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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s submission dated 05/04/2026 has been entered.
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.
In the instant case, the abstract repeats information given in the title.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pat. US 6,966,353 – Hsu.
Regarding claim 1.
Hsu discloses a securing device (30, fig 2) for honeycomb blinds (Examiner notes that this is an intended use recitation, and that although illustrated with a pleated shade, the device of Hsu may be used, without modification, with a honeycomb blind.), comprising:
a frame component (including 32 in fig 2) including two tabs (33, fig 2) which symmetrically and resiliently extend from two facing insides of the frame component (See annotated fig 2), each tab including a clamping piece (See annotated fig 2) for clamping a stack of slats (See fig 3) and a connecting piece (See annotated fig 2) formed between a middle of the clamping piece and one of the two facing insides of the frame component (See annotated fig 2), a groove section (channel receiving stacked slats in fig 3) formed between the frame component and the two clamping pieces (See fig 3), wherein the groove section (channel receiving stacked slats in fig 3) is an I-shaped groove (See fig 3),
when in use, the two tabs are pushed to protrude from the frame component so as to clamp the stack of slats between the two tabs and the frame component (See fig 3), the frame component is adapted to abut against a bottommost slat of the stack of slats (See figs 3 and 4), while the topmost slat of the stack of slats is pressed by the tabs (See figs 3 and 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
708
816
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2.
Hsu discloses all limitations of claim 1.
Hsu further discloses the frame component (including 32 in fig 2) and the tabs (33, fig 2) are integrally formed (See fig 2).
Regarding claim 3.
Hsu discloses all limitations of claim 1.
Hsu further discloses the groove section (channel receiving stacked slats in fig 3) includes a gap (See annotated fig 3) formed between the two clamping pieces of the two tabs (See annotated fig 3), a width of the gap is adapted to be greater than a width of an adhesive portion of each slat of the stack of slats (Examiner notes that this is intended use language, and the device of Hsu meets the limitation as claimed.).
PNG
media_image2.png
742
868
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu in view of US Pat. 8,006,632 – Schlesinger.
Regarding claim 5.
Hsu discloses a securing device (30, fig 2) for honeycomb blinds (Examiner notes that this is an intended use recitation, and that although illustrated with a pleated shade, the device of Hsu may be used, without modification, with a honeycomb blind.), comprising:
a frame component (including 32 in fig 2) including two tabs (33, fig 2) which symmetrically and resiliently extend from two facing insides of the frame component (See annotated fig 2), each tab including a clamping piece (See annotated fig 2) for clamping a stack of slats (See fig 3) and a connecting piece (See annotated fig 2) formed between a middle of the clamping piece and one of the two facing insides of the frame component (See annotated fig 2), a groove section (channel receiving stacked slats in fig 3) formed between the frame component and the two clamping pieces (See fig 3), wherein the groove section (channel receiving stacked slats in fig 3) is an I-shaped groove (See fig 3),
when in use, the two tabs are pushed to protrude from the frame component so as to clamp the stack of slats between the two tabs and the frame component (See fig 3), the frame component is adapted to abut against a bottommost slat of the stack of slats (See figs 3 and 4), while the topmost slat of the stack of slats is pressed by the tabs (See figs 3 and 4).
Hsu does not disclose a closed peripheral wall defining an interior space.
However, Schlesinger teaches a closed peripheral wall (42, fig 8) defining an interior space (50, fig 8).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hsu with the closed peripheral wall defining an interior space of Schlesinger. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of enhancing the strength of the device.
Regarding claim 6.
The combination of Hsu and Schlesinger teaches all limitations of claim 5.
Hsu further discloses the frame component (including 32 in fig 2) and the tabs (33, fig 2) are integrally formed (See fig 2).
Regarding claim 7.
The combination of Hsu and Schlesinger teaches all limitations of claim 5.
Hsu further discloses the groove section (channel receiving stacked slats in fig 3) includes a gap (See annotated fig 3) formed between the two clamping pieces of the two tabs (See annotated fig 3), a width of the gap is adapted to be greater than a width of an adhesive portion of each slat of the stack of slats (Examiner notes that this is intended use language, and the device of Hsu meets the limitation as claimed.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant is reminded that claim terms are interpreted under a broadest reasonable interpretation standard, consistent with the applicant’s specification, and that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues that Hsu Does Not Disclose Two Tabs Extending From the "Two Facing Insides" of a Frame Component. This is not persuasive. Hsu discloses two tabs (a small, protruding flap) (33, fig 2) extending from the "Two Facing Insides" (See annotated fig 2.) of a frame (underlying structure that shapes, supports, or borders something) component (part). Applicant further argues that The Examiner identifies Hsu's pressing plate 31 as the "frame component," but the pressing plate is a flat center plate - not a frame – and has no "facing insides" from which tabs extend. This is not persuasive. As noted above, Hsu discloses a frame component (including 32 in fig 2) including two tabs (33, fig 2) which symmetrically and resiliently extend from two facing insides of the frame component (See annotated fig 2), each tab including a clamping piece (See annotated fig 2) for clamping a stack of slats (See fig 3).
Applicant argues that Hsu Does Not Disclose a "Connecting Piece Formed Between a Middle of the Clamping Piece and One of the Two Facing Insides of the Frame Component". This is not persuasive. As noted above, Hsu discloses a connecting piece (a piece which connects; See annotated fig 2) formed between a middle (Central portion) of the clamping piece (piece which clamps; See annotated fig 2) and one of the two facing insides of the frame component (a part of an underlying structure that shapes, supports, or borders something; See annotated fig 2).
Applicant argues that Hsu Does Not Disclose a Groove Section That Is an I-Shaped Groove. This is not persuasive, as a groove is a negative space, and when the device of Hsu is flexed to be installed on a stack of slats, the groove (negative space) which opens to accommodate the stack assumes the form of the stacked slats (a long narrow “I” shape) as shown in figs 3 and 4. Examiner notes that this interpretation may be overcome by amending the claims to recite that the facing insides of the frame define an ‘I’ shaped aperture when the device is in a planar configuration, or similar.
In response to applicant’s argument that the “hooks” of Hsu are not “tabs”. This is not persuasive. Applicant is reminded that the claim terms are evaluated under a broadest reasonable interpretation standard, and the “hooks” of Hsu are small, protruding flaps, and therefore meet the definition of “tabs”.
Applicant’s arguments directed to claims 5-7 are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection.
In response to applicant's argument that The Gap Limitation Is a Structural Dimensional Parameter, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention (use in conjunction with a honeycomb shade) must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. What is currently claimed is “width of the gap is adapted to be greater than a width of an adhesive portion of each slat of the stack of slats”. As can be seen in fig 3, the groove accepts a stack of slats, and the gap is adapted to be greater than a width each slat of the stack of slats, and is therefore adapted to be greater than a width of an any adhesive portion of any slat of the stack of slats.
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 JOHN W HANES JR whose telephone number is (571)272-8840. 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.
/J.W.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3634
/DANIEL P CAHN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights