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 .
2. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/01/2025 has been entered.
3. Applicant’s arguments filed on 10/01/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons stated below.
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
5. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 21, line 2, the use of the language “a viewport” fails to further limit the language of “sensor viewport” recited in claim 20, line 12.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
6. 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.
7. Claim(s) 1, 3-9, 11 and 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chien et al (US 6,852,376).
Chien et al discloses an article comprising a substrate (2, 41), a coating (1) on a surface of the substrate (see figures 1, 2 and 5) including a plurality of particles (13) dispersed in a host material (11); and a plurality of optical elements (12) embedded on a surface of the coating (see figures 1, 2 and 5), wherein the substrate is chosen from a display, a sensor, a sensor window, a sensor viewport, a planar glass lens, a camera lens for a cell phone and a diffuser (see figures 1 and 5 along with column 3, lines 18-25), wherein each optical element of the plurality of optical elements is considered a three-dimensional lens element due to its light transmitting properties (see figures 2 and 3), wherein the plurality of particles has an average particle size ranging about less than a micron (see column 3, lines 33-65) and wherein the plurality of optical elements has a size of 0.5 micron (see column 3, lines 26-32), wherein the host resin material inherently has a mechanical hardness that is less than a mechanical hardness of the plurality of optical elements of silica material, wherein the plurality of particles have a spherical shape (see figures 1, 2 and 5), wherein the coating includes a plurality of microcapsules (12, 13) in the surface of the coating (see figures 1, 2 and 5), wherein the host material is inherently mechanical energy dissipating over a period of time when heat is applied, wherein the coating has a refractive index distribution (see figures 1, 2 and 5), wherein each optical element of the plurality of optical elements is made from a material chosen from glass, synthetic minerals, minerals, optical polymers, micro-capsules, and other optical materials (see column 4, lines 60-66), wherein each optical element of the plurality of optical elements has at least one surface chosen from flat, curved, and textured (see figures 1, 2 and 5), wherein the at least one surface of each optical element includes nanoparticles, nanorods, nanospears, and combinations thereof (see column 3, lines 26-32), wherein the host material has a refractive index that matches to the plurality of the optical elements, the substrate, or both (see column 4, lines 60-66). Note figures 1, 2 and 4 along with the associated description thereof.
As to the method limitations of claims 18 and 19, such limitations are considered to be inherently met by the above mentioned reference to Chien et al.
8. Claim(s) 1, 3, 6-9, 11-15, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al (US 2010/00227126).
Chen et al discloses an article comprising a substrate (22, 44), a coating (20) on a surface of the substrate (see figures 2, 3 and 8) including a plurality of particles (26) dispersed in a host material (24); and a plurality of optical elements (28) embedded on a surface of the coating (see figures 2, 3 and 8), wherein the substrate is chosen from a display, a sensor, a sensor window, a sensor viewport, a planar glass lens, a camera lens for a cell phone and a diffuser (see figures 2, 3 and 8 along with paragraph 0036), wherein each optical element of the plurality of optical elements is considered a three-dimensional lens element due to its light transmitting/diffusing properties (see figures 2 and 3), wherein the plurality of particles have a spherical shape (see figures 2, 3 and 8), wherein the coating includes a plurality of microcapsules (26, 28) in the surface of the coating (see figures 2, 3 and 8), wherein the host material is inherently mechanical energy dissipating over a period of time when heat is applied, wherein the coating has a refractive index distribution (see figures 2, 3 and 8), wherein each optical element of the plurality of optical elements has a coating (28b) on at least a portion of a surface of the optical element (see figures 2, 3 and 8), wherein the coating is chosen from antireflective, reflective, transparent electrically conductive, oleophobic, hydrophobic, superhydrophobic, smudge resistant, cleanable or self-cleanable, antifungal, antibacterial, antiviral, and combinations thereof (see Fig. 3), wherein each optical element of the plurality of optical elements is made from a material chosen from glass, synthetic minerals, minerals, optical polymers, micro-capsules, and other optical materials (see paragraph 0024), and wherein each optical element of the plurality of optical elements has at least one surface chosen from flat, curved, and textured (see figures 2, 3 and 8). Note figures 2, 3 and 8 along with the associated description thereof.
As to the method limitations of claims 18 and 19, such limitations are considered to be inherently met by the above mentioned reference to Chen et al .
9. 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.
10. Claim(s) 20 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Tung (US 3,758,193).
To the extent the claims are definite, Tung discloses an article comprising a substrate (23), a coating (20) on a surface of the substrate (see Fig. 2) including a plurality of particles (25) dispersed in a host material (matrix); and a plurality of optical elements (21) embedded on a surface of the coating (see Fig. 2), wherein the plurality of optical elements are physically larger than the plurality of particles (see Fig. 2), wherein each optical element of the plurality of optical elements is considered a three-dimensional lens element due to its light transmitting properties (see Fig. 2), and wherein the plurality of optical elements are oriented to form a quasi-continuous optical surface (see Fig. 2).
However, if this is not the case, it certainly would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plurality of optical elements of Tung to form a quasi-continuous optical surface in order to increase the retroflecting characteristics and/or properties of the article.
11. Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chien et al (US 6,852,376).
Chien et al discloses all of the subject matter claimed, note the above explanation, except for the plurality of optical elements being oriented to form a quasi-continuous optical surface.
The examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known to arrange a plurality of optical
elements in such a manner so as to form a quasi-continuous optical surface in the same field of
endeavor for the purpose of obtaining a desirable light pattern across an entire sheet.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical elements of Chien et al to
form a quasi-continuous optical surface, as is well known in the optical art, in order to obtain a
desirable light pattern across the entire article.
12. All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICKY D SHAFER whose telephone number is (571)272-2320. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 11:00-7:30.
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, Stephone B. Allen can be reached on (571) 272-2434. 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.
RDS
October 18, 2025
/RICKY D SHAFER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872