
Claim 10 sets forth “at least one box” in line 2 and subsequently refers to “the box” in lines 3 and 9 which is unclear. For the purpose of this Office Action, “the box” in claim 10 will be treated as reading “the at least one box”.
Claim 10 additionally contains the limitation “a stop, the or each stop being provided in the corner, and the box is in abutment against the or each stop”. The limitation “the or each stop” renders the claim unclear. For the purpose of the Office Action, “the or each stop” will be treated as if it reads “the stop”.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 7-10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Menendez et al. (US 2023/0112345).
Regarding claim 1, Menendez discloses an electrical power supply device in Figures 1 and 4A-B, the electrical power supply device comprising at least
a casing (outer cover portion 411) ([265]),
a photovoltaic panel ([254]), and
a fixing device (409 and 412, Figure 4A),
the fixing device comprising at least
a fixing support (interface member 409), the fixing support comprising at least a plurality of first locking elements (mounting receptacles 406) ([263]), and
a holding device (mounting screws 408), the holding device comprising at least one second locking element, said at least one second locking element cooperating with one of the first locking elements (mounting screws 408 are inserted into mounting receptacles as locking elements, [263] and [266]),
wherein the fixing device further comprises a cover (inner cover portion 412) ([265]),
the holding device (screws 408) is fixed on the cover (412) (when the device is assembled all parts of the bracket are fixed together ([265] and Figure 4A, it is noted that direct contact is not required),
the cover (412) is removably fixed on the casing (411) ([265]),
and the fixing support (409) is arranged between the casing (411) and the cover (412) to be able to slide the fixing support between the casing and the cover according to a movement in translation and to hold the fixing support in position by the holding device, during the cooperation of said at least one second locking element with one of the first locking elements ([265]-[266] and Figure 4A).
Menendez does not disclose that the photovoltaic panel is fixed on the casing; however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the device of Menendez such that the photovoltaic panel is fixed on the casing, since such a modification would have involved making elements integral. Making elements integral is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965).
Regarding claim 2, modified Menendez discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Menendez additionally discloses that the fixation of the cover on the casing is implemented by elastic snap-fit ([261]).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, modified Menendez discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Menendez additionally discloses a motorized driving device (110), the motorized driving device comprising at least an electromechanical actuator (motor 114), an electronic control unit (motor control module 119), and an electrical power supply device (see above claims and also battery 113) ([246]), the electromechanical actuator comprising at least one electric motor (114) ([246]), wherein the electrical power supply device is as set forth above ([246]) and the electrical power supply device further comprises a battery (113) ([246]), and the electronic control unit (119) and the electric motor (114) are supplied in electrical energy from the battery (113) ([246]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Menendez discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Menendez additionally discloses that the battery is supplied in electrical energy by means of the photovoltaic panel ([254]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Menendez discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Menendez additionally discloses a shading device (Figure 1 and [244]), the shading device comprising at least a screen (shade material 106, [244]), and a motorized driving device (110) as set forth above ([246]), the screen (106) being configured to be driven in displacement by the electromechanical actuator (motor 114) of the motorized driving device (110) (Figures 1-2 and [246]-[247]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Menendez discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Menendez additionally discloses a that the shading device further comprises at least one box (roller tube 105 reads on “at least one box”, [244]-[245]), the electromechanical actuator (motor 114) being housed inside the at least one box (105) (Figure 1 and [244]-[245]), the fixing support comprises at least a first wall and a second wall (403, 404) (see perpendicular portions of bracket in Figure 4A), the second wall being connected to the first wall, so as to form a corner between the second wall and the first wall (perpendicular portions of bracket in Figure 4A form a corner), and a stop (420), the stop being provided in the corner (Figure 4A), and the at least one box (105) is in abutment against the stop (The box is in indirect contact with the stop which reads on “in abutment”. It is noted that direct contact is not required by the claim).
Claims 5-6, 13 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Menendez et al. (US 2023/0112345) in view of Morris (US 2003/0221794).
Regarding claims 5-6 and 13, modified Menendez discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Menendez does not disclose that the fixing support is breakable by means of break lines and wherein each of the break lines extends through one of the first locking elements.
Morris discloses a fixing support (bracket, abstract) for a shading device (window covering, [35]) that breakable by means of a break line (weakened line 50) and wherein the break line (50) extends through a first locking element (abstract, Figure 1 and [41] and [56]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the fixing support of Menendez such that the fixing support is breakable by means of break lines and wherein each of the break lines extends through one of the first locking elements, as taught by Morris, because the break lines allow the length of the fixing element to be adjusted as desired (Morris, [41] and [56]) and such a modification would amount to the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, modified Menendez discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Menendez additionally discloses a motorized driving device (110), the motorized driving device comprising at least an electromechanical actuator (motor 114), an electronic control unit (motor control module 119), and an electrical power supply device (see above claims and also battery 113) ([246]), the electromechanical actuator comprising at least one electric motor (114) ([246]), wherein the electrical power supply device is as set forth above ([246]) and the electrical power supply device further comprises a battery (113) ([246]), and the electronic control unit (119) and the electric motor (114) are supplied in electrical energy from the battery (113) ([246]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 11-12, 14-15 and 17-18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claim 3, the closest prior art of Menendez and Morris, alone or in combination, do not disclose, suggest or render obvious the limitation -wherein the casing comprises at least a first groove, and a second groove, the cover comprises at least: a first edge, a second edge, the second edge being opposite the first edge, a first lug, the first lug being arranged along the first edge, the first lug being elastically deformable, and a second lug, the second lug being arranged along the second edge, and the fixing of the cover on the casing is implemented by inserting the first lug into the first groove and by inserting the second lug into the second groove- in combination with the other claim limitations.
Claims 12, 14 and 17 contain allowable subject matter as a result of their dependency on claim 3.
With respect to claims 4, 11 and 12, the closest prior art of Menendez and Morris, alone or in combination, do not disclose, suggest or render obvious the limitation -the cover further comprises two cutouts, the holding device further comprises two protruding elements and at least one slot, each protruding element being housed inside one of the cutouts, and a part of the holding device is elastically deformed by means of the at least one slot, during the insertion of each protruding element inside one of the cutouts of the cover- in combination with the other claim limitations.
Claims 15 and 18 contain allowable subject matter as a result of their dependency on claim 4.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDSEY A BUCK whose telephone number is (571)270-1234. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571)270-7871. 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.
/LINDSEY A BUCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights