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 04/29/2026 has been entered.
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, 9, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by PG Pub. US 2025/0129666 A1 – Farber et al., hereinafter Farber.
Regarding claim 1.
Farber discloses a sheer vertical blind structure (10, fig 1), comprising:
a headrail (11, fig 1) of an elongated shape (See fig 1); and
a plurality of sliding carriers (19, fig 5; see fig 2) provided in the headrail (See figs 2 and 3) and movable along a length direction of the headrail, wherein each said sliding carrier has two opposite sides and comprises two rollers (28, fig 5) each provided on one of the two opposite sides (See fig 5);
the sheer vertical blind structure being characterized in that:
a clamping base (18, fig 5) extends downward from each said sliding carrier (See fig 5), and each said clamping base comprises a central plate portion (22, fig 4) and two clamping and fastening portions (24, fig 4);
each said clamping and fastening portion extends outward from one of two opposite sides of a corresponding said central plate portion (See fig 4), each said clamping and fastening portion has one end connected to the corresponding central plate portion (See fig 4) and an opposite end extending away from the headrail (See fig 4) such that a clamping groove (Between 23 and 24 in fig 4) with a downward-facing opening (See fig 4) is formed between each said clamping and fastening portion and the corresponding central plate portion (See fig 4), and each said clamping and fastening portion is provided with an engaging hook (25, fig 4) protruding toward the corresponding central plate portion; and
each said sliding carrier is configured to work with two clamping plates (27, fig 3), each said clamping plate has an inner side and an outer side (See figs 2 and 3), the inner side of each said clamping plate is provided with a plurality of protruding coupling portions (the top and bottom edges of 27 in fig 3 protrude from a central axis, and couple with the curtain at 16, See fig 3), and the outer side of each said clamping plate is provided with an engaging groove (Paragraph [0034]; For fastening, the webs 27 with openings not shown in the figure are then pushed over the retaining sections 23; See fig 3) extending from the outer side toward the inner side of the each said clamping plate (See fig 3).
Regarding claim 3.
Farber discloses all limitations of claim 1.
Farber further discloses each said clamping and fastening portion (24, fig 4) has a distal section bent outward to form a second inward guiding surface (See bevel at mouth of opening).
Regarding claim 9.
Farber discloses all limitations of claim 1.
Farber further discloses each of the two opposite sides of each said central plate portion (22, fig 4) is provided with a plurality of anti-slip strips (23 and 26, fig 4).
Regarding claim 10.
Farber discloses all limitations of claim 1.
Farber further discloses each said engaging hook (25, fig 4) has an inclined first inward guiding surface (See fig 4).
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) 2 and 4-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farber in view of US Pat. 12,110,740 – Huang.
Regarding claim 2.
Farber discloses all limitations of claim 1.
Farber does not disclose the inner side of each said clamping plate has an upper edge provided with a protruding stop wall.
However, Huang teaches the inner side of each said clamping plate has an upper edge provided with a protruding stop wall.
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 structure of Farber with the stop wall of Huang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of easing assembly by providing tactile feedback for alignment of the top edges.
Regarding claim 4.
The sheer vertical blind structure of claim 2.
Farber further discloses each said clamping and fastening portion (24, fig 4) has a distal section bent outward to form a second inward guiding surface (See bevel at mouth of opening).
Regarding claim 5.
Farber discloses all limitations of claim 1.
Farber does not disclose the outer side of each said clamping plate is provided with two protruding guide walls, and the engaging groove of each said clamping plate is located between the two protruding guide walls of the each said clamping plate.
However, Huang teaches the outer side of each said clamping plate is provided with two protruding guide walls (on either side of 132, fig 1), and the engaging groove (132a, fig 1) of each said clamping plate is located between the two protruding guide walls of the each said clamping plate (See fig 1).
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 structure of Farber with the guide walls of Huang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of easing assembly by providing tactile feedback for alignment of the plates with the clamping and fastening portion.
Regarding claim 6.
The sheer vertical blind structure of claim 4.
Farber does not disclose the outer side of each said clamping plate is provided with two protruding guide walls, and the engaging groove of each said clamping plate is located between the two protruding guide walls of the each said clamping plate.
However, Huang teaches the outer side of each said clamping plate is provided with two protruding guide walls (on either side of 132, fig 1), and the engaging groove (132a, fig 1) of each said clamping plate is located between the two protruding guide walls of the each said clamping plate (See fig 1).
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 structure of Farber with the guide walls of Huang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of easing assembly by providing tactile feedback for alignment of the plates with the clamping and fastening portion.
Regarding claim 7.
The sheer vertical blind structure of claim 5.
Farber does not disclose a distance between the two protruding guide walls of each said clamping plate is greater than or equal to a width of a corresponding said clamping and fastening portion.
However, Huang teaches a distance (at 132, fig 1) between the two protruding guide walls (on either side of 132, fig 1) of each said clamping plate is greater than or equal to a width of a corresponding said clamping and fastening portion (at 212a, 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 structure of Farber with the distance between guide walls as suggested by Huang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of easing assembly by providing tolerance for alignment of the plates with the clamping and fastening portion.
Regarding claim 8.
The sheer vertical blind structure of claim 6.
Farber does not disclose a distance between the two protruding guide walls of each said clamping plate is greater than or equal to a width of a corresponding said clamping and fastening portion.
However, Huang teaches a distance (at 132, fig 1) between the two protruding guide walls (on either side of 132, fig 1) of each said clamping plate is greater than or equal to a width of a corresponding said clamping and fastening portion (at 212a, 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 structure of Farber with the distance between guide walls as suggested by Huang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of easing assembly by providing tolerance for alignment of the plates with the clamping and fastening portion.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Farber does not disclose a clamping plate. This is not persuasive. Applicant is reminded that claim terms are given their broadest reasonable interpretation, consistent with the applicant’s specification. Paragraph [0033] of Farber discloses the webs 27 being made of a rigid material, meeting a broadest reasonable interpretation, consistent with the applicant’s specification of the claimed term “plate”. Paragraph [0034] describes how the web 27 is clamped in the swivel hook 18, meeting a broadest reasonable interpretation, consistent with the applicant’s specification of the claimed term “clamping plate”. While there are differences between the applicant’s disclosed invention and the disclosure of Farber, the differences are not currently claimed. 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).
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