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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the two ends of the loop portions being located at a same side of the respective transverse portion from claim 6, and loop portions passing through the respective hole formed in an upper one of the two vertically adjacent slats… and the respective hole formed in a lower one of the two vertically adjacent slats from claim 12 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
The following claim objections are found below:
Claim 12 recites “the respective holes” on line 2, but it appears to the examiner that this should recite “the respective hole”
Claim 12 recites “the two vertically adjacent slats” on line 3, but this should recite “two vertically adjacent slats” without the “the”.
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) 1, 4, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nien (US 7556080) in view of Chang (US 20150000847) and Tuzmen (US 5918657).
Regarding claim 1, Nein teaches a venetian blind (embodiment shown in figs. 1 and 6) comprising:
a top rail (10);
a bottom rail (20) located below the top rail (fig. 1);
two ladder ropes (30s) connected between (column 3 lines 13-14) the top (10) and bottom (20) rails, the ladder ropes (30s) each having a first vertical portion (31 on the left in fig. 6), a second vertical portion (31 on the right in fig. 6) opposite to the first vertical portion, a plurality of transverse portions (32s) connected between the first and second vertical portions and arranged in an equidistant manner (column 3 lines 14-18 teaches the equidistant arrangement of another embodiment, and column 4 lines 30-31 teaches that the embodiment in fig. 6 contains this structure) along the first and second vertical portions (as is shown in fig. 6), and a plurality of loop portions (60s) connected to the first vertical portion (fig. 6); and
a plurality of slats (40s) positioned between the top and bottom rails (fig. 1) and disposed on the transverse portions of the ladder ropes (fig. 6), the slats each having a top surface, a bottom surface opposite to the top surface, a first long edge caught by a loop portion of each of the plurality of loop portions of the ladder ropes (fig. 6), a second long edge (on right in fig. 6) opposite to the first long edge and adjacent to the second vertical portions of the ladder ropes (fig. 6), two holes (as shown in fig. 8, column 4 lines 63-64 teach that the slat in fig. 8 is useable in all embodiments, thus the examiner is using the slat from fig. 8 in the embodiment of figures 1 and 6.) through the top and bottom surfaces and penetrated by the respective loop portions of the ladder ropes (fig. 6), two openings (the end of element 42 at the first long edge in fig. 8 is considered the openings) formed at the first long edge for allowing the respective loop portions to enter and exit, and two slots (42 is considered the slots, see fig. 8) through the top and bottom surfaces and each communicating between the respective hole and the respective opening for guiding the loop portion to move between the respective hole and the respective opening,
wherein a peripheral wall of each of the holes has a guiding surface (the surface of peripheral wall is considered the guiding surface),
wherein each of the loop portions (60s) has a first end disposed above and a second end disposed below the respective slat (fig. 6 clearly shows that each element 60 has an end that is above the slat and an end that is below the respective slat).
Nien does not teach the peripheral wall of each of the holes has a positioning portion, wherein the peripheral wall of each of the holes has a second guiding surface, wherein each respective positioning portion is formed at a junction of the respective guiding surface and the respective second guiding surface; a distance between the two guiding surfaces gradually increases away from the positioning portion, nor that when the slats are tilted from a horizontal position to a tilted position, the loop portions are moved along the guiding surfaces to the positioning portions, and when the slats are located at the tilted position, the loop portions are positioned in the positioning portions, nor that the respective loop portion is inserted through the respective hole in a single-line manner.
Chang teaches a venetian blind with a slat with a hole (fig. 10) with a peripheral wall that has a guiding surface and a second guiding surface (422 and 422a) and a positioning portion (point where 442 and 422a meet in fig. 10), wherein the positioning portion is formed at a junction of the respective guiding surface and second guiding surface (fig. 10); a distance between the two guiding surfaces gradually increases away from the positioning portion (shown in fig. 10). 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 Nein with the teachings of Chang by modifying the holes with that of Chang so that there is first and second guiding surfaces and a positioning portion. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of the holes directing movement of the loop portions, resulting in less wear on the loop portions. It is noted that after the modification, when the slats are tilted from a horizontal position to a tilted position, the loop portions are moved along the guiding surfaces to the positioning portions, and when the slats are located at the tilted position, the loop portions are positioned in the positioning portions.
Tuzmen teaches (fig. 9) a venetian blind with a slat (14 and 44 are considered the slat) with a hole (C), and a loop (58) inserted through the hole in a single-line manner. 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 Nein with teachings of Tuzmen so that the respective loop portion is inserted through the respective hole in a single-line manner. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of using less cord, reducing the manufacturing costs.
Regarding claim 4, modified Nein teaches that the slots (42 in fig. 8 of Nein) each have a first guiding section (section that travels parallel with longitudinal direction of slat) communicating with the respective hole and extending along a longitudinal direction of the slat, and a second guiding section (section that travels perpendicular to longitudinal direction of slat) connected with the first guiding section and communicating with the respective opening and extending along a width direction of the slat (fig. 8 of Nein).
Regarding claim 9, although modified Nien does not explicitly teach that the two slots are arranged in a transversely symmetrical configuration, the examiner notes that the courts have held that the particular placement of a component was held to be an obvious matter of design choice. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). 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 Nien so that the two slots are arranged in a transversely symmetrical configuration. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of a more aesthetically pleasing design due to the symmetry between the slots.
Regarding claim 10, modified Nien teaches that each of the slots extend inclinedly (if you draw a straight line from the beginning to the end of each slot, the slot extends in a slanted direction that deviates from the horizontal direction along the slat extension, see the definition of incline from thefreedictionary.com below).
PNG
media_image1.png
118
358
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nien (US 7556080) in view of Chang (US 20150000847) and Tuzmen (US 5918657) as applied above, and further in view of Kawai (US 20130056164).
Regarding claim 5, modified Nein does not explicitly teach that a chamfer is formed at a junction of the first and second guiding sections.
Kawai teaches a venetian blind with a chamfer (27) formed at a junction between two portions (26a and 25). 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 Nien so that there is a chamfer is formed at a junction of the first and second guiding sections. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of reducing wear or damage on the loop portions due to snagging.
Claim(s) 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nien (US 7556080) in view of Chang (US 20150000847) and Tuzmen (US 5918657) as applied above, and further in view of Tachikawa (US 20150075728).
Regarding claim 6, modified Nien includes Tuzmen which teaches that the loop portions each have two ends thereof connected to the first vertical portion of the ladder rope (column 7 lines 3 through line 23 and figure 9), but does not explicitly teach that the two ends are located at a same side of the respective transverse portion of the ladder rope.
Tachikawa (fig. 43) teaches a venetian blind with a loop portion (10) that has two ends thereof connected to a first vertical portion (5a) of a ladder rope and located at a same side of a transverse portion (6b) of the ladder rope. 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 Nien with teachings of Tachikawa so that the loop portions each have two ends thereof connected to the first vertical portion of the ladder rope and located at a same side of the respective transverse portion of the ladder rope. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of the loop portions being more securely attached to the ladder rope of the venetian blind.
Regarding claim 7, modified Nien includes Tuzmen which teaches that the loop portions each have two ends thereof connected to the first vertical portion of the ladder rope (column 7 lines 3 through line 23 and figure 9), but does not explicitly teach that the two ends are located at opposite sides of the respective transverse portion of the ladder rope.
Tachikawa (fig. 40) teaches a venetian blind with a loop portion (6o) that has two ends thereof connected to a first vertical portion (5a) of a ladder rope and located at opposite sides of a transverse portion (7) of the ladder rope (fig. 40).
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 Nien with teachings of Tachikawa so that the loop portions each have two ends thereof connected to the first vertical portion of the ladder rope and located at opposite sides of the respective transverse portion of the ladder rope. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of the loop portions being more securely attached to the ladder rope of the venetian blind.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nien (US 7556080) in view of Chang (US 20150000847) and Tuzmen (US 5918657) as applied above, and further in view of Gordon (US 2620865).
Regarding claim 8, modified Nien does not teach that the openings each have a width gradually decreasing toward the respective slot.
Gordon teaches (fig. 11) a venetian blind with a slat with openings (20d) that each have a width gradually decreasing towards a center of the slat.
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 Nien so that the openings each have a width gradually decreasing toward the respective slot, in the center of the slat. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of making it easier for a user to insert the loop.
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nien (US 7556080) in view of Chang (US 20150000847) and Tuzmen (US 5918657) as applied above, and further in view of Huang (US 20180112460).
Regarding claim 12, modified Nien does not explicitly teach that each of the loop portions of the ladder ropes passes through the respective holes formed in an upper one of the two vertically adjacent slats of the plurality of slats and the respective hole formed in a lower one of the two vertically adjacent slats of the plurality of slats.
Huang teaches a venetian blind with a loop potion (element 122, figs. 2-5) of a ladder rope that passes through the holes of two adjacent slats (fig. 2 shows that element 122 passes through holes on two adjacent slats, and figures 3-5 shows that element 122 is one single loop).
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 Nien so that each of the loop portions of the ladder ropes passes through the respective holes formed in an upper one of the two vertically adjacent slats of the plurality of slats and the respective hole formed in a lower one of the two vertically adjacent slats of the plurality of slats.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that “Specifically, amended claim 1 now at least has a differentiated technical feature that "the respective loop portion (38) is inserted through the respective hole (45) in a single-line manner". With the aforesaid technical feature, amended claim 1 enables the effect that the slats (40) are prevented from undergoing excessive transverse displacement.
According to column 6, lines 52-55 of the specification, Tuzmen discloses that some clearance (C) for the tilt loop (56) (shown in FIG. 9 as first tilt loop (58)) may be maintained between the engaging members (44, 46) and the external longitudinal edges (36) of the slat (14). Furthermore, column 7, lines 8-10 of the specification discloses that the first tilt loop (58) extends from the first cord member (54) and cooperates with the first engaging member (44) and the second tilt loop (60) extends from the second tilt cord member (46). This connects the tilt cord (50) to each slat (14).
Compared with amended claim 1, the first tilt loop (58) of Tuzmen is used to connect the tilt cord (50) to each slat (14), whereas the loop portion (38) recited in amended claim 1 is configured to prevent the slats (40) from undergoing excessive transverse displacement. Accordingly, the first tilt loop (58) of Tuzmen is clearly different in function from the loop portion (38) of amended claim 1.
Furthermore, the clearance (C) through which the first tilt loop (58) of Tuzmen passes is not a hole formed in the slat (14) itself, but rather is formed between the engaging member (44) and the outer longitudinal edge (36) of the slat (14). Even if the engaging member (44) and the slat (14) were regarded collectively as a slat, the clearance (C) still does not penetrate through both the top and bottom surfaces of the slat (14).
In contrast, the hole (45) through which the loop portion (38) recited in amended claim 1 passes is a hole formed in the slat (40) itself and penetrates through both the top and bottom surfaces (41, 42) of the slat (40). Accordingly, Tuzmen is structurally different from amended claim 1.”
The examiner notes that the above combination teaches all the limitations as claimed. The examiner notes tin the Non-Final Rejection dated 6/23/2026 that the phrase “in a single-line manner” is interpreted as the loop only extending through the respective hole one time, rather than doubling back a second time. This is consistent with the original disclosure.
Tuzmen is found to teach (fig. 9) a venetian blind with a slat (14 and 44 are considered the slat) with a hole (C), and a loop (58) inserted through the hole in a single-line manner. The modification is to further modify Nein with teachings of Tuzmen so that the respective loop portion is inserted through the respective hole in a single-line manner. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of using less cord, reducing the manufacturing costs. Teachings of the slat and the holes are not taken from Tuzman, but rather from Nien. The result of this combination teaches the limitations as claimed.
The applicant argues that “Moreover, Nien, Chang, and Tuzmen are each directed to a window covering having the lift cords, whereas amended claim 1 is directed to a structural design for a cordless window covering. Thus, the cited references and amended claim 1 are clearly different in technical purpose and structural concept. Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have had a reasonable motivation, based on the disclosures of Nien, Chang, and Tuzmen, to combine these references so as to arrive at the claimed invention.
Based on the above, Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 clearly defines over the references relied on by the Examiner.”
The examiner notes that the instant invention and all the applied references are drawn to shading structures for windows. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to make the above modifications for the reasons listed above.
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
/DANIEL P CAHN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights