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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
That Bourdelais discloses an optical sheet that transmits light, which is opposite to retroreflection, and that the embodiment of paragraph [0089] cited in the rejection is a separate embodiment than that cited in paragraph [0043], and thus, the combination is invalid; and
That Bourdelais does not disclose nanostructures smaller than a wavelength of light, based on Applicant’s calculations derived from the dimensions cited in paragraph [0043], to yield structures potentially occupying spaces in a range of 703 nm to 1414 nm, thus, being larger than wavelength of visible light.
Regarding i., although Examiner agrees that paragraph [0043] describes the nanostructured surface of the light transmitting layer of that specific embodiment, paragraph [0089] of Bourdelais clearly discloses that an embodiment of a retroreflection layer formed of the optical film of the embodiment of [0043] covered by a reflection layer, thus, yielding nanostructures of precisely the same identical dimensions and structure in both embodiments. Thus, Applicant’s arguments are moot on the basis of Bourdelais incorporating the structure of the embodiment of [0043] into the embodiment of [0089].
Regarding ii., although Examiner agrees that Applicant’s calculations yield maximal nanostructure dimensions being between 707 nm and 1414 nm (not including vacant space between adjacent structures), Bourdelais clearly discloses a range of nanostructure dimensions between 0.1 µm and 30 µm in paragraph [0041]. Thus, the range of 100 nm to 3000 nm of [0041] overlaps with the range of visible light of 400 nm to 700 nm, as cited in Applicant’s remarks. Therefore, Bourdelais discloses nanostructures that can be formed in the claimed range of sizes.
Furthermore, claim 1 merely recites wherein “each nanostructure of the plurality of nanostructures being smaller than a wavelength of the light”, which is different than “a wavelength of visible light” as Applicant alleges in the remarks. It is well known that light impinges on optical structures outside of wavelengths of visible light, including UV light (< 400 nm) and infrared light (700 nm ~ 1400 nm). Thus, Bourdelais discloses nanostructures of the dimension at least smaller than a wavelength of infrared light, which one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably interpret the phrase “wavelength of the light” to include.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-14, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ino et al. (JP3183164U; translation submitted previously) in view of Bourdelais et al. (US 2008/0024870).
Regarding claim 1, Ino discloses a retroreflective safety device (see figures 1-2, for instance), comprising: a body (12) coupled to a mobile device; and a retroreflective surface (13) disposed on a surface of the body (12). However, Ino does not expressly disclose wherein the retroreflective layer is a metasurface disposed on a surface of the body, the metasurface including a plurality of nanostructures arranged to retroreflect light that strikes the metasurface, each nanostructure of the plurality of nanostructures being smaller than a wavelength of the light.
Bourdelais discloses a retroflective layer (see figures 1-2, [0045], for instance), wherein the retroreflective layer is a metasurface disposed on a surface of the body, the metasurface including a plurality of nanostructures ([0043], “nano-modules”) arranged to retroreflect light that strikes the metasurface ([0045]; [0089], see Response to Arguments, above), each nanostructure of the plurality of nanostructures being smaller than a wavelength of the light (for instance, [0041], “cross-section that has a diameter or major axis of from 0.1 to 30 micrometers”, and further, [0043], “As an example, on the surface of a 10-micrometer square area of optical surface, there may be between 50 and 200 nano-nodules depending on the size, shape and coverage,” see Applicant’s remarks and Response to Arguments, above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the metasurface of Bourdelais on the retroreflective surface of Ino. The motivation for doing so would have been to make the film very flexible in design parameters, allowing different individual optical elements of different size, shape or orientation to be used throughout the film surface to process the light entering the film the most efficiently, as taught by Bourdelais (see [0036]).
Regarding claim 2, Ino in view of Bourdelais discloses the retroreflective safety device of claim 1, wherein: the metasurface (13, left side of 12) is a first metasurface; the surface is a first surface; the body (12) further includes a second surface (13, right side of 12, see figure 2) that is angled with respect to the first surface; and the retroreflective safety device further comprises a second metasurface (13, right side of 12) disposed on the second surface, the second metasurface including a second plurality of nanostructures arranged to retroreflect second light that strikes the second metasurface, each nanostructure of the second plurality of nanostructures being smaller than a wavelength of the second light (see Bourdelais [0045]).
Regarding claim 3, Ino in view of Bourdelais discloses the retroreflective safety device of claim 2, wherein the second surface (13, right side of 12) is generally orthogonal to the first surface, such that for at least some propagation directions of incident light that strikes the body (12), a first portion of the incident light retroreflects from the first metasurface (13, left side of 12) and a second portion of the incident light simultaneously retroreflects from the second metasurface (13, right side of 12).
Regarding claim 4, Ino in view of Bourdelais discloses the retroreflective safety device of claim 1, wherein the body (12) is integrally formed with the mobile device (see fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, Ino in view of Bourdelais discloses the retroreflective safety device of claim 4, wherein: the mobile device is a smart phone; and the body (12) is formed as an exterior surface of the smart phone.
Regarding claim 6, Ino in view of Bourdelais discloses the retroreflective safety device of claim 1, wherein the body (12) is removably coupled to the mobile device.
Regarding claim 7, Ino in view of Bourdelais discloses the retroreflective safety device of claim 6, wherein: the mobile device is a smart phone; and the body (12) is shaped as a case to removably attach to the smart phone.
Regarding claim 8, Ino in view of Bourdelais discloses the retroreflective safety device of claim 1, wherein the metasurface includes: a first metasurface portion (13, left side of 12) including a first plurality of nanostructures that are arranged to retroreflect light having a first range of wavelengths ([0045]); and a second metasurface portion (13, right side of 12) including a second plurality of nanostructures that are arranged to retroreflect light having a second range of wavelengths different from the first range of wavelengths (see [0045] of Bourdelais).
Regarding claim 9, Ino in view of Bourdelais discloses the retroreflective safety device of claim 1, wherein the metasurface includes: a first metasurface portion (13, left side of 12) including a first plurality of nanostructures that are arranged to retroreflect light having a first range of incident angles (see [0045] of Bourdelais); and a second metasurface portion (13, right side of 12) including a second plurality of nanostructures that are arranged to retroreflect light having a second range of incident angles different from the first range of incident angles (see page [0045] of Bourdelais).
Regarding claim 10, Ino in view of Bourdelais discloses the retroreflective safety device of claim 1, wherein the metasurface (13) is disposed on a contiguous area of the body (12).
Regarding claim 11, Ino in view of Bourdelais discloses the retroreflective safety device of claim 1, wherein the metasurface (13) is disposed on a plurality of noncontiguous areas of the body (12).
Regarding claim 12, Ino in view of Bourdelais discloses the retroreflective safety device of claim 1, wherein: the mobile device (12) is a smart phone; the metasurface (13) is spaced apart from a screen of the smart phone (12); and the metasurface (13) is spaced apart from a camera of the smart phone (12).
Regarding claim 13, Ino in view of Bourdelais discloses the retroreflective safety device of claim 1, wherein the body (12) includes at least one of a glass material, a ceramic material, or a glass ceramic material.
Regarding claim 14, Ino in view of Bourdelais discloses the retroreflective safety device of claim 1, further comprising a protective layer (Bourdelais 109) disposed on the metasurface (Ino 13), the protective layer (Bourdelais 109) including at least one of a polymer or silicon dioxide (Bourdelais 109; [0039]).
Regarding claim 17, Ino discloses a method for generating a retroreflective safety device (see figures 1-2, for instance), the method comprising: disposing a first retroreflective surface (13, left side of 12) on a first exterior surface of a body (12), and disposing a second retroreflective surface (12, right side of 12) on a second exterior surface of the body (12), the second exterior surface being angled with respect to the first exterior surface. However, Ino does not expressly disclose wherein the first retroreflective surface is a first metasurface, the first metasurface including a first plurality of nanostructures arranged to retroreflect light that strikes the first metasurface; wherein the second retroreflective surface is a second metasurface on a second exterior surface of the body, the second metasurface including a second plurality of nanostructures arranged to retroreflect light that strikes the second metasurface.
Bourdelais discloses a retroflective layer (see figures 1-2, [0045], for instance), including a metasurface including a plurality of nanostructures ([0043], “nano-modules”) arranged to retroreflect light that strikes the metasurface ([0045]; [0089], see Response to Arguments, above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the metasurface of Bourdelais on the first and second retroreflective surfaces of Ino. The motivation for doing so would have been to make the film very flexible in design parameters, allowing different individual optical elements of different size, shape or orientation to be used throughout the film surface to process the light entering the film the most efficiently, as taught by Bourdelais (see [0036]).
Regarding claim 19, Ino discloses a retroreflective safety device (see figures 1-2, for instance), comprising: a body (12) including a first exterior surface (left side of 12) and a second exterior surface (right side of 12) that is angled with respect to the first exterior surface; a first retroreflective surface disposed on the first exterior surface, and a second retroreflective surface disposed on the second exterior surface. However, Ino does not expressly disclose a first metasurface disposed on the first exterior surface, the first metasurface including a first plurality of nanostructures arranged to retroreflect light that strikes the first metasurface; and a second metasurface disposed on the second exterior surface, the second metasurface including a second plurality of nanostructures arranged to retroreflect light that strikes the second metasurface.
Bourdelais discloses a retroflective layer (see figures 1-2, [0045], for instance), including a metasurface including a plurality of nanostructures ([0043], “nano-modules”) arranged to retroreflect light that strikes the metasurface ([0045]; [0089], see Response to Arguments, above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the metasurface of Bourdelais on the first and second exterior surfaces of Ino. The motivation for doing so would have been to make the film very flexible in design parameters, allowing different individual optical elements of different size, shape or orientation to be used throughout the film surface to process the light entering the film the most efficiently, as taught by Bourdelais (see [0036]).
Regarding claim 20, Ino in view of Bourdelais discloses the retroreflective safety device of claim 19, wherein for at least some propagation directions of incident light that strikes the body (12), a first portion of the incident light retroreflects from the first metasurface (13, left side of 12) and a second portion of the incident light simultaneously retroreflects from the second metasurface (13, right side of 12).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-16 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NATHANAEL R BRIGGS whose telephone number is (571)272-8992. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at (571)-272-9791. 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.
/NATHANAEL R BRIGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871 7/14/2026
Prosecution Insights