DETAILED ACTION
The following Final Office is in response to the amendment filed 12/30/2025.
Status of the claims: Claims 1-18 are hereby examined below.
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 1,2,5, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jones et al US 2018/0160861.
In regard to claim 1, Jones ‘861 discloses a curtain rod apparatus comprising a curtain rod (18) having a first end and a second end, a plurality of finial attachment mechanisms including a first finial attachment mechanism (50,48,20, left) and a second finial attachment mechanism (50,48,20, right), the first finial attachment mechanism (50,48,20, left) positioned inside the first end of the curtain rod (18), the second finial attachment mechanism (50,48,20, right) positioned inside the second end of the curtain rod (18), each of the finial attachment mechanisms comprising: a receptacle element (20) positioned in the curtain rod (18) and a magnetic member (66) within the curtain rod (18) such that the magnetic member is in or adjacent the receptacle element (20). (Fig. 3)
In regard to claim 2, Jones et al ‘861 disclose wherein each of the finial attachment mechanisms (50,48,20) also comprises: a push plug element (50) positionable within the curtain rod such that the push plug element (50) is within the receptacle element (20) adjacent to the magnetic member (66).
In regard to claim 5, Jones et al ‘861 disclose a first finial (26, left) removably attached to the first end of the curtain rod (18) via the first finial attachment mechanism (50,48,20) and a second finial (26, right) removably attached to the second end of the curtain rod via the second finial attachment mechanism (50,48,20).
In regard to claim 9, Jones et al ‘861 disclose a first finial (26, left) removably attached to the first end of the curtain rod (18) via the first finial attachment mechanism (50,48,20), the first finial (26, left) having a first collar (at 56) defined in a proximal end of the first finial, the first collar having a gap that is sized to receive a portion of the first end of the curtain rod (18) therein and a second finial (26, right) removably attached to the second end of the curtain rod (18) via the second finial attachment mechanism (50,48,20), the second finial having a second collar (at 56)defined in a proximal end of the second finial, the second collar having a gap that is sized to receive a portion of the second end of the curtain rod (18) therein.
In regard to claim 10, with reference to Figure 3, Jones et al ‘861 discloses a finial attachment mechanism for (intended use) removably attaching a finial to an end of a curtain rod, the final attachment mechanism comprising a receptacle element (20) positionable inside the end of the curtain rod (18) and a magnetic member (66) positionable within the end of the curtain rod (18) inside the curtain rod such that the magnetic member (66) is in or adjacent the receptacle element (20) inside of the curtain rod (18) for magnetic attachment with the finial for removably attaching the finial to the end of the curtain rod.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daniels et al US 5,642,595 in view of Baines US 2018/0098656 and Bernadeau et al EP1358970.
In regard to claim 1, with reference to Figure 22, Daniels ‘595 discloses a curtain rod apparatus comprising a curtain rod (14) having a first end and a second end, a plurality of finial attachment mechanisms (12,18) including a first finial attachment mechanism (on left end) and a second finial attachment mechanism (on right end), the first finial attachment mechanism ((12,18 left) positionable in the first end of the curtain rod (14), the second finial attachment mechanism (12,18 right) positionable in the second end of the curtain rod (14), each of the finial attachment mechanisms comprising: a receptacle element (12) positionable in the curtain rod (14).
Daniels ‘595 fails to disclose a magnetic member within the curtain rod such that the magnetic member is in or adjacent the receptacle element within the curtain rod.
Baines ‘656 discloses a magnetic member (478) for magnetic attachment with the finial for removably attaching the finial to the end of the curtain rod. Bernadeau et al ‘970 discloses a magnetic member (22) positionable within the end of a rod (handle 4) such that the magnetic member (22) is in or adjacent the receptacle element (20).
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 Daniels et al ‘595 to include a magnetic member as taught by Baines ‘656 to provide a more secure, yet still releasable connection between the elements. (magnetic attraction force typically stronger than friction) It further would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to locate the magnetic member within the receptacle element which is within the curtain rod (handle) as taught by Bernadeau et al ‘970 as such a construction makes it easy to mount the magnet and precisely position it within the bore. (paragraph [0028])
In regard to claim 2, Daniels ‘595 discloses wherein each of the finial attachment mechanisms (12,18 ) also comprises a push plug element (18) positionable within the receptacle element (12) adjacent to the magnetic member (as modified by Baines ‘656/Bernadeau et al ‘970).
In regard to claim 3, Daniels ‘595 as modified by Baines ‘656/ Bernadeau et al ‘970 discloses wherein each of the finial attachment mechanisms also comprises: a magnetic element (471 Baines ‘656) positionable between the magnetic member (478, Baines ‘656) and the push plug element (18, Daniels ‘595).
In regard to claim 4, Baines ‘656 discloses wherein the magnetic element (471) includes a pin comprised of a ferromagnetic material and/or comprises a magnet. (paragraph [0094])
In regard to claim 5, Daniels ‘595 discloses a first finial (16, left) removably attached to the first end of the curtain rod (14) via the first finial attachment mechanism (12,18) and a second finial (16, right) removably attached to the second end of the curtain rod via the second finial attachment mechanism (12,18)
In regard to claim 6, Daniels ‘595 as modified by Baines ‘656/Bernadeau et al ‘970 discloses wherein the first finial (16, left Daniels ‘595) is removably attached to the first end of the curtain rod (14) via magnetic attraction with the magnetic member (478, Baines ‘656) of the first finial attachment mechanism without use of any mechanical tool and the second finial (16, right Daniels ‘595) is removably attached to the second end of the curtain rod (14) via magnetic attraction with the magnetic member (478) of the second finial attachment mechanism without use of any mechanical tool.
In regard to claim 7, Daniels ‘595 fails to disclose the curtain rod is an adjustable length curtain rod.
Baines ‘656 discloses the curtain rod (414) is an adjustable length curtain rod. (paragraph [0040] states that curtain rod is telescoping. (paragraph [0040] states that curtain rod is telescoping) 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 Daniels ‘595 to make the curtain rod adjustable in length as taught by Baines ‘656 for the purpose of allowing it to be usable on windows of different sizes.
In regard to claim 8, Daniels ‘595 discloses wherein the curtain rod (14) is configured to support curtain material hangable from the curtain rod (14).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daniels et al US 5,642,595, Baines US 2018/0098656 and Bernadeau et al EP1358970 as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Daniels et al US 6.112.801.
In regard to claim 9, Daniels ‘595 discloses a first finial (16, left) removably attached to the first end of the curtain rod (12) via the first finial attachment mechanism (12,18), the first finial having a first collar (24) defined in a proximal end of the first finial and a second finial (16, right) removably attached to the second end of the curtain rod (14) via the second finial attachment mechanism (12,18), the second finial having a second collar (24) defined in a proximal end of the second finial (16)
Daniels ‘595 fails to disclose the first and second collars having a gap that is sized to receive a portion of the second end of the curtain rod therein. With reference to Figure 4 Daniels et al ‘801 discloses the first and second collars (24)having a gap (54) that is sized to receive a portion of the second end of the curtain rod (14) therein.
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 Daniels ‘595 to include a gap within the collars as taught by Daniels et al ‘801 for the purpose of providing a flush, clean looking connection.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daniels et al US 5,642,595 in view of Baines US 2018/0098656 and Bernadeau et al EP1358970.
In regard to claim 10, Daniels et al ‘595 disclose finial attachment mechanism for removably attaching a finial to an end of a curtain rod, the finial attachment mechanism comprising a receptacle element (12) positionable in the end of the curtain rod (14)
Daniels et al ‘595 fails to disclose a magnetic member positionable within the end of the curtain rod such that the magnetic member is in or adjacent the receptacle element for magnetic attachment with the finial for removably attaching the finial to the end of the curtain rod. Baines ‘656 discloses a magnetic member (478) for magnetic attachment with the finial for removably attaching the finial to the end of the curtain rod, while Bernadeau et al ‘970 discloses a magnetic member (22) positionable within the end of a rod (handle 4) such that the magnetic member (22) is in or adjacent the receptacle element (20).
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 Daniels et al ‘595 to include a magnetic member as taught by Baines ‘656 to provide a more secure, yet releasable connection between the elements. It further would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to locate the magnetic member within the receptacle element which is within the curtain rod (handle) as taught by Bernadeau et al ‘970 as such a construction makes it easy to mount the magnet and precisely position it within the bore. (paragraph [0028])
Claims 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daniels et al US 5,642,595, Baines US 2018/0098656 and Bernadeau et al EP1358970 as applied to claim 10 and further in view of Dean et al US 7,186,050.
In regard to claim 11, Daniels et al ‘595 as modified by Baines ‘656/Bernadeau et al ‘970 discloses wherein the receptacle element (12, Daniels et al ‘595) has a channel (open interior of 12 shown in Figure 1), the magnetic member (478, as taught to include by Daniels et al ‘595) positioned within the channel of the receptacle element (as taught by Bernadeau et al ‘970)
Daniels et al ‘595/Baines ‘656/Bernadeau et al ‘970 fail to disclose wherein the receptacle element has at least one slit in communication with a channel.
Dean et al ‘050 disclose wherein the receptacle element (16) has at least one slit (38) in communication with a channel (26).
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 Baines ‘656 to include at least one slit in communication with a channel as taught by Dean et al ‘050 in order to provide an amount of flexure such that the receptacle can be easily inserted. (column 9, lines 5-9)
In regard to claim 12, Daniels et al ‘595/Baines ‘656 and Bernadeau et al ‘970 as modified by Dean et al ‘050 disclose wherein the receptacle element (12, Daniels et al ‘595) has an inner end and an outer end, each of the at least one slit (38, Dean et al ‘050) extending from the inner end to an intermediate portion of the receptacle element that is spaced apart from the outer end.
In regard to claim 13, Daniels et al ‘595 as modified by Baines ‘656 discloses a push plug element (18, Daniels et al ‘595) positionable within the receptacle element (12, Daniels et al ‘595) adjacent to the magnetic member (478, Baines ‘656).
In regard to claim 14, Daniels et al ‘595 as modified by Baines ‘656 disclose a magnetic element (471, Baines ‘656) positionable between the magnetic member (478, Baines ‘656) and the push plug element (18, Daniels et al ‘595).
In regard to claim 15, Baines ‘656 discloses wherein the magnetic element (471) includes a pin comprised of a ferromagnetic material and the magnetic member is a magnet. (paragraph [0094])
In regard to claim 16, Daniels et al ‘595/Baines ‘656 and Bernadeau et al ‘970 as modified by Dean et al ‘050 disclose wherein the receptacle element (12, Daniels et al ‘595) has an inner end and an outer end, each of the at least one slit (38, Dean et al ‘050) extending from the inner end to an intermediate portion of the receptacle element that is spaced apart from the outer end.
In regard to claim 17, Daniels et al ‘595 as modified by Baines ‘656 discloses a push plug element (18, Daniels et al ‘595) positionable within the receptacle element (12, Daniels et al ‘595) adjacent to the magnetic member (478, Baines ‘656).
In regard to claim 18, Daniels et al ‘595/Baines ‘656 and Bernadeau et al ‘970 discloses wherein the removable attachment of the finial (10, Daniels ‘595) to the end of the curtain rod via the magnetic member (478, Baines ‘656) is without use of a mechanical tool.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant’s argument that Jones does not disclose finials to be attached to the curtain rod, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., finials attached to the curtain rod) are not recited in at least the rejected claim(s) 1 and 2. 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). Applicant states that the magnetic element 66 of Jones is not for finial attachment, however, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Applicant refers to Figures 4 and 5 to argue that the magnets are located outside of the rod, however, as shown in the office action above, in Figure 3, the magnetic member (66) is clearly shown within the rod as is claimed by the applicant. Applicant argues there is no finial or finial attachment mechanism. Examiner again notes that there is no finial positively recited in claim 1, and “finial attachment mechanism” does not ascribe any structure to differentiate from what Jones discloses.
In response to applicant’s argument that the required finials are not disclosed in claims 5 and 9, the examiner respectfully disagrees, as the decorative covers (26) meets applicant’s own definition on page 11 of the remarks of what a final is – “a decorative ornament positioned at the end of a curtain rod”. These covers are removably attached via the mechanism of (50,48,20). Applicant argues the magnets of Jones are not for finial attachment, however there is no requirement in these that the magnet attracts or secures the finial.
In response to applicant’s arguments on pages 12-14 regarding Baines, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Daniels discloses a finial attachment mechanism located within a rod, while Baines teaches using a magnetic connection to attach a finial. Applicant argues there is no motivation to modify Baines, however, Daniels is being modified and not Baines. As Daniels teaches locating the connector within the rod, as modified by Baines to include a magnetic connection, it would have been obvious that the connection be within the rod as taught by Daniels.
In response to applicant’s argument that Dean does not teach a magnetic element, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant’s argument that Daniels uses a friction fit and that the proposed modification to use a magnetic coupling as taught by Baines would change the principle of operation, the examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated above using a magnet would provide a more secure connection based on the strength of attraction versus frictional force, while still being removable. As Daniels teaches the finally is connected inside the curtain rod, it is logical and predictable to locate the magnet as taught by Baines within the curtain rod as well.
In response that Bernadeau is not analogous art and does not disclose a curtain rod, it is relevant and reasonably pertinent as it is in the art of releasable magnetic connections which is the basis for the applicant’s whole invention.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no rational underpinning for modifying Daniels, the examiner respectfully disagrees. As set forth above, Baines discloses it is known in the art to use a magnetic finial connection. One would be motivated to use magnets for a stronger connection versus friction alone. While Bernadeau is not a curtain rod, it is reasonably pertinent based on its solution to provide a magnetic connection between two elements as it is of a similar construction to that of the base reference of Daniels.
In response to applicant’s argument that claims 2-4 are independently allowable because the cited art fails to teach a push plug, applicant’s argument fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. As shown above, Daniels ‘595 discloses a push plug element (18) positionable within the receptacle element (12) and as modified by Baines/Bernadeau includes and magnetic member (571, Baines) within a receptacle (Bernadeau).
In regard to applicant’s arguments regarding claims 3-4, the examiner respectfully disagrees as those element are shown in the rejection above.
Applicant’s arguments on page 21-22 appear to be a restatement of the previous arguments. As shown above, Daniels disclose a finial attachment mechanism while Baines teaches it is known to use magnets for mounting finials. As further modified by Bernadeau et al ‘970 it is shown to be known to place the magnet within a receptacle positioned within a bore, which would be applicable to the curtain rod construction.
As modified by Daniels/Baines/Bernadeau et al, the further limitations as claims 13-18 are taught as set forth above.
Conclusion
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
/CATHERINE A KELLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights