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. 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. Status of Claims Claims 1-12 are pending. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b) The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.— The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 2 recites an acronym “PMMA” without setting forth what the acronym stands for. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. Claim(s) 1, 5, 7, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated b y U.S. Pre-grant Publication 2018/0074234 to Chen et al. cited in the Information Disclosure Statement filed 7 April 2025 (herein Chen) . Regarding claim 1 , Chen teaches an optical assembly comprising a first optical film, an adhesive layer, and a second optical film comprising a plurality of microstructures (abstract) wherein the adhesive layer and the second optical film correspond to the adhesive layer and the first optical sheet recited in the instant claims, respectively. Figure 2 of Chen shows the second optical film 102 has microstructures 104 wherein each microstructure 104 has a top planar surface 106 that is bonded to the bottom surface of the adhesive layer 103 (paragraph 0025) such that the top planar surfaces and the grooves therebetween correspond to the flat portions and the plurality of dents recited in the instant claims, respectively. Chen teaches that the adhesive layer 103 and the microstructures 104 comprise first and second acrylate functional groups such that the adhesive layer 103 and the microstructures 104 form a chemical bond (paragraph 0031). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that such a chemical bond would preclude the presence of air voids between the adhesive layer 103 and the microstructures 104 thereby meeting the claimed limitation. Chen also teaches that prior to being applied to the second optical film, the adhesive layer is cured to a sufficient degree that the microstructures 104 of the second optical film cannot be inserted into the adhesive layer (paragraph 0031). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this very strongly implies that the adhesive layer sits atop the microstructures and does not extend down past the top planar surfaces 106 thereby meeting the claimed limitation. Regarding claim s 5 and 7 , Chen teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Figure 2 of Chen shows the groove between the microstructures 104 has a triangular cross section wherein the facets 104P and 104Q correspond to the first slope and second slope recited in the instant claims (paragraph 0026). Regarding claim 9 , Chen teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. As discussed above, Chen teaches that the adhesive layer and second optical film are part of a larger optical assembly (abstract) wherein the optical assembly corresponds to the optical device recited in the instant claims. 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. 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(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen as applied above . Regarding claim 2 , Chen teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Chen teaches that the adhesive strength between the adhesive layer and the second optical film is more than 80 g/25 mm (paragraph 0025). As discussed above, Chen also teaches that prior to being applied to the second optical film, the adhesive layer is cured to a sufficient degree that the microstructures 104 of the second optical film cannot be inserted into the adhesive layer (paragraph 0031). Page 27 of the instant specification discloses that an adhesive layer A having the claimed creep deformation rate does not penetrate into the dents. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the adhesive layer of Chen which does not allow the microstructures to penetrate and therefore does not penetrate into the groove between microstructures would have a creep deformation rate that, at a minimum, overlaps the claimed range. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. MPEP 2144.05 (I) . Regarding claim 3 , Chen teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Chen teaches that the adhesive layer has a thickness of 1 to 10 µm (paragraph 0029). It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. MPEP 2144.05 (I) . Regarding claim 4 , Chen teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Chen does not teach a ratio of space between the microstructures to total area of the sheet. However, Chen teaches that the adhesive force between the adhesive layer and the second optical film is affected by the width of the top planar surface of the microstructure (paragraph 0033). Chen also teaches that the size of the top planar surface can reduce the brightness (paragraph 0033). Therefore, the width of the top planar surface of the microstructures and therefore the corresponding non-contact area therebetween can be optimized to balance adhesive force and brightness thereby rendering the claimed range obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(II). Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen as applied above and in view of U.S. Pre-grant Publication 2013/0078407 to Shimokuri et al. (herein Shimokuri ). Regarding claim 6 , Chen teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Chen is silent as to the haze value of the adhesive film and the second optical film. Shimokuri teaches an optical film-forming pressure sensitive adhesive layer (abstract). Shimokuri teaches that the adhesive layer has a haze of less than 1% (paragraph 0085). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the adhesive layer and the second optical film of Chen to have the haze taught by Shimokuri because it is satisfactory for optical applications and prevents white turbidity (paragraph 0085). Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen as applied above and in view of U.S. Pre-grant Publication 2011/0244187 to Rinko (herein Rinko ). Regarding claim 8 , Chen teaches all the limitations of claim 7 as discussed above. Chen is silent as to the opposing facets of the microstructures having differing slopes. Rinko teaches internal cavity optical patterns wherein a film having cavities is laminated to a second material to enclose the cavities (abstract) . Figures 11a-11d of Rinko show various cross sections of the cavities wherein the opposing facets can have differing inclination angles (paragraphs 0079-0083). Rink teaches that the differing cross sections are used depending on where the light source is situated relative to the film (paragraphs 0079-0083). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the opposing facets of Chen to have differing slopes wherein a first inclination angle is smaller inclination angle in order to best redirect the incoming light from a light source. Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen as applied above and in view of U.S. Pre-grant Publication 2017/0152412 to Suzuki et al. (herein Suzuki). Regarding claim s 10 and 11 , Chen teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Chen teaches that the optical assembly is produced by coating the adhesive layer onto the first optical film, drying the solvent of the adhesive layer, thermally crosslinking the adhesive layer, adhering the adhesive layer to the second optical film via the top planar surfaces of the microstructures, and further crosslinking the adhesive layer via ultraviolet light (paragraph 0043). Chen teaches that the adhesive layer is formed from a composition comprising a methacrylate, a diisocyanate trimer, an acrylate oligomer (paragraph 0042) and a solvent (paragraph 0043) wherein the acrylate oligomer, diisocyanate trimer, and the solvent correspond to the (meth)acrylate, the cross-linking agent, and the solvent recited in the instant claims. Chen is silent as to release films being used to form the adhesive layer. Suzuki teaches a pressure sensitive adhesive (herein PSA) sheet (abstract) and the method of its manufacture (paragraph 0118) wherein the PSA is an acrylate PSA (paragraph 0049). Suzuki teaches that the PSA sheet comprises an adhesive layer disposed between two release films having release faces (paragraph 0029) . Suzuki teaches that the faces of the adhesive layer have a 10-point mean roughness Rz of 30 to 1000 nm (paragraph 0037) which is a ten point average of the maximum peak height (paragraph 0038). Suzuki teaches that the adhesive layer achieves this roughness by being applied to the release film (paragraph 0121). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the release film would necessarily have a corresponding surface roughness that would be transferred to the adhesive layer. Therefore, the release film of Suzuki would have a 10-point mean roughness Rz of 30 to 1000 nm. Furthermore, a release film having an Rz value of 30 to 1000 nm would also have an Ra that would be less than the correspond Rx , i.e. the Ra value would be less than the Rz which is a maximum height, resulting in a release film having an Ra of less than 1000 nm. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. MPEP 2144.05 (I) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the manufacturing method of Chen to use the two release films as taught by Suzuki because it eliminate any roughening of the adhesive surface due to handling (paragraphs 0008-0009). Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen and Suzuki as applied above and in further view of Rinko . Regarding claim 12 , Chen and Suzuki teach all the limitations of claim 10 as discussed above. Chen is silent as to the adhesive layer being joined to the second optical film by a roll-to-roll method. Rinko teaches techniques to manufacture internal cavity optical patterns wherein a film having cavities is laminated to a second material to enclose the cavities (abstract). Rinko teaches that carrier medium having the cavities is joined to a joiner medium via a roll-to-roll apparatus (paragraph 0023). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the manufacturing method of Chen to use the roll-to-roll attaching method taught by Rinko because it is known in the art as being suitable for the intended function. See MPEP 2144.07. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ZACHARY M DAVIS whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-6957 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 7-4:30, off 2nd Friday . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Maria V Ewald can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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. /ZACHARY M DAVIS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783