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 .
Status Of Claims
Claims 1-20, received 3/21/2023, are pending for examination.
If applicant is aware of any relevant prior art, or other co-pending application not already of record, he/she is reminded of his/her duty under 37 CFR 1.56 to disclose the same.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 11/14/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to at least one nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/14/2025.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS) filed on 3/21/2023, 6/24/2025 were considered.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 3/21/2023. These drawings are accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The 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.
Claims 1-8, 10-12, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tamai, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2009/0225419 A1 (hereafter Tamai).
Regarding claim 1, Tamai discloses a transparent plate, comprising:
a grating structure layer (see at least element 10), comprising a first surface and a second surface opposite to each other (see at least element 10), wherein a grating structure is disposed on the first surface (see at least element 20 formed on a top surface of element 10); and
a micro-texture layer (see at least one of element 30, 50, 70), disposed on the second surface (see at least one of element 30, 50, 70 formed on a bottom surface of element 10), wherein a surface of the micro-texture layer away from the second surface comprises a plurality of micro-texture stripes (see at least element 65, paras. [0081]-[0086], [0145]), and light interferes between the grating structure and the micro-texture layer and forms moire stripes (see at least paras. [0001], [0005], [0023]-[0026]).
Regarding claim 2, Tamai discloses the limitations of claim 1, and wherein the micro-texture layer comprises a plurality of micro-texture units (see at least element 50), each of the micro-texture units comprises a plurality of subunits, wherein the plurality of subunits comprises at least a first subunit (see at least figure 23, at least a plurality of the star’s 50 inner line segments 65 which are a part of portions 60a, 60b and 60c), a second subunit (see at least figure 23, at least a plurality of the star’s 50 middle line segments 65 which are a part of portions 60a, 60b and 60c), and a third subunit nested in sequence (see at least figure 23, at least a plurality of the star’s 50 outer line segments 65 which are a part of portions 60a, 60b and 60c), and the first subunit, the second subunit, and the third subunit comprise the micro-texture stripes (see at least element 65), and micro-texture stripes of at least two of the plurality of subunits have different patterns (see at least figure 23, at least a plurality of the star’s 50 inner, middle and outer line segments 65, wherein at least inner line segments which are part of portion 60a have a different pattern from at least middle line segments which are a part of portion 60b, and at least middle line segments which are part of portion 60b have a different pattern from at least outer line segments which are a part of portion 60c, etc.).
Regarding claim 3, Tamai discloses the limitations of claim 2, and wherein the micro-texture layer further comprises a fourth subunit, and the third subunit is disposed within the edges of the fourth subunit (see at least figure 23, at least a plurality of the star’s 50 outer line segments 65 which are a part of portions 60a, 60b and 60c and which may be outside the line segments of the third subunit).
Regarding claim 4, Tamai discloses the limitations of claim 2, and wherein:
a gap is formed between first micro-texture stripes of a first one of two adjacent subunits and second micro-texture stripes of a second one of the two adjacent subunits in the same micro-texture unit (see at least figure 23, wherein there is a gap between line segments 65 of the first subunit and the second subunit, or between the second subunit and the third subunit); or
a first micro-texture stripe of a first one of two adjacent subunits and a second micro-texture stripe of a second one of the two adjacent subunits in the same micro-texture unit that are connected to each other extend in different directions; or
the micro-texture stripes of the two adjacent subunits in the same micro-texture unit are connected at a connecting portion, wherein two ends of the connecting portion are respectively connected with the first micro-texture stripes of the first one of the two adjacent subunits and the second micro-texture stripes of the second one of the two adjacent subunits, and a width of the connecting portion is not greater than half of a width of each of the micro-texture stripes of the two adjacent subunits.
Regarding claim 5, Tamai discloses the limitations of claim 2, and wherein a connecting line of edges of micro-texture stripes of one of the subunits at the outer boundary of the one of the subunits forms a polygon or a circle, and polygons formed by different subunits have an equal number of sides (see at least figure 23 wherein each subunit forms a polygon having a star shape).
Regarding claim 6, Tamai discloses the limitations of claim 5, and wherein:
the micro-texture stripes are straight stripes, and first micro-texture stripes of a first one of two adjacent subunits and second micro-texture stripes of a second one of the two adjacent subunits in the same micro-texture unit extend in different directions (see at least figure 23, at least a plurality of the star’s 50 inner line segments 65 (i.e. first subunit), wherein at least inner line segments which are part of portion 60a have a different pattern from at least middle line segments (i.e. second subunit) which are a part of portion 60b, and at least middle line segments which are part of portion 60b have a different pattern from at least outer line segments (i.e. third subunit) which are a part of portion 60c, etc.); or
the micro-texture stripes are curved stripes, and third micro-texture curved stripes of a first one of at least two of the subunits and fourth micro-texture curved stripes of a second one of the at least two of the subunits in the same micro-texture unit have different curvatures.
Regarding claim 7, Tamai discloses the limitations of claim 6, and wherein micro-texture stripes located in a subunit extend in a same direction (see at least figure 23, at least the inner line segments 65 (i.e. first subunit) which are a part of portion 60a all extend in a same direction, and inner line segments 65 (i.e. first subunit) which are a part of portion 60b all extend in a same direction, etc.).
Regarding claim 8, Tamai discloses the limitations of claim 5, and wherein the polygon comprises a shape of at least one of a triangle, a quadrilateral, a pentagon, a hexagon, or a star (see at least figure 23 wherein each subunit forms a polygon having a star shape).
Regarding claim 10, Tamai discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further comprising:
a substrate layer, arranged between the grating structure layer and the micro-texture layer; or
an optical coating layer, arranged on a side of the micro-texture layer away from the grating structure layer (see at least figure 18, element 11, para. [0138]).
Regarding claim 11, Tamai discloses the limitations of claim 1, and a method comprising: forming the micro-texture layer on the second surface of the grating structure layer to obtain the transparent plate (see at least figure 1, paras. [0079]-[0080], [0128]-[0131]).
Regarding claim 12, Tamai discloses the limitations of claim 11, and a method further comprising:
forming the micro-texture layer on a surface of a substrate layer; and
attaching a surface of the substrate layer away from the micro-texture layer to the second surface (see at least paras. [0136]-[0140]).
Regarding claim 16, Tamai discloses the limitations of claim 11, and further comprising: forming an optical coating layer on the side of the micro-texture layer away from the grating structure layer (see at least para. [0139]).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamai, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2009/0225419 A1 (hereafter Tamai) in view of Dona et al., U.S. Patent Number 6,124,975 (hereafter Dona).
Regarding claim 9, Tamai discloses the limitations of claim 2, Tamai further discloses that the grating structure comprises a plurality of curved surfaces and protruding away from the micro-texture layer (see at least figure 1, element 21 of Tamai).
Tamai does not specifically disclose that the micro-texture stripes have an equal width, and a grating period of the grating structure is a product of a number of the subunits in each of the micro-texture units and the width; or the grating structure layer has a thickness ranging from 0.4 mm to 0.7 mm; or the grating structure comprises a plurality of curved surfaces and protruding away from the micro-texture layer, and a curvature radius of each of the curved surfaces ranges from 0.1 mm to 0.5 mm.
However, Dona is also drawn to a device for forming a moire pattern (see at least the abstract of Dona), including a grating structure (see at least figure 1, elements 2 and 4, col. 4, lines 15-65), and another micro-structure layer (see at least figure 1, elements 3, 6 and 9, col. 4, lines 15-65), wherein the grating structure comprises a plurality of curved surfaces and protruding away from the micro-texture layer (see at least figure 1, elements 2 and 4, col. 4, lines 15-65), wherein a radius of curvature of the curved surfaces is chosen in dependence on the distance the sheet is normally observed (see at least col. 4, lines 50-65), such that a curvature radius of each of the curved surfaces ranges from 0.1 mm to 0.5 mm (see at least col. 4, lines 15-23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Tamai to include the teachings of Dona so that the grating structure comprises a plurality of curved surfaces and protruding away from the micro-texture layer, and a curvature radius of each of the curved surfaces ranges from 0.1 mm to 0.5 mm, for the purpose of choosing an appropriate radius of curvature so that the device may be viewed by a user at a desired observation distance.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose an appropriate radius of curvature for the curved surfaces, such as ranging from 0.1 mm to 0.5 mm, 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. One would have been motivated to have a curvature radius of each of the curved surfaces range from 0.1 mm to 0.5 mm, for the purpose of choosing an appropriate radius of curvature so that the device may be viewed by a user at a desired observation distance. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamai, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2009/0225419 A1 (hereafter Tamai) in view of Marttila et al., WO 2007/146634 A1 (hereafter Marttila).
Regarding claims 17 and 20, Tamai discloses a transparent plate, comprising:
a grating structure layer (see at least element 10), comprising a first surface and a second surface opposite to each other (see at least element 10), wherein a grating structure is disposed on the first surface (see at least element 20 formed on a top surface of element 10); and
a micro-texture layer (see at least one of element 30, 50, 70), disposed on the second surface (see at least one of element 30, 50, 70 formed on a bottom surface of element 10), wherein a surface of the micro-texture layer away from the second surface comprises a plurality of micro-texture stripes (see at least element 65, paras. [0081]-[0086], [0145]), and light interferes between the grating structure and the micro-texture layer and forms moire stripes (see at least paras. [0001], [0005], [0023]-[0026]).
Tamai does not specifically disclose a housing.
However, Tamai further discloses that the structure may be applied to an advertising display, an advertisement tower, an information display board and the like (see at least paragraph [0151] of Tamai).
However, Marttila is also drawn to a device for forming a moire pattern (see at least page 4, line 5 through page 6, line 28 of Marttila), including a grating structure (see at least element 405), and another micro-structure layer (see at least element 404), wherein the plate device may be used to create a moire pattern for a key pad of a cell phone (i.e. a mobile terminal) (see at least the abstract and page 2, lines 25-31 of Marttila).
Wherein, Official Notice is taken that keypads and cell phones are known to have housings which are old and well-known in the art for containing and protecting the parts of the keypad and cell phone. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a housing with the key pad/cell phone device for the purpose of containing and protecting the parts of the keypad and cell phone since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007); Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273,282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson's-BlackRock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673,675 (1969); Great Atlantic & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303,306 (1950).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Tamai to include the teachings of Marttila so that the transparent plate device may be used as part of a mobile terminal having a housing, for the purpose of providing a desired aesthetic to a known electronic device.
Regarding claim 18, Tamai in view of Marttila discloses the limitations of claim 17, and wherein the micro-texture layer comprises a plurality of micro-texture units (see at least element 50 of Tamai), each of the micro-texture units comprises a plurality of subunits, wherein the plurality of subunits comprises at least a first subunit (see at least figure 23 of Tamai, at least a plurality of the star’s 50 inner line segments 65 which are a part of portions 60a, 60b and 60c), a second subunit (see at least figure 23 of Tamai, at least a plurality of the star’s 50 middle line segments 65 which are a part of portions 60a, 60b and 60c), and a third subunit nested in sequence (see at least figure 23 of Tamai, at least a plurality of the star’s 50 outer line segments 65 which are a part of portions 60a, 60b and 60c), and the first subunit, the second subunit, and the third subunit comprise the micro-texture stripes (see at least element 65 of Tamai), and micro-texture stripes of at least two of the plurality of subunits have different patterns (see at least figure 23 of Tamai, at least a plurality of the star’s 50 inner, middle and outer line segments 65, wherein at least inner line segments which are part of portion 60a have a different pattern from at least middle line segments which are a part of portion 60b, and at least middle line segments which are part of portion 60b have a different pattern from at least outer line segments which are a part of portion 60c, etc.).
Regarding claim 19, Tamai in view of Marttila discloses the limitations of claim 18, and wherein the micro-texture layer further comprises a fourth subunit, and the third subunit is disposed within the edges of the fourth subunit (see at least figure 23 of Tamai, at least a plurality of the star’s 50 outer line segments 65 which are a part of portions 60a, 60b and 60c and which may be outside the line segments of the third subunit).
Other Related Art
This prior art, made of record, but not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure since the following references have similar structure and/or use similar optical elements to what is claimed and/or disclosed in the instant application:
Li, US 2022/0248552 A1, discloses a similar transparent plate having a moire affect for a mobile device (see at least the abstract, figures 1-8, [0005]);
Schaur et al., US 2013/0342910 A1, discloses a similar transparent plate having moire stripes (see at least the title, abstract, figures 1a-8b);
Chang, US 2012/0314293 A1, discloses a similar transparent plate having moire stripes (see at least the abstract, figures 2-11); and
Parrat et al., US 2024/0371066 A1, discloses a similar transparent plate having moire stripes (see at least para. [0058], figures 15A-15C).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEREK S. CHAPEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8042. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6pm.
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.
/Derek S. Chapel/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 12/12/2025
Derek S. CHAPEL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872