DETAILED ACTION
The following Final Office Action is in response to the amendment filed 2/19/2026.
Status of the claims: Claims 1-11 and 17-18 are hereby examined below.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 11 recites “the housing”. Examiner presumes this should read – a housing --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EO KR 20190098449.
In regard to claim 1, with reference to Figures 1-7, EO ‘449 discloses a blind comprising an edge strip (40, Fig. 3), at least two guide cords (W, Fig. 1) connected at their first end to the edge strip (40) , a screen (10, Fig. 1) which is movable along the guide cords (W) and whose first edge is provided with a first edge profile (30, Fig. 3) and whose second edge is provided with a second edge profile (top of 10 which is connected to 22, Fig. 3), wherein the guide cords (W) extend through the edge profiles , and wherein the first and second edge profiles are suspended on the guide cords (W) and are movable independently of each other, wherein the blind further comprises lifting means (21,31,41) for coiling, uncoiling, and storing the coiled guide cords (W), wherein the second ends of the guide cords (W) are fastened to the lifting means (at 21) and wherein the first edge profile (30) can be moved in to contact with the edge strip (40) and to a distance from the edge strip (40).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eo KR 20190098449.
In regard to claim 2, Eo ‘449 discloses said screen (10) is a pleated screen.
Eo ‘449 fails to disclose that the screen is fabric. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success to make the screen be formed of fabric based on a user’s desired appearance or light blocking capabilities. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claims 1,3,5,6,8, 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al US 2022/0316272 in view of EO KR 20190098449.
In regard to claim 1, with reference to Figures 1-7, Huang et al ‘272 discloses a blind comprising), at least two guide cords (118,120 Fig. 2) , a screen (108, Fig. 1) which is movable along the guide cords (118,120) and whose first edge is provided with a first edge profile (104, Fig. 1) and whose second edge is provided with a second edge profile (106, Fig. 1), wherein the guide cords (118,120) extend through the edge profiles (106)(108) , and wherein the first and second edge profiles (106)(108) are suspended on the guide cords (118,120) and are movable independently of each other, wherein the blind further comprises lifting means (132A,132B, Fig. 2) for coiling, uncoiling, and storing the coiled guide cords (118,120), wherein the second ends of the guide cords (118,120) are fastened to the lifting means (132A,132B).
Huang ‘272 fails to disclose an edge strip, wherein the lift cords are connected at their first end to the edge strip and wherein the first edge profile can be moved in to contact with the edge strip and to a distance from the edge strip. Eo ‘449 discloses an edge strip (40, Fig. 3), wherein the lift cords (W, Fig. 1) are connected at their first end to the edge strip (40) and wherein the first edge profile (30) can be moved in to contact with the edge strip (40) and to a distance from the edge strip. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the device of Huang ‘272 to include the edge strip to be movable into contact and a distance away from the first edge profile as taught by Eo ‘272 to provide a means for vertical adjustment of the blind if the lifting mechanism is damaged or inoperable.
In regard to claim 3, Huang ‘272 discloses wherein said lifting means (132A,132B Fig. 1) comprise a tube (144, Fig. 4), wherein the tube (144) is rotatable around its longitudinal axis and the second ends of said guide cords (118,120) are fastened to the tube, directly or indirectly.
In regard to claim 5, Huang ‘272 disclose wherein the blind comprises an actuator (134,148 Fig. 8) for rotating the tube. (paragraph [0026] states that it is an electric motor)
In regard to claim 6, Huang ‘272 discloses wherein said actuator (134,148, Fig. 8 ) is arranged at least partly inside the tube (144). (Fig. 3)
In regard to claim 8, Huang ‘272 discloses wherein end plugs (118A,122, Fig. 2) are provided at the ends of said first (126) and second (124) edge profiles, and wherein the end plugs (118A,122) comprise a hole (must be a hole in 122 for cord 118 to pass through and must be a hole in 118A for cord to be attached) that opens to the inside of the edge profile (124,128), and said guide cords (118,120) are arranged to extend via the hole in the end plug (118A) of the first edge profile (126) and via the hole in the end plug (122) of the second edge profile (124).
In regard to claim 9, Huang ‘272 discloses wherein said first edge strip (104) comprises an engaging part (groove) for connecting (functional language) the edge strip in a removable way (via removability from 118A and 120A) to the frame of the terrace or balcony glazing system.
In regard to claim 18, Huang ‘272 discloses wherein said actuator (134,148) is an electric motor (paragraph [0026])
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang US20220316272 and EO KR 20190098449 as applied to claim 3 and further in view of Kirby US20230042244.
In regard to claim 4, Huang ‘272 fails to disclose wherein string cones are provided around the tube, wherein said guide cords are arranged to coil around said string cones.
With reference to Figures 4 and 5, Kirby ‘244 discloses string cones (124, Fig. 5) are provided around the tube, wherein said guide cords (112, Fig. 2) are arranged to coil around said string cones (124) when the tube (122, Fig. 4) is rotated.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the device of KR ‘365 to make the lifting means comprises a tube with string cones provided around the tube as taught by Kirby ‘244 as the cones shape would provide a variable winding force as is known in the art. (paragraph [0037] discloses the conical shape of the other spools and the reasoning behind this shape)
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang US20220316272 and EO KR 20190098449 as applied to claim 1 in view of Haapalahti US 2019/0264500.
In regard to claim 7, Huang ‘891 discloses wherein the blind comprises an elongate housing (102, Fig. 1) in which said lifting means (132A,132B) are arranged, wherein said housing comprises a first end piece (114, Fig. 2) and a second end piece (114, Fig. 3). Huang ‘891 fails to disclose, wherein the end pieces comprise openings facing the housing, and said guide cords are arranged to extend via the opening of the first or the second end piece.
With reference to Figures 1a and 2, Haapalahti ‘500 disclose wherein the end pieces (10) comprise openings (18,20, Fig. 1a) facing the housing (100, Fig. 2), and said guide cords (28a,28b Fig. 2) are arranged to extend via the opening of the first or the second end piece.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the device of Huang ‘272 to make the end pieces have openings facing the housing with the guide cords extending through the openings as taught by Haapalahti ‘500 as such is shown to be an effective means of guiding lift cords of a blind.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang US20220316272 and EO KR 20190098449 as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Tobikura CN1075771.
In regard to claim 10, Huang ‘272 fails to disclose a terrace or balcony glazing system comprising a frame with an upper guide track and a lower guide track as well as glazing elements, wherein at least some of the glazing elements are movable along the upper guide track and the lower guide track, wherein the system also comprises at least one blind according to claim 1, wherein the blind is fastened to the frame of the glazing system, separately from the glazing elements.
With reference to Figures 1-4, Tobikura ‘771 discloses a terrace or balcony glazing system comprising a frame (1, Fig. 3) with an upper guide track (6A,7A Fig. 3) and a lower guide track (6B,7B, Fig. 3) as well as glazing elements (100, 200 Fig. 3), wherein at least some of the glazing elements (100,200) are movable along the upper guide track (6A,7A)and the lower guide track (6B,7B), wherein the system also comprises at least one blind (10, Fig. 3), wherein the blind (10) is fastened to the frame (1) of the glazing system, separately from the glazing elements.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the device of Huang ‘272 to combine the blind with a frame having and upper guide track, lower guide track and glazing elements as taught by Tobikura ‘771, as Tobikura ‘771 discloses it is known to use blinds combined with movable glazing for the purpose of providing a desired amount of air and light into a building.
In regard to claim 11, Huang ‘272 as modified by Tobikura ‘771 disclose wherein the housing (112, Fig. 1 Huang ‘272) of the blind is fastened to the frame (1, Fig. 3 Tobikura ‘771), above or in parallel with the upper guide track (6A,7A Fig. 3)
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al US 2022/0316272 and Eo KR 20190098449 as applied to claim 5 and further in view of Huang US 2006/0278345.
In regard to claim 17, Huang ‘272 discloses wherein said actuator (134,148) is an electric motor (paragraph [0026]). Huang ‘272 fails to disclose said actuator is a spring. However, Huang ‘345 discloses that it is known that the actuator is a spring (31, paragraph [0019]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the device of Huang ‘272 to substitute the spring for the motor actuator as taught by Huang ‘345 as such is shown to be known actuation means. A spring would be simple and cheap when compared to an electric motor, and would not require power to operate.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2 in view of the Nakamura reference have been considered but are moot because Nakamura is no longer being used.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1,3,5,6,8 and 9 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. Eo ‘449 is used to teach a first edge profile that can be moved in to contact with the edge strip and to a distance from the edge strip as is now claimed.
In response to applicant’s argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to modify Huang to arrive at the claimed blind unless they were relying on the benefit of hindsight, the examiner respectfully disagrees. It must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). As shown above, examiner has provided sufficient rationale for the modification of Huang as taught by Ko.
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 JEREMY C RAMSEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3133. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Wed 7:00-3:30.
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.
/JEREMY C RAMSEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3634
/ABE MASSAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights