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 .
Priority
In the reply filed 1/15/26, Applicant acknowledged that the Xu patent document (CN 217429733) is the corresponding Chinese counterpart to the instant application. However, a claim for foreign priority has not been properly made. The specification includes a statement claiming foreign priority to Chinese Patent Application 202220788114.7 (corresponding to the published document CN 217429733), but this claim was not made on the Application Data Sheet. The claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a) cannot be based on said application because the subsequent nonprovisional or international application designating the United States was filed more than twelve months thereafter and no petition under 37 CFR 1.55 or request under PCT Rule 26bis.3 to restore the right of priority has been granted. The instant application is therefore not treated with the effective filing date of the Chinese Patent Application 202220788114.7, and is accorded an effective filing date of 11/13/23.
Applicant may wish to file a petition under 37 CFR 1.55(c) to restore the right of priority if the subsequent application was filed within two months from the expiration of the twelve-month period and the delay was unintentional. A petition to restore the right of priority must include: (1) the priority claim under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a) in an application data sheet, identifying the foreign application to which priority is claimed, by specifying the application number, country (or intellectual property authority), day, month, and year of its filing (unless previously submitted); (2) the petition fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(m)(3); and (3) a statement that the delay in filing the subsequent application within the twelve-month period was unintentional. The petition to restore the right of priority must be filed in the subsequent application, or in the earliest nonprovisional application claiming benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) to the subsequent application, if such subsequent application is not a nonprovisional application. The Director may require additional information where there is a question whether the delay was unintentional. The petition should be addressed to: Mail Stop Petition, Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “lowerlayer” in line 6, which should be replaced with --lower-layer-- (adding a hyphen between the words).
Claim 5 recites “middle layer” in line 2, which should be replaced with --middle-layer-- (adding a hyphen between the words).
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xu (CN 217429733). A copy of the CN 217429733 document and a machine translation were provided with the Office action dated 7/15/26. References to the disclosure of Xu are directed to the machine translation.
Regarding claim 1, Xu discloses a vertical light-adjustable fabric and gauze integrated curtain, comprising a plurality of light-shading portions (1) and a plurality of light-pervious portions (2) alternately arranged vertically, [FIG. 1], wherein each light-pervious portion is a light-pervious gauze (paragraph n0028 discloses that the light-transmitting portions 2 are formed from a light-transmitting gauze 21); each light-shading portion is composed of an upper-layer fabric (11), a middle-layer gauze (12) and a lower-layer fabric (13; paragraph n0028); the middle-layer gauze is a gauze integrated with the light-pervious portion (paragraph n0028 discloses “The gauze net 12 in the middle layer of the light-shielding portion is integrally formed with the gauze net 21 in the light-transmitting portion”); the upper-layer fabric and the lower-layer fabric are one-piece light-tight fabrics (paragraph n0028 discloses opaque fabrics for the upper and lower fabrics); and the upper-layer fabric and the lower-layer fabric are coated on upper and lower surfaces of the middle-layer gauze to form the light shading portion (paragraph n0028).
Regarding claims 3-5, Xu discloses that a mode of coating the upper-layer fabric and the lower-layer fabric with the gauze is heat sealing, gluing, or sewing (paragraph n0028 discloses “The upper fabric surface 11 and the lower fabric surface 13 are wrapped with the gauze net 21 by heat sealing, gluing or sewing”); wherein a width of the light-shading portion is greater than or equal to a width of the light-pervious portion (paragraph n0028); and wherein the middle layer gauze of the light-shading portion and the gauze of the light-pervious portion are integrally formed, and the upper-layer fabric and the lower-layer fabric are integrally formed (paragraph n0028).
Regarding claims 7-9, Xu discloses that the middle-layer gauze and the upper-layer and lower-layer fabrics are separately woven and shaped before being coated (paragraph n0028 discloses “The gauze and fabric are woven and shaped separately before covering”); wherein after the gauze and the fabric are shaped, a vertical deviation of six meters is less than or equal to 1cm (paragraph n0028 discloses “After shaping, the error between the gauze and the fabric when freely falling for six meters is less than or equal to 1 cm”); and wherein the gauze and the fabric can be woven from yarns with different thicknesses by different devices to finally obtain gauzes and fabrics with different densities, different thicknesses and different patterns (paragraph n0028 discloses “Gauze and cloth can be woven using yarns of different thicknesses and different equipment, ultimately producing gauze and cloth with different densities, thicknesses, and patterns”).
Claims 1, 3-5, and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ha (KR 10-1506253). A copy of the Ha patent document and a machine translation have been provided with this Office action. References to the disclosure of Ha are directed to the machine translation.
Regarding claim 1, Ha discloses a vertical light-adjustable fabric and gauze integrated curtain (A) [FIG. 1], comprising a plurality of light-shading portions (4, 8) and a plurality of light-pervious portions (2) alternately arranged vertically [FIG. 1], wherein each light-pervious portion is a light-pervious gauze (the mesh configuration disclosed on page 2 reads on a gauze given a broadest reasonable interpretation); each light-shading portion is composed of an upper-layer fabric (4a), a middle-layer gauze (4b) and a lower-layer fabric (4c); the middle-layer gauze is a gauze integrated with the tight-pervious portion (as shown in Figure 4 and disclosed on page 3, the layers 4b and 2 are integrally woven together); the upper-layer fabric and the lower-layer fabric are one-piece light-tight fabrics; and the upper-layer fabric and the lower-layer fabric are coated on upper and lower surfaces of the middle-layer gauze to form the light-shading portion (the woven configuration disclosed on page 3 reads on a coating of the layers as best understood in the context of the disclosure).
Regarding claim 3, Ha discloses that a mode of coating the upper-layer fabric and the lower-layer fabric with the gauze is heat sealing, gluing or sewing (the woven configuration disclosed in paragraph 2 of page 3 reads on sewing given a broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regarding claim 4, Ha discloses that a width of the light-shading portion is greater than or equal to a width of the light-pervious portion [FIG. 1] (the combined with of portions 4, 8 is greater than or equal to that of portion 2).
Regarding claim 5, Ha discloses that the middle-layer gauze of the light-shading portion and the gauze of the light-pervious portion are integrally formed [FIG. 4], and the upper-layer fabric and the lower layer fabric are integrally formed (page 3)[FIG. 4].
Regarding claim 7, Ha discloses that the middle-layer gauze and the upper-layer and lower-layer fabrics are individually woven and shaped before being coated (this constitutes a product-by-process limitation; the gauze and fabric of Ha are capable of being formed in this manner, and therefore meet the requirements of the limitation; See MPEP 2113).
Regarding claim 8, Ha discloses that after the gauze and the fabric are shaped, a vertical deviation of six meters is less than or equal to 1 cm (given a broadest reasonable interpretation, the assembly of Ha is capable of being installed and/or manufactured with a vertical deviation less than or equal to 1cm, and therefore meets the requirements of the limitation).
Regarding claim 9, Ha discloses that he gauze and the fabric can be woven from yarns with different thickness by different devices to finally obtain gauzes and fabrics with different densities, different thicknesses and different patterns (the gauze and fabric are inherently capable of being woven from different yarns, which reads on the limitation including the phrase “can be”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/15/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Xu fails to disclose the specific structural configuration of the claimed invention. Applicant points to claims 1, 3, 7, and 8 in arguing that Xu fails to disclose separately woven and shaped gauze and fabric layers, coating via heat sealing, gluing, or sewing, and a vertical deviation of six meters is less than or equal to 1 cm. This argument is not found persuasive, as all of these limitations are explicitly disclosed in paragraph n0028 of the machine translation (provided with the Office action dated 7/15/25). Paragraph n0028 is copied below with the relevant sections highlighted.
PNG
media_image1.png
736
719
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant also argues that Ha fails to disclose that the fabrics are coated on upper and lower surfaces of the gauze, via heat sealing, gluing or sewing, and that the gauze and the fabric are separately woven and shaped before being coated, but these arguments are also not found persuasive. The term “coated” is defined in the context of the application as “covered with an outer layer, film, etc” (per https://www.thefreedictionary.com/coated). The term “sewing” is defined as “joining or attaching by stitches” (per https://www.thefreedictionary.com/sewing). The upper and lower surfaces of the assembly of Ha are clearly provided as outer layers applied over the middle gauze layer, as shown in at least Figure 4, which reads on the term “coated” given a broadest reasonable interpretation in the context of the application. The upper and lower surfaces are further connected to the middle gauze layer via weaving, which is a form of stitching, therefore meeting the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “sewing”. Applicant’s arguments appear to assert a more narrow definition for these terms, but no special definition has been set forth.
It is further noted that the limitations “coated”, “heat sealing, gluing or sewing”, and “separately woven and shaped before being coated” are product-by-process recitations. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (MPEP 2113). The product of the claimed invention is not patentably distinct from the product of Ha, and the assembly of Ha is inherently capable of being formed in the same manner. The limitations are therefore met, and Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., non-woven connections, a particular type of coating, or a particular type of sewing connection) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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 ABE L MASSAD whose telephone number is (571)272-6292. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00.
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.
/ABE MASSAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634