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 .
Response to Amendment / Notice of Non-compliant Amendment
The amendment to the claims filed on 02 February 2026 does not comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.121(c) for the following reasons:
Several of the claim amendments utilize strike-through instead of double brackets for showing deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. For example, line 3 of Claim 1 recites “providing a sheet Claim 5 recites “the bottom flap Claim 8 recites “The method of claim
Claim 4 is presented with an incorrect status indicator, for this claim is not amended in the Claims filed 02 February 2026 despite the “Currently Amended” status denoting otherwise.
Claim 7 is listed as cancelled despite the claim text being presented with this status.
Claim 22 has no status indicator listed despite the status of every claim being required after its claim number.
On page 7 of the Claims filed 02 February 2026, there is a “Remarks” section following Withdrawn Claim 24 when the claim sheet(s) containing the text of the claims are not allowed to contain any other part of the amendment.
This is not an exhaustive list. Amendments to the claims filed on or after July 30, 2003 must comply with 37 CFR 1.121(c) which states:
(c) Claims. Amendments to a claim must be made by rewriting the entire claim with all changes (e.g., additions and deletions) as indicated in this subsection, except when the claim is being canceled... In the claim listing, the status of every claim must be indicated after its claim number by using one of the following identifiers in a parenthetical expression: (Original), (Currently amended), (Canceled), (Withdrawn), (Previously presented), (New), and (Not entered).
(1) Claim listing…The claim listing shall commence on a separate sheet of the amendment document and the sheet(s) that contain the text of any part of the claims shall not contain any other part of the amendment.
(2) When claim text with markings is required… The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived…
(4) When claim text shall not be presented; canceling a claim.
(i) No claim text shall be presented for any claim in the claim listing with the status of “canceled” or “not entered.”
(ii) Cancellation of a claim shall be effected by an instruction to cancel a particular claim number. Identifying the status of a claim in the claim listing as “canceled” will constitute an instruction to cancel the claim…
Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Please see response to arguments below in the present Office action.
In response to the applicant's argument that "The Hartmann reference fails to disclose a register mark in a strip extending along the first width of the image flap. This register mark is used to align the lens with the printed image. Parts 19 and 19' merely provide guidance but do not provide registration. Hartmann thus fails to disclose claim 1 as filed," the Examiner traverses. Spiro teaches product alignment using a printed relief comprising a printing system capable of accurately positioning a lenticular array in registration (abstract & [0020]), wherein an optical sensor’s interaction with an encoder strip carrying a closely spaced pattern of lines triggers droplet ejection in an axis of travel of a moving printhead ([0046]). Spiro further teaches a set of raised registration lines being printed, wherein the registration pattern is printed on an intermediate material and a sheet of lenticular lens material is placed with the lenses facing down upon the material carrying the raised lines that have been deposited by a printhead ([0019-20], [0075]; fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the small flaps of the interlaced paper and the process of Hartmann to include the technical features of aligning a lenticular lens array with a register mark while utilizing optical sensors for position detection of lenticular lens arrays, for the purpose of determining the spatial frequency of a deposited droplet pattern of a lenticular lens array, providing relative linear motion, and the mechanical advancement of a printed image generated by progressive displacement of a material, as taught by Spiro ([0045-47]).
In response to the applicant's argument that "Moreover, Claim 1 has been amended to include the optical sensor to locate and align a lenticular lens array. The Spiro reference does not teach using an optical sensor to locate and align a lenticular lens material, but nowhere discloses use of an optical sensor to obtain the alignment," the Examiner traverses. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). See previous response to argument above in the present Office action and § 103 rejection to Claim 1 below. Furthermore, Examiner reminds the applicant that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In response to the applicant's argument that "Paragraph [020] merely discusses registering a sheet of lenticular lens material, but nowhere discloses an optical sensor to obtain alignment. Paragraph [046] discusses using an optical sensor to trigger droplet injection, but nowhere discloses use of an optical sensor to locate and align a lenticular lens array. Thus, even if Spiro were somehow combined with Hartmann, the proposed combination would not teach or render obvious the invention claimed in claim 1, as amended," the Examiner traverses. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, see previous responses to argument above in the present Office action regarding the prior art teachings of Hartmann in view of Spiro and § 103 rejection to Claim 1 below. Furthermore, In response to applicant's argument that "...discusses using an optical sensor to trigger droplet injection, but nowhere discloses use of an optical sensor to locate and align a lenticular lens array," a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because perforations/score lines are referenced in the drawings but are not mentioned in the as-filed specification.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-6, and 8-13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
With respect to Claims 1, 6, 8-9, and 11-12: Claim 1 recites the limitation “the lenticular lens” in line 16. Claims 6, 8-9, and 11-12 recite the limitation “the step of locating.” Claim 12 recites the limitation “the lens array” in line 2.
There are insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. This is not an exhaustive list.
With respect to Claim 3, the limitation recites “substantially the same width” and it is unclear how the phrase “substantially,” followed by comparative language, should be interpreted and it is unclear as to what the metes and bounds of the above claim limitations are and would be needed to meet the claim limitations. “Substantially the same width” implies a hypothetical or conditional comparison without clarifying whether the substantial and/or claimed limitation is a necessary or optional aspect of the widths comprised in the method of making a lenticular lens array image display. This creates uncertainty about whether the claimed elements and limitations are required or merely illustrative. Thus, this phrase does not establish the relationship between the substantial condition and the claimed invention.
With respect to Claim 12, the claim limitation “wherein the step of locating a lenticular lens-array moved the lens array to first, second and third positions along a linear path” recites a step of locating a lens array having already occurred (i.e., lenticular lens array moved). This recitation does not clearly define a required act to be performed, for the use of past tense (e.g., “moved”) language makes the scope of the method step ambiguous. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. See MPEP § 2111.04 (II).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6, and 8-13 are 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.
With respect to Claims 1 and 2, the limitations recite “a sheet having a first width” and “an inner top flap having a second width” in Claim 1, but also recite “the second width of the image flap” and “the first width of the inner top flap” in Claim 2. This seems to be ambiguous in definition. It is unclear how these limitations should be interpreted and it is unclear as to what the metes and bounds of the above claim limitations are and would be needed to meet the above claim limitations.
In other words, Claim 1 defines “a sheet having a first width” and “an inner top flap having a second width.” However, Claim 2 then recites “the second width of the image flap” and “the first width of the inner top flap,” which reassigns Claim 1’s defined width relationships. Thus, it is unclear which structural element corresponds to the “first” and “second” widths, and whether the widths are the same or different across the as-filed claims of the present application. This inconsistency fails to provide antecedent clarity and renders the scope of the claims unclear, such that a person having ordinary skill in the art would not be able to reasonably ascertain the claim boundaries or scope. Thus, Claims 1-6, and 8-13 are indefinite pursuant § 112(b).
With respect to Claim 13, a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
In the instant case, Claim 13 recites “A lenticular lens array image display made according to the method of claim 1” while Claim 1 recites e.g. “folding the image flap onto the inner top flap; folding the outer top flap onto the inner top flap and image flap; folding the bottom flap onto the outer top flap so that the image flap overlays the bottom flap; and locating a lenticular lens array onto the bottom flap, and aligning it with the register mark on the image flap.”
Thus, it is unclear whether infringement occurs when one creates a system that allows a lenticular lens array image display to be folded, or whether infringement occurs when the lenticular lens array image display is actually folded. See Ex parte Lyell, 17 USPQ2d 1548 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990) & MPEP § 2173(p).
For the prosecution on merits, examiner assumes the above limitations as the claimed subject matter introducing optional elements, optional structural limitations, optional conditional expressions, and optional functionality of an optical system.
Applicant should clarify the claim limitations as appropriate. Care should be taken during revision of the description and of any statements of problem or advantage, not to add subject-matter which extends beyond the content of the application (specification) as originally filed.
If the language of a claim, considered as a whole in light of the specification and given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, is appropriate. See MPEP 2173.05(a), MPEP 2143.03(I), and MPEP 2173.06.
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 and 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartmann DE 202016004223 U1 (see machine translation) in view of Spiro et al. US 20190210359 A1 (herein after "Spiro").
With respect to Claim 1, Hartmann discloses the method of making a lenticular lens array (lenticular lens arrangement 5; [0033]) image display (moving image is produced by combining a lens arrangement with a substrate printed by an interlace process; [0004]), comprising:
providing a sheet (material strip of card module 1; [0025] & [0029]) having a first width (bottom of layer 2; as seen in fig. 1) and length (bottom of layer 2 to top of layer 18 lengthwise; fig. 1), with pre-cut flap sections (foldable parts of layers 2, 3, 6, 8; [0025]) along its length (fig. 1) including an image flap (layer 3 as carrier for interlaced image; [0026]), an inner top flap (layer 8; [0030]; s1 of fig. 2.1) having a second width (third perforation width, bottom of fold line 12”; fig. 1; [0029]) and hinged (as seen in s2 & s3 of fig. 2.1) to the image flap (layer 3 as carrier for interlaced image; [0026]), an outer top flap (layer 2; [0029]) hinged to the inner top flap (layer 8; [0030]; s1 of fig. 2.1) and a bottom flap (layer 6; [0027]) hinged to the outer top flap (layer 2; [0029]; s1 of fig. 2.1);
wherein the image flap (layer 3 as carrier for interlaced image; [0026]) contains an image area (interlaced image 4; [0026]) and a register mark (small flaps 19, 19’ & black or white frame being obtained for printing alignment; [0037-38]) in a strip extending along the first width (bottom of layer 2; fig. 1) of the image flap (layer 3 as carrier for interlaced image; [0026]);
wherein the bottom flap (layer 6; [0027]) contains a lenticular lens array (lenticular lens arrangement 5; [0033]; fig. 2.1-2.2) having a third width (width of lenticular lens arrangement 5; as seen in s4 of fig. 2.2) and peripheral edges (upper lateral edges; [0037]; s1 of fig. 2.1), and having adhesive strip areas (all layers are adhesively bonded to one another, e.g., with adhesive tape; [0013]) at the peripheral edges (upper lateral edges; [0037]; s1 of fig. 2.1);
folding the image flap (layer 3 as carrier for interlaced image; [0026]) onto the inner top flap (layer 8; [0030]; s1 of fig. 2.1);
folding the outer top flap (layer 2; [0029]) onto the inner top flap (layer 8; [0030]; s1 of fig. 2.1) and image flap (layer 3 as carrier for interlaced image; [0026]; layers 2, 8, and 3 folded on one another; folding as seen in s1-s6);
folding the bottom flap (layer 6; [0027]) onto the outer top flap (layer 2; [0029]) so that the image flap (layer 3 as carrier for interlaced image; [0026]) overlays the bottom flap (layer 6; [0027]); and
locating a lenticular lens array (lenticular lens arrangement 5; [0033]) onto the bottom flap (layer 6; [0027]), and aligning it with the register mark (small flaps 19, 19’ & black or white frame being obtained for printing alignment; [0037-38]) on the image flap (layer 3 as carrier for interlaced image; [0026]),
adhering (all layers are adhesively bonded to one another, e.g., with adhesive tape; [0013]) the lenticular lens array (lenticular lens arrangement 5; [0033]; as seen in s4 of fig. 2.2) along edges corresponding to the adhesive strip areas (upper lateral edges; [0037]; s1 of fig. 2.1)
whereby the lenticular lens array (lenticular lens arrangement 5; [0033]) covers the image area (interlaced image 4; [0026]; as seen in s4-s6 of fig. 2.2), and wherein the image flap (layer 3 as carrier for interlaced image; [0026]) slides under (grip tab 10 of layer 3 sliding as seen in s6 of fig. 2.2) the lenticular lens array (lenticular lens arrangement 5; [0033]) when the inner and outer top flaps (layer 8 & layer 2; s1-s6 of fig. 2.1-2.2) hinges on the bottom flap (layer 6; [0027]) to effect relative motion (second layer with interlaced image 4 is held slidably between the first layer and the lenticular lens arrangement 5; [0006]) of the image area (interlaced image 4; [0026]) and lenticular lens array (lenticular lens arrangement 5; [0033]).
Hartmann does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation: using optical sensors which detect the position of the lenticular lens (lenticular lens arrangement 5; [0033]).
However, in another field of endeavor, Spiro teaches product alignment using a printed relief comprising a printing system capable of accurately positioning a lenticular array in registration (abstract & [0020]), wherein an optical sensor’s interaction with an encoder strip carrying a closely spaced pattern of lines triggers droplet ejection in an axis of travel of a moving printhead ([0046]). Spiro further teaches a set of raised registration lines being printed, wherein the registration pattern is printed on an intermediate material and a sheet of lenticular lens material is placed with the lenses facing down upon the material carrying the raised lines that have been deposited by a printhead ([0019-20], [0075]; fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the small flaps of the interlaced paper and the process of Hartmann to include the technical features of aligning a lenticular lens array with a register mark while utilizing optical sensors for position detection of lenticular lens arrays, for the purpose of determining the spatial frequency of a deposited droplet pattern of a lenticular lens array, providing relative linear motion, and the mechanical advancement of a printed image generated by progressive displacement of a material, as taught by Spiro ([0045-47]).
Examiner notes that when the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). See also MPEP § 2112.02. Regarding the method of making a lenticular lens array image display, the applicant is advised that, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP § 2113.
With respect to Claim 2, Hartmann in view of Spiro teaches the method of claim 1 ([0004]), wherein the second width (third perforation width, bottom of fold line 12”; fig. 1; [0029]) of the image flap (layer 3 as carrier for interlaced image; [0026]) is less than the first width (bottom of layer 2/top of layer 8; as seen in s1 of fig. 2.1) of the inner top flap (layer 8; [0030], width of layer 3 less than width of layer 8 as seen in fig. 1-2.2).
With respect to Claim 3, Hartmann in view of Spiro teaches the method of claim 1 ([0004]), wherein the third width (width of lenticular lens arrangement 5; as seen in s4 of fig. 2.2) of the lenticular lens array (lenticular lens arrangement 5; [0033]) being substantially the same width as the second width (third perforation width, bottom of fold line 12”; fig. 1; [0029]) of the image flap (layer 3 as carrier for interlaced image; [0026], width of lenticular lens arrangement 5 being similar width as layer 3 as seen in s4 of fig. 2.2).
With respect to Claim 4, Hartmann in view of Spiro teaches the method of claim 1 ([0004]), further including providing punch out flaps (punching lines 20, 20’; [0037]) at edges (formed at lower end of layer 6; [0037]) of the bottom flap (layer 6; [0027]) for overlaying and aligning (prevent interlaced image 4 from slipping sideways; [0037]) the image flap (layer 3 as carrier for interlaced image; [0026]) when the image flap (layer 3 as carrier for interlaced image; [0026]) slides under (grip tab 10 of layer 3 sliding as seen in s6 of fig. 2.2) the lenticular lens array (lenticular lens arrangement 5; [0033]).
With respect to Claim 5, Hartmann in view of Spiro teaches the method of claim 1 ([0004]), further including a wrap-around flap (layer 18; [0032]) hinged (fig. 1) to the bottom flap (layer 6; [0027]) which covers the bottom flap (layer 6; [0027]; as seen in s1 of fig. 2.1) and which defines a central opening (fig. 1-2.2) enabling viewing (high-quality motion picture or film-like animation can be seen; [0032] & [0043]) of the image area (interlaced image 4; [0026]) through the lenticular lens array (lenticular lens arrangement 5; [0033]).
With respect to Claim 13, Hartmann in view of Spiro teaches a lenticular lens array (lenticular lens arrangement 5; [0033]) image display (moving image is produced by combining a lens arrangement with a substrate printed by an interlace process; [0004]) made according to the method of claim 1 ([0004]).
Claims 6, and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartmann DE 202016004223 U1 (see machine translation) in view of Spiro et al. US 20190210359 A1 (herein after "Spiro") and Diao et al. US 20230019555 A1 (herein after "Diao").
With respect to Claim 6, Hartmann in view of Spiro teaches the method of claim 1 ([0004]), wherein the step of locating (s4-s6 of fig. 2.2) a lenticular lens array (lenticular lens arrangement 5; [0033]) onto the bottom flap (layer 6; [0027]) comprises:
applying adhesive (all layers are adhesively bonded to one another, e.g., with adhesive tape; [0013]) to the edges (s4 of fig. 2.2) of the lenticular lens array (lenticular lens arrangement 5; [0033]);
aligning ([0037-38]) the lenticular lens array (lenticular lens arrangement 5; [0033]) onto the bottom flap (layer 6; [0027]) using the register mark (small flaps 19, 19’ & black or white frame being obtained for printing alignment; [0037-38]) and mounting the lenticular lens array (lenticular lens arrangement 5; [0033]) onto the bottom flap (layer 6; [0027]).
Hartmann in view of Spiro does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitations: lifting a lenticular lens array from a supply stack of lenticular lens arrays; and curing the adhesive (material used to manufacture the movement map module is essentially not subject to any restrictions; [0011]; all layers are adhesively bonded to one another; [0013]; “inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935)).
However, in another field of endeavor, Diao teaches a lenticular optical composite film, preparation method therefore, and 3d display ([0006]), wherein a lenticular grating is delivered to a winding roller (74; [0206]) through a clasping roller (77; [0206]) after being prepared from utilizing a plano-convex lenticular array bonded together with a plano-concave lenticular array ([0205]). Diao further teaches a process for preparing the lenticular grating ([0197]), comprising a step wherein a first liner (111; [0200]) carries a squeezed first liquid lenticular forming material (41; [0200]), that is coated by a first adhesive outlet (51; [0198]), to reach a first curing device (61; [0200]) so that the first liquid lenticular forming material (41; [0200]) is cured into the plano-convex lenticular array ([0200]; fig. 32).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the process of Hartmann in view of Spiro to include the technical feature of delivering a lenticular grating from a plurality of lenticular arrays and curing a lenticular forming material comprising an adhesive layer, for the purpose of producing a lenticular array with a smaller reflection ratio for the advantage of an observed image having less interference ([0065]) and producing a lenticular optical composite film that is easy to clean, laminate, and has good optical effect (abstract), as taught by Diao ([0065] & abstract).
With respect to Claim 8, Hartmann in view of Spiro teaches the method of claim 1 ([0004]), wherein the step of locating (s4-s6 of fig. 2.2) the lenticular lens array (lenticular lens arrangement 5; [0033]) onto the bottom flap (layer 6; [0027]) comprises lifting a lenticular lens array (lenticular lens arrangement 5; [0033]).
Hartmann in view of Spiro does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation of using a suction cup (motion card is understood to mean any card or carrier that is printed with an interlaced or interlaced image or is provided with it in any other way; [0002]).
However, in another field of endeavor, Diao teaches a lenticular optical composite film, preparation method therefore, and 3d display ([0006]), wherein outward surfaces of two lenticular arrays in a lenticular grating are planes and are easy to mount by means of an auxiliary mounting tool such as a sucker i.e., a suction cup ([0008]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the process of Hartmann in view of Spiro to include the technical feature of a lenticular lens arrays in a lenticular grating being lifted by a sucker i.e., a suction cup, for the purpose of easily cleaning, mounting, and bonding lenticular arrays by means of an auxiliary mounting tool, as taught by Diao ([0009]).
With respect to Claim 9, Hartmann in view of Spiro teaches the method of claim 1 ([0004]; Hartmann), wherein the step of locating (s4-s6 of fig. 2.2; Hartmann) a lenticular lens array (lenticular lens arrangement 5; [0033]; Hartmann) onto the bottom flap (layer 6; [0027]; Hartmann), a second position wherein the lenticular lens array (lenticular lens arrangement 5; [0033]; Hartmann) receives adhesive (s4 of fig. 2.2; Hartmann), and to a third position wherein the lenticular lens array (lenticular lens arrangement 5; [0033]; Hartmann) is aligned with the bottom flap (layer 6; [0027]; position as seen in s4 & s5 of fig. 2.2; Hartmann).
Hartmann in view of Spiro does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitations: lifting a lenticular lens array; using an arm movable from a first rotational position where it lifts a lenticular lens array.
However, in another field of endeavor, Diao teaches lifting a lenticular lens array (lenticular lens arrangement 5; [0033]) from a supply stack (lenticular lens 5 is placed on the interlaced or interlace image 4 applied; [0038]; Hartmann; lenticular grating is delivered; [0197-206]; in combination with Diao); a material roller (70; [0198]) that rotates along an arrow direction to release the first liner (111; [0198]) and the first adhesive outlet (51; [0198]) at a position c coats the first liquid lenticular forming material (41; [0198]) to the surface of the first liner (111; [0198]), wherein the first liner (111; [0198]) carries the first liquid lenticular forming material (41; [0198]) to reach the clasping roller (71; [0198]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the process of Hartmann in view of Spiro to further include the technical feature of utilizing a rotational material roller, for the purpose of delivering a lenticular grating ([0206]), producing a lenticular array with a smaller reflection ratio for the advantage of an observed image having less interference ([0065]) and producing a lenticular optical composite film that is easy to clean, laminate, and has good optical effect (abstract), as taught by Diao ([0065], [0206] & abstract).
With respect to Claim 10, Hartmann in view of Spiro and Diao teaches the method of claim 9 ([0004]; Hartmann), wherein the arm rotates (material roller 70 that rotates; [0198]; in combination with Diao) around a central axis (along an arrow direction; [0198]; fig. 32; in combination with Diao).
Hartmann in view of Spiro does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitations of the first, second, and third rotational positions (lenticular lens 5 is placed on the interlaced or interlace image 4 applied; [0038]).
However, Diao further teaches the material roller (70; [0198]) that rotates along an arrow direction to release the first liner (111; [0198]), wherein there is a first position (position c; fig. 32), second position (position d; fig. 32) and a third position (located where the first liner 111 carries the first liquid lenticular forming material 41 to reach the clasping roller 71 as a final position; [0198]; as seen in fig. 32).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the process of Hartmann in view of Spiro and Diao to further include the technical feature of a material roller rotating along an arrow direction to release, carry, and deliver at three different positions, for the purpose of delivering a lenticular grating ([0206]), producing a lenticular array with a smaller reflection ratio for the advantage of an observed image having less interference ([0065]) and producing a lenticular optical composite film that is easy to clean, laminate, and has good optical effect (abstract), as taught by Diao ([0065], [0206] & abstract).
With respect to Claim 11, Hartmann in view of Spiro and Diao teaches the method of claim 6 ([0004]; Hartmann), comprising a step of curing (first adhesive outlet 51 to reach a first curing device 61; [0198-200]; in combination with Diao).
Hartmann in view of Spiro does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation: includes curing with an ultraviolet (UV) curing flash lamp (material used to manufacture the movement map module is essentially not subject to any restrictions; [0011]; determination of patentability is based on the product itself; See MPEP § 2113; “inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935)).
However, Diao further teaches the process for preparing the lenticular grating ([0197]), comprising a step wherein a first liner (111; [0200]) carries a squeezed first liquid lenticular forming material (41; [0200]), that is coated by a first adhesive outlet (51; [0198]), to reach a first curing device (61; [0200]) so that the first liquid lenticular forming material (41; [0200]) is cured into the plano-convex lenticular array ([0200]; fig. 32), wherein the curing treatment for the squeezed first liquid lenticular forming material (41; [0200]) can be ultraviolet curing treatment ([0096]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the process of Hartmann in view of Spiro and Diao to further include the technical feature of utilizing ultraviolet curing treatment, for the purpose of producing a lenticular array with a smaller reflection ratio for the advantage of an observed image having less interference ([0065]) and producing a lenticular optical composite film that is easy to clean, laminate, and has good optical effect (abstract), as taught by Diao ([0065] & abstract).
With respect to Claim 12, Hartmann in view of Spiro and Diao teaches the method of claim 9 ([0004]; Hartmann) and the step of locating a lenticular lens-array (s4-s6 of fig. 2.2; Hartmann) moved the lens array (printing system accurately positioning a lenticular array in registration; abstract & [0020]; Spiro) to the first, second, and third positions (position c, position d, and a third position located where the first liner 111 carries the first liquid lenticular forming material 41 to reach the clasping roller 71 as a final position; [0198]; as seen in fig. 32; in combination with Diao).
Hartmann in view of Spiro does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation wherein the first, second and third positions are along a linear path (lenticular lens 5 is placed on the interlaced or interlace image 4 applied; [0038]).
However, Diao further teaches the material roller (70; [0198]) that rotates along an arrow direction ([0198]) comprising first, second, and third positions (position c, position d, and a third position located where the first liner 111 carries the first liquid lenticular forming material 41 to reach the clasping roller 71 as a final position; [0198]; as seen in fig. 32), wherein the positions themselves are along a relative linear path (as seen in fig. 32).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the process of Hartmann in view of Spiro and Diao to further include the technical feature of a material roller rotating along an arrow direction to release, carry, and deliver at three different positions, wherein the positions are along a relative linear path with respective to each other, for the purpose of delivering a lenticular grating ([0206]), producing a lenticular array with a smaller reflection ratio for the advantage of an observed image having less interference ([0065]) and producing a lenticular optical composite film that is easy to clean, laminate, and has good optical effect (abstract), as taught by Diao ([0065], [0206] & abstract).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to K MUHAMMAD whose telephone number is (571)272-4210. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 1:00pm - 9:30pm EDT.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. 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.
/K MUHAMMAD/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 20 February 2026
/SHARRIEF I BROOME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872