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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 July 9, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 24, 28-30, 46, 48-49, 59, 60, 70-72 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnston et al. (US 9134471 B2) (Johnston 2”).
With respect to claim 24, Johnston 2 discloses an article comprising a planar base member (col. 21, lines 47-62) and a microstructured surface disposed on the planar base member (col. 5, lines 6-25, col. 11, lines 52-67, Figs. 3B and 3C), wherein the microstructured surface comprises a plurality of peak structures and adjacent valleys (Figs. 3B and 3C), wherein the valleys have a width of 44 µm, 49.9 µm (col. 28, lines 42-46, col. 35, lines 4-8), which is within the recited range, and the peak structures have a side wall angle of from 70˚ to 120˚ (col. 12, lines 27-31), which overlaps the recited range; overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05). Johnston 2 discloses the plurality of peak structures and the valleys includes a first peak structure extending from a first vertex of a first non-planar valley to a second, common vertex of a second non-planar valley, exhibiting a height and having a rounded apex (Fig. 3B), and a second peak structure extending from the second, common vertex of the second non-planar valley to a third vertex of a third non-planar valley, exhibiting the height and having a rounded apex (Fig. 3B), wherein a root angle is defined between the first peak structure and the second peak structure at the second, common vertex, and wherein the root angle is more than 50˚ (col. 12, lines 27-31, Fig. 3B). The range of the angle overlaps the range recited in claim 24, overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
As to claim 28, Johnston 2 teaches the article of claim 24. Johnston 2 discloses a pressure sensitive adhesive layer disposed between the planar base member and microstructured surface (col. 24, lines 36-44).
Regarding claim 29, Johnston 2 teaches the article of claim 24. Johnston 2 discloses the planar base members in col. 21, lines 47-60, the base members implying comprising a thermoplastic or thermosetting material.
As to claim 30, Johnston 2 teaches the article of claim 29. Johnston 2 discloses the peak structures comprise a copolymer (col. 34, lines 7-11), thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that Johnston suggests crosslinked material.
Regarding claim 46, Johnston 2 teaches the article of claim 24. Since Johnston 2 teaches an article comprising all the elements as disclosed in the instant specification, as discussed above, it would be expected that the microstructured surface of Johnston is capable to perform as intended, that is the ratio Sbi/Svi is satisfied.
With respect to claim 48, Johnston 2 teaches the article of claim 24. Johnston 2 discloses the microstructured surface includes other materials than a fluorinated material or polydimethylsiloxane material (e.g. col. 34, lines 7-11), thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the microstructured surface lacks a fluorinated material or polydimethylsiloxane material.
Regarding claim 49, Johnston 2 teaches the article of claim 24. Johnston 2 discloses use of release coatings (col. 14, lines 29-42), however, they are not an element of the microstructured surface.
As to claim 59, Johnston 2 discloses that the article can be an industrial belting (col. 21, lines 55-58), which the Examiner interprets as satisfying “manufacturing equipment” limitation of the claim.
With respect to claim 60, Johnston 2 teaches the article of claim 24, wherein the root angle overlaps the range recited in the claim (col. 12, lines 28-31, Fig. 3B). Overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 70, Johnston 2 teaches the article of claim 24, wherein the root angle is from 70˚ to 120˚ (col. 12, lines 27-31). The range of root angle overlaps the range recited in claim 70; overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
As to claim 71, Johnston 2 teaches the article of claim 24. Johnston discloses the first peak structure includes a first linear surface that extends from the first vertex to the first rounded apex, and a second linear surface that extends from the first rounded apex to the second common vertex (Fig. 3B).
With respect to claim 72, Johnston 2 teaches the article of claim 24. Johnston 2 discloses the first rounded apex exhibits a chord width, the first peak structure exhibits a base peak width defined between the first vertex and the second common vertex (col. 35, lines 4-6, Fig. 3B), and the chord width is within the recited range (Fig. 3B).
Claim(s) 61, 63, 64, 67, 68, 73 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnston et al. (US 9134471 B2) (Johnston 2”).
With respect to claim 61, Johnston 2 discloses an article comprising a planar base member (col. 21, lines 47-62), and a microstructured surface disposed on the planar base member (col. 5, lines 6-25, col. 11, lines 52-67, Figs. 3B and 3C), wherein the microstructured surface comprises a plurality of peak structures and adjacent valleys (Figs. 3B and 3C), wherein the valleys have a width of 44 µm, 49.9 µm (col. 28, lines 42-46, col. 35, lines 4-8), which is within the recited range, and the peak structures have a side wall angle of from 70˚ to 120˚ (col. 12, lines 27-31), which overlaps the recited range; overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05). Johnston 2 discloses the plurality of peak structures and the valleys includes a first peak structure extending from a first vertex of a first non-planar valley to a second, common vertex of a second non-planar valley, exhibiting a height and having a first truncated apex (Fig. 3C), and a second peak structure extending from the second, common vertex of the second non-planar valley to a third vertex of a third non-planar valley, exhibiting the height and having a second truncated apex (Fig. 3C, 11).
As to claim 62, Johnston 2 teaches the article of claim 61. Johnston 2 discloses a pressure sensitive adhesive layer disposed between the planar base member and microstructured surface (col. 24, lines 36-44).
Regarding claim 63, Johnston 2 teaches the article of claim 61. Johnston 2 discloses the planar base members in col. 21, lines 47-60, the base members implying comprising a thermoplastic or thermosetting material.
As to claim 64, Johnston 2 teaches the article of claim 61. Johnston 2 discloses the peak structures comprise a copolymer (col. 34, lines 7-11), thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that Johnston suggests crosslinked material.
Regarding claim 67, Johnston 2 teaches the article of claim 61. Since Johnston teaches an article comprising all the elements as disclosed in the instant specification, as discussed above, it would be expected that the microstructured surface of Johnston is capable to perform as intended, that is the ratio Sbi/Svi is satisfied.
With respect to claim 68, Johnston 2 teaches the article of claim 61. Johnston 2 discloses the microstructured surface includes other materials than a fluorinated material or polydimethylsiloxane material (e.g. col. 34, lines 7-11), thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the microstructured surface lacks a fluorinated material or polydimethylsiloxane material.
Regarding claim 73, Johnston 2 teaches the article of claim 61. Johnston 2 discloses a first linear surface that extends from the first vertex to the first truncated apex, a second linear surface that extends from the first truncated apex to the second, common vertex, the first truncated apex exhibits a flattened width (Figs. 3C, 11), the first peak structure exhibits a base peak width defined between the first vertex and the second common vertex (Figs. 3C, 11), and the flattened width is less than 50% of the base peak width (Fig. 11).
Claim(s) 74 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnston et al. (US 9134471 B2) (Johnston 2”).
With respect to claim 74, Johnston 2 discloses an article comprising a planar base member (col. 21, lines 47-62), and a microstructured surface disposed on the planar base member (col. 5, lines 6-25, col. 11, lines 52-67, Figs. 3B and 3C), wherein the microstructured surface comprises a first peak structure extending from a first vertex of a first non-planar valley to a second, common vertex of a second non-planar valley, the first peak structure exhibiting a height and having a rounded first apex (Fig. 3B), and a second peak structure extending from the second, common vertex of the second non-planar valley to a third vertex of a third non-planar valley, the second peak structure exhibiting the height and having a second rounded apex (Fig. 3B), wherein a root angle is defined between the first peak structure and the second peak structure at the second, common vertex, and wherein the root angle is more than 50˚ (col. 12, lines 27-31, Fig. 3B). The range of the angle overlaps the range recited in claim 74, overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on July 9, 2026 have been fully considered.
In view of the recent amendment 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claim 59 has been withdrawn.
The Applicant discussed the recent amendment as it was proposed during the interview of June 30, 2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
The information disclosure statement filed on Aug. 26, 2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. Foreign patent document at Cite. #3, EP 2563451 is not present in the application file.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOANNA PLESZCZYNSKA whose telephone number is (571)270-1617. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~ 11:30-8.
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, Maria Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/Joanna Pleszczynska/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights