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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 05/08/2026 are acknowledged and accepted. Claims 1 and 4 are amended, no claims are canceled/withdrawn, no claims have been added, and Claims 1 and 4-14 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 has 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. The Office introduces newly cited reference Uchida (JP 2017032756 A) and Nagano (JP 2011164180 A) to remedy the amendments of independent claim 1.
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, 4-7, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keita (JP2016096275A), previously cited, and Uchida (JP 2017032756 A), newly cited, and further in view of Nagano (JP 2011164180 A), newly cited.
Regarding claim 1, Keita teaches in Figs. 2 and 10-11: an optical film comprising:
a base material having flexibility (“transparent substrate g;’202”; [0079], Fig. 10-11, “the transparent base material, other transparent flexible materials such as transparent resin films and thin glass sheets can also be used as long as they have flexibility”; [0055]); and
a resin layer (“resist pattern layer 205”; [0079], Fig. 11) laminated on at least one of surfaces of the base material (202),
wherein the resin layer (205) includes a concave-convex pattern region (“concave-convex shapes of the first pattern region 12 and the second pattern region 13”; [0066], Fig. 2) in which a micro concave-convex structure composed of a plurality of convexities or concavities arrayed (“first pattern region 12 includes a plurality of concave-convex pairs each of which is composed of a concave portion 32A and a convex portion 32B”; [0041]) at a pitch (“pitch P1 of the uneven shape 32 in the first pattern region 12”; [0043]) a strip-shaped line marker region (“a second pattern region 13 … formed in a line-and-space pattern”; [0039]) in which a plurality of ridge portions (“concave-convex shapes 32, 33”; [0039]) arrayed at intervals from one another at a track pitch (“pitch P2 of the uneven shape 33 in the second pattern region 13”; [0043])
wherein each of the ridge portions (“flat regions 216A”; [0081], Fig. 10) has a linear shape extending in a longitudinal direction of the line marker region (“dummy pattern region 214”; [0079], Fig. 10), and the plurality of ridge portions (216A) are arrayed in parallel to one another (“pattern region 13 of the imprint mold 11 extend in a line shape”; [0064], Fig. 10).
However, Keita is silent on the numerical values of the track pitches such that: the pitch of the micro concave-convex structure is arrayed at a pitch less than or equal to a wavelength of visible light and wherein a plurality of ridge portions is arrayed at intervals from one another at a track pitch more than the wavelength of visible light and that visible light divided per wavelength is output from the line marker region by diffraction and interference of light incident on the line marker region because of a cyclic array of the ridge portions arrayed in parallel in the line marker region, wherein the track pitch of the ridge portions is a center-to-center distance between mutually adjacent ridge portions.
However, in a related invention in the field of transparent films and methods for manufacturing, Uchida teaches in Fig. 5: the pitch of the micro concave-convex structure (“layer 44 having a micro-textured structure”; [0097], “the micro-ridged structure, a so-called moth-eye structure is preferred, which consists of multiple protrusions (convex parts)”; [0098]) is arrayed at a pitch less than or equal to a wavelength of visible light (“the spacing between protrusions is less than the wavelength of visible light”; [0098]) and wherein a plurality of ridge portions (“protrusion in the first region 43”; [0048]) is arrayed at intervals from one another at a track pitch more than the wavelength of visible light ( “The average distance between adjacent protrusions in the first region (intercenter distance) is greater than or equal to the wavelength of visible light”; [0047]) … wherein the track pitch of the ridge portions (43) is a center-to-center distance between mutually adjacent ridge portions (“protrusions are formed with a period of a length greater than or equal to the wavelength of visible light (the period here refers to the distance between adjacent protrusions, as described later)”; [0046]).
Furthermore, Uchida teaches this configuration such that “In recent years, articles having a surface with a fine uneven structure with a period of less than the wavelength of visible light have been shown to exhibit anti-reflective effects, the lotus effect, and other properties. In particular, a moth-eye structure, which consists of a series of roughly conical protrusions, is known to be an effective anti-reflective measure because the refractive index increases continuously from that of air to that of the material being used” (Uchida, [0002]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Keita to incorporate the teachings of Uchida to provide a device in which the pitch of the micro concave-convex structure is arrayed at a pitch less than or equal to a wavelength of visible light and wherein a plurality of ridge portions is arrayed at intervals from one another at a track pitch more than the wavelength of visible light … wherein the track pitch of the ridge portions is a center-to-center distance between mutually adjacent ridge portions, for the purpose of exhibiting anti-reflective effects (Uchida, [0002]).
However, the combination of Keita and Uchida fail to teach: that visible light divided per wavelength is output from the line marker region by diffraction and interference of light incident on the line marker region because of a cyclic array of the ridge portions arrayed in parallel in the line marker region.
In a related invention in the field of manufacturing stamper methods, Nagano teaches in Fig. 3 and 11: that visible light divided per wavelength is output from the line marker region by diffraction and interference of light incident on the line marker region because of a cyclic array of the ridge portions arrayed in parallel in the line marker region (“When a diffraction grating is observed under a white light source such as sunlight or fluorescent light, the white light is spectrally separated, and single-wavelength light is emitted at different angles, appearing as a rainbow depending on the viewing angle”; [0029], “The diffracted light emitted here is similar to when light is incident on a diffraction grating from above and perpendicular to it, as shown in Figure 11. Longer wavelength diffracted light DL_r is emitted on the side closer to the incident light, and DL_g and then DL_b are emitted in the direction away from the incident light”; [0043], see the ridge portions configured in parallel in Fig. 11).
Furthermore, Nagano teaches this configuration such that “A diffraction grating emits spectral colors that shine in rainbow colors through diffraction, and can display images whose colors and patterns change depending on observation conditions such as the position of the light source and the observer's viewing angle, or it can display a three-dimensional image” (Nagano, [0068]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Keita and Uchida to incorporate the teachings of Nagano to provide a device in which visible light divided per wavelength is output from the line marker region by diffraction and interference of light incident on the line marker region because of a cyclic array of the ridge portions arrayed in parallel in the line marker region, for the purpose of displaying images whose colors and patterns change depending on observation conditions such as the position of the light source and the observer's viewing angle (Nagano, [0068]).
Regarding claim 4, Keita, Uchida, and Nagano teach the optical film according to claim 1. Keita, Uchida, and Nagano to explicitly teach: the concave-convex pattern region is a transparent region provided with an antireflection function by the micro concave-convex structure, and the line marker region is a visible region that functions as a diffraction grating because of the cyclic array of the ridge portions in parallel.
However, in a related invention in the field of transparent films and methods for manufacturing, Uchida teaches in Fig. 5: the concave-convex pattern region (44) is a transparent region provided with an antireflection function by the micro concave-convex structure (“a moth-eye structure, which consists of a series of roughly conical protrusions, is known to be an effective anti-reflective measure”; [0002]).
Furthermore, Uchida teaches this configuration such that “In recent years, articles having a surface with a fine uneven structure with a period of less than the wavelength of visible light have been shown to exhibit anti-reflective effects, the lotus effect, and other properties. In particular, a moth-eye structure, which consists of a series of roughly conical protrusions, is known to be an effective anti-reflective measure because the refractive index increases continuously from that of air to that of the material being used” (Uchida, [0002]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Keita to incorporate the teachings of Uchida to provide a device in which the concave-convex pattern region is a transparent region provided with an antireflection function by the micro concave-convex structure, for the purpose of exhibiting effective anti-reflective measures because the refractive index increases continuously from that of air to that of the material being used (Uchida, [0002]).
However, the combination of Keita and Uchida fail to teach: and the line marker region is a visible region that functions as a diffraction grating because of the cyclic array of the ridge portions in parallel.
In a related invention in the field of manufacturing stamper methods, Nagano teaches in Figs. 2-3 and 11: the line marker region (“first region 15”; [0017]) is a visible region that functions as a diffraction grating because of the cyclic array of the ridge portions in parallel (“In the structure of the present invention, where the convex portions 17 are spaced apart from each other within the cells 16 of the first region 15, diffracted light is emitted not only in the x axis direction but also in many azimuth angles on the XY plane. The diffracted light emitted here is similar to when light is incident on a diffraction grating from above and perpendicular to it, as shown in Figure 11. Longer wavelength diffracted light DL_r is emitted on the side closer to the incident light, and DL_g and then DL_b are emitted in the direction away from the incident light”; [0043], see the ridge portions configured in parallel in Fig. 11).
Furthermore, Nagano teaches this configuration such that “A diffraction grating emits spectral colors that shine in rainbow colors through diffraction, and can display images whose colors and patterns change depending on observation conditions such as the position of the light source and the observer's viewing angle, or it can display a three-dimensional image” (Nagano, [0068]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Keita and Uchida to incorporate the teachings of Nagano to provide a device in which the line marker region is a visible region that functions as a diffraction grating because of the cyclic array of the ridge portions in parallel, for the purpose of displaying images whose colors and patterns change depending on observation conditions such as the position of the light source and the observer's viewing angle (Nagano, [0068]).
Regarding claim 5, Keita, Uchida, and Nagano teach the optical film according to claim 1. Keita does not appear to explicitly disclose specific numerical values such that: the track pitch of the ridge portions is more than or equal to 500 nm and less than or equal to 1 mm.
However, in a related invention in the field of transparent films and methods for manufacturing, Uchida teaches in Fig. 5: the track pitch of the ridge portions (43) is more than or equal to 500 nm and less than or equal to 1 mm (“The average distance between adjacent protrusions in the first region (intercenter distance) is greater than or equal to the wavelength of visible light”; [0047]).
It has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range."). See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range). See MPEP §2144.05(I) first paragraph.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the track pitch of the ridge portions is more than or equal to 500 nm and less than or equal to 1 mm, which overlaps the disclosed range of ‘greater than or equal to the wavelength of visible light’, since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) and In re Geisler 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) which found that a thickness of about 100 Angstroms directly teaches the use of a thickness within a claimed range of 50 to 100 Angstroms. See MPEP §2144.05(I) first paragraph.
Furthermore, Uchida teaches this configuration such that “when the relationship between the average height of the protrusions in a region (hereinafter referred to as the first region) where multiple protrusions are provided at a period greater than or equal to the wavelength of visible light at both ends in the width direction of the base film, and the film thickness of a layer having a fine uneven structure including multiple protrusions formed at a period less than or equal to the wavelength of visible light (hereinafter referred to as the second region where this layer is provided), is optimal, the transparent film can be prevented from curling tightly, and whitening and transfer defects in the second region can be suppressed” (Uchida, [0009]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Keita to incorporate the teachings of Uchida to provide a device in which the track pitch of the ridge portions is more than or equal to 500 nm and less than or equal to 1 mm, for the purpose of preventing the film from curling (Uchida, [0009]).
Regarding claim 6, Keita, Uchida, and Nagano teach the optical film according to claim 1.
Keita does not appear to explicitly disclose specific numerical values such that: the track pitch of the ridge portions is more than or equal to 1 μm and less than or equal to 10 μm.
However, in a related invention in the field of transparent films and methods for manufacturing, Uchida teaches in Fig. 5: the track pitch of the ridge portions (43) is more than or equal to 1 μm and less than or equal to 10 μm (“The average distance between adjacent protrusions in the first region (intercenter distance) is greater than or equal to the wavelength of visible light”; [0047]).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the track pitch of the ridge portions is more than or equal to 1 μm and less than or equal to 10 μm, which overlaps the disclosed range of ‘greater than or equal to the wavelength of visible light’, since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) and In re Geisler 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) which found that a thickness of about 100 Angstroms directly teaches the use of a thickness within a claimed range of 50 to 100 Angstroms. See MPEP §2144.05(I) first paragraph.
Furthermore, Uchida teaches this configuration such that “when the relationship between the average height of the protrusions in a region (hereinafter referred to as the first region) where multiple protrusions are provided at a period greater than or equal to the wavelength of visible light at both ends in the width direction of the base film, and the film thickness of a layer having a fine uneven structure including multiple protrusions formed at a period less than or equal to the wavelength of visible light (hereinafter referred to as the second region where this layer is provided), is optimal, the transparent film can be prevented from curling tightly, and whitening and transfer defects in the second region can be suppressed” (Uchida, [0009]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Keita to incorporate the teachings of Uchida to provide a device in which the track pitch of the ridge portions is more than or equal to 1 μm and less than or equal to 10 μm, for the purpose of preventing the film from curling (Uchida, [0009]).
Regarding claim 7, Keita, Uchida, and Nagano teach the optical film according to claim 1. Keita further teaches: a height of the ridge portions is substantially identical to a height of the convexities of the micro concave-convex structure (“the height H1 of the first pattern portion 22 and the height H2 of the second pattern portion 23 are the same”; [0056], Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, Keita, Uchida, and Nagano teach the optical film according to claim 1. Keita further teaches: the optical film is a film roll obtained by winding an elongated film (“in the contact process, the imprint mold 11 is pressed by a roller 271 from the other side of the flexible imprint mold 11 on which the first pattern region 12 and the second pattern region 13 are not formed, thereby bringing the first pattern region 12 and the second pattern region 13 of the imprint mold 11 into contact with the etching resist layer 204”; [0087], Fig. 10(B)).
Regarding claim 12, Keita, Uchida, and Nagano teach the optical film according to claim 1. Keita further teaches: the optical film is a sheet product of a film having a predetermined shape (“[Imprinting mold] As shown in Figures 1 to 3, the imprinting mold 11 in this embodiment is formed in a sheet shape, and a first pattern region 12 and a second pattern region 13 adjacent to each other are formed on one of a pair of opposing surfaces”; [0036]).
Regarding claim 13, Keita, Uchida, and Nagano teach the method for manufacturing the optical film according to claim 1. Keita further teaches:
using a roll master (“roller imprinting is employed”; [0006], the method comprising:
preparing the roll master (“imprinting mold 11”; [0036]) including a master concave-convex pattern region (12) and a master line marker region (13) on an outer peripheral surface of the roll master (Fig. 2), a master micro concave-convex structure (12) having a shape obtained by inverting the micro concave-convex structure in the concave-convex pattern region of the optical film being formed in the master concave-convex pattern region (“imprinting mold 11 in this embodiment is formed in a sheet shape, and a first pattern region 12 and a second pattern region 13 adjacent to each other are formed on one of a pair of opposing surfaces”; [0036]),
the master line marker region (13) being provided in a strip shape across an entire periphery of the roll master (“a second pattern region 13 … formed in a line-and-space pattern”; [0039]), and a spiral groove having a shape obtained by inverting the ridge portions in the line marker region of the optical film being formed in the master line marker region (“uneven shape 33 of the second pattern region 13 is formed so as to surround the entire outer periphery of the first pattern region 12, but the uneven shape 33 of the second pattern region 13 may be formed so as to partially surround the outer periphery of the first pattern region 12 while being adjacent to the first pattern region 12”; [0042], see plurality of line shaped ridges 33B formed in region 13 in Fig. 3 which form a spiral shape);
coating a surface of the base material of the optical film with a resin layer made of a curable resin (“the material to be molded 103 can be formed using a desired resin composition, such as a photocurable resin composition”; [0062]); and
transferring a transfer pattern (11) including the master micro concave-convex structure (12) formed in the master concave-convex pattern region of the roll master and the groove formed in the master line marker region (13) to the resin layer (205) to integrally form the micro concave-convex structure in the concave-convex pattern region of the optical film and the ridge portions in the line marker region of the optical film in the resin layer (“resist pattern layer 205 and the imprinting mold 11 are pulled apart is the line direction of the concave and convex portions of the uneven shapes of the first pattern region 12 and the second pattern region 13 of the imprinting mold 11”; [0092], Fig. 10(A) -(D)).
Regarding claim 14, Keita, Uchida, and Nagano teach the optical film according to claim 1. Keita and Uchida fail to explicitly teach: the visible light divided per wavelength is output in a rainbow pattern.
However, in a related invention in the field of manufacturing stamper methods, Nagano teaches in Fig. 3 and 11: the visible light divided per wavelength is output in a rainbow pattern (“When a diffraction grating is observed under a white light source such as sunlight or fluorescent light, the white light is spectrally separated, and single-wavelength light is emitted at different angles, appearing as a rainbow depending on the viewing angle”; [0029])
Furthermore, Nagano teaches this configuration such that “A diffraction grating emits spectral colors that shine in rainbow colors through diffraction, and can display images whose colors and patterns change depending on observation conditions such as the position of the light source and the observer's viewing angle, or it can display a three-dimensional image” (Nagano, [0068]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Keita and Uchida to incorporate the teachings of Nagano to provide a device in which the visible light divided per wavelength is output in a rainbow pattern, for the purpose of displaying images whose colors and patterns change depending on observation conditions such as the position of the light source and the observer's viewing angle (Nagano, [0068]).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keita (JP2016096275A), Uchida (JP 2017032756 A), and Nagano (JP 2011164180 A), as in claim 1, and further in view of Takashi (JP2002210822A), previously cited.
Regarding claim 8, Keita, Uchida, and Nagano teach the optical film according to claim 1. Keita further teaches: the ridge portions are intermittently formed in the line marker region (“second pattern region 13 has a concave-convex shape 32, 33 formed therein”; [0039], Fig. 2).
Keita fails to explicitly teach: identification information including at least any of a character, a symbol, or a marker is displayed in a visible manner by portions in which the ridge portions are not formed.
However, a related invention in the field of engraved films, Takashi teaches: identification information including at least any of a character, a symbol, or a marker is displayed in a visible manner by portions in which the ridge portions are not formed (“The mark forming portion 52 is formed in an arrow shape by scraping off each protrusion 51 . The mark forming section 52 forms the side identification marks 48 on the knurling 46 of the film 25”; [0025], Fig. 2).
Furthermore, Takashi teaches the identifying mark such that “in order to distinguish between the sides or faces of a sample, it is necessary that the sample contains at least one identification mark” (Takashi, [0012]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Keita, Uchida, and Nagano to incorporate the teachings of Takashi to provide a device containing an identification mark, for the purpose of distinguishing between the sides or faces of a sample (Takashi, [0012]).
Regarding claim 9, Keita, Uchida, and Nagano teach the optical film according to claim 8. Keita, Uchida, and Nagano fail to teach: the identification information includes a marker representing a reference position of a peripheral direction of a roll master used for manufacturing the optical film.
However, Takashi teaches: the identification information includes a marker (“identification marks 48”; [0025], Fig. 2) representing a reference position of a peripheral direction of a roll master used for manufacturing the optical film (“The direction of the arrow of the mark forming section 62 was aligned with the film transport direction during film formation”; [0034], Fig. 4).
Furthermore, Takashi teaches the identifying mark such that “in order to distinguish between the sides or faces of a sample, it is necessary that the sample contains at least one identification mark” (Takashi, [0012]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Keita, Uchida, and Nagano to incorporate the teachings of Takashi to provide a device containing an identification mark used to represent a position of the film, for the purpose of distinguishing between the sides or faces of a sample (Takashi, [0012]).
Regarding claim 10, Keita, Uchida, and Nagano teach the optical film according to claim 8. Keita, Uchida, and Nagano fail to teach: the identification information includes a character or a symbol representing a lot number when the optical film is manufactured.
However, Takashi teaches: the identification information includes a character or a symbol representing a lot number when the optical film is manufactured (“The mark forming portion 52 and the side identification mark 48 are not limited to an arrow shape, but may be a rectangle, a circle, a triangle, a polygon, a letter, or any other shape”; [0025], Fig. 2).
Additionally, the limitation of Claim 10 has not been provided patentable weight as “USPTO personnel need not give patentable weight to printed matter absent a new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate.” See In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d 1031, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (See MPEP §2111.05). In the instant case, “a character or a symbol representing a lot number when the optical film is manufactured” does not provide a new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate since the claim as a whole is directed towards conveying a message or meaning to a human reader which is independent of the supporting product.
Furthermore, Takashi teaches the identifying mark such that “in order to distinguish between the sides or faces of a sample, it is necessary that the sample contains at least one identification mark” (Takashi, [0012]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Keita, Uchida, and Nagano to incorporate the teachings of Takashi to provide a device containing an identification mark used to represent a manufacturing number, for the purpose of distinguishing between samples (Takashi, [0012]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 RUBY L KAUFFMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1738. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am - 5pm EST.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached at (571) 270-1284. 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.
/RUBY L KAUFFMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/PINPING SUN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights