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 Objections
The following claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “the first edge” on line 20, but should recite “the respective first edge”. A similar issue persists regarding “the first warp”, and “the first recess” on lines 21-22.
Claim 5 recites “the perforation” and “the first edge” on line 2. These should both include the term “respective” in front.
It is up to the applicant to find and correct all similar issues. 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.
Claim 1 is 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.
Claim 1 recites “the first warp is completely received within the recess” on line 22. It is unclear what is explicitly meant by this, as in fig. 3 it can be clearly seen that the first warp is not completely received within the recess, as most of the vertical length is not found within the any of the multiple recesses. As best understood, in light of the specification, this is understood to require the first warp to not extend out past the first edge in a width direction of the slats. Please clarify.
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) 1-3, 5, 10-11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nien (US 7556080) in view of Judkins (US 6263944) and Gordon (US 2620865).
Regarding claim 1, Nein teaches a venetian blind (embodiment shown in figs. 1 and 3) comprising:
a headrail (10);
a bottom rail (20) located below the headrail (fig. 1);
a plurality of slats (40s) provided between the headrail and the bottom rail, each of the slats having a top surface, a bottom surface, a first edge connected with the top and bottom surfaces (left edge in fig. 3), a second edge (right edge in fig. 3) connected with the top and bottom surfaces and opposite to the first edge, a perforation (hole in slat for loop, shown in fig. 2) passing through the top and bottom surfaces;
two ladder cords (fig. 1) provided between the headrail and the bottom rail, each of the ladder cords having a first warp (31 on left in fig. 3) adjacent to the first edges of the slats, a second warp (31 on fight in fig. 3) adjacent to the second edges of the slats, a plurality of wefts (32s, one per slat) connected with the first and second warps and supporting the bottom surfaces of the slats (fig. 3), and a plurality of first loops (60s) connected with the first warp and penetrated in the perforations of the slats (fig. 3); and
a lifting unit having a first pull cord (50 on left in fig. 3) adjacent to each respective first wrap and a second pull cord (50 on right in fig. 3) adjacent to each respective second wrap,
wherein each first loop is formed by a single strand extending through a corresponding perforation (fig. 3 shows that each first loop is formed by, or made from, a single strand extending through one of the perforations. Fig. 3 shows how it is a single strand that doubles back through the perforation).
Nien does not teach a recess provided at each respective the first edge, that at least one of the first pull cord, the second pull cord, the first warp, and the second warp is positioned in the recesses of the slats, that when the slats are in a horizontal state, the first pull cord and the first warp are positioned in the recesses of the slats, nor that wherein the first warp is completely received within the recess.
Judkins teaches a venetian blind with a recess (see fig. 5) proved at a first edge, with a first pull cord and a first warp positioned in the recess of the slat (clearly shown in fig. 5), and that when the slats are in a horizontal state, the first pull cord and the first warp are positioned in the recesses of the slats (fig. 5).
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 Nein with teachings of Judkins so there is a recess at the first edge of each slat with the first pull cord, and the first warp positioned in the recesses of the slats, and so that that when the slats are in a horizontal state, the first pull cord and the first warp are positioned in the recesses of the slats. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of making the device more compact, and reducing wear on the cords as the blind tilts.
Gordon teaches a first warp (19) that is completely received within a recess (26, see. Fig 12 and the 112b rejection above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Nein so that the first warp is completely received within the recess. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of protecting the warp from damage while in use.
Regarding claim 2, modified Nein teaches that each recess is provided at the first edge (see claim 1 combination above); when the slats are in a horizontal state, the first pull cord is positioned in the recesses of the slats (after the modification above).
Regarding claim 3, modified Nein teaches that each recess is provided at the first edge (see claim 1 rejection above); when the slats are in a horizontal state, the first warp is positioned in the recesses of the slats (after the modification above).
Regarding claim 5, modified Nein teaches that the recesses and the perforations are provided at the first edge (see claim I rejection above);
the slats each have a slot (42 as shown in fig. 8, column 4 lines 63-64 teach that the slat in fig. 8 is useable in all embodiments, thus the examiner is using the slat from fig. 8 in the embodiment of figures 1 and 3) provided with one end thereof forming an opening at the first edge and a second end thereof communicating with the perforation (fig. 8);
each first loop (60) is inserted in the slot through the opening and penetrated in the perforation along the slot (as is described in column 4 line 63 through column 5 line 2).
Modified Nein does not explicitly teach that each recess and slot are located at two opposite sides of the perforation.
The examiner notes that the courts have held that the particular placement of a component was found to be an obvious matter of design choice. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). Therefore, 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 further modify Nein so that each recess and slot are located at two opposite sides of the perforation.
Regarding claim 10, modified Nein teaches that the first pull cord passes through the first loops (see fig. 3).
Regarding claim 11, modified Nein teaches that the first loops (60s) each have a first end portion (top end in fig. 3) provided with one end thereof connected with the first warp (31 on left in fig. 3), a second end portion (bottom end portion connected to the weft in fig. 3) provided with one end thereof connected with the first warp (31 on left in fig. 3), and a penetration segment connected between the first and second end portions and penetrated in the perforation (seen in fig. 3);
a junction of the first end portion and the first warp is spaced from a junction of the second end portion and the first warp (fig. 3 shows space between the two junctions).
Regarding claim 15, modified Nein does not explicitly teach that the ladder cords each further have a plurality of second loops connected with the second warp; the second pull cord passes through the second loops.
The examiner notes that the courts have held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Therefore, 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 further modify Nein so that there is a plurality of second loops connected with the second warp; the second pull cord passes through the second loops. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of further securing the slats.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The limitations as claimed are taught by the rejection above.
The applicant argues that “Specifically, Nien does not disclose the recess (47) recited in amended claim 1. Furthermore, the connector (60) disclosed in Nien is inserted through the hole (41) as a double strand, whereas the first loop (54) recited in amended claim 1 is formed by a single strand extending through the perforation (45). Accordingly, Nien is structurally distinguishable from amended claim 1.”
The examiner notes that the recess is not taught by Nein, but the combination above using teachings of Judkins teaches the recess as claimed. It is also noted that fig. 3 of Nein shows that each first loop is formed by, or made from, a single strand extending through one of the perforations. Fig. 3 shows how it is a single strand that doubles back through the perforation.
The examiner further notes that Judkins is not used to teach the first warp being completely received within the recess.
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