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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 25-47 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 12,345,093. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the pending application recites the same patented subject matter in broader terms.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 25-27, 31, 32, 35, 36-38, 42, 43, 46, 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (US 2011/0120661)
Regarding claim 25, Kim discloses an architectural covering comprising (2):
a facing layer spaced from a backing layer (Fig 1; 10 is spaced from layer 14), wherein the facing layer or the backing layer comprises a sheer woven material (10; paragraph [0008]),
wherein the sheer woven material (10) comprises a non-laminated woven fabric having longitudinal edges and lateral edges (top, bottom, left, right edges; Fig 1),
said woven fabric comprising warp yarns and weft yarns (paragraph [0090), said weft yarns intersecting with said warp yarns to define crossover points (points bonded together; paragraph [0090]),
at least some of said warp yarns and at least some of said weft yarns comprising binder yarns (warps and wefts made of LM yarns), said binder yarns defining an outer surface made from a low melting temperature polymer (paragraphs [0010],[0040]-[0045]).
Regarding claim 26, Kim discloses a woven material for use in architectural coverings that is inherently resistant to unraveling,
said woven material comprising: a non-laminated woven fabric (10) having longitudinal edges and lateral edges, said woven fabric comprising warp yarns and weft yarns, said weft yarns intersecting with said warp yarns to define crossover points (points bonded together), at least some of said warp yarns and at least some of said weft yarns comprising binder yarns (LM yarns), said binder yarns defining an outer surface made from a low melting temperature polymer (paragraphs [0010],[0040]-[0045]), wherein the woven fabric is a sheer fabric (transparent; abstract).
Regarding claim 27, Kim discloses wherein said woven fabric comprises interstitial openings between intersecting yarns (openings in the mesh material).
Regarding claim 31, Kim discloses wherein said binder yarns have a denier of less than or equal to about 600 and greater than or equal to about 10 (paragraphs [0044]-[0045]).
Regarding claim 32, Kim discloses wherein said woven material is a sheer fabric, further wherein said binder yarns have a denier of less than or equal to about 30 and greater than or equal to about 10 (paragraph [0043] discusses yarn of 20 denier).
Regarding claim 34, Kim discloses wherein all of said warp yarns and all of said weft yarns comprise said binder yarns.
Regarding claim 35, Kim discloses wherein said low melting temperature polymer comprises a polyester polymer (paragraph [0043]).
Regarding claim 36, Kim discloses wherein said low melting temperature polymer has a melting point of less than or equal to about 220*C (paragraph [0043]).
Regarding claim 37, Kim discloses wherein the binder yarns are formed from monocomponent fibers (ATY fiber; paragraph [0043]).
Regarding claim 38, Kim discloses wherein the binder yarns are formed from bi-component fibers (sheath and yarn or compound yarn; paragraph [0043]).
Regarding claim 42, Kim discloses wherein the binder yarns are textured (air textured yarns).
Regarding claim 43, Kim discloses wherein said woven fabric has a plain basket weave (Fig 4B).
Regarding claim 46, Kim discloses wherein said binder yarns are bonded with intersecting yarns at said crossover points for preventing said woven fabric from unraveling along said longitudinal edges (yarns form grid).
Regarding claim 47, Kim discloses am architectural covering comprising: a backing layer comprising a sheer woven material as defined in claim 26 (Fig 1), said backing layer extending in a longitudinal direction (Fig 1); and a plurality of horizontally-oriented vane elements spaced along said longitudinal direction of said backing layer (Fig 1), each of said vane elements including first and second parallel edges that are perpendicular to said longitudinal direction, said second edge being moveable towards and away from said first edge for selectively controlling a spacing between the vane elements.
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 28-30, 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, as applied in claim 26 above, in further view of Poole (US 5,305,813).
Regarding claims 28-30, Kim is silent as whether said binder yarns comprise monofilament yarns or wherein said binder yarns comprise multifilament yarns. However, Poole teaches that it is known that binder yarns comprise monofilament yarns and wherein said binder yarns comprise multifilament yarns (Poole teaches monofilament and multifilament yarns can be used; col 1, lines 32-46). Poole further teaches that it is known for yarns to be spun yarns (col 2, lines 40-47). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the yarns of Kim be monofilament or multifilament or spun since they are known yarn compositions.
Regarding claim 45, Kim fails to teach wherein the woven material has a longitudinal cut edge that is not cauterized. However, Poole discloses a woven material that has a longitudinal cut edge that is not cauterized (col 5, lines 8-17) and teaches that the polymeric material of the yarns allow the material to be cut without fraying. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the material of Kim to have an edge that is not cauterized since the material, as taught by Poole, would allow for a cut material that does not fray.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, as applied in claim 26 above, in view of Vila Bros (US 2018/0282911).
Regarding claim 33, the yarn count is not specifically disclosed that said binder yarns are spun yarns having a yarn count of less than or equal to about Ne 200 and greater than or equal to about Ne 6. However, providing such yarn counts is known in the art, as taught by Vila Bros (paragraph [0013]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a woven material with the claimed yarn count range since such range is known to be provided in woven materials, as taught by Vila Bros.
Claims 39-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, as applied in claim 26 above, in view of Morishita (US 2012/0190260).
Regarding claims 39-41, Kim fails to disclose said woven fabric has a basis weight of greater than or equal to about 10 gsm and less than or equal to about 175 gsm, wherein said woven fabric is a sheer fabric that has a basis weight of greater than or equal to about 10 gsm and less than or equal to about 28 gsm, or wherein said woven fabric has a yarn density such that there are greater than or equal to about 22 warp yarns per centimeter and less than or equal to about 38 warp yarns per centimeter and there are greater than or equal to about 22 weft yarns per centimeter and less than or equal to about 38 weft yarns per centimeter. However, density and weight are understood to be directed to obvious design choices based on desired characteristics and material selection. Morishita teaches that density can be set to any appropriate value depending on applications (paragraph [0046]) and such selection regulates air permeability. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Kim such that the material and density are selected based on desired characteristics and are understood to be obvious design choices that would not produce any new or unpredictable results.
Claim 44 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, as applied in claim 26 above, in further view of Thomas (US 2,349,226).
Regarding claim 44, Kim fails to disclose wherein said binder yarns are solution dyed. However, Thomas teaches that it is known to provide a woven material with any desired color. It would have been obvious to apply the technique of solution dying material in order to provide the desired appearance. Such modification would not yield any new or unpredictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kruger (US 2015/0004410) teaches a fabric with warp and weft threads coated with low-melt polymers that act as binding yarns.
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
