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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 19, 2026 has been entered.
Examiner’s Comments
As previously discussed, the claimed function of objects may be concealed from the observer, such as in claim 14. In light of the specification, concealment is a possible benefit/function and is not present in all situations. Indeed claim 15 (dependent on 14) claims seeing through the invention in a viewing region which is interpreted to mean that there are positions/ranges where image light from an object through the lens sheet is in focus and observable in a viewing range. Taken in a whole the examiner concludes that the invention has the following possibilities:
Observer/object on both the first and second sides sufficiently outside of their respective focal planes, resulting in a blurred view from both sides (i.e. camouflaged)
Observer/object on both the first and second sides sufficiently inside of their respective focal planes (i.e. viewing region), resulting in a clear view from both sides (i.e. not camouflaged/viewable/recognizable)
One of the observer/object on one side sufficiently inside of the focal plane (i.e. viewing region) and the other observer/object on the other side sufficiently outside of the focal plane, resulting in a blurred view from one side (i.e. camouflaged) and a clear view from the other side (i.e. not camouflaged/viewable/recognizable)
Thus, there inherently exist positions for an observer and/or an object where the object would be observable and this limitation recites a description of a possible capability/function/result achieved by the invention if the object and are properly placed with respect to the double-sided lens sheet that naturally necessarily flows from the structure.
Priority
As previously noted, for applicant’s information, for purpose of prior art, independent claim 21 and its dependent are not supported by provisional patents 62/693959 or 62/732240 and therefore claims 21-22 are not entitled to the benefit of the filing date of these provisional patents. Specifically, the claim lack support in the provisional patent because it has no reference to “wherein corresponding ones of the first and second plurality of elongate lenses have an offset relationship relative to their respective edges such that each pair of said corresponding ones of the first and second plurality of elongate lenses is offset … and wherein the first plurality of elongate lenses comprises elongate lenses at a first density and the second plurality of elongate lenses comprises elongate lenses at a second density different from the first density” as now recited in amended claim 21.
Further, regarding claim 22, PCT/CA2019/000019 does not have support for “the first plurality of elongate lenses comprises elongate lenses at a third density and a fourth density different from the third density, or the second plurality of elongate lenses comprises elongate lenses at the third density and the fourth density different from the first density” as recited in claim 22. Therefore, claim 22 is not entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the international filing.
Therefore, claim 21 is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of PCT/CA2019/000019 of June 26, 2019, and claim 22 is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the instant application of January 4, 2021.
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.
Claims 14-16, 19-22 and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 14 “a first side comprising a convex side of a first plurality of elongate lenses defining a predetermined width; and a second side directly opposite the first side, the second side comprising a convex side of a second plurality of elongate lenses defining the predetermined width” raises clarity issues. It is unclear if the individual lenticules are “defining the predetermined width”, i.e. each lenticule on both sides have the same width; or if the first and second sides define (have) the same width. In the remarks of February 19, 2026 page 16 notes these features are supported by figures 26a-27b applicant states (emphasis in remarks) “which shows different numbers of lenses on the first and second sides, but each side having the same width.” In light of applicant’s remarks pointing out features reasonably suggested in the figures, for purposes of examination the examiner will use “a first side comprising a convex side of a first plurality of elongate lenses, the first side defining a predetermined width; and a second side directly opposite the first side, the second side comprising a convex side of a second plurality of elongate lenses, the second side having same predetermined width”.
Claims 15-16, 19-20 and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite, since they depend on claim 14 and therefore have the same deficiencies.
Regarding claim 21 “a first side consisting of a convex side of a first plurality of elongate lenses defining a predetermined width; and a second side directly opposite the first side, the second side consisting of a convex side of a second plurality of elongate lenses defining the predetermined width” raises clarity issues. Claim 21 has the same issues as claim 14, as set forth above. Applying the same reasoning for purposes of examination the examiner will use “a first side consisting of a convex side of a first plurality of elongate lenses, the first side defining a predetermined width; and a second side directly opposite the first side, the second side consisting of a convex side of a second plurality of elongate lenses, the second side having same predetermined width”.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite, since it depends on claim 21 and therefore has the same deficiencies.
Further regarding claims 14 and 21 “the lens sheet” has antecedent issues. It is unclear if applicant is referring to the double-sided lens sheet introduced earlier (assumed) or is introducing a new/different element. For purposes of examination the examiner the examiner will use “the double-sided lens sheet”.
Claims 15-16, 19-20 and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite, since they depend on claim 14 and therefore have the same deficiencies.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite, since it depends on claim 21 and therefore has the same deficiencies.
Further regarding claims 14 and 21 “so that upon placing the double-sided lens sheet between an object and an observer, a zone of concealment outside a focal plane is formed and upon the object being placed in the zone, the object is concealed from the observer” raises clarity issues. It is unclear if applicant is claiming a use of the double-sided lens sheet or if they are stating an inherent capability/benefit (assumed). If they are claiming a use the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear since it is unclear if the same double-sided lens sheet used in a different application, e.g. for focusing or light shaping, if there would be infringement or not, see MPEP 2173.05(p)II. On the other hand, if applicant is claiming a capability/benefit it has been held “when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear” Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255, 85 USPQ2d 1654, 1663 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see MPEP 2173.05(g). For purposes of examination the examiner will use “; the double-sided lens sheet is capable of double-sided lens sheet between an object and an observer[[,]] of creating a zone of concealment outside a focal plane
Claims 15-16, 19-20 and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite, since they depend on claim 14 and therefore have the same deficiencies.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite, since it depends on claim 21 and therefore has the same deficiencies.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 14-16 and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Woodgate US Patent Application Publication 2014/0022619.
Regarding claim 14 Woodgate disclose a double-sided lens sheet (e.g. figures 9-10A combination of layers 46, 50 & 63) comprising: a first side comprising a convex side of a first plurality of elongate lenses (e.g. lenticular surface relief structure 49), the first side defining a predetermined width (e.g. see figures 9-10A); and a second side directly opposite the first side, the second side comprising a convex side of a second plurality of elongate lenses (e.g. lenticular surface relief structure 43), the second side having the same predetermined width (e.g. see figures 9-10A); wherein each of the first plurality of elongate lenses, and second plurality of elongate lenses are (i) made of a substantially light transmissive material (inherent given structure and function of layers) and (ii) disposed substantially in parallel (e.g. see figures 9-10A), and wherein diameters of corresponding ones of the first plurality of elongate lenses, and second plurality of elongate lenses are approximately equal (e.g. see figures 9-10A); wherein corresponding ones of the first and second plurality of elongate lenses have an offset relationship relative to their respective edges such that each pair of said corresponding ones of the first and second plurality of elongate lenses is offset by the same distance (paragraph [0093] “lens arrays 41, 51 are arranged so that structures 43, 49 are aligned out of phase, that is the optical windows of the first lens array have the same pitch as the optical windows of the second lens array the optical windows, but are spatially offset from offset from the optical windows of the second lens array by half that pitch” e.g. see figures 9-10A); the double-sided lens sheet is capable of1 upon placing the double-sided lens sheet between an object and an observer of creating a zone of concealment outside a focal plane and the object in the zone is concealed from the observer (inherent physical property that the lens sheet could be so placed to have an object sufficiently out of focus to obfuscate an observer’s view, see interpretation in examiner’s comments above), wherein the double-sided lens sheet is integral (e.g. figure 10A appears to show it as a laminated, i.e. structure, as opposed to figure 10B showing an air gap).
Regarding claim 15 Woodgate discloses the double-sided lens sheet of claim 14, as set forth above. Woodgate further discloses wherein a viewing region is formed such that a viewer in the zone of concealment behind one of the first or second side can see through the viewing region while concealed from the observer viewing the opposite second or first side respectively (such regions would inherently exist for a lens/lenticular sheet, see examiner’s comments above).
Regarding claim 16 Woodgate discloses the double-sided lens sheet of claim 14, as set forth above. Woodgate further discloses each of the elongate lenses (e.g. 43 & 49) is a lenticule, a dove prism lens, a prism lens or a half dove prism lens (at least paragraph [0093] labels 43 & 49 as lenticular surface relief structures and lenticular structures are made up of lenticules, by definition).
Regarding claim 26 Woodgate discloses the double-sided lens sheet of claim 14, as set forth above. Woodgate further discloses wherein one or more of; an antireflective layer, antireflective coating, film, mesh cover, textured surface or overlay is disposed on at least one of the sides of the lens sheet to reduce reflection or improve shadow reduction (e.g. anti-reflective coatings 56).
Regarding claim 27 Woodgate discloses the double-sided lens sheet of claim 14, as set forth above. Woodgate further discloses further comprising a protective layer (e.g. substrate 54) formed by coating with protective elements to protect said elongate lenses against one or more of fog, water, fire, dirt, dust, scratches, heat, cold, and ultraviolet rays (inherent that a substrate would protect from at least fog, water, fire, dirt, dust & scratches).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ebina et al. US Patent Application Publication 2003/169332, of record.
Regarding claim 21 Ebina discloses a double-sided lens sheet (title e.g. figure 14A dual-lens sheets 30a) comprising: a first side consisting of a convex side of a first plurality of elongate lenses (e.g. lens section 31a) , the first side defining a predetermined width (e.g. see figure 14A); and a second side directly opposite the first side, the second side consisting of a convex side of a second plurality of elongate lenses (e.g. lens section 32a), the second side having the same predetermined width (e.g. see figure 14A); wherein each of the first plurality of elongate lenses, and second plurality of elongate lenses are (i) made of a substantially light transmissive material (axiomatic for a lens, further paragraph [0163] “a lens array layer, plastic member which is as transparent as plastic member”) and (ii) disposed substantially in parallel (abstract “disposition directions of the lens sections are uniform” e.g. see figure 14A), and wherein corresponding ones of the first and second plurality of elongate lenses have an offset relationship relative to their respective edges such that each pair of said corresponding ones of the first and second plurality of elongate lenses is offset (e.g. see figure 14A); the double-sided lens sheet is capable of2 upon placing the double-sided lens sheet between an object and an observer of creating a zone of concealment outside a focal plane and the object in the zone is concealed from the observer (inherent physical property that the lens sheet could be so placed to have an object sufficiently out of focus to obfuscate an observer’s view, see interpretation in examiner’s comments above); wherein the double-sided lens sheet is integral (inter alia paragraph [0173] “the lens layers are formed on both surfaces of the base member layer” e.g. see figure 14A); and wherein the first plurality of elongate lenses comprises elongate lenses at a first density and the second plurality of elongate lenses comprises elongate lenses at a second density different from the first density (abstract “lens sections on front surface and a back surface such that pitch ratio for disposing the unit lenses on the front surface and the back surface is in a range of 1:2 to 1:30” e.g. figure 14A shows 3:7).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 19-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodgate US Patent Application Publication 2014/0022619 in view of Samec et al. US Patent 5,763,054, of record.
Regarding claims 19-20 Woodgate disclose the double-sided lens sheet of claim 14, as set forth above. Woodgate does not disclose it is further comprising a mesh disposed on at least one of the first and second sides, as recited in claim 19; or wherein the mesh is one of: black, white, chromatic color or clear in color, as recited in claim 20.
Applicant’s stated issue is the need to reduce reflections (instant application paragraph [00276]).
Samec discloses an antireflection coating for optical elements (title & abstract), addressing applicant’s stated issue. Samec teaches the antireflection element includes a mesh disposed on at least one of the first and second sides (abstract “includes one or more layers of a woven plastic mesh material that may be layered on the surface of an optical element such as the lens” see figure 4) and wherein the mesh is one of: black, white, chromatic color or clear in color (black, white, colored or clear covers all possibilities, further column 3 line 19 “a material that is transparent”) for the purpose of reducing reflection (column 1 lines 6-15). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the double-sided lens sheet as disclosed by Woodgate to have a black, white, chromatic color or clear mesh disposed on the double-sided lens sheet as taught by Samec for the purpose of reducing reflection thereby addressing applicant’s stated issue.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebina et al. US Patent Application Publication 2003/169332, of record, in view of Dona et al. US Patent 6,381,071, of record.
Regarding claim 22 Ebina discloses the double-sided lens sheet of claim 21, as set forth above. Ebina does not disclose wherein the first plurality of elongate lenses comprises elongate lenses at a third density and a fourth density different from the third density, or the second plurality of elongate lenses comprises elongate lenses at the third density and the fourth density different from the first density.
Dona disclose a similar double-sided lens sheet (title “Lenticular Device” e.g. figure 8) comprising: a first side (e.g. side layer 52) comprising a first plurality of lenses (e.g. microlenses 55 in lenticular array 54); and a second side directly opposite the first side (e.g. side layer 53), the second side comprising a second plurality of lenses (e.g. microlenses 57 in lenticular array 56); wherein each of the first plurality of lenses (e.g. 55), and second plurality of lenses (e.g. 57) are (i) made of a substantially light transmissive material (abstract “transparent sheet”) and (ii) disposed substantially in parallel (see figure 8), and wherein corresponding ones of the first and second plurality of lenses (e.g. 55 & 57) have an offset relationship (e.g. see center spacings t1-t5 in figure 8) relative to their respective edges such that each pair of said corresponding ones of the first and second plurality of lenses is offset (e.g. see figure 8) so that upon placing the lens sheet between an object and an observer, a zone of concealment is formed and upon the object being placed in the zone, the object is concealed from the observer (an unfocused region would inherently exist for a lens/lenticular sheet); wherein the double-sided lens sheet is integrally formed (see figure 8); and wherein the first plurality of lenses (e.g. 55) comprises lenses at a first density (e.g. t1) and the second plurality of lenses (e.g. 57) comprises lenses at a second density (e.g. t5) different from the first density (see figure 8 e.g. column 7 line 61 gives an example of t1=336mm & lines 65-67 gives an example of t5=326mm); and further discloses wherein the first plurality of lenses (e.g. 55) comprises lenses at a third density (e.g. t2) and a fourth density (e.g. t3) different from the third density (column 7 lines 54-63 e.g. line 61 “t2=340 mm, t3=333 mm”) for the purpose of creating a visual effect that is difficult identify (inter alia column 8 lines 24-32). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the double-sided lens sheet as disclosed by Ebina to have the first plurality of elongate lenses comprises elongate lenses at a third density and a fourth density different from the third density, or the second plurality of elongate lenses comprises elongate lenses at the third density and the fourth density different from the first density as taught by Dona for the purpose of creating a visual effect that is difficult identify.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 19, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s traversal of the restriction between a double-sided lens sheet and a method of using a double-sided lens sheet, the examiner is unpersuaded. Applicant has already traversed said restriction, The examiner reconsidered said restriction and deemed it proper and made it final, as set forth in the Office action posted January 3, 2024. Further, to clarify, inventions which are related as product and process of use – the inventions can be shown to be distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product or (2) the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product. See MPEP § 806.05(h). In the instant case, the double-sided lens sheet can be used to focus light or shape light, whereas the claimed use is to defocus/blur/camouflage, at least showing the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product.
Regarding applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 22 that Dona’s spaced microlenses fail to disclose a first and second side consisting of a convex side pluralities of elongate lenses with the same width, the examiner is unpersuaded. In the previous rejection and the current rejection Dona teaches a similar double-sided lens sheet (i.e. is in the same art) and teaches the missing feature of different pitches on one side of said double-sided lens sheet. In the instant rejection Ebina discloses a first and second side consisting of a convex side pluralities of elongate lenses (i.e. no flat/land separations between the lenses) with the same width, as set forth above. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). The examiner maintains that one skilled in the art could incorporate the feature of multiple lens pitches taught by Dona into Ebina (or Hotchner). It is further noted that “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” and in addition it has been further held that "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle" and taking into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007), see MPEP 2141.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cramer international patent document WO2020/006621; as evidence of lack of support for claim 22 in the international filing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to George G King whose telephone number is (303)297-4273. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571) 272-2333. 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.
/George G. King/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 February 27, 2026
1 It has been held that the recitation that an element is "capable of" performing a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense; In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138. Also see Intel Corp. v. U.S. Int'l Trade Comm’n, 946 F.2d 821, 832, 20 USPQ2d 1161, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 1991), MPEP 2114. IV and MPEP 2173.05(g).
2 It has been held that the recitation that an element is "capable of" performing a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense; In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138. Also see Intel Corp. v. U.S. Int'l Trade Comm’n, 946 F.2d 821, 832, 20 USPQ2d 1161, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 1991), MPEP 2114. IV and MPEP 2173.05(g).