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 § 102
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 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(s) 1, 3, 5, and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nien (US 7556080).
Regarding claim 1, Nien discloses a venetian blind (fig. 1 shows the main structure compatible with all the embodiments) comprising:
an upper beam (10); a lower beam (20) located below the upper beam; a plurality of slats (40s) arranged between the upper and lower beams, each of the slats (the slats are shown in fig. 8, which is usable in all configurations according to column 4 lines 63-65) having one end thereof provided with a through hole (41) and a slot (42) passing through top and bottom surfaces of the slat and communicating with the through hole (fig. 8);
two ladder tapes (two are shown in fig. 1, details of the ladder tapes are found in the embodiment of fig. 3-4) connected between the upper and lower beams and each having a first warp (31 on right in fig. 3), a second warp (32 on left in fig. 3) opposite to the first warp, and a plurality of wefts (the 32s) connected between the first and second warps and supporting the bottom surfaces of the slats (fig. 4), one of the ladder tapes further having a plurality of second ring portions (60s) passing through the through holes through the slots; and
a lifting cord assembly including a first lifting cord (50 on right) arranged adjacent to the first warp of one of the ladder tapes, and a second lifting cord (50 on left) arranged adjacent to the second warp of one of the ladder tapes and passing through the second ring portions of one of the ladder tapes (fig. 4),
wherein each of the second ring portions (the 60s) passes through a respective through hole in a single strand (fig. 3 shows that element 60 passes through the respective through hole in a single strand twice per through hole).
Regarding claim 3, Nien discloses two said lifting cord assemblies (this is interpreted as only requiring two total lifting cord assemblies, see fig. 1);
the second lifting cord (50 on left in fig. 4) of one of the lifting cord assemblies passes through the second ring portions (60s) of one of the ladder tapes (fig. 4).
Regarding claim 5, Nien discloses two said lifting cord assemblies; each of the slats has two ends thereof each provided with the slot and the through hole (see fig. 8, this is interpreted as each slat needing two holes and slots); the other of the ladder tapes includes a plurality of the second ring portions (both ladder tapes have the second ring portions); the second lifting cords of the lifting cord assemblies pass through the second ring portions of the ladder tapes (in the same manner as shown in fig. 4).
Regarding claim 7, Nien discloses that the slot has a first extending segment (first straight segment) extending from a second edge of the slat in a width direction of the slat to a first edge of the slat, and a second extending segment (second straight segment that goes into the through hole) extending from one end of the first extending segment in a length direction of the slat to the through hole, the through hole passing through the top and bottom surfaces of the slat and being located between the second edge of the slat and the second extending segment of the slot (shown in fig. 8).
Regarding claim 8, Nien discloses that the second extending segment is perpendicular to the first extending segment (fig. 8).
Regarding claim 9, Nien discloses that the slot extends inclinedly (“tending in a direction that makes an angle with a line” from thefreedictionary.com. The slot extends in a 90 degree angle, and is thus considered inclinedly) from a second edge of the slat to a first edge of the slat.
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) 2, 4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nien (US 7556080).
Regarding claim 2, the embodiment of Nien shown in fig. 4 does not disclose the ladder tape having a plurality of first ring portions connected with the first warp; the first lifting cord passes through the first ring portions.
Another embodiment of Nein (fig. 6) discloses a ladder tape having a plurality of first ring portions (70s on the right in fig. 6) connected with the first warp (32 on right); the first lifting cord (50 on right) passes through the first ring portions (fig. 6). 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 Nien so that the embodiment of fig. 4 also has a plurality of first ring portions connected with the first warp; the first lifting cord passes through the first ring portions. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of keeping the components from moving laterally.
Regarding claim 4, Nien does not disclose that a second of the ladder tapes further includes a plurality of first ring portions connected with the first warp; the first lifting cord of the other of the lifting cord assemblies passes through the first ring portions of the other of the ladder tapes.
Another embodiment of Nein (fig. 6) discloses a ladder tape having a plurality of first ring portions (70s on the right in fig. 6) connected with the first warp (32 on right); the first lifting cord (50 on right) passes through the first ring portions (fig. 6). 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 Nien so that a second of the ladder tapes further includes a plurality of first ring portions connected with the first warp; the first lifting cord of the other of the lifting cord assemblies passes through the first ring portions of the other of the ladder tapes. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of keeping the components from moving laterally.
Regarding claim 6, although Nien discloses two said lifting cord assemblies (fig. 1), and the second lifting cords passing through the second ring portions (fig. 4), Nien does not disclose that the ladder tapes each have a plurality of first ring portions connected with the first warp; the first lifting cords pass through the first ring portions.
Another embodiment of Nein (fig. 6) discloses a ladder tape having a plurality of first ring portions (70s on the right in fig. 6) connected with the first warp (32 on right); the first lifting cord (50 on right) passes through the first ring portions (fig. 6). 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 Nien so that the ladder tapes each have a plurality of first ring portions connected with the first warp; the first lifting cords pass through the first ring portions. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of keeping the components from moving laterally.
Claim(s) 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nien (US 7556080) in view of Tachikawa (US 20150075728).
Regarding claims 10-11, although Nien discloses that the second ring portion has an upper segment fixed to the second warp at a first position above the wefts (fig. 4), it does not disclose that the second ring portion has a lower segment fixed to the second warp at a second position spaced apart from the first position when the slats are in an open state and perpendicular to the second warps, wherein the second position is located above or below the wefts.
Tachikawa teaches (fig. 40) a window blind (2) with a ring portion (6o) with an upper segment (top half of one of the 6os) fixed to a warp (5a) at a position (fig. 40) and a lower segment (bottom half of the 6o) fixed to a warp (5a) at a second position spaced apart from the first position when the slats are in an open state and perpendicular to the warp (fig. 40), wherein the second position is located below a weft (7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second ring portion of Nien with teachings of Tachikawa so that the second ring portion has a lower segment fixed to the second warp at a second position spaced apart from the first position when the slats are in an open state and perpendicular to the second warps, wherein the second position is located above or below the wefts. This alteration provides the predictable and expected result of an alternative arrangement for equivalently securing the slat to the ladder rope.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that “According to FIG. 3 of Nien, Nien discloses that the connector (60) is inserted through the hole (41) in a double strand. Compared with amended claim 1, the connector (60) disclosed in Nien, which is inserted through the hole (41) in a double strand, is distinctly different from the second ring portion (45) recited in amended claim 1, which is inserted through the through hole (35) in a single strand.
Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that Nien fails to teach or suggest "each of the second ring portions passes through a respective through hole in a single strand" as now recited in claim 1, and thus fails to anticipate claim 1.
In addition, Applicant notes that since the connector (60) disclosed in Nien is inserted through the hole (41) in a double strand, the slats (30) possess greater lateral freedom, which makes them more susceptible to sideward displacement and often causes the slats (30) to become laterally misaligned. Therefore, Nien cannot achieve the effect provided by amended claim 1.”
The examiner notes that the claim requires that “each of the second ring portions passes through a respective through hole in a single strand”. Fig. 3 shows that element 60 passes through the respective through hole in a single strand twice per through hole, which meets the limitation of the claim.
The applicant argues that “For example, claim 2 recites "the one of the ladder tapes further includes a plurality of first ring portions connected with the first warp; the first lifting cord passes through the first ring portions." According to claim 2, the first ring portion (44) is not inserted through the through hole
(35) but is penetrated by the first lifting cord (51), whereas the second ring portion (45) passes through the through hole (35) and is penetrated by the second lifting cord (52).
On the contrary, FIG. 6 of Nien discloses that the connector (60) passes through the hole
(41) but is not penetrated by the lift cord (50), while the sleeving member (70) is not inserted through the hole (41) but is penetrated by the lift cord (50). In other words, neither the connector
(60) nor the sleeving member (70) of Nien is both inserted through the hole (41) and penetrated by the lift cord (50). In contrast, according to claim 2, in the present application, the second ring portion (45) is both inserted through the through hole (35) and penetrated by the second lifting cord (52). Accordingly, the structural configurations of amended claim 2 is distinctly different from that disclosed in Nien.”
The examiner note that all the limitations as claimed are taught by the rejection above. Claim 2 requires, “a plurality of first ring portions connected with the first warp, the first lifting cord passes through the first ring portions”. Another embodiment of Nein (fig. 6) discloses a ladder tape having a plurality of first ring portions (70s on the right in fig. 6) connected with the first warp (32 on right); the first lifting cord (50 on right) passes through the first ring portions (fig. 6). 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 Nien so that the embodiment of fig. 4 also has a plurality of first ring portions connected with the first warp; the first lifting cord passes through the first ring portions. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of keeping the components from moving laterally.
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