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 of Group I in the reply filed on 3/16/26 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 5-8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. The abstract filed 5/22/24 includes the phrase “disclosed is”, which can be implied and should therefore be deleted.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “completely (100%) light-proof”. In the context of the disclosure, it is clear that this limitation requires that the curtain be a substantially opaque/light blocking assembly. However, the limitation in claim 1 should be amended to recite --substantially opaque-- or similar, to ensure appropriate clarity and support, as the curtain is understood to be used to block light on the visual spectrum such that it is not necessarily “100% light-proof”.
Claims 3 and 4 each recite “the connection point”, but claim 1 previously introduces multiple connection points. In the context of the disclosure, it is clear that the recitation of “the connection point” in each of claims 3 and 4 refers to each connection point between the middle layer fabric and the upper or lower layer fabric. It is recommended that claims 3 and 4 be amended to recite --each connection point-- to ensure appropriate consistency.
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 1-4 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.
The term “high” in claims 1 and 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Paragraph [0040] of the specification dated 5/22/25 recites “Preferably 150 denier 288 filament black micro yarns are used to form this layer, but other yarns with a high number of filaments can also be used here”, and claim 2 also recites “preferably 150 denier, 288 filament black micro yarns”. However, the term “preferably” as recited in the specification and in claim 2 is unclear as to whether or not “high” specifically requires at least 288 filaments, or if another number of filaments may still be considered “high”. The term “preferably” as used in claim 2 is further unclear as to whether or not the specific denier and filament count is required, or if the subsequent limitation is non-limiting.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected as being dependent from a claim or claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). All claims are examined as best understood.
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 1-4 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 has been provided with this Office action. References to the disclosure of Ding are directed to the machine translation.
Regarding claim 1, Yoshida discloses a curtain, the curtain comprising:
an upper layer fabric (1a) and a lower layer fabric (1c), which are woven with knits from warp and weft yarns (Ya, Yb; column 13, lines 1-33 discloses that each ply may be formed from woven knits of warp and weft yarns) and form the visible sides of the curtain [FIG. 7];
a middle layer fabric (1b) which provides light shielding (column 3, lines 12-14 discloses that the curtain provides “light shielding”) and comprises an upper part and a lower part (upper and lower surfaces of the middle layer 1b; see annotated drawing below), woven as a single layer with knits by using warp yarns and two different groups of weft yarns of high filament (column 13, lines 1-33 discloses a density of 10-120/inch for the weft yarns, which reads on a broadest reasonable interpretation of “high filament” as best understood);
connection points (connections at 3; see annotated drawing below) connecting the upper layer fabric and the upper part of the middle layer fabric and connecting the lower layer fabric and the lower part of the middle layer fabric 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 the connection points to prevent light leaks (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 blackout curtain, two different groups of weft yarns of black color.
Nonetheless, Ding discloses a blackout curtain that is completely (100%) light-proof (paragraph 0006 discloses that the curtain provides excellent blackout effect, which is understood to read on the claimed limitation as defined in view of the disclosure), wherein a fabric layer which provides light proofing comprises a single woven layer with knits by using warp yarns and two different groups of weft yarns of high filament 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, which reads on the claimed “high filament”; 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 high filament 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 2, Yoshida discloses that the high filament weft yarns are preferably 150 denier (column 13, lines 6-7 discloses that the curtain may include yarns of 50-3000 deniers), but does not explicitly disclose 288 filament black micro yarns .
Nonetheless, Ding discloses high filament, 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 3 and 4, Yoshida discloses that the said upper layer floating fabric structure is located opposite the connection point that connects the lower layer fabric and the lower part of the middle layer fabric, and the said lower layer floating fabric structure is located opposite the connection point that connects the upper layer fabric and the upper part of the middle layer fabric [FIG. 7] (see annotated drawing above).
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights