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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 03/27/26 is acknowledged. Claims 12-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/27/26.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Applicant’s specification uses the term “monolithic” at ¶¶ 0002, 0007 and 0043-how is the structure monolithic when it is formed from different panels (two exterior with tulle in the middle)? Are they coming off of the same loom? In textiles, when using the term monolithic it usually means coming off of the same loom (co-woven). Please clarify. Appropriate correction is required.
At ¶ 0046, a comma is needed for the later end point of 10, 000 denier. Currently, it states ….a yarn count between 10 denier and 10000 denier. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 7 is objected to for the same reason.
At ¶ 0051, the term “wires/cm” is used for the measure of unit. In textiles when wires/cm, it is usually used in screens or meshes where a metal is drawn out into the form of a thin flexible thread or rod, not a fiber or yarn. Do you mean threads/cm for the measure of density? Please clarify. Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant used the term “tulle” at 60 different instances within their specification. A tulle is neither a traditional knit nor a woven fabric; it is a fine netting made by twisting or knotting threads into a hexagonal mesh. It is a very lightweight, sheer netting fabric characterized by its open hexagonal mesh structure, which distinguishes it from woven fabrics that use an over-under interlacing pattern and from knitted fabrics that form loops. Instead of weaving or knitting, tulle is created by twisting or knotting threads at each intersection, producing a stable, airy net that holds its shape and does not fray when cut. This unique construction allows tulle to be cut in any direction without unraveling, making it ideal for layered garments, veils, and decorative applications. What Applicant describes in their specification is not tulle. It can be a woven or knit, and even then, it is not clear as Applicant is using the terms woven and knit interchangeably as well. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claims 1 and 7 use the term “normal yarn” is renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “normal yarn”?
In Claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9 and 11 the term “tulle” is indefinite. A tulle is neither a traditional knit nor a woven fabric; it is a fine netting made by twisting or knotting threads into a hexagonal mesh. It is a very lightweight, sheer netting fabric characterized by its open hexagonal mesh structure, which distinguishes it from woven fabrics that use an over-under interlacing pattern and from knitted fabrics that form loops. Instead of weaving or knitting, tulle is created by twisting or knotting threads at each intersection, producing a stable, airy net that holds its shape and does not fray when cut. This unique construction allows tulle to be cut in any direction without unraveling, making it ideal for layered garments, veils, and decorative applications. What Applicant describes in their specification is not tulle. It can be a woven or knit, and even then, it is not clear as Applicant is using the terms “woven” and “knit” in both the claims and the specification interchangeably, as such, the claim is rendered indefinite as it is not clear what weave structure Applicant means when referring to “tulle”.
In claims 10 and 11 the unit of measure that is used “wires/cm” are not used for textile or fibrous yarns or fibers. As such, the claims are rendered indefinite as the improper units are being used to measure the warp density.
In Claim 2, which recites -The curtain fabric according to claim 1, wherein the at least two vertical curtain sunshade sections are provided in a 3-layered structure comprising an upper layer fabric structure woven with the second upper warp yarn and weft yarns, a middle layer fabric structure woven with the first warp yarn and weft yarns, and a lower layer fabric structure woven with the second lower warp yarn and weft yarn. The structural arrangement is unclear and thus indefinite. If the sections are vertical how is there an upper layer, a middle and a lower layer of warp and weft yarns? It is still not clear is this a knit or a woven or what the weave is or in which direction these layers are oriented.
Claim 4, is unclear and indefinite as a tulle cannot be a woven, as shown above at 8.
Claim 7, is indefinite as it is unclear if the normal yarn or the melting yarn are bot the same polyester, If so what defines a normal yarn versus the melt yarn?
Claim 8, is indefinite. How can one compare a value when we don’t know what the variables are? What is the hardness value of the vertical curtain sunshade section?
Claims 3 and 6 are objected to as being dependent from a rejected base claim.
Clarity is needed on the weave of each layer, and the orientation of each section in order to provide a proper art rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Arti Singh-Pandey whose telephone number is (571)272-1483. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30-5:00 and 8:00-10:00.
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, Melvin Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/Arti Singh-Pandey/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1759
asp
Prosecution Insights