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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendments dated 10/2/25 have been entered. Claims 1, 7-9, 14, and 16 have been amended. No claims have been cancelled or added.
The rejection below has been updated to reflect the amendments to the claims.
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.
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lynch et al. (US 2018/0216402).
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Lynch teaches a laminate for architectural coverings (Lynch para 2, abs) comprising a base layer which may be a single layer or a laminate, and when a laminate comprises a wet-laid nonwoven web with first and second opposing surfaces, where the web comprises a first fiber of synthetic (polymeric) fibers and having a basis weight of less than 20 gsm (Lynch para 31, 32, 33, 35, 38). Lynch further teaches that the second laminated layer of the base layer (and thus directly contacting as no adhesives or bonding layers are mentioned) may comprise a spunbonded web of filaments oriented along a first direction (Lynch para 31, 32, 37, 38).
Prior art which teaches a range within, overlapping, or touching the claimed range anticipates if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with sufficient specificity, see MPEP 2131.03.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-7, 9, 13, 14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swiszcz (US 2020/0114629) in view of Lynch et al. (US 2018/0216402).
Regarding claim 1, Swiszcz teaches a laminate for an architectural coverings (Swiszcz abs, para 2) comprising a wet laid nonwoven web (Swiszcz para 35) where the wet laid nonwoven web is formed by a first layer (“base layer”) (item 14) with a first fiber type of polymer fibers and, intrinsically, a first and second major surface (Swiszcz para 22, 34-37) with a basis weight of less than 20 gsm (Swiszcz para 50).
Prior art which teaches a range within, overlapping, or touching the claimed range anticipates if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with sufficient specificity, see MPEP 2131.03.
Swiszcz further teaches a second layer (item 16) laminated to the first surface of the first layer comprising a layer of filaments oriented in a first direction (Swiszcz para 33-34).
Swiszcz is silent with respect to the base layer being a laminate of two directly contacting layers, and to the second layer being a spunbonded web.
Swiszcz and Lynch are related in the field of laminates for architectural coverings. Lynch teaches that the second layer of the base layer may be laminated and directly contacting as no adhesives or bonding layers are mentioned and may comprise a spunbonded web of filaments oriented along a first direction (Lynch para 31, 32, 37, 38). Lynch further teaches this allows for adjusting the stiffness of the final covering in a specific direction (Lynch para 44) while minimizing the needed weight of the fabric (Lynch para 43).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Swiszcz to utilize a directly bonded, unidirectional spunbonded web as taught by Lynch as the layer of filaments oriented in a first direction because this allows for a layer which allows for adjustment of stiffness without adding excess weight to the fabric.
Regarding claim 2, Swiszcz in view of Lynch teaches an architectural covering as above for claim 1. Swiszcz further teaches that the first type of polymer fibers further have a fiber length of 0.1-30 mm (Swiszcz para 45).
Prior art which teaches a range within, overlapping, or touching the claimed range anticipates if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with sufficient specificity, see MPEP 2131.03.
Regarding claim 3, Swiszcz in view of Lynch teaches an architectural covering as above for claim 1. Swiszcz further teaches the laminate may be point bonded (Swiszcz para 77).
Regarding claim 4, Swiszcz in view of Lynch teaches an architectural covering as above for claim 1. Swiszcz further teaches that the fibers of the first fiber type in the base layer may be oriented in a different direction than the filaments of the second layer to control the total stiffness of the laminate (Swiszcz para 47-48, 52). As they may be non-parallel, they may be considered skew to each other and to the first direction.
Regarding claim 5, Swiszcz in view of Lynch teaches an architectural covering as above for claim 2. Swiszcz further teaches the first fiber type may comprise polyester fibers (Swiszcz para 23).
Regarding claim 6, Swiszcz in view of Lynch teaches an architectural covering as above for claim 2. Swiszcz further teaches that the nonwoven web of the base layer may further comprise second fibers which are binder fibers (Swiszcz para 43).
Regarding claim 7, Swiszcz in view of Lynch teaches an architectural covering as above for claim 1. Swiszcz further provides an exemplary basis weight of 15 gsm for the base layer (Swiszcz para 79, Table 1), further noting that the weight may be from about 5-17 gsm (Swiszcz para 50).
Prior art which teaches a range within, overlapping, or touching the claimed range anticipates if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with sufficient specificity, see MPEP 2131.03.
Regarding claim 8, Swiszcz in view of Lynch teaches an architectural covering that has point bonding as above for claim 3.
Swiszcz in view of Lynch is silent with respect to the density of the point bonding being in a pattern comprising 10-90% of the surface area of the base layer.
Swiszcz and Lynch are related in the field of multilayer architectural coverings. Lynch teaches that the backing layer or vane layer may be formed from laminates which utilize point bonding via dot structures of adhesives, where the adhesive may cover 10-80% of the base material surface area to further adjust the stiffness of the laminate (Lynch para 26-27). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the point bonding of Swiszcz to be dot adhesive covering 10-80% of the surface area of the base material as taught by Lynch because this would provide Swiszcz with a further method to control the desired stiffness of the laminate.
Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the bonding amount taught by Swiszcz in view of Lynch overlaps with the instantly claimed bonding amount and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, see MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 9, Swiszcz in view of Lynch teaches an architectural covering as above for claim 1. Swiszcz further teaches the thickness of the nonwoven layer(s) may be from 0.03-0.15 mm (Swiszcz claims 11, 18) with an exemplary total thickness of 0.24 or less (Swiszcz para 82, Table 4).
Prior art which teaches a range within, overlapping, or touching the claimed range anticipates if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with sufficient specificity, see MPEP 2131.03.
Regarding claim 13, Swiszcz in view of Lynch teaches an architectural covering as above for claim 6. Swiszcz further teaches the amount of binder fibers are present in an amount of from 25-60% by weight (Swiszcz para 42).
Prior art which teaches a range within, overlapping, or touching the claimed range anticipates if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with sufficient specificity, see MPEP 2131.03.
Regarding claim 14, Swiszcz in view of Lynch teaches an architectural covering as above for claim 2. Swiszcz further teaches that the first fibers of the base layer may have a denier of 0.01-10 and a length of less than 10 mm (Swiszcz para 45).
Prior art which teaches a range within, overlapping, or touching the claimed range anticipates if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with sufficient specificity, see MPEP 2131.03.
Regarding claim 15, Swiszcz in view of Lynch teaches an architectural covering that has point bonding as above for claim 1. As above, Swiszcz teaches that the second layer may be comprised of filaments (Swiszcz para 37) of denier 0.01-10 (Swiszcz para 45).
Swiszcz in view of Lynch is silent with respect to the filaments being continuous.
Swiszcz and Lynch are related in field of multilayer architectural coverings. Lynch teaches using continuous filaments (Lynch para 31, 38), particularly ones with a denier of less than 2.0 (Lynch para 38) which allows for a web with particularly low basis weight to be formed. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the filaments of the second layer of Swiszcz to have a fine denier of less than 2.0 and be continuous as taught by Lynch because this would provide that layer of Swiszcz with the additional benefit of being able to be formed with a particularly low basis weight.
Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the denier taught by Swiszcz in view of Lynch overlaps with the instantly claimed denier and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, see MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 16, Swiszcz in view of Lynch teaches an architectural covering as above for claim 1. Swiszcz further teaches that the filaments may be filaments, formed of a single polymer (Swiszcz para 37).
Regarding claims 17 and 20, Swiszcz in view of Lynch teaches an architectural covering as above for claim 1. Swiszcz further teaches that the laminate forming the architectural covering may be formed into materials such as blinds, where repeating units of the laminate are spaced apart from each other (items 208) such that one may be considered a ‘facing’ layer and a second instance may be considered a ‘backing’ layer. See for example the spacing shown in Figure 4, and the fact that these layers form front and back layers in figure 6 (Swiszcz figs 4-6; para 71). As such any given instance of 208 may be considered either of a facing layer or a backing layer. Additionally, depending on the orientation of the architectural covering, any given item 208 will face toward or away from an architectural structure.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Swiszcz in view of Lynch teaches an architectural covering as above for claim 17. Swiszcz further illustrates that the facing layer and backing layer form a plurality of cells that extend in a repeating fashion from the top of an architectural covering to the bottom, and where because each cell is vertically isolated from other cells, they may be considered to be ‘closed’ cells (Swiszcz fig 4-6; para 71). Further it is noted that no special definition of ‘closed cell’ is provided in the instant specification. As such, because the cells of Figures 4-6 are closed relative to each other, they are considered to be ‘closed’ for the purposes of examination.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swiszcz in view of Lynch as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Malkan (US 2019/0339426).
Regarding claims 10-12, Swiszcz teaches an architectural covering that has point bonding as above for claim 1. Swiszcz further teaches that the base layer first orientation is in the machine direction (i.e. horizontal/width direction) (Swiszcz para 29, 33, 36, 71). Swiszcz additionally teaches the second layer filaments are also preferably in the same first orientation (Swiszcz para 47, 52).
Swiszcz is silent with respect to a third layer of polyester yarns (Malkan para 41) that are oriented in a second direction perpendicular to the machine direction, called the ‘pillar’ direction (Malkan para 24) which provides increased strength and tensile stiffness in the vertical direction (Malkan para 24). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the architectural covering of Swiszcz to include a third layer of polyester yarns in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction of the base layer as taught by Malkan because this would provide the architectural covering of Swiszcz with the benefits of increased strength and tensile stiffness in the vertical (second) direction.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, page 5, filed 10/2/25, with respect to the 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(b) rejections of claims 7, 9, and 14 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/2/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 6 of Remarks, that Lynch does not teach a base layer of a wet-laid web and second layer of a spunbonded web directly contacting each other.
On further review of Lynch, the Examiner respectfully disagrees, and directs Applicant to the rejection above.
Applicant argues on page 6 that the dependent claims are allowable for the same reasons as claim 1. The Examiner respectfully disagres.
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 LAURA B FIGG whose telephone number is (571)272-9882. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9a-6p Mountain.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/L.B.F/Examiner, Art Unit 1781 2/7/26
/ALICIA J WEYDEMEYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781