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
Claims 1-16, 21, 22, and 24 are pending in the application. Claims 17-20, 23, and 25-35 have been cancelled.
Amendments to the claims 1-3, 8-10, 12, 15, 16, 22, and 24, filed on 5 May 2026, have been entered in the above-identified application.
Answers to Applicants' Arguments
Applicants' arguments in the response filed 5 May 2026, regarding the objections made of record over claims 2, 3, 9, and 12, have been fully considered and are deemed persuasive. The objections have been withdrawn in view of the applicants' arguments and amendments to the claims. However, some of the objections previously made of record have not been fully addressed and are maintained herein as recited below.
Applicants' arguments in the response filed 5 May 2026, regarding the 35 U.S.C. §112 rejections made of record over claims 8, 22, and 24, have been fully considered and are deemed persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn in view of the applicants' arguments and amendments to the claims. However, some of the rejections previously made of record have not been fully addressed and are maintained herein as recited below.
Applicants' arguments in the response filed 5 May 2026, regarding the 35 U.S.C. §102 rejections of claims 1-14, 21, 22, and 24 made of record over Walker, have been fully considered and are deemed persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn in view of the applicants' arguments and amendments to the claims.
Applicants' arguments in the response filed 5 May 2026, regarding the 35 U.S.C. §102 rejections of claims 15 and 16 made of record over Walker, have been fully considered and are deemed unpersuasive.
Applicants argue that Walker fails to disclose the structured surface having a Fcc according to one or more of the following criteria: less than 70, 60, or 50% of the structures have a slope greater than 40 degrees; less than 90 or 80% of the structures have a slope greater than 30 degrees; and less than 90% of the structures have a slope of greater than 20 degrees {instant claim 15}. The examiner respectfully disagrees. In the instant case, Walker teaches a microstructured article comprising microstructures, wherein the article has a complement cumulative slop magnitude distribution (Fcc(ϴ)), wherein at least 50% of the microstructures have a slope that is typically less than 10 degrees ([0030], [0032], [0042], and [0067]-[0069] of Walker); which is sufficiently specific to anticipate the claimed ranges of --less than 70, 60, or 50% of structures have a slope greater than 40 degrees--, --less than 90 or 80% of structures have a slope greater than 30 degrees--, and --less than 90% of structures have a slope greater than 20 degrees--. See MPEP §2131.03(II).
Applicants argue that Walker fails to disclose the structured surface having a Ycc such that at least 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, or 50% of the structures have a slope greater than 10 degrees and less than 55, 50, 46, 40, 35, 30, 25, or 20% of the structures have a slog greater than 30 degrees {instant claim 16}. The examiner respectfully disagrees. In the instant case, Walker teaches a microstructured article comprising microstructures, wherein the article has a complement cumulative slop magnitude distribution (Fcc(ϴ)), wherein at least 50% of the microstructures have a slope that is typically less than 10 degrees ([0030], [0032], [0042], and [0067]-[0069] of Walker); which is sufficiently specific to anticipate the claimed ranges of --at least 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, or 50% of the structures have a slope greater than 10 degrees; and less than 55, 50, 40, 35, 30, 25 or 20% of the structures have a slope of greater than 30 degrees--. See MPEP §2131.03(II). (In the instant case, Walker teaches "a complement of the cumulative gradient magnitude distribution (Fcc)", but does not explicitly recite "a complement of the cumulative X-slope magnitude distribution (Xcc)" or "a complement of the cumulative Y-slope magnitude distribution (Ycc)". However, because Walker discloses that the structures have a Fcc, which is determined from x-slope and y-slope data, a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that the structures would also have a Ycc as claimed.)
Therefore, in light of applicants' arguments, the examiner contends that the 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) rejections of claims 15 and 16 are still valid.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 10, 15, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With Regards to Claim 1: Instant claim 1 recites --30% of structures have-- in line 4, which appears to be a typographical error; it is recommended to correct this to read "30% of the structures have".
With Regards to Claim 10: Instant claim 10 recites --10 mm, or 1 micron-- in line 2, which appears to be a typographical error; it is recommended to correct this to read "10 mm, [[or]] 1 micron".
With Regards to Claim 15: Instant claim 15 recites --The structured surface-- in line 1, which appears to be a typographical error; it is recommended to correct this to read "A[[The]] structured surface".
With Regards to Claim 16: Instant claim 16 recites --a Y-slope magnitude distribution (Ycc)-- in line 5, which appears to be a typographical error; for consistency and clarity, it is recommended to correct this to read "a complement cumulative Y-slope magnitude distribution (Ycc)".
With Regards to Claim 16: Claim 16 recites in lines 1 to 7 that:
a plurality of structures having a complement cumulative X- slope magnitude distribution (Xcc) such that
at least 45, 50, or 60% of the structures have a slope greater than 30 or 35 degrees; and
less than 85 or 80% of the structures have a slope greater than 40 degrees or
having a Y-slope magnitude distribution (Ycc) such that
at least 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, or 50% of the structures have a slope greater than 10 degrees; and
less than 55, 50, 45, 40, 35, 30, 25 or 20% of the structures have a slope greater than 30 degrees.
Which appears to be a typographical error; for clarity and consistency, it is recommended to correct this to read:
a plurality of structures having:
a complement cumulative X- slope magnitude distribution (Xcc) such that
at least 45, 50, or 60% of the structures have a slope greater than 30 or 35 degrees,[[;]] and
less than 85 or 80% of the structures have a slope greater than 40 degrees; or
complement cumulative Y-slope magnitude distribution (Ycc) such that
at least 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, or 50% of the structures have a slope greater than 10 degrees,[[;]] and
less than 55, 50, 45, 40, 35, 30, 25 or 20% of the structures have a slope greater than 30 degrees.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 15, 16, 22, and 24 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 Regards to Claim 15: Claim 15 recites the limitation "The structured surface" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
With Regards to Claim 16: Instant claim 16 recites in lines 1 to 7 that:
A structured surface comprising a plurality of structures having a complement cumulative X- slope magnitude distribution (Xcc) such that
at least 45, 50, or 60% of the structures have a slope greater than 30 or 35 degrees; and
less than 85 or 80% of the structures have a slope greater than 40 degrees or
having a Y-slope magnitude distribution (Ycc) such that
at least 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, or 50% of the structures have a slope greater than 10 degrees; and
less than 55, 50, 45, 40, 35, 30, 25 or 20% of the structures have a slope greater than 30 degrees.
As written, the claim is rendered indefinite because it can have several conflicting interpretations: (1) that the limitation intended to recite "a structured surface comprising a plurality of structures: having a complement cumulative X- slope magnitude distribution (Xcc) [...] or having a [complement cumulative] Y-slope magnitude distribution (Ycc) [...]"; or (2) that the limitation is intended to read as having "(Xcc) such that at least 45 [...]" and "less than 85% [...] or having a (Ycc) such that at least 20 [...]" and "less than 55 [...]", based upon the language of the claim as written (i.e., said limitation comprising three separate parts each separated by --; and-- within the claim). In view of the disclosure, it is the decision of the examiner that the former interpretation will be applied, and the limitation will be treated to read as:
A structured surface comprising a plurality of structures having:
a complement cumulative X- slope magnitude distribution (Xcc) such that
at least 45, 50, or 60% of the structures have a slope greater than 30 or 35 degrees,[[;]] and
less than 85 or 80% of the structures have a slope greater than 40 degrees; or
complement cumulative Y-slope magnitude distribution (Ycc) such that
at least 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, or 50% of the structures have a slope greater than 10 degrees,[[;]] and
less than 55, 50, 45, 40, 35, 30, 25 or 20% of the structures have a slope greater than 30 degrees.
With Regards to Claims 22 and 24: Claim 22 recites the limitation "The article" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 24, which depends on claim 22, is rejected for the same reasons as recited above.
With Regards to Claims 22 and 24: Claim 22 recites the limitation --The article of claim 12 wherein the article is a film or tape further comprising an adhesive on the opposing surface of the planar base layer-- in lines 1 to 2. Claim 12, from which claim 22 depends, recites --the structured surface is disposed on a planar base layer and the structured surface and the planar base layer comprise an organic polymeric material-- in lines 1 to 3. As written, claim 22 is rendered indefinite because a person having ordinary skill in the art would not be adequately apprised as to the intended scope of the claimed invention. Furthermore, the claim as written is also rendered indefinite because it can have two conflicting interpretations: (1) that the limitation is attempting to further define the "structured surface" of claim 12; or (2) is defining a new "article" comprising "the planar base layer comprising an organic polymeric material" recited in claim 12 (i.e., an article that does not comprise said structured surface). (Appropriate clarification and correction is required.)
Claim 24, which depends on claim 22, is rejected for the same reasons as recited above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Walker et al. (US 2013/0236697 A1).
Regarding Claim 15: Walker teaches a microstructured article comprising microstructures, wherein the article has a complement cumulative slop magnitude distribution (Fcc(ϴ)), that at least 50% of the microstructures have a slope that is typically less than 10 degrees ([0030], [0032], [0042], and [0067]-[0069] of Walker); which is sufficiently specific to anticipate the claimed ranges of --less than 70, 60, or 50% of structures have a slope greater than 40 degrees--, --less than 90 or 80% of structures have a slope greater than 30 degrees--, and --less than 90% of structures have a slope greater than 20 degrees--. See MPEP §2131.03(II).
Regarding Claim 16: Walker teaches a microstructured article comprising microstructures, wherein the article has a complement cumulative slop magnitude distribution (Fcc(ϴ)), that at least 50% of the microstructures have a slope that is typically less than 10 degrees ([0030], [0032], [0042], and [0067]-[0069] of Walker); which is sufficiently specific to anticipate the claimed ranges of --at least 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, or 50% of the structures have a slope greater than 10 degrees; and less than 55, 50, 40, 35, 30, 25 or 20% of the structures have a slope of greater than 30 degrees--. See MPEP §2131.03(II). (In the instant case, Walker teaches "a complement of the cumulative gradient magnitude distribution (Fcc)", but does not explicitly recite "a complement of the cumulative X-slope magnitude distribution (Xcc)" or "a complement of the cumulative Y-slope magnitude distribution (Ycc)". However, because Walker discloses that the structures have a Fcc, which is determined from x-slope and y-slope data, a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that the structures would also have a Ycc as claimed.)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 and 21 are allowed.
Claims 22 and 24 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regards to the closest prior art of record Walker et al. (US 2013/0236697 A1): Walker teaches --a structured surface--, wherein Walker's structured surface further comprises the structure --a microstructured article comprising microstructures, wherein the article has a complement cumulative slope magnitude distribution (Fcc(ϴ)), that at least 50% or the microstructures have a slope that is typically less than 10 degrees-- ([0030], [0032], [0042], and [0067]-[0069] of Walker). However, Walker does not teach that --at least 10, 20, or 30% of the structures have a slope greater than 50 degrees-- {instant claim 1}. Therefore, the claims as written overcome the prior art of record. Furthermore, no combination of Walker with any other prior art of record would have provided sufficient motivation for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified Walker in such a way as to meet the claimed invention. It is these teachings that makes the claim(s) allowable over the prior art of record.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 Donald M. Flores, Jr. whose telephone number is (571) 270-1466. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 to 17:00 M-F; Alternate Fridays off.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/DONALD M FLORES JR/
Donald M. Flores, Jr.Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights