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
The amendment filed on 6/16/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
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 1-17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by USPAP 2020/0216632 to Nair or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over USPAP 2020/0216632 to Nair in view of USPN 2,750,300 to Kukoff.
Claim 1, Nair discloses an article consisting of: a finished fabric having two finished surfaces, and a treatment directly on at least one of the two finished surfaces in the form of a dry non-foamed aqueous composition disposed on at least one of the two finished surfaces at a dry coverage of at least 0.5 g/m2 and up to and including 15 g/m2, and having an anti-blocking characteristic and masking any tacky feel of the finished fabric on the treated at least one of the two finished surfaces, the dry non-foamed aqueous composition comprising: (i) hollow glass particles having an average particle size of at least 5 μm and up to and including 100 μm, that are present in an amount of at least 10 weight % and up to and including 99 weight %, based on the total weight of the dry non-foamed aqueous composition; (ii) a water-soluble or water-dispersible film-forming organic polymeric binder that has a glass transition temperature of less than 25°C.; (iii) a crosslinking agent if it is needed to crosslink the (ii) water-soluble or water-dispersible film-forming organic polymeric binder; and (iv) porous particles that are present in an amount of less than 0.01 weight %, if at all, based on the total weight of the dry non-foamed aqueous composition, wherein the weight ratio of the (i) hollow glass particles to the (ii) water-soluble or water-dispersible film-forming organic polymeric binder is from 1:5 to and including 10:1 (see entire document including [0142]-[0182] and [0206]-[0208]). Nair discloses that only in some embodiments the composition can be foamed teaching that the composition may be non-foamed [0153].
Nair does not appear to specifically mention the hollow glass particles having an impact strength of greater than 50 MPa but considering that Nair discloses substantially identical hollow glass spheres in terms of material, size, and density, the claimed impact strength appears to be inherent. Plus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to vary the impact strength of the hollow glass spheres, such as claimed, based on the desired final product properties.
Claim 2, the (i) hollow glass particles are present in the dry non-foamed aqueous composition in an amount of at least 25 weight % and up to and including 80 weight %, based on the total weight of the dry non-foamed aqueous composition [0160].
Claim 3, the dry non-foamed aqueous composition further comprises one or more of a defoaming agent, an anti-foaming agent, a lubricant, a flame retardant, and a tinting agent, all of which are different from all of the components (i), (ii), (iii), and (iv) ([0162]-[0182]).
Claim 4, the (i) hollow glass particles have an average particle size of at least 20 μm and up to and including 60 μm [0157].
Claim 5, the (i) hollow glass particles in the dry non-foamed aqueous composition have a density of at least 0.1 g/cm3 and up to and including 0.8 g/cm3 [0159].
Claim 6, the (iv) porous particles are completely absent from the dry non-foamed aqueous composition [0151].
Claim 7, the (i) hollow glass particles are present in the dry non-foamed aqueous composition in relation to the (ii) water-soluble or water-dispersible film-forming organic polymeric binder at a weight ratio of from 1:3 to and including 8:1 [0177].
Claim 8, the (i) hollow glass particles are present in the dry non-foamed aqueous composition in relation to the (ii) water-soluble or water-dispersible film-forming organic polymeric binder at a weight ratio of from 1:1 to and including 6:1 [0177].
Claim 9, the (ii) water-soluble or water-dispersible film-forming organic polymeric binder is a poly(vinyl alcohol), a partially hydrolyzed poly(vinyl acetate), a cellulosic polymer, a poly(ethylene oxide), a poly(vinyl pyrrolidone), an acrylic polymer, an acrylamide polymer, a fluorinated polymer, a chlorinated polymer, a polymer containing siloxane moieties, gelatin or a gelatin derivative, a polysaccharide, a polyurethane, a polyester ionomer, or a combination of two or more of these recited polymeric materials [0174].
Claim 10, the (ii) water-soluble or water-dispersible film-forming organic polymeric binder is an acrylic polymer, a partially hydrolyzed poly(vinyl acetate), a chlorinated polymer, and a combination of two or more of these recited polymeric materials [0174].
Claim 11, the (ii) water-soluble or water-dispersible film-forming organic polymeric binder is an acrylic polymer derived at least from one or more (meth)acrylates and N-methylol (meth)acrylamide [0174].
Claim 12, the non-foamed aqueous composition further comprises a coating aid [0178].
Claim 13, the dry non-foamed aqueous composition has a density greater than 0.9 g/cm3 [0159].
Claim 14, the dry non-foamed aqueous composition further comprises a thickener ([0181]-[0183]).
Claim 15, the fabric is a woven fabric, optionally comprising one or more flame retardants [0142].
Claim 16, the finished fabric comprises woven fiberglass [0142].
Claim 17, the article further comprises a design either on the dry non-foamed aqueous composition or on a finished surface of the finished fabric having no dry non-foamed aqueous composition, or on both the dry non-foamed aqueous composition and the finished surface of the finished fabric having no dry non-foamed aqueous composition ([0206]-[0208]).
Claim 19, Nair does not appear to specifically mention the article further comprising an adhesive composition disposed over the dry non-foamed aqueous composition but Kukoff discloses that it is known in the drape art to apply an adhesive layer over a fabric to allow further aesthetic materials to be applied (see entire document including columns 1 and 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply an adhesive as claimed to allow further aesthetic materials to be applied.
Claim 20, the dry non-foamed aqueous composition is disposed directly on only one of the two finished surfaces of the finished fabric ([0024]-[0029]). Nari does not appear to specifically mention the other finished surface being in contact with a secondary substrate, but the examiner takes official notice (now admitted prior art) that it is known in the light-blocking shades/curtains art to coat an article comprising two substrates. Plus, Nair discloses a variety of substrates [0142] and it is prima facie obvious to combine two substrates each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a dual substrate to be used for the very same purpose. The idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant asserts that the article disclosed by Nair cannot anticipate the presently claimed article (consisting of a finished fabric having two finished surfaces and a non-foamed aqueous composition directly on at least one of the two finished surfaces) because Nair discloses a layer under the non-foamed aqueous composition. Specifically, the applicant asserts that Nair includes a dry opacifying layer between the non-foamed aqueous composition and the fabric surface. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because claim 1 requires a finished fabric having “finished” surfaces and a non-foamed aqueous composition directly one at least one of the two finished surfaces. The current specification defines a finished (or treated) fabric as having been chemically treated with one or more specialized coatings to provide various properties [0004]. Therefore, claim 1 does not require the non-foamed aqueous composition to be directly on the fabric surface but rather directly on the (finished) coating that is on the fabric surface. The dry opacifying layer of Nair is considered the (finished) coating that provides the fabric with a finished surface and the non-foamed aqueous composition of Nair is directly on this finished surface.
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 ANDREW T PIZIALI whose telephone number is (571)272-1541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7am-5pm.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/ANDREW T PIZIALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
