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 .
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 11 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Luttrell et al. (US 6,257,860 B1).
Re claim 1, Luttrell et al. discloses a device comprising: a transparent sheet (10) having a first side (16) with a structured surface, wherein: the structured surface includes microprisms thereon, the microprisms being part of a microprism array on the structured surface (Figs. 11 and 12); and each one of the microprisms are part of a quaternary set of the microprisms, such that for each quaternary set: the first microprism has a first lateral face (50), a second lateral face (42b), and a third lateral face (40a), the second microprism has a first lateral face (48), a second lateral face (32a), and a third lateral face (34b), the third microprism has a first lateral face (50), a second lateral face (42c), and a third lateral face (40b), the fourth microprism has a first lateral face (48), a second lateral face (32b), and a third lateral face (34c), there is a continuous surface transition (50, 48) between the second lateral face (42b) of the first microprism and the third lateral face (34b) of the second microprism and between the second lateral face (42c) of the third microprism and the third lateral face (34c) of the fourth microprism, there is a shared side edge between the second lateral face (42b) of the first microprism and the third lateral face (40b) of the third microprism and between the third lateral face (34b) of the second microprism and the second lateral face (32b) of the fourth microprism, and the shared side edge (33b) is visible as a solid tooling line.
Re claim 2, Luttrell et al. discloses the device wherein the transparent sheet (10) includes a second side (18) opposite the first side (16), the second side having a substantially smooth and planar surface (Fig. 2).
Re claim 3, Luttrell et al. discloses the device wherein a thickness of the transparent sheet from the apex of the microprisms on the structured surface to the opposite surface is a value in a range from about 50 microns to 1000 microns (col. 17, lines 67-col. 18, lines 1-4).
Re claim 4, Luttrell et al. discloses the device wherein the microprisms on the structured surface are reduced inactive area microprisms (Fig. 12; col. 2, lines 13-35; col. 45-53).
Re claim 5, Luttrell et al. discloses the device wherein the first microprism (40a, 42b, 50) and the second microprism (48, 32a, 34b) are arranged as symmetrically opposite matched pairs of microprisms and wherein the third microprism (40b, 42c, 50) and the fourth microprism (48, 32b, 34c) are arranged as symmetrically opposite matched pairs of microprisms (Fig. 12).
Re claim 11, Luttrell et al. discloses the device wherein each of the microprisms are configured as one of backward-tilted microprisms (Fig. 12).
Re claim 13, Luttrell discloses the device wherein at least some of the microprisms are configured as sideways tilted microprisms (Fig. 12). There is a tilt to a side of the microprisms.
Re claim 14, Luttrell discloses the device wherein a surface area of each second lateral face and a surface area of each third lateral face are about equal to each other (Fig. 11, ref. 40a, 42b, 40b, 42c, 32a, 34b, 34c, 32c).
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.
Claim(s) 6 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luttrell et al.
Re claim 6, Luttrell et al. disclose the device wherein the lateral faces of each microprism are angularly aligned relative to the second surface (Fig. 12, ref. 40a, 42b, 40b, 42c, 32a, 34b, 34c, 32c), but does not disclose the device such than an inclination angle for each of the lateral faces is equal a value in a range from about 5 degrees to 50 degrees.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to employ the device wherein an inclination angle for each of the lateral faces is equal a value in a range from about 5 degrees to 50 degrees. It is well known in the art to adjust the angle of a prism to optimize the reflectance of the sheet. Therefore, determining the inclination angle of each lateral face to be between 5 degrees to 50 degrees to optimize the reflectance of the sheet is based on a result effective variable, requiring routine sill in the art. Furthermore, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation” (MPEP 2144.05).
Re claim 12, Luttrell et al. does not disclose the device wherein each of the backward-titled microprisms have an optical axis tilt from about 3 degrees to about 17 degrees.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to employ the device wherein each of the backward-titled microprisms have an optical axis tilt from about 3 degrees to about 17 degrees. It is well known in the art to adjust optical axis tilt to optimize the reflectance of the sheet. Therefore, obtaining the device wherein each of the backward-titled microprisms have an optical axis tilt from about 3 degrees to about 17 degrees to optimize the reflectance of the sheet is based on a result effective variable, requiring routine sill in the art. Furthermore, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation” (MPEP 2144.05).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-10 and 15 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Luttrell et al. does not disclose the claimed “continuous surface transition”, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant refers to the paragraph [0196] of the as-filed-application as support that “continuous surface transition” is defined in such a way that distinguishes it over the prior art. However, the paragraph [0196] of the as-filed-application describes that the maintenance of the surface continuity occurs without the presence of seam, ridge, gap or tooling line or other loss of continuity between the adjacent lateral faces”. The cited paragraph simply describes examples of occurrences of the maintenance of surface continuity but does not strictly define the term “continuous”. Examiner reasonably interprets that a continuous transition may be a transition that has no break. The applicant refers to the transition between lateral faces (48, 50) as a tooling line. However, Luttrell is silent on the transition between the lateral faces (48, 50) as being a tooling line. Furthermore, the continuous surface transition may also be along the longitudinal direction of the first reference plane (24), which is also continuous.
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 RICHARD H KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-2294. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 10 am-6:30 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, Michael Caley can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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.
/RICHARD H KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
