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 § 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 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida (U.S. Patent No. 5,785,094) in view of Ding (CN 102312314). Note: A machine translation of the Ding patent document was provided with the Office action dated 4/9/26. References to the disclosure of Ding are directed to the machine translation.
Regarding claim 9, Yoshida discloses a light-proof blackout curtain comprising:
an upper fabric layer (1a);
a lower fabric layer (1c);
a middle fabric layer (1b) positioned between said upper fabric layer and said lower fabric layer, wherein said upper fabric layer is formed with knits from warp yarns and weft yarns and forms one visible side of the curtain, said lower fabric layer being formed with knits from warp yarns and weft yarns and forms another visible side of the curtain (Ya, Yb; column 13, lines 1-33 discloses that each ply may be formed from woven knits of warp and weft yarns; the upper and lower layers 1a, 1c form opposite visible sides of the curtain as shown in Figure 7), said middle fabric layer being light shielding (column 3, lines 12-14 discloses that the curtain provides “light shielding”) and having an upper part and a lower part woven as a single layer by using warp yarns and two different groups of weft yarns of a yarn (column 13, lines 1-33);
a plurality of connection points (connections at 3; see annotated drawing below) connecting said upper fabric layer and the upper part of said middle fabric layer to each other, said plurality of connection points connecting said lower fabric layer and the lower part of said middle fabric layer to each other (column 7, lines 46-48 discloses that the layers 1a-1c are connected to each other at the connection points 3); and
an upper layer floating fabric structure (portion of the upper layer 1a extending between connection points; see annotated drawing below) and a lower layer floating fabric structure (portion of the lower layer 1c extending between connection points 3; see annotated drawing below) located opposite said plurality of connection points so as to prevent light leaks therethrough (the offset of the floating fabric structures and the connection points inherently at least partially prevents light leaks) [FIG. 7].
PNG
media_image1.png
466
816
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Yoshida does not disclose that the curtain is a light-proof blackout curtain, or weft yarns of a microfilament having a Denier per filament of 0.52 and a black color).
Nonetheless, Ding discloses a light-proof blackout curtain (paragraph 0006), wherein a fabric layer providing light proofing comprises a single woven layer with knits by using warp yarns and two different groups of weft yarns of a microfilament yarn having a Denier per filament of 0.52 and black color (paragraph 0007 discloses warp yarns and two sets of weft yarns, which reads on the claimed two different groups, wherein the weft yarns may be 30-600F and 100-600 denier, which is a disclosed range encompassing 0.52 Denier per filament--e.g. 100 denier and 193 filament, both of which are within the disclosed ranges; paragraph 0008 further discloses that the weft yarns may be colored black).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the middle layer fabric of Yoshida to have the weft yarn groups and microfilament composition and black color taught by Ding, in order to provide a curtain assembly that blocks light passage therethrough, so as to maximize the privacy and desired light control effect of the curtain.
Regarding claim 10, Yoshida discloses that the weft yarns are 150 denier (column 13, lines 6-7 discloses that the curtain may include yarns of 50-3000 denier), but does not explicitly disclose 288 filament black micro yarns.
Nonetheless, Ding discloses black colored weft yarns of 150 denier and 288 filament black micro yarns (paragraphs 0007-0008 disclose 100-600 denier and 30-600 filament, as well as a black color, which reads on the claimed yarn configuration). As set forth with respect to claim 1 above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fabric of Yoshida to have the yarn configuration taught by Ding, in order to provide better light-blocking.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Yoshida discloses that said upper layer floating fabric structure is located opposite the connection point of said plurality of connection points that connects the lower fabric layer and the lower part of the middle fabric layer, and said lower layer floating fabric structure is located opposite the connection point of said plurality of connection points that connects the upper fabric layer and the upper part of the middle fabric layer [FIG. 7] (see annotated drawing above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/3/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the Yoshida patent does not disclose a blackout curtain, but this argument is not found persuasive, as Yoshida is not relied upon in the rejection to disclose the blackout configuration of the curtain. Applicant’s argument that the curtain of Yoshida does not perform any optical function and does not address the issue of light blocking is also not found persuasive. Column 3, lines 12-14 and column 13, lines 1-4 of Yoshida discloses that light shielding is a property of the fabric, and column 13, lines 4-8 further discloses use of the fabric in curtains and blinds (which are known in the art to be commonly used for light blocking). The light shielding provided by the curtain fabric inherently prevents at least some light leaks as a result of the disclosed composition and the arrangement of the layers as set forth above.
Applicant also argues that Ding fails to disclose multiple layers including an upper, lower, and middle fabric layer. This argument is not found persuasive, as Ding is not relied upon in the rejection to teach the layers and the arrangement of said layers. As set forth in the rejection above, Yoshida discloses the layers in the claimed arrangement, and Ding is relied upon to teach the specific composition of the middle layer. The motivation for using the composition of Ding is also disclosed in the Ding reference and would be within the knowledge available to one of ordinary skill in the art, i.e. blocking light to maximize privacy and light control. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, 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).
Applicant asserts that the combination of Yoshida and Ding would not lead to the present invention, but this argument is not found persuasive. As set forth in the rejection above, the connection point, floating fabric structures, and cross-connection arrangement is taught by Yoshida, and the blackout configuration including the claimed denier/filament micro yarn composition is taught by Ding. Using the fabric of Ding in the curtain of Yoshida would inherently block light leakage at the connection points as a result of the fabric composition in combination with the layer arrangement. Applicant’s argument is therefore not found persuasive.
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 ABE L MASSAD whose telephone number is (571)272-6292. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00.
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, 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.
/ABE MASSAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634
