DETAILED ACTION
The following Final Office Action is in response to the application filed 4/23/2026.
Status of the claims: Claims 1,4-15 and 17-25 are hereby examined below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because it is unclear if Figures 5,7,8 and 9 are sufficiently clear for reprinting. The drawings appear to be photographs instead of black line drawings the details of these drawings are hard to distinguish. 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 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.
Claims 1,4-6,8,12-15,17-18,21 and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Judkins et al US 6,767,615 in view of Swiszcz US 6,103,336.
In regard to claim 1, Judkins et al ‘615 disclose a cellular shade comprising a first, woven fabric material (10) having a first upper surface (11), a first lower surface (opposite 11), and a first outer edge surface (13) extending between the first upper surface and the first lower surface, wherein the first fabric material has a first thickness as measured between the first upper surface and the first lower surface along a first direction. (column 2, lines 20-39 state that the fabrics can be woven or nonwoven); a second, unwoven fabric material (20) having a second upper surface (21), a second lower surface (opposite 21), and a second outer edge surface (23) extending between the second upper surface and the second lower surface, wherein the second fabric material has a second thickness as measured between the second upper surface and the second lower surface along the first direction, wherein the first outer edge surface (13) faces the second outer edge surface (23) along a second direction that is perpendicular to the first direction. (column 2, lines 20-39 state that the fabrics can be woven or nonwoven); a layer of adhesive (30) coupled to both the first fabric material (10) and the second fabric material (20), wherein the layer of adhesive overlaps both the first fabric material and the second fabric material, defining an adhesive joint between the first fabric material and the second fabric material.
Judkins et al ‘615 fails to disclose wherein along the adhesive joint the first outer edge surface is in physical contact with the second outer edge surface, and there is no overlap of the first fabric material and the second fabric material.
With reference to 4B, Swiszcz ‘336 discloses wherein along the adhesive joint (at 50) the first outer edge surface (of 14) is in physical contact with the second outer edge surface (of 16), and there is no overlap of the first fabric material and the second fabric material.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the device of Judkins ‘615 to make the first outer edge surface be in physical contact with the second outer edge surface with no overlap as taught by Swiszcz ‘336 as such is shown to be a known alternative to an open seam arrangement (Figs. 2A-2B). Making the edges be in contact would provide a uniform appearance in the shape of the cells.
In regard to claim 4, Judkins et al ‘615 disclose wherein the layer of adhesive (30) extends over both a portion of the first upper surface (11) and a portion of the second upper surface (21).
In regard to claim 5, Judkins ‘615 discloses wherein the first thickness is different than the second thickness.
Judkins ‘615 fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first thickness is the same as the second thickness.
However, Judkins ‘615 discloses embodiments (column 4, lines 34-35) wherein the first and second fabrics can be the same (i.e., have the same thickness). 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 thicknesses be the same, as Judkins ‘615 teaches it is known to use materials with equal thicknesses. Such would help to provide a similar look or feel. Such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, changes in size or shape without special functional significance are not patentable. Research Corp.v. Nasco Industries, Inc., 501 F2d 358; 182 USPQ 449 (CA 7) cert. Denied 184 USPQ 193; 43 USLW 3359 (1974).
In regard to claim 6, Judkins et al ‘615 disclose wherein the first thickness is different than the second thickness. (column 4, lines 34-37)
In regard to claim 8, Judkins et al ‘615 disclose wherein the layer of adhesive (30) has a width of between 1/16 inch and 3/16 inch. (column 6, lines 62-63 states 1/4 inch)
In regard to claim 12, Judkins ‘615 discloses wherein the layer of adhesive (30) includes adhesive with a viscosity based on a desired flow rate. (column 7, lines 27-30)
Judkins et al ‘615 fails to disclose a viscosity between 30,000 – 45,000 centipoise.
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 use a viscosity between 30,000-45,000 centipoise as Judkins states that choosing a viscosity based on a desired flow rate is known.
In regard to claim 13, Judkins et al ‘615 disclose wherein the first upper surface (11) and the first lower surface (opposite 11) each have greater surface area than the first outer edge surface (13).
In regard to claim 14, Judkins et al ’615 disclose wherein the cellular shade is a single cell, honeycomb shade. (Figure 2)
In regard to claim 15, Judkins et al ‘615 discloses a method of forming a cellular shade comprising selecting a first fabric material (10) and a second fabric material (20); aligning a first outer edge surface (13) of the first fabric material (10) with a second outer edge surface (23) of the second fabric material (20), such that the first outer edge surface faces the second outer edge surface; applying a layer of adhesive (30) over the first fabric material and the second fabric material at a location of the first outer edge surface and the second outer edge surface, such that the layer of adhesive overlaps both the first fabric material and the second fabric material.
Judkins et ‘615 fail to disclose the first outer edge surface is physically contacting the second outer edge surface and there is no overlap of the first fabric material and the second fabric material.
Swiszcz ‘336 discloses the first outer edge surface (of 14) is physically contacting the second outer edge surface (of 16) and there is no overlap of the first fabric material and the second fabric material.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the device of Judkins ‘615 to make the first outer edge surface be in physical contact with the second outer edge surface with no overlap as taught by Swiszcz ‘336 as such is shown to be a known alternative to an open seam arrangement (Figs. 2A-2B). Making the edges be in contact would provide a uniform appearance in the shape of the cells.
In regard to claim 17, Judkins ‘615 discloses wherein the step of aligning includes adjusting a tension of the first fabric material (10) and adjusting a tension of the second fabric material (20). (column 5, line 62-64)
In regard to claim 18, Judkins ‘615 discloses wherein the step of applying the layer of adhesive includes applying the layer of adhesive with a slot nozzle. (extrude with orifice, column 4, lines 9-11)
In regard to claim 21, Judkins ‘615 discloses a fabric shade comprising a first fabric material (10) having a first upper surface (11), a first lower surface (opposite 11), and a first outer edge surface (13) extending between the first upper surface and the first lower surface; a second fabric material (20) having a second upper surface (21) , a second lower surface (opposite 21), and a second outer edge surface (23) extending between the second upper surface and the second lower surface, and a layer of adhesive (30) applied over a portion of the first fabric material (10) and a portion of the second fabric material (20) along a joint.
Judkins ‘615 fails to disclose wherein the first outer edge surface and the second outer edge surface are in physical contact to define an end to end joint. With reference to 4B, Swiszcz ‘336 discloses wherein the first outer edge surface (of 14) and the second outer edge surface (of 16) are in physical contact to define an end to end joint.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the device of Judkins ‘615 to make the first outer edge surface be in physical contact with the second outer edge surface as taught by Swiszcz ‘336 as such is shown to be a known alternative to an open seam arrangement (Figs. 2A-2B). Making the edges be in contact would provide a uniform appearance in the shape of the cells.
In regard to claim 23, Judkins ‘612 discloses the first fabric material (10) is a woven material and the second fabric material (20) is a nonwoven material.
In regard to claims 24 and 25 , Judkins ‘612 as modified by Swiszcz ‘336 disclose the end to end joint (of 14 and 16 as taught by Swiszcz ‘336) is a butt joint, and there is no overlap (as taught by Swiszcz ‘336) of the first fabric material and the second fabric material along the end to end joint. .
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Judkins et al US 6,767,615 and Swiszcz US 6,103,336 as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Deitz et al US 2013/0180671.
In regard to claim 7, Judkins et al ‘615 fails to disclose wherein the first thickness is between 10 mils and 18 mils, and wherein the second thickness is between 10 mils and 18 mils.
Deitz et al ‘671 discloses a fabric thickness between 10 mils and 18 mils. (paragraph [0061] states fabric thickness between 50 microns and 1 millimeter is known).
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 Judkins et al ’615 to make the fabric thicknesses be between 10 mils and 18 mils, in order to achieve a desired, look, feel or durability.
Claims 9-11, 19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Judkins et al US 6,767,615 and Swiszcz US 6,103,336 as applied to claims 1 and 15 and further in view of Masterbond UV25.
In regard to claims 9-11, Judkins et al ‘615 fails to disclose wherein the layer of adhesive includes adhesive configured to be activated by ultraviolet light within a range of 365 – 425 nm and wherein the layer of adhesive has a thickness of between 0.003 inches and 0.007 inches
Masterbond UV25 discloses adhesive configured to be activated by ultraviolet light within a range of 365 – 425 nm; for the layer of adhesive, a few thousandths of an inch are more than adequate.
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 Judkins ‘615 to use an adhesive configured to be activated by ultraviolet light within a range of 365-425 nm, as taught by MasterbondUV25 as such is shown to cure quickly and have very good adhesion to many substrates.
While Masterbond UV25 doesn’t explicitly disclose a thickness between .003 and .007 inches, “a few thousandths of an inch” suggests such a range. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to make the adhesive be .003-.007 inches thick since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In regard to claim 19, Judkins ‘615 fails to disclose further comprising a step of applying ultraviolet light to cure the layer of adhesive.
Masterbond UV25 discloses comprising a step of applying ultraviolet light to cure the layer of adhesive.
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 Judkins ‘615 to use an adhesive configured to be activated by ultraviolet light, as taught by MasterbondUV25 as such is shown to cure quickly and have very good adhesion to many substrates.
In regard to claim 22, Judkins et al ‘615 fails to disclose wherein the layer of adhesive includes adhesive configured to be activated by ultraviolet light.
Masterbond UV25 discloses adhesive configured to be activated by ultraviolet light.
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 Judkins ‘615 to use an adhesive configured to be activated by ultraviolet light within a range of 365-425 nm, as taught by MasterbondUV25 as such is shown to cure quickly and have very good adhesion to many substrates.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Judkins et al US 6,767,615 and Swiszcz US 6,103,336 as applied to claim 15 and further in view of Deitz et al US 2013/0180671 and Masterbond UV25.
In regard to claim 20, Judkins et al ‘615 fails to disclose wherein the first thickness is between .01 inches and .018 inches, and wherein the second thickness is between .010 inches and .018 inches; wherein the layer of adhesive has a thickness of between 0.003 and 0.007 inches
Deitz et al ‘671 discloses a fabric thickness between .010 inches and .018 inches. (paragraph [0061] states fabric thickness between 50 microns and 1 millimeter is known).
Masterbond UV25 discloses for the layer of adhesive, a few thousandths of an inch are more than adequate.
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 Judkins et al ’615 to make the fabric thicknesses be between 10 mils and 18 mils, in order to achieve a desired, look, feel or durability.
While Masterbond UV25 doesn’t explicitly disclose a thickness between .003 and .007 inches, “a few thousandths of an inch” suggests such a range. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to make the adhesive be .003-.007 inches thick since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. Newly applied reference Swiszcz ‘336 discloses an adhesive joint wherein the first outer edge surface is in physical contact with the second outer edge surface and there is no overlap of the first and second fabric material as is now claimed.
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
/DANIEL P CAHN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights