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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/20/2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 14 appears to attempt to recite improper method steps in an apparatus claim. For example, it is written “is formed without adhesives”. The examiner recommends reciting “is configured to be formed without adhesives”, as this is interpreted as merely functional language
Appropriate correction is required.
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(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cha (US 20140367053) in view of Josephson (US 20140224432).
Regarding claim 3, Cha teaches a cellular curtain fabric (fig. 3, the “cells” can be seen in fig. 3) comprising:
an upper fabric structure (10) defining a first floating half of the curtain fabric and having a weaving structure (fig. 5 shows the weaving structure), the weaving structure adapted to support an air storage function (capable of);
a bottom fabric structure (20) defining a second floating half of the curtain fabric;
a carrier guide thread path (in which element 40 travels) formed at regular intervals on said upper fabric structure and said bottom fabric structure (fig. 3 and 5);
a carrier guide thread (40) passing through said carrier guide thread path so as to allow the curtain fabric to be collected in a box (functional language);
a connection zone (30) forming an intersection point of said upper fabric structure and said bottom fabric structure (fig. 5) so as to form a plurality of cells (the cells are shown in fig. 3) adapted to store air within said upper fabric structure and said bottom fabric structure (functional language); and
a pleat breaking point (maximum point along the curve of element 10 in fig. 3 is considered the pleat breaking point) forming an apex of a thread for crushing in order to provide a honeycomb form to the plurality of cells in said connection zone (functional language),
wherein the cellular curtain fabric is formed without adhesives (no adhesives are described in the disclosure).
Cha does not explicitly teach the curtain fabric being a blackout and semi-permeable curtain fabric.
Josephson teaches a curtain fabric being a blackout and semi-permeable curtain fabric (paragraph 68). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Cha with the teachings of Josephson so that the curtain fabric being a blackout and semi-permeable curtain fabric. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of the fabric being able to block and let through light as wanted by a user.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues regarding the Cha reference, especially that it does not form “closed air chambers”, nor that “it does not form a blackout or light-regulating cellular fabric”.
The examiner notes that the above rejection teaches all the limitations of the broadly written claim. The claim does not explicitly require “closed air chambers”, but rather simply requires “the weaving structure adapted to support an air storage function”, which is taught as the chamber is capable of this. It also simply claims “a connection zone… so as to form a plurality of cells adapted to store air within said upper fabric structure and said bottom fabric structure”, which is also broadly taught per fig. 3.
The examiner agrees that Cha does not explicitly teach the curtain fabric being a blackout and semi-permeable curtain fabric, but the combination using teachings from Josephson, which teaches a curtain fabric being a blackout and semi-permeable curtain fabric (paragraph 68), remedies this.
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Cha with the teachings of Josephson so that the curtain fabric is a blackout and semi-permeable curtain fabric. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of the fabric being able to block and let through light as wanted by a user. This does not destroy the Cha reference, as this teaching simply modifies the material of the curtain of Cha so that it is a blackout and semi-permeable curtain fabric as is taught by Josephson, which is an obvious modification.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW R SHEPHERD whose telephone number is (571)272-5657. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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.
/M.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3634
/DANIEL P CAHN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3634