DETAILED ACTION
This non-final Office action is in response to the claims filed on May 21, 2025.
Status of claims: claims 1-8 are hereby examined below.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on May 21, 2025 was considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because: the lines forming FIGS. 2, 3, and 19 are not clear. See MPEP 608.02 and 37 FR 1.84(l)
PNG
media_image1.png
142
956
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Also, shouldn’t FIGS. 21-25 be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. see MPEP § 608.02(g).
Claim 1 – “at least one ball bearing” isn’t illustrated. Element 4 illustrated in the figures is supposed to illustrate a ball bearing, yet no ball(s) are illustrated.
Claim 7 – “sound-directed film tape” isn’t illustrated in the figures.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 2-8, line 1 – shouldn’t “A curtain” should be amended to “The curtain”
Claim 3, line 2 – shouldn’t “the parts” be amended to “parts”
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 3, 5 and 7 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.
Claim 3, line 3 – “by reducing the harness degree from 83 to 45” of what? What units of hardness?
Claim 3 - the term “easily” in line 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “easily” 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.
Claim 5 – what constitutes “it”?
Claim 5 – “move to the right and left sides” of what? “the up and down movement” of what?
Claim 7 – “sound-directed film tape” is unclear. How exactly does not the tape direct sound?
Claim 7 – “the vibrations” of what?
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 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, 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 202012008487U1 in view of US 9452663 to Watanabe et al. (hereinafter “Watanabe”) in view of DE 10351336B4 in view of US 7686375 to Schlotterer et al. (hereinafter “Schlotterer”).
DE 202012008487U1 discloses a curtain assembly comprising a curtain 13, an upper assembly 14 mounted on said curtain fabric, a lower assembly mounted below said curtain, (see FIG. 1) and at least one body 11 located in said lower assembly, wherein said body comprises a tube 3 made of metal, a spring activator 52 connected to said tube, a spring 43 connected to said spring activator, at least one ball bearing 42 connected to said tube. (see at least FIG. 1)
DE 202012008487U1 fails to disclose the tube is made of aluminum.
Watanabe teaches of a similar device wherein the tube 4 is made of aluminum. (see Fig. 2 and col. 7)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the DE 202012008487U1 tube of aluminum, as taught by Watanabe, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to form the tube out of an inexpensive, light weight and durable material; thus minimizing the weight of the curtain assembly as well as since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice.
DE 202012008487U1 fails to disclose an inner lath and an outer lath, made of plastic, forming said upper assembly.
DE 10351336B4 teaches an assembly 24 of a similar device formed of an inner lath and outer lath. (see FIG. 7)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the upper assembly of DE 202012008487U1 with an inner lath and outer lath, as taught by DE 10351336B4 with a reasonable expectation of success in order to allow for replacement of part of the upper assembly rather than the entire upper assembly; thus saving on maintenance costs and parts; to form the upper assembly in a more lightweight manner with space between the laths, for aesthetic reasons and to facilitate engagement with the curtain.
Schlotterer teaches of an assembly 22 formed of plastic. (see col. 6 and FIG. 10)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the DE 202012008487U1 upper assembly out of plastic, as taught by Schlotterer with a reasonable expectation of success in order to form the upper assembly out of an inexpensive, durable and lightweight material, thus saving on material and maintenance costs as well as since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice.
DE 202012008487U1 fails to disclose the curtain is fabric.
Schlotterer teaches of a curtain that is fabric.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the DE 202012008487U1 curtain out of fabric, as taught by Schlotterer with a reasonable expectation of success for aesthetic reasons, to form the curtain out of a breathable, inexpensive and durable material as well as since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice. (claim 1)
DE 202012008487U1, as applied above, further discloses a handle which allows the parts of said inner lath and outer lath to be easily mounted to each other by reducing the hardness degree from 83 to 45. (see FIG. 1 of DE 202012008487U1; note the unnumbered handle on upper assembly 14) (claim 3)
DE 202012008487U1, as applied above, further discloses wherein it allows the curtain mechanism of said ball bearing to move to the right and left sides, except for the up and down movement. (note the arrow 8 in FIG. 3 allows for the ball bearing to move the right and left sides) (claim 5)
Claim 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 202012008487U1 in view of Watanabe in view of DE 10351336B4 in view of Schlotterer, as applied to claim 1 above.
DE 202012008487U1, as applied above, fails to disclose an inner lath wedge slot located in said inner lath and an outer latch wedge slot located in said outer lath.
Watanabe teaches slots 6a on a lath 6 of an upper assembly. (see FIG. 2)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify each of the inner lath and outer lath of DE 202012008487U1 with wedge slots, as taught by Watanabe with a reasonable expectation of success in order to allow for the upper assembly to engage with hooks; thus securing the curtain fabric in an extended position. (claim 2)
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 202012008487U1 in view of Watanabe in view of DE 10351336B4 in view of Schlotterer, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of US 3587706 to Widmer.
DE 202012008487U1, as applied above, fails to disclose wherein said body comprises a slot where the curtain exits the body, but fails to disclose a felt slot.
Widmer teaches of a felt slot 31. (see FIG. 3 and col. 2)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place felt along the slot of DE 202012008487U1, as taught by Widmer with a reasonable expectation of success in order to minimize dirt and debris from entering the body via the slot. (claim 6)
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 202012008487U1 in view of Watanabe in view of DE 10351336B4 in view of Schlotterer in view of US 3587706 to Widmer, as applied to claim 6 above, in further view of US 7455345 to Kim.
DE 202012008487U1, as applied above, discloses a special felt made of rubber 32 in the slot (see FIG. 3 of Widmer), but fails to disclose a sound-directed film tape capable of absorbing the vibrations and located in said felt slot.
Kim teaches of a similar device that uses a sound-directed film tape to absorb sound and vibrations. (see col. 2)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the DE 202012008487U1 felt slot with sound-directed film tape, as taught by Kim, in order to absorb sound and vibrations of the curtain assembly; thus minimizing unwanted sounds and vibrations. (claim 7)
Claim 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 202012008487U1 in view of Watanabe in view of DE 10351336B4 in view of Schlotterer, as applied to claim 1 above.
DE 202012008487U1, as applied above, fails to disclose wherein the outer lath and the inner lath are joined by the ultrasonic welding. On the other hand, DE 202012008487U1 outer lath and inner lath are certainly capable of being joined by ultrasonic welding. Further note, “even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.” (See MPEP 2113 – Product by process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps).
Thus, note that claim 8 does not require the ultrasonic welding, but only that the structure be capable of being made by ultrasonic welding. (claim 8)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS MENEZES whose telephone number is (571)272-5225. The examiner can normally be reached on M - F 7:30 -4 PST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Daniel Cahn can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Marcus Menezes/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights