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 .
Remark
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s amendment filed after final rejection dated December 31, 2025, that would be entered into the file.
By this amendment, the applicant has amended claims 30, 32, 38-40, and 49.
Claims 30-49 remain pending in this application.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's request for reconsideration of the finality of the rejection of the last Office action is persuasive and, therefore, the finality of that action is withdrawn.
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.
Claim(s) 30-32 and 35-49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the US patent issued to Modegi (PN. 5,784,200) in view of the US patent application publication by Drinkwater (US 2004/0032659 A1).
Claims 30 and 49 have been amended to necessitate the new grounds of rejection.
Modegi, with regard to claim 30, teaches an optical device which exhibits a variable optical effect upon illumination, wherein the device is comprised of a set of first grating regions, (please see Figures 6a and 12) wherein each of the first grating region comprises a plurality of first grating elements (P1) each first grating element having a principal component of orientation within the plane of the device that is orthogonal to a first direction, (please see Figure 5) and a set of second grating regions each comprises a plurality of second grating elements (P2 or P3) wherein the second grating element has a principal component of orientation within the plane of the device that is orthogonal to a second direction, that is different from the first direction. The set of first grating regions is interlaced with the set of the second grating regions, (please see Figure 12).
Modegi teaches that at least a subset of the first grating regions each exhibit a diffractive color, (based on the orientation and pitch of the grating element, please see Figure 2 and column 15, lines 38-54), such that a user viewing the device a viewing angle along the first direction perceives a first diffractive color image.
Modegi also teaches in a different embodiment that the grating elements in at least a subset of a second grating regions may contain white pixel that achromatic in nature, (please see column 26, lines 5-10).
This reference has met all the limitations of the claims. This reference however does not teach explicitly that the diffractive achromatic region may comprise “a plurality of grating sub-regions having different respective grating element pitches ranging from a coarse pitch to a fine pitch and arranged that a plurality of viewing angles along the second direction the diffractive colors exhibited by the plurality of grating sub-region cooperate such that the achromatic region is perceived to exhibit diffractive whiteness”.
Drinkwater in the same field of endeavor teaches a diffractive grating with combination of a plurality of grating elements with a plurality of pitches for exhibiting different diffractive colors including red, green and blue, which are combined to provide achromatic effect, (please see paragraph [0103]). The plurality of pitches may be regarded to comprise relatively coarse pitch diffractive structure and a fine pitch diffractive feature. It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Drinkwater to make the plurality of grating sub-regions of the second grating region to include a combination of coarse pitch diffractive feature and fine pitch diffractive feature for exhibiting different diffractive colors to provide achromatic effect for the benefit of using alternative arrangement to provide achromatic effect.
With regard to amended claim 49, the optical device taught by Modegi et al and Drinkwater implicitly include the method for manufacturing the optical device.
With regard to claim 31, Modegi in light of Drinkwater teaches that the second grating regions are achromatic grating regions.
With regard to claim 32, Drink teaches that the sub-region and respective pitches within the achromatic grating region may comprise grating sub-regions corresponding to a first set of color channels when viewed at a first viewing angle which cooperate that the achromatic grating region exhibits diffractive whiteness at a first viewing angle, (please see paragraph [0103]). Modegi teaches the optical device may include a second group of grating sub-regions to exhibit diffractive whiteness when viewed in a second viewing angle to provide additional security feature, (please see column 26, lines 5-10).
With regard to claim 34, Drinkwater teaches that the achromatic grating region may comprise a plurality of grating sub-regions each with a different pitch, wherein the number of the different pitches may be at least three and more than three which therefore may be four or more, (please see paragraph [0103]).
With regard to claim 35, it is either implicitly true or obvious to one skilled in the art to make the grating sub-regions within an achromatic grating region are arranged in a contiguous manner.
With regard to claim 36, it is obvious to one skilled in the art to make the grating elements of at least two grating sub-regions within an achromatic grating region have different orientations within the plane of the device.
With regard to claim 37, Modegi teaches that the first and second directions are offset by an angle greater than or equal to 45 degrees, (please see Figures 5 and 34).
With regard to amended claim 38, Modegi teaches that the grating pitches may be varies to provide different diffractive color, including white pixel, (please see column 15, lines 38-54, and column 26, lines 5-10). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the first grating regions including different sub-regions to exhibit a diffractive color and achromatic effect for the benefit of allowing the first grating region to provide desired optical properties.
With regard to amended claims 39 and 40, Modegi teaches that the grating pitches may be varies to provide different diffractive color, including white pixel, (please see column 15, lines 38-54, and column 26, lines 5-10). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the first grating regions including different sub-regions to exhibit a diffractive color and achromatic effect for the benefit of allowing the first grating region to provide desired optical properties. With regard to claim 40, it is within the general level skilled in the art to allow the achromatic grating regions of the first grating region and the second grating region to be corresponding to each other for the benefit of allowing the optical device to provide desired the optical effect.
With regard to claim 41, Modegi teaches that the dimensions of each grating region may be about 50 microns that are not discernible to the naked human eye, (please see column 14, lines 40-50).
With regard to claims 42-43, Modegi teaches that each grating region may have a dimensions of 50 microns or less which is less than a maximum dimension of 70 microns, (please see column 14, lines 40-50). With regard to claim 43, it is implicitly true or obvious matters of design choice to make each grating sub-region has a maximum dimension of 25 microns for the benefit of provide desired security effect.
With regard to claim 44, Modegi teaches that the set of first grating regions is interlaced with the set of second grating regions in a grid pattern, such that the first grating regions are interlaced with the second grating regions along two directions, (please see Figures 6a and 12).
With regard to claim 45, Modegi teaches that the first grating regions and the second grating regions may also be arranged in a contiguous manner.
With regard to claim 46,Modegi teaches that the optical device may further comprise a set of non-diffractive regions, wherein each non-diffractive region comprises an absence of grating elements, (please see Figures 6a and 12).
With regard to claims 47 and 48, Modegi teaches that the optical device may serve as security device that may be incorporated in a security document, (please see the abstract).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 30-49 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUDREY Y CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2309. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 9:00AM-4:30PM.
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 at 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.
AUDREY Y. CHANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/AUDREY Y CHANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872