DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1-5 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The meaning of claim 1 is unclear because it recites “wherein each at least one patterned surface comprises a point” and because it is not clear what, specifically, is required of a “point”. For example, it is unclear if the surface is required to be pointed, to be a “point” in the same manner that a period is point (i.e. a small mark), or something else. It is also unclear if a “point” requires a specific shape or if the term is intended to merely convey that component is relatively small in comparison to some other feature. Appropriate correction and explanation are required.
Claims 2-5 and 7-10 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because they depend from and/or require all of the limitations of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 102 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment, filed December 19, 2025.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang, as applied above, and further in view of Vjazalov (RU 2296677 C2), cited herein according to an English language translation.
Regarding claims 1, 3, and 7-9, Yang teaches a hidden patterned structure comprising a planar base surface (10, 10a; i.e. the “base surface comprises a plane”) and a plurality of patterned cells (11, 14) protruding from the base surface (Abstract; par. 2, 31-35; Figs. 1, 2, 6). Each of the patterned cells comprises at least two chamfered surfaces that are oriented at different angles relative to the base surface, wherein at least a portion of the cells include at least one patterned surface that has a different roughness and/or height from the corresponding chamfered surface (par. 10, 12, 30). Similar to the patterned cells with chamfered surfaces that are instantly disclosed (e.g. Fig. 4 of the instant disclosure), Yang’s patterned cells include at least two chamfered surfaces that are inclined in different directions and, therefore, have different angles (i.e. cells with chamfer surfaces having angles of about 45 °, which incline in one direction, and 135 °, which incline in the opposite direction, are exemplified) with respect to the base surface (Figs. 2, 6). Additionally, given that the structure includes patterned surfaces that are next to each other, the “at least one patterned surface comprises a first patterned surface that is adjacent to a second patterned surface”. As shown in Figures 8 and 9, Yang teaches structures wherein the patterned portions (23, 24) of chamfered surfaces do not extend across their entire corresponding chamfered surface (Figs. 8 and 9).
The teachings of Yang might be considered to differ from the current invention in that he does not explicitly discuss his chamfered surfaces including patterned surfaces that have a different roughness and/or height from their corresponding chamfered surfaces. The prior art also differs from the current invention in that the taught patterned surfaces are not disclosed to comprise/have the claimed “point”, size, or spacing. The cited references also do not explicitly refer to their chamfered surfaces as having “different” angles relative to the base surface, which might be considered a difference form the current invention. However, as discussed above, Yang teaches a pattern structure that includes an array of pyramidal cells. Yang also teaches that the patterning on the chamfered faces of those cells may be accomplished with laser processing to etch a specific pattern onto the surfaces (par. 24, 37).
Vjazalov further discloses a hidden patterned structure that includes an array of pyramidal structures (6) and teaches creating a hidden image by using a laser to form different patterns, one of which includes an array of circular apertures (1), on the inclined faces of the pyramids (par. 17; Fig. 2). As shown in Figure 2, the inclined surfaces with circular apertures (1) include circular spots, or “points”, and unpatterned spaces between the spots (Fig. 2). Vjazalov’s design is beneficial because it allows multiple, optically-variable images to be created on a surface that change in visibility and can easily be seen as the observation angle is changed (par. 19, 23, 24). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use laser processing to pattern the chamfered surfaces of Yang’s product as disclosed by Vjazalov, including using laser processing to form a pattern of spaced-apart circular apertures, or “points”, on at least some (i.e. including at least two) of the chamfered surfaces, including on each of at least two chamfered surfaces at different angles of at least a portion of the plurality of patterned cells, because Yang teaches that the chamfered surfaces of his product can be patterned with laser processing and Vjazalov’s method is an effective and useful way of doing so to create a surface with multiple, optically-variable images that change in visibility and can easily be seen as the observation angle is changed.
As the circular spots (1; i.e. “patterned surfaces”), which are formed by laser etching (discussed above), on the patterned surfaces of the prior art product are spaced apart by non-patterned areas (i.e. the rest of the surface) (Vjazalov, Fig. 2), the spots necessarily have at least some difference in height and/or roughness from the portion of the corresponding chamfered surface that has not been patterned, or irradiated with a laser.
As noted above, the prior art differs from the current invention in that the taught patterned surfaces are not disclosed to comprise/have the claimed shape (i.e. a “point” shape), size, or spacing. The cited references also do not explicitly refer to their chamfered surfaces as having “different” angles relative to the base surface, which might be considered a difference form the current invention. However, as no criticality has been established, the recited surface shapes, sizes, and spacings, and the requirement that the patterned cells are made up of chamfered surfaces of “different” angles that achieve a particular cell shape are prima facie obvious selections of shape and dimension that do not distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV). Additionally, as Yang’s and instantly claimed products are directed to a decorative surfaces, such specific selections (i.e. specific “different” angles, specific shapes, specific sizes, and specific spacings) are of ornamentation only, with no mechanical function, and are prima facie obvious aesthetic design choices that do not distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04 (I).
As also noted above, Yang teaches or renders configuring at least some of the chamfered surfaces on his product to have an angle of approximately 45° with respect to the base surface.
Regarding claims 2 and 5, Yang teaches that at least a portion of the plurality of patterned cells may include at least two patterned surfaces on their at least two chamfered surfaces (i.e. including a “first chamfered surface” and a “second chamfered surface”), including quadrangular pyramid-shaped (i.e. in the shape of a polyhedron) cells that have four chamfered surfaces respectively arranged at different angles with four different patterned surfaces formed thereon (i.e. including a “first patterned surface” formed on the “first chamfered surfaces”, a “second patterned surface” formed on the “second chamfered surface”, etc.) (par. 31, 33).
Regarding claim 4, as shown in Figure 6, Yang teaches a structure with patterned cells arranged in a continuous, rectangular array (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 9, Yang depicts chamfered surfaces that are oriented at about a 45 ° angle with respect to the base plate. To the extent that Yang’s lack of an explicit teaching of an angle is considered a difference from the current invention, it is noted that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure Yang’s chamfered surfaces to be inclined at approximately the angles that are depicted, which includes an angle of about 45 °, because Yang depicts and implies that such angles are appropriate for his product. Additionally, the recitation of particular chamfer angles is effectively an description of the shape of the patterned cells. As no criticality has been established, the recited cell shape is a prima facie obvious selection of shape that does not distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV). Additionally, as Yang’s and the instantly claimed product are directed to a decorative surface, such a selection is of ornamentation only, with no mechanical function, and is a prima facie obvious aesthetic design choice that does not distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04 (I).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang, and Vjazalov, as applied above, and further in view of Lai (WO 2019/113975A1), the text of which is cited herein according to an English language translation.
Regarding claim 10, as discussed above, Yang and Vjazalov teach a hidden patterned structure that meets the requirements of claim 1.
The teachings of Yang and Vjazalov differ from the current invention in that neither discloses an electronic vaporization device comprising a housing provided with the hidden patterned structure of claim 1. However, Lai teaches an electronic cigarette (i.e. “electronic vaporization device”) including a housing with a decorative outer surface, which Lai teaches may have various decorative styles (Abstract; par. 2, 7, 10, 26, 27). Lai’s housing includes various plates (350, 355, etc.), which may carry a decoration on their outer surfaces (Figs. 2-4; par. 27-32). Yang further teaches that his product is widely appliable, offers strong practicability at low cost, upgrades the quality of a product onto which it is applied, and increases the purchasing desire of a consumer (Abstract). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure Lai’s decorative housing to include Yang and Vjazalov’s surface pattern and/or to carry a label of Yang and Vjazalov’s design because Lai’s housing is intended to be decorative, and because Yang teaches that his surface (and label) is widely applicable, low cost, improves the quality of products, and increases purchasing desire, and in order to achieve a desired aesthetic effect.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 19, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued that the product of claim 1 is distinguished over Yang because Yang does not teach a pattern that comprises “points”. However, as discussed above, the meaning of “points” is unclear and indefinite. Additionally, it would have been obvious to configure Yang’s patterned surface to include a series of circular apertures, thereby creating a pattern that comprises structures that might be considered “points” in view of Vjazalov for the reasons discussed above.
Applicant has also argued that configuring the claimed product to include “points” and features at various sizes and spacings are not obvious aesthetic design choices, as discussed in MPEP 2144.04, because the surface is not merely ornamental and helps to convey a pattern. However, as discussed above, the prior art does teach structuring a surface to convey a pattern. While Applicant is correct that the presence of a surface pattern that creates an image is not merely ornamental, given that the prior art already discloses the concept of patterning a surface to convey an image, the particulars of the claimed pattern (i.e. including the shape of the pattern, the shapes of pattern elements, and the spacing of the pattern elements) are selected to achieve a particular ornamental appearance, without presenting any mechanical function over what has already been taught by the prior art. Therefore, the requirements of a pattern including “points”, having specific patterned surface sizes, and having particular patterned surface spacings are prima facie obvious aesthetic design choices that do not distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04.
Applicant has further argued that Vjazalov’s circular apertures, or “holes” as Applicant describes them, do not qualify as “points” because they are the absence of an element rather than presence of an element. This argument is not persuasive because the entire surface of each chamfer, including any circular apertures, qualifies as a “patterned surface”, because the apertures themselves have surfaces that may be considered “patterned”, and because Vjazalov’s circular apertures can be described as being point-shaped. Additionally, as noted above, the specific structure intended by the term “point” is unclear, but to the extent that a “point” might be considered a small circular spot, Vjazalov’s patterned surface includes “points”. Furthermore, the “points” depicted in Figure 4 of the instant disclosure appear to also be cutouts or “absences of an element” in the surface, and the instant disclosure describes them as being “formed by recessing” a chamfered surface (Applicant’s published application, Fig. 4, par. 29). As such, the disclosed “points” appear to meet the claim requirements to the same extent that Vjazalov’s “points” meet the claim requirements. If Applicant wishes for a “point” to have a specific structure, Applicant is encouraged to amend the claims accordingly.
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 JULIA L RUMMEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6288. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:30 am -5:00 pm PT.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571) 272-0604. 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.
/JULIA L. RUMMEL/
Examiner
Art Unit 1784
/HUMERA N. SHEIKH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights