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 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) 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Randle (US 20080264572) in view of Reynolds (US 5261978).
Regarding claim 1, Randle teaches a method of fabricating a shade panel (fig. 4), comprising:
forming a shade panel including a plurality of cells (fig. 4, it has been formed), wherein each of the cells has a front portion (305’s) and a rear portion (365’) opposite to each other, the cells being distributed along a lengthwise direction of the shade panel (fig. 4);
stretching the shade panel (fig. 4 shows the step of stretching the panel), wherein each of the cells includes a bend (at the bottom of 305’ where it ‘bends’) in the front portion thereof that protrudes away from the rear portion thereof when the shade panel is stretched (as shown in fig. 4); and
forming a crease (at second fold line which is shown as element 320 in fig. 3, apply it to fig. 4) in the front portion of each of the cells (as described in paragraph 46, by running the shade through a creasing device at the desired fold location) in a direction transversal to a lengthwise direction (the lengthwise direction is the length of the shade panel, the creases run transverse to that), but does not explicitly teach the step of forming the crease by pressing the front portion including the bend and the rear portion of each of the cells against each other to form a crease in the front portion of each of the cells, wherein the step of pressing the front portion including the bend and the rear portion of each of the cells against each other includes applying a pressing element against the front portion and moving the pressing element along the lengthwise direction of the stretched shade panel so that the crease is formed in the front portion of each of the cells.
Reynolds teaches the step of forming a crease while fabricating a shade by pressing a front portion (18) including a bend and a rear portion (18) against each other to form a crease (58) in the front portion of cells (fig. 1), wherein the step of pressing the front portion including the bend and the rear portion against each other includes applying a pressing element (54) against the front portion and moving the pressing element (the pressing element moves along the shade relative to a point on the shade) along a lengthwise direction of the shade panel (the “width” as this is the axis upon which the shade is wound).
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 creasing device of Randle so that the step of forming the crease by pressing the front portion including the bend and the rear portion against each other to form a crease in the front portion of each of the cells, wherein the step of pressing the front portion including the bend and the rear portion against each other includes applying a pressing element against the front portion and moving the pressing element along the lengthwise direction of the shade panel. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of a known method of forming a crease in a material. After this modification, the crease is formed in the front portion of each of the cells.
Regarding claim 2, modified Randle teaches that the step of pressing the front portion including the bend and the rear portion of each of the cells against each other causes flattening of the bend and results in a squeezed portion in the front portion that is folded over the rear portion to form the crease in the front portion of each of the cells (after the modification above).
Regarding claim 3, modified Randle teaches that the step of stretching the shade panel causes the rear portion (365’) of each of the cells to extend generally along a same plane (fig. 4).
Regarding claim 4, modified Randle now includes teachings of Reynolds, which teaches that the pressing element is a pressing roller (fig. 5 of Reynolds), and the step of pressing the front portion including the bend and the rear portion of each of the cells against each other includes passing the stretched shade panel through the pressing roller so that the pressing roller contacts and presses the front portion against the rear portion of each of the cells (see modification to claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 5, modified Randle teaches that the shade panel has a first end (top) and a second end (bottom) opposite to each other, the shade panel being attachable to a roller of a window shade at the first end (fig. 4), the shade panel passing through the pressing roller from the first end to the second end (during the step as described in claim 1).
Regarding claim 6, modified Randle teaches that the step of forming a shade panel including a plurality of cells comprises: providing a support sheet (365’); providing a plurality of elongate strips (as shown in fig. 4); and bonding the elongate strips to the support sheet to form the cells (paragraph 54 teaches that fig. 3 is mostly the same as fig. 4, and paragraph 52 teaches the step of them being bonded in fig. 3, which is the same as in fig. 4), wherein the front portion of each of the cells is formed by one of the elongate strips, and the rear portion of each of the cells is formed by the support sheet (fig. 4).
Regarding claim 7, modified Randle teaches that each of the elongate strips has a first (top edge) and a second (bottom edge) longitudinal edge opposite to each other, and a main strip portion located between a first (portion containing adhesive at the top) and a second (portion containing adhesive at the bottom) margin, the first margin adjoining the main strip portion along a first folding line (where bend is at top) and extending between the first folding line and the first longitudinal edge (fig. 4), the second margin adjoining the main strip portion along a second folding line (where crease is formed as described above, shown as 320 in fig. 3) and extending between the second folding line and the second longitudinal edge, the second margin including a third folding line (bend where bottom of elongate strip is adhesively connected) generally parallel (they are considered generally parallel in the direction into the page) to the second folding line.
Regarding claim 8, modified Randle teaches that the step of bonding the elongate strips to the support sheet comprises: bonding the first margin of each of the elongate strips to the support sheet; and bonding the second margin of each of the elongate strips to the support sheet at a first margin portion between the third folding line and the second edge, the second margin being unbonded to the support sheet at a second margin portion between the second folding line and the third folding line (as shown in fig. 4 and described in paragraph 52).
Regarding claim 9, modified Randle teaches that the step of pressing the front portion including the bend and the rear portion of each of the cells against each other forms the crease in each of the elongate strips between the first folding line and the second folding line thereof (as described in the claim 1 rejection above).
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Randle (US 20080264572) in view of Reynolds (US 5261978) as applied above, and Holt (US 20110126959).
Regarding claim 15, although modified Randle teaches that the cells include a bottom cell, it does not explicitly teach that the method further comprises removing the front portion of the bottom cell while keeping the rear portion of the bottom cell.
Holt teaches a shade cell with a method comprising removing a component (second layer of the front strip 409, paragraph 114) while keeping another (403 rear portion of cell).
Therefore, 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 further modify Randle so that method further comprises removing the front portion of the bottom cell while keeping the rear portion of the bottom cell. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of allowing access to the bottom of the rear portion to attach a bottom bar if wanted, while also reducing the weight of the shade.
The examiner notes that if this is not found acceptable, that the courts have held that if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to a component, it would be obvious to make a portion covering the component removable for that purpose. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961).
Therefore, 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 further modify Randle so that method further comprises removing the front portion of the bottom cell while keeping the rear portion of the bottom cell. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of allowing access to the bottom of the rear portion to attach a bottom bar if wanted.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The examiner notes that 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).
Randle teaches a method of fabricating a shade panel (fig. 4), comprising:
forming a shade panel including a plurality of cells (fig. 4, it has been formed), wherein each of the cells has a front portion (305’s) and a rear portion (365’) opposite to each other, the cells being distributed along a lengthwise direction of the shade panel (fig. 4);
stretching the shade panel (fig. 4 shows the step of stretching the panel), wherein each of the cells includes a bend (at the bottom of 305’ where it ‘bends’) in the front portion thereof that protrudes away from the rear portion thereof when the shade panel is stretched (as shown in fig. 4); and
forming a crease (at second fold line which is shown as element 320 in fig. 3, apply it to fig. 4) in the front portion of each of the cells (as described in paragraph 46, by running the shade through a creasing device at the desired fold location) in a direction transversal to a lengthwise direction (the lengthwise direction is the length of the shade panel, the creases run transverse to that).
The examiner agrees that Randle does not explicitly teach the step of forming the crease by pressing the front portion including the bend and the rear portion of each of the cells against each other to form a crease in the front portion of each of the cells, wherein the step of pressing the front portion including the bend and the rear portion of each of the cells against each other includes applying a pressing element against the front portion and moving the pressing element along the lengthwise direction of the stretched shade panel so that the crease is formed in the front portion of each of the cells.
Reynolds is found to teach the step of forming a crease while fabricating a shade by pressing a front portion (18) including a bend and a rear portion (18) against each other to form a crease (58) in the front portion of cells (fig. 1), wherein the step of pressing the front portion including the bend and the rear portion against each other includes applying a pressing element (54) against the front portion and moving the pressing element (the pressing element moves along the shade relative to a point on the shade) along a lengthwise direction of the shade panel (the “width” as this is the axis upon which the shade is wound).
The combination is to modify the creasing device of Randle so that the step of forming the crease by pressing the front portion including the bend and the rear portion against each other to form a crease in the front portion of each of the cells, wherein the step of pressing the front portion including the bend and the rear portion against each other includes applying a pressing element against the front portion and moving the pressing element along the lengthwise direction of the shade panel. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of a known method of forming a crease in a material. After this modification, the limitations as claimed are taught.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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
/Johnnie A. Shablack/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights