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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 16 recites “is formed” but should recite “are formed”
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 Judkins (US 5205333) in view of Josephson (US 20140224432).
Regarding claim 3, Judkins teaches cellular curtain fabric (embodiment in fig. 9) comprising:
an upper fabric structure (14F) defining a first floating half of the curtain fabric;
a bottom fabric structure (14R) defining a second floating half of the curtain fabric;
a carrier guide thread path (in which element 28 travels) formed at regular intervals on said upper fabric structure and said bottom fabric structure (as is shown in fig. 9 which is a view of just one of the intersections of elements 14F and 14R);
a carrier guide thread (28) 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 (38) forming an intersection point of said upper fabric structure and said bottom fabric structure (fig. 7); and
a pleat breaking point (a crease in fig. 9) for pleating in order to provide a honeycomb form to a plurality of air-storing cells in said connection zone (functional language), wherein,
said upper fabric structure (14F) and said bottom fabric structure (14R) are integrally woven (column 14 lines 10-22 teach that they can be sewed together, see definition 2 below where woven is interpreted as construction by interlacing material, which is what sewing is) to each other through said connection zone so as to form the plurality of air-storing cells (fig. 9 shows two of the plurality of air-storing cells) such that the plurality of air-storing cells are formed solely by woven interconnections (they are formed from sewing the upper and bottom fabric structures together as explained above) and configured to be formed without a use of an adhesive (they are sewn together, see column 14 lines 10-22), the plurality of air-storing cells adapted to store air within said upper fabric structure and said bottom fabric structure.
PNG
media_image1.png
158
569
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Judkins does not explicitly teach the curtain fabric being a blackout and semi-permeable curtain fabric, nor the upper fabric structure having a weaving structure, nor the pleat breaking point forming an apex of a thread.
Josephson teaches a curtain fabric being a blackout and semi-permeable curtain fabric (paragraph 68), as well as the upper fabric structure (24) having a weaving structure (paragraph 32 teaches that element 24 can be woven), and a pleat breaking point (the crease) forming an apex of a thread (in the same way as the instant application, as the fabric is made of a thread and the crease forms what is considered an apex in the thread).
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 Judkins with the teachings of Josephson so that the curtain fabric being a blackout and semi-permeable curtain fabric, with the upper fabric structure having a weaving structure, and the pleat breaking point forming an apex of a thread.
This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of the fabric being able to block and let through light as wanted by a user and being constructed from cheap materials.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the Cha reference have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 5/22/2026 with respect to the Josephson reference have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The examiner notes that it is irrelevant whether Josephson contains adhesive bonding, as Josephson Is not used to teach much of the cellular structure, but rather a curtain fabric being a blackout and semi-permeable curtain fabric (paragraph 68), as well as the upper fabric structure (24) having a weaving structure (paragraph 32 teaches that element 24 can be woven), and a pleat breaking point (the crease) forming an apex of a thread (in the same way as the instant application, as the fabric is made of a thread and the crease forms what is considered an apex in the thread).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights