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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/30/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 01/21/2026 are acknowledged and accepted. Claim 1 is amended, Claims 2-3 are canceled/withdrawn, Claim 14 has been added, and Claims 1 and 4-14 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-14 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. The Office introduces newly cited reference Tomkins (US 20060018021 A1) to remedy the amendments of independent claim 1.
On page 7, paragraphs 1-2 of the Remarks, Applicant states traversal of the rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-7, and 11-13. Applicant asserts that the subject matter of claim 3 is traversed and incorporated into claim 1 and therefore claim 1 is allowable. However, the subject matter of Claim 3 has been rejected using newly cited reference Tomkins and therefore claim 1 is further rejected.
On page 7, paragraphs 3-4 of the Remarks, Applicant states traversal of the rejection of claims 8-10. Applicant asserts that the subject matter of claim 3 is traversed and incorporated into claim 1 and therefore claims 8-10 are allowable for their dependence on claim 1. However, the subject matter of Claim 3 has been rejected using newly cited reference Tomkins and therefore claim 1 is rejected.
On page 8, paragraph 3 of the Remarks, Applicant asserts that pitch P2 of reference Keita does not teach to a pitch that is between a plurality of ridge portions – it is instead a pitch that is a combination of two sub-pitches W3 and W4. The Office notes that the claim language does not preclude the use of pitch that is a combination of pitches. Furthermore, P2 clearly describes a pitch between a repeating pattern of ridges which would satisfy the claim language of “a plurality of ridge portion arrayed at intervals from one another at a track portion.” The Applicant then displays a figure of Keita to describe why the art is different than the instant application. However, the Office reminds Applicant that during patent examination, the claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation and the breadth of the drawings are not to be read into the claims. See MPEP 904.01.
On pages 11 and 12 of the Remarks, Applicant traverses the reference Fujii in regards to the rejection of claim 3. The Office agrees with this traversal and has introduced newly cited reference Tomkins (US 20060018021 A1) to remedy the deficiencies of the Fugii reference. See rejection below.
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, 5-7, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keita (JP2016096275A), previously cited, and Muramoto (US 20200198187 A1), previously cited, and further in view of Tomkins (US 20060018021 A1), 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 structure of the ridge portions arrayed in the line marker region.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to invent a device 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, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Considered a result effective variable (MPEP 2144.05(III)(C)), the general conditions are met in because Keita discloses the relationship between the two pitches such that “it is preferable that the pitch P2 be 10 to 100 times the pitch P1 of the uneven shape 32 in the first pattern region 12” (Keita, [0052]).
One of ordinary skill would assume that if the pitch of P1 was less than the wavelength of visible light than the pitch P2 would be greater than the wavelength of light such that P2 = P1 * 100 as disclosed in Keita.
Furthermore, in a related invention in the field of methods for manufacturing a master having concave-convex structures, Muramoto teaches in Fig. 1-2: the pitch of the micro concave-convex structure is arrayed at a pitch less than or equal to a wavelength of visible light (“An average pitch between the concavities or convexities may be less than 1 μm”; [0013]).
Furthermore, Muramoto teaches this configuration such that “The dot pitch PD and the track pitch PT in the concave-convex structure 12 may be, for example, less than 1 μm, preferably wavelengths or less in the visible light region, and more preferably 100 nm or more and 350 nm or less” (Muramoto, [0048]) and wherein “if either the dot pitch P.sub.D or the track pitch P.sub.T is less than 100 nm, it is difficult to form the concave-convex structure 12, which is not preferred” (Muramoto, [0049]).
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 Muramoto 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 or equal to the wavelength of visible light, for the purpose of selecting a pitch such that the concave-convex structure can still be formed accurately (Muramoto, [0048] and [0049]).
However, Muramoto fails to teach: 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 structure of the ridge portions arrayed in the line marker region.
However, in a related invention in the field of diffraction based optical gratings, Tomkins teaches in Fig. 1: visible light divided per wavelength is output from the line marker region by diffraction and interference of light (“Light passing through the diffraction gratings will diffract into its various wavelengths”; [0028]) incident on the line marker region because of a cyclic structure of the ridge portions arrayed in the line marker region (“closed-loop lines 24 and fringes 26”; [0053]).
Furthermore, Tomkins teaches this configuration such that “Light passing through the diffraction gratings will diffract into its various wavelengths, thereby resulting in-optical effects, color change, such as the location from which the elements are viewed is changed. The elements may be arranged in any suitable orientation to form an array, thereby creating an OVD” (Tomkins, [0028]).
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 Muramoto to incorporate the teachings of Tomkins 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 structure of the ridge portions arrayed in the line marker region, for the purpose of using diffraction to result in-optical effects like color change (Tomkins, [0028]).
Regarding claim 5, Keita, Muramoto, and Tomkins 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 methods for manufacturing a master having concave-convex structures, Muramoto teaches in Fig. 1-2: the track pitch of the ridge portions is more than or equal to 500 nm and less than or equal to 1 mm (“An average pitch between the concavities or convexities may be less than 1 μm”; [0013]).
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 portion to be more than or equal to 500 nm and less than or equal to 1 mm, which overlaps the disclosed range of less than 1 μm, 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, Muramoto teaches this configuration such that “The dot pitch PD and the track pitch PT in the concave-convex structure 12 may be, for example, less than 1 μm, preferably wavelengths or less in the visible light region, and more preferably 100 nm or more and 350 nm or less” (Muramoto, [0048]) and wherein “if either the dot pitch P.sub.D or the track pitch P.sub.T is less than 100 nm, it is difficult to form the concave-convex structure 12, which is not preferred” (Muramoto, [0049]).
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 Muramoto 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 selecting a pitch such that the structure can still be formed accurately (Muramoto, [0048] and [0049]).
Regarding claim 6, Keita, Muramoto, and Tomkins 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 methods for manufacturing a master having concave-convex structures, Muramoto teaches in Fig. 1-2: the track pitch of the ridge portions is more than or equal to 1 μm and less than or equal to 10 μm (“An average pitch between the concavities or convexities may be less than 1 μm”; [0013]).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the limitation of “the track pitch of the ridge portions is more than or equal to 1 μm and less than or equal to 10 μm”, since a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art, but are merely close that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985); MPEP 2144.05. Furthermore, a range of less than or equal to 1 μm and a range of greater than or equal to 1 μm overlap infinitesimally such that there is no distinction between the two ranges at the point of 1 μm.
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 portion to be more than or equal to 1 μm and less than or equal to 10 μm, which overlaps the disclosed range of less than or equal to 1 μm, 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.
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 Muramoto 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 selecting a pitch such that the structure can still be formed accurately (Muramoto, [0048] and [0049]).
Regarding claim 7, Keita, Muramoto, and Tomkins 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, Muramoto, and Tomkins 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, Muramoto, and Tomkins 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, Muramoto, and Tomkins 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, 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]);
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, Muramoto, and Tomkins teach the optical film according to claim 1. Keita and Muramoto 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 diffraction based optical gratings, Tomkins teaches in Fig. 1: the visible light divided per wavelength is output in a rainbow pattern (“Light passing through the diffraction gratings will diffract into its various wavelengths”; [0028], although Tomkins does not use the word ‘rainbow’ specifically, the verbiage of para [0028] “diffract into its various wavelengths” suggests that a rainbow pattern would be included in this diffraction of various wavelengths).
Furthermore, Tomkins teaches this configuration such that “Light passing through the diffraction gratings will diffract into its various wavelengths, thereby resulting in-optical effects, color change, such as the location from which the elements are viewed is changed. The elements may be arranged in any suitable orientation to form an array, thereby creating an OVD” (Tomkins, [0028]).
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 Muramoto to incorporate the teachings of Tomkins to provide a device in which the visible light divided per wavelength is output in a rainbow pattern, for the purpose of using diffraction to result in-optical effects like color change (Tomkins, [0028]).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keita (JP2016096275A), Muramoto (US 20200198187 A1), and Tomkins (US 20060018021 A1), as in claim 1, and further in view of Takashi (JP2002210822A), previously cited.
Regarding claim 8, Keita, Muramoto, and Tomkins 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, Muramoto, and Tomkins 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, Muramoto, and Tomkins teach the optical film according to claim 9. Keita, Muramoto, and Tomkins 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, Muramoto, and Tomkins 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, Muramoto, and Tomkins teach the optical film according to claim 8. Keita, Muramoto, and Tomkins 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, Muramoto, and Tomkins 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]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keita (JP2016096275A), Muramoto (US 20200198187 A1), and Tomkins (US 20060018021 A1), as in claim 1, and further in view of Fujii (US 20150241603 A1), previously cited.
Regarding claim 4, Keita, Muramoto, and Tomkins teach the optical film according to claim 1. Keita, Muramoto, and Tomkins fail 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 a cyclic structure of the ridge portions.
However, in a related invention in the field of antireflection structures Fujii teaches in Fig. 1: the concave-convex pattern region is a transparent region provided with an antireflection function by the micro concave-convex structure (“a moth-eye portion (a region 1013) highly transmits light and less reflects light on the surface”; [0017]), and the line marker region is a visible region that functions as a diffraction grating because of a cyclic structure of the ridge portions (“a portion where the moth-eye structure is filled with an ink i or the like (the region 1015), much light is directly reflected and dispersed, and therefore is less transmitted. As a result, the region 1015 is more distinctly visible than the region 1013“; [0017], “when a film including the moth-eye structure is partially filled with an opaque component such as a printing ink, such a filled portion loses a moth-eye effect, and has increased reflection and reduced transmittance, and is therefore distinctly visible”; [0017]).
Furthermore, Fujii teaches this configuration such that “there is a demand for achieving display not hindering display of a display device by, for example, making a character such as a logo, symbol, or graphic to be recognized not always, but under a certain condition” (Fujii, [0017]).
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, Muramoto, and Tomkins to incorporate the teachings of Fujii 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, and the line marker region is a visible region that functions as a diffraction grating because of a cyclic structure of the ridge portions, for the purpose of making a character such as a logo, symbol, or graphic to be recognized not always, but under a certain condition (Fujii, [0017]).
Conclusion
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, Thomas Pham can be reached at (571) 272-3689. 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
/THOMAS K PHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872