DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 15, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Colson’s support sheet (110) is made of a single layer, not a multilayer; thus argues Colson and Auger fail to teach a support sheet having a multilayer structure and each of the first and second elongate strip being made of a single layer of material. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In the rejection, Examiner points to col 7, lines 45-48 which specifically states “Both the vane material 112 and the support sheet 110 may include more than one individual sheets or layers, and may be made of a different number of sheets or layers operably connected together.” Colson clearly sets forth for the support sheet being a multilayer structure.
Applicant further asserts that Colson and Auger fail to teach “the second margin adjoining the main strip portion along a second folding line and extending between the second folding line and the second edge, the second margin including a third folding line substantially parallel to the second folding line.” Applicant argues that Auger relies on horizontal folds to form the geometry of spaced-apart cells, which is different from the structure prescribed in Colson, thus there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify Colson by applying the horizontal folds of Auger. Applicant further submits that a reasonable expectation of success in combining Colson and Auger was not demonstrated. Colson achieves cell inflation through active resilient force exerted by the cellular support member. Auger achieves cell inflation passively through the geometry of the fabric strip itself. Applicant argues that adding a permanent fold into a vane material that is subjected to a continuous resilient force would introduce unpredictable stress concentration and could restrict the ability of Colson’s cellular support member to flex and recover and such modification is not obvious. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Firstly, Colson teaches the second margin adjoining the main strip portion extending between the folding line (125) and the second edge. The Examiner then relies upon Auger for the teaching of the second margin including a third folding line substantially parallel to the second folding line; the second margin of the first elongate strip at the first margin portion between the third folding line and the second edge of the first elongate strip and unbonded to the second elongate strip at a second margin portion between the second folding line and the third folding line of the first elongate strip. Auger teaches the technique of a plurality of elongate strips (305; Fig 3) and a first margin adjoining the main strip portion along a first folding line (330) and extending between the first folding line (310) and the first edge (335). Auger further teaches a second margin adjoining the main strip portion along a second folding line (315) and extending between the second folding line (320) and the second edge (345), the second margin including a third folding line (315) substantially parallel to the second folding line (320); the second margin of the first elongate strip at the first margin portion between the third folding line (355) and the second edge (345) of the first elongate strip and the second margin unbonded at a second margin portion between the second folding line (320) and the third folding line (355) of the first elongate strip (Fig 3). Auger teaches that the folding lines provide permanent creases to help inflate and open the cell as it is unwound from a roller (paragraphs [0044], [0052], [0053]). The Examiner is not relying on Auger for the teaching of spaced-apart cells; the Examiner relies on Auger for the teaching of the folding lines (a first folding line and a third folding line) defining the margins as pointed out above. Auger teaches that the folds encourage inflation of the cells (paragraph [0044]). Although Colson does teach a cellular support member (114) that allows the cells to be resilient and return to an inflated state, Colson also specifically states that the folding line (125) formed in each of the cells enhance the transition of the shape of the cells (col 10, lines 8-15). Thus, knowing that folding lines of Colson improve the transition of the cell shapes between wound and unwound positions of the shade, one would have reason to look to the teachings of Auger for teachings of folding lines for improving the transition of the cell shapes between wound and unwound positions of the shade. Thus modifying Colson by providing the additional folding lines taught by Auger would lead to improved transition to the inflated cell shape.
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.
Claim 14 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.
Claim 14 recites “the support sheet, the first margin of second elongate strip and the first margin of the first elongate strip are attached to one another.” Firstly, it is not understood what is being referred to in the recitation “the first margin of second elongate strip” and if an article was inadvertently omitted. Further, the recitation is not clear and it is not understood how the panel assembly if configured. It is understood that the first margin of the first and second elongate strips are spaced at a distance from one another. It is not understood how the first margins of each of the first and second elongate strips can be attached to one another. As best understood, the first margin of the second elongate strip is attached to the second margin of the first elongate strip.
In view of the 112 issues discussed above the claims have been examined as best understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 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 1-10, 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colson et al. (US 9,540,874), hereinafter referred to as Colson, in view of Auger et al. (US 2005/0150608), hereinafter referred to as Auger.
Regarding claim 1, Colson discloses a panel assembly for a window shade, comprising:
a support sheet (110) having a multilayer structure (Fig 2B; col 7, lines 45-48); and
a plurality of elongate strips bonded to the support sheet (Fig 2B),
the support sheet and the elongate strips forming a plurality of cells (108),
the elongate strips including at least a first and a second elongate strip adjacent to each other (Fig 2B),
PNG
media_image1.png
578
306
media_image1.png
Greyscale
each of the first and second elongate strip being made of a single layer of material (112; Fig 2B),
wherein each of the first and second elongate strip has a first and a second edge opposite to each other (top and bottom edges of 112), and
a main strip portion located between a first and a second margin (margins are understood to be the bonding areas; Fig 2B),
wherein the first margin of each of the first and second elongate strip is bonded to the support sheet (tops of each 112 is bonding to sheet 110 at 122; Fig 2B and Fig 4), and
the second margin (at 107; Fig 2B) of the first elongate strip is bonded to the second elongate strip at a first margin portion (at 118; Fig 4) and unbonded at a second margin portion (portion between 118 and a folding line (125) as shown in Fig 7A).
Although Colson discloses bonding locations of the strips, Colson fails to teach the first margin adjoining the main strip portion along a first folding line and extending between the first folding line and the first edge. Although Colson discloses the second margin adjoining the main strip portion extending between the folding line (125) and the second edge, Colson fails to teach the second margin including a third folding line substantially parallel to the second folding line; the second margin of the first elongate strip at the first margin portion between the third folding line and the second edge of the first elongate strip and unbonded to the second elongate strip at a second margin portion between the second folding line and the third folding line of the first elongate strip.
However, Auger teaches the technique of a plurality of elongate strips (305; Fig 3) and a first margin adjoining the main strip portion along a first folding line (330) and extending between the first folding line (310) and the first edge (335). Auger further teaches a second margin adjoining the main strip portion along a second folding line (315) and extending between the second folding line (320) and the second edge (345), the second margin including a third folding line (315) substantially parallel to the second folding line (320); the second margin of the first elongate strip at the first margin portion between the third folding line (355) and the second edge (345) of the first elongate strip and the second margin unbonded at a second margin portion between the second folding line (320) and the third folding line (355) of the first elongate strip (Fig 3). Auger teaches that the folding lines provide permanent creases to help inflate and open the cell as it is unwound from a roller (paragraphs [0044], [0052], [0053]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify the elongate strips such that they are provided with first, second, and third folding lines in order to provide permanent creases to aid in the inflation of the cells. The technique of providing folding lines is known in the art, as taught by Auger, and the claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. As modified, Colson would perform as expected as such modification would not alter the operation of the device.
Regarding claim 2, modified Colson discloses wherein each of the first and second elongate strip (adjacent 112s) has a first and a second strip surface (front and back) opposite to each other that extend from the first edge to the second edge and stretch across the main strip portion and the first and second margins, the first margin of each of the first and second elongate strip being bonded on the first strip surface or the second strip surface to the support sheet (Fig 2B).
Regarding claim 3, modified Colson discloses the first margin (top margin) of each of the first and second elongate strip is bonded on the first strip surface to the support sheet (110 of Fig 2B), and the first margin portion (as modified with Auger) of the second margin (bottom margin of Colson) of the first elongate strip is bonded on the first strip surface to the second elongate strip (as modified with Auger) (the front surface of both the top and bottom margins are bonded).
Regarding claim 4, modified Colson discloses wherein the first margin portion of the second margin of the first elongate strip is bonded to the main strip portion of the second elongate strip with the second edge of the first elongate strip positioned adjacent to the support sheet (Colson: Fig 2B).
Regarding claim 5, modified Colson discloses wherein the first margin of each of the first and second elongate strip is bonded on the second strip surface to the support sheet (Colson shows in Fig 2B the back surface of the strip is bonded), and the first margin portion of the second margin of the first elongate strip is bonded on the first strip surface to the second elongate strip.
Regarding claim 6, Colson as modified with Auger discloses wherein the first margin portion of the second margin of the first elongate strip is bonded to the main strip portion of the second elongate strip with the second edge of the first elongate strip positioned adjacent to the first folding line of the second elongate strip (Colson teaches the bonding of the first and second elongate strips together and Auger teaches the folding lines, as discussed above).
Regarding claim 7, Colson discloses wherein the multilayer structure of the support sheet (110) includes at least one layer made of an opaque material (col 11, lines 20-24).
Regarding claim 8, Colson discloses wherein the multilayer structure of the support sheet includes a fabric layer made of a woven or non-woven fabric that is bonded to the layer of the opaque material (col 7, lines 20-36).
Regarding claim 9, Colson discloses the multilayer structure of the support sheet includes at least one layer made of an opaque material, and each of the first and second elongate strip is made of a single layer of a woven or non-woven fabric (col 7, lines 20-36 and col 11, lines 20-24).
Regarding claim 10, Colson discloses wherein the multilayer structure of the support sheet includes a fabric layer made of a woven or non-woven fabric that is bonded to the layer of the opaque material, and each of the first and second elongate strip is bonded to the fabric layer of the support sheet (col 7, lines 20-36 and col 11, lines 20-24).
Regarding claim 12, Colson as modified with Auger discloses wherein each of the first, second and third folding line is formed by a perforation line or a crease.
Regarding claim 13, Colson discloses a window shade comprising: a head frame having a roller; and a panel assembly according to claim 1, wherein the panel assembly is connected with the roller, the roller being rotatable to wind and unwind the panel assembly.
Regarding claim 14, Colson as modified with Auger above teaches wherein the support sheet (110), the first margin of second elongate strip (upper margin) and the second margin portion (see 112 issues above) of the first elongate strip (lower margin) are attached to one another to prevent the second edge of the first elongate strip from moving away from the support sheet as the cells transition between a collapsed state and an expanded state.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colson and Auger, as applied in claim 1 above, in further view of Lynch et al. (US 11,242,711), hereinafter referred to as Lynch.
Regarding claim 11, Colson teaches wherein at least one layer of the multilayer structure of the support sheet is made of a material that is woven, non-woven material, fabric, or knit material. Colson fails to teach that the support sheet is made of polyester. However, Lynch teaches that it is known for a support sheet of a window shade to be made of polyester for durability. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success to utilize a known material and the modification of the material choice would not have led to any new or unpredictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: As discussed above, Colson and Auger teach substantially all the limitations of claim 15 as discussed in regards to claim 1. However, claim 15 further requires “the first elongate strip and the support sheet defining entirely one cell.” Colson relies on the first elongate strip being bonded to the second elongate strip to form a plurality of cells. There is no proper motivation to modify Colson such that the first elongate strip and support sheet define entirely one cell since Colson relies on a portion of the second elongate strip together with the first elongate strip and support sheet to form a cell. Although Auger teaches an elongate strip and support member forming entirely one cell, there is no motivation to provide the first elongate strip such that “the second margin of the first elongate strip is bonded to the second elongate strip at a first margin portion” as also required in the claim. The combination of elements would not have been obvious absent hindsight and/or the Applicant’s teachings.
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 Johnnie A. Shablack whose telephone number is (571)270-5344. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 6am-3pm EST, alternate Friday.
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.
/Johnnie A. Shablack/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights