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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/29/2023 and 05/21/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Objection/s to the Application
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 11/16/2015. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the JP2015-224316 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Objection/s to the Specification
The title of the invention, “OPTICAL BODY, MASTER, AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING OPTICAL BODY”, is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Objection/s to the Claim/s
Claim 39 is objected to because of the following informalities: “structure s” on line 13. It appears that “structures” is intended. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 21 and 31-42 recite the limitations “the structure” and “the structures” throughout the claims. It is unclear whether the recited “structure” or “structures” references the “concave-convex structure” or the “structures having convex shapes or concave shapes.
Claims 22 and 23 depend, directly or indirectly, on claim 21; hence they are also rejected.
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 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.
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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 19, 20, 24, and 27-38 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Endoh (US 20080180824 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Endoh teaches optical body (1) having a concave-convex structure (along T1, T2, T3...) in which structures (3) having convex shapes or concave shapes are arrayed on an average cycle less than or equal to visible light wavelengths ([0068]), wherein the structures (3) have an asymmetric shape (Fig. 9-11) with respect to a track length direction (T1, T2, T3...) which is any one plane direction perpendicular to a thickness direction of the optical body (1), an array pitch (P1) of the structures (3) in the track length direction (T1, T2, T3...) is different from an array pitch (
P
2
2
-
P
1
2
2
; between T1, T2, T3...) of the concave-convex structure (along T1, T2, T3...) in a track array direction which is another plane direction perpendicular to the track length direction (T1, T2, T3...), the optical body (1) is elongate (Fig. 1A; [0063]), the concave-convex structure (along T1, T2, T3...) is a parallel array of tracks (T1, T2, T3…) that include the structures (3) lined up in a lengthwise direction of the optical body (1) which is parallel to the track length direction (T1, T2, T3...), the structures (3) are arrayed periodically on the optical body (1), and a dot pitch which is an average cycle between the structures (3) arrayed in the track length direction (T1, T2, T3...) and a track pitch which is an average cycle between the structures (3) arrayed in the track array direction are different ([0068]).
Regarding claim 20, Endoh further teaches a plan-view shape of the structures (3) has an asymmetric shape with respect to the track length direction (T1, T2, T3...; Fig. 1B, and 9-11).
Regarding claim 24, Endoh further teaches a perpendicular cross-sectional shape of the structures (3) has an asymmetric shape with respect to the track length direction (T1, T2, T3...; Fig. 9-11).
Regarding claim 27, Endoh further teaches the structures (3) include a cured curing resin ([0098]).
Regarding claim 28, Endoh further teaches adjacent structures (3) abut each other (Fig. 1C).
Regarding claim 29, Endoh further teaches a master (15), on a surface of which is formed an inverse shape of the concave-convex structure (along T1, T2, T3...) according to claim 19.
Regarding claim 30, Endoh further teaches the master is plate-like, hollow round cylindrical, or round columnar ([0076]).
Regarding claim 31, Endoh further teaches a method for manufacturing an optical body (1), comprising: forming a concave-convex structure (along T1, T2, T3...) on a base material (17) by using the master (15) according to claim 29 as a transfer mold ([0096]-[0098]).
Regarding claim 32, Endoh further teaches the structures (3) are arranged at positions that are slightly shifted from the track length direction (T1, T2, T3...) in the track array direction (Fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 33, Endoh further teaches a floor ratio of the structures (3) is less than 10%, wherein the floor ratio is a ratio of a floor area of all concavities with respect to a total area of a surface on which the concave-convex structure (along T1, T2, T3...) is formed.
Regarding claim 34, Endoh further teaches a plan-view shape of the structures (3) has a symmetric shape with respect to the track array direction (Fig. 1B, 1C, 1D).
Regarding claim 35, Endoh teaches an optical body (1) having a concave-convex structure (along T1, T2, T3...) in which structures (3) having convex shapes or concave shapes are arrayed on an average cycle less than or equal to visible light wavelengths ([0068]), wherein the structures (3) have an asymmetric shape (Fig. 9-11) with respect to a track length direction (T1, T2, T3...) which is any one plane direction perpendicular to a thickness direction of the optical body (1), an array pitch (P1) of the structures (3) in the track length direction (T1, T2, T3...) is different from an array pitch (
P
2
2
-
P
1
2
2
; between T1, T2, T3...) of the concave-convex structure (along T1, T2, T3...) in a track array direction which is another plane direction perpendicular to the track length direction (T1, T2, T3...), and a plan-view shape of the structures (3) has an asymmetric shape with respect to the track length direction (T1, T2, T3...; Fig. 9-11).
Regarding claim 36, Endoh further teaches the concave-convex structure (along T1, T2, T3...) is a parallel array of tracks that include the structures (3) lined up in a lengthwise direction of the optical body (1) which is parallel to the track length direction (T1, T2, T3...), the structures (3) are arrayed periodically on the optical body (1), and a dot pitch which is an average cycle between the structures (3) arrayed in the track length direction (T1, T2, T3...) and a track pitch which is an average cycle between the structures (3) arrayed in the track array direction are different ([0068]).
Regarding claim 37, Endoh further teaches the optical body (1) is elongate (Fig. 1A; [0063]).
Regarding claim 38, Endoh further teaches a plan-view shape of the structures (3) has a symmetric shape with respect to the track array direction (Fig. 1B, 1C, 1D).
Claim Rejections - AIA 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 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.
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.
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 of this title, 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 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endoh.
Regarding claims 21-23, Endoh does not explicitly teach in a case of dividing the plan-view shape of the structure into two regions by a line that bisects a quadrilateral circumscribing the structure along the track array direction, an area ratio obtained by dividing the area of the smaller of the two regions by the area of the larger region is 0.95 or less, and 0.33 or greater.
Having the area ratio obtained by dividing the area of the smaller of the two regions by the area of the larger region being 0.95 or less, and 0.33 or greater is a matter of design choice.
Lacking criticality to the functioning of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to have the area ratio being 0.95 or less, and 0.33 or greater. Furthermore, change in size and shape that do not affect the functionality of the device is prima facie obvious. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
Claims 25, 26, and 39-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endoh in view of Imaoku (US 20120087012 A1).
Regarding claim 25, Endoh does not explicitly teach a position of an apex of the perpendicular cross-sectional shape of the structures (3) is displaced in the track length direction (T1, T2, T3...) of the structures (3) with respect to a center point of the track length direction (T1, T2, T3...).
Imaoki teaches a position of an apex of the perpendicular cross-sectional shape of the structures (12) is displaced in the track length direction of the structures (12) with respect to a center point of the track length direction (Fig. 18; [0178]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Endoh with Imaoku; because it allows improving visibility through the film ([0178]-[0179] of Imaoku).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Endoh and Imaoku consequently results in a displacement ratio, which is obtained by dividing a displacement of the position of the apex by a dot pitch of the structures (3), is 0.03 or greater, and optionally 0.5 or less (Fig. 18 of Imaoku).
Regarding claims 39 and 40, Endoh further teaches the structures (3) have the asymmetric shape with respect to the track length direction (T1, T2, T3...; Fig. 9-11), and the structures (3) have a symmetric shape with respect to the track array direction (Fig. 1B-C) and a plan-view shape of the structures (3) has an asymmetrically distorted shape with respect to the track length direction (T1, T2, T3...; Fig. 9-11).
Endoh does not explicitly teach a vertical cross-sectional shape of the structures (3) is inclined in the track length direction (T1, T2, T3...), wherein in a case of dividing the plan-view shape of the structure into two regions by a line that bisects a quadrilateral circumscribing the structure along the track array direction, areas of the two regions are different from each other, and an area ratio obtained by dividing the area of a smaller of the two regions by the area of a larger of the two regions is 0.83 or more and 0.97 or less, and a floor ratio of the structures is 8% or more and 10% or less.
Having the area ratio being 0.83 or more and 0.97 or less, and the floor ratio of the structure is 8% or more and 10% or less being a matter of design choice.
Lacking criticality to the functioning of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to have the area ratio being 0.83 or more and 0.97 or less, and the floor ratio of the structure being 8% or more and 10% or less. Furthermore, change in size and shape that do not affect the functionality of the device is prima facie obvious. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
Imaoki teaches a vertical cross-sectional shape of the structures being inclined in the track length direction (Fig. 18; [0178]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Endoh with Imaoku; because it allows improving visibility through the film ([0178]-[0179] of Imaoku).
Regarding claim 41, Endoh teaches an optical body (1) having a concave-convex structure (along T1, T2, T3...) in which structures (3) having convex shapes or concave shapes are arrayed on an average cycle less than or equal to visible light wavelengths ([0068]), wherein the structures (3) have an asymmetric shape (Fig. 9-11) with respect to a track length direction (T1, T2, T3...) in which the structures (3) are arranged among plane directions perpendicular to a thickness direction of the optical body (1), and the structures (3) have a symmetric shape (Fig. 1B, 1C, 1D) with respect to a track array direction perpendicular to the track length direction (T1, T2, T3...), and a plan-view shape of the structures (3) has an asymmetrically distorted shape with respect to the track length direction (T1, T2, T3...; Fig. 9-11).
Endoh does not explicitly teach a vertical cross-sectional shape of the structures (3) is inclined in the track length direction (T1, T2, T3...), wherein in a case of dividing the plan-view shape of the structure into two regions by a line that bisects a quadrilateral circumscribing the structure along the track array direction, areas of the two regions are different from each other, and an area ratio obtained by dividing the area of a smaller of the two regions by the area of a larger of the two regions is 0.83 or more and 0.97 or less, and a floor ratio of the structures is 8% or more and 10% or less.
Having the area ratio being 0.83 or more and 0.97 or less, and the floor ratio of the structure is 8% or more and 10% or less being a matter of design choice.
Lacking criticality to the functioning of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to have the area ratio being 0.83 or more and 0.97 or less, and the floor ratio of the structure being 8% or more and 10% or less. Furthermore, change in size and shape that do not affect the functionality of the device is prima facie obvious. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
Imaoki teaches a vertical cross-sectional shape of the structures being inclined in the track length direction (Fig. 18; [0178]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Endoh with Imaoku; because it allows improving visibility through the film ([0178]-[0179] of Imaoku).
Conclusion
The prior art references cited in PTO-892 are made of record and considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Patent documents, US 20170299778 A1, US 20150306811 A1, US 20150160377 A1, US 20150037535 A1, US 20120307368 A1, US 20130182328 A1, US 20080304155 A1, US 20070159698 A1, US 20050074579 A1, and US 20030011315 A1, disclose optical devices having array of nanostructures having pitch less that the length of visible light.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAO-LUAN Q LE whose telephone number is (571)270-5362. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday; 9:00AM-5:00PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Minh-Toan Ton can be reached on (571) 272 230303. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
Or faxed to:
(571) 273-8300, (for formal communications intended for entry)
Or:
(571) 273-7490, (for informal or draft communications, please label “PROPOSED” or “DRAFT”)
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to:
Customer Service Window
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
/BAO-LUAN Q LE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882