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 1-20 are pending in the application.
Amendments to the claims 13-16, and 18, filed on 26 June 2026, have been entered in the above-identified application.
Answers to Applicants' Arguments
Applicants' arguments in the response filed 26 June 2026, regarding the 35 U.S.C. §112 rejections made of record, 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 The rejections have been withdrawn in view of the applicants' arguments and amendments to the claims.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 26 June 2026, regarding the 35 U.S.C. §102 and 103 rejections made of record, have been fully considered but are deemed unpersuasive.
Applicants' argue that Schilling does not disclose the required feature of a particular positional relationship among a plurality of first-level regions, wherein the specified directions of the plurality of first-level regions, measured relative to a preset direction of the reflective graphic, must change in a gradient relationship along that preset direction. Specifically, that the disclosure of Schilling is materially different from the claimed "preset-direction gradient", wherein a pseudorandom variation of azimuth angle from partial area to partial area within a cell is not a gradual increase or gradual decrease of angles across multiple first-level regions along a defined preset direction of a reflective graphic. The examiner respectfully disagrees. In the instant case, Schilling discloses that along a preset direction (which can be any direction, such as one shown in the Modified Figure 9A of Schilling below) there exists a plurality of first-level regions (ref. #321; "partial areas") having specified directions (which can be directions that are corner-to-corner, or parallel to the smaller lines therein each hexagon, see Figure 9A or Schilling) that gradually change from one angle two a second angle (i.e., between 0 and 180 degrees in steps of 15 degrees) (figures 9A to 9B and [0228]-[0230] of Schilling; as indicated in the modified Figure 9A of Schilling below).
PNG
media_image1.png
376
437
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 9A of Schilling (modified).
Therefore, in light of applicants' arguments, the examiner contends that the rejections made of record are still valid.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1-16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schilling et al. (US 2015/0192897 A1).
Regarding Claim 1: Schilling teaches a decorative element (ref. #2) comprising a plastic layer (ref. #25), a reflective layer (ref. #24), a plastic layer (ref. #23), and microstructures (ref. #4), wherein the microstructures have a base surface (ref. #40) and a base element (ref. #41), wherein the base elements are formed in the shape of bars, and wherein there can be multiple areas in which the microstructures extend in different directions (figures 1C, 1D, 3A, 5B, 7, 9A, 9B, 17, [0165]-[0167], [0171], [0183], [0216], and [0228] of Schilling). (In the instant case, said "specified direction" of the first-level region is parallel to the "extension direction", and the "present direction" has a gradient change relationship with the "specified directions" (figures 9A to 9B of Schilling).)
Regarding Claim 2: Schilling teaches that the angle between the extension direction of the strip-shaped groove of the plurality of second-level regions in the same first-level region and the specified direction of the corresponding first-level region ranges from -15°C to 15° (e.g., 0°) (figures 9A to 9B of Schilling).
Regarding Claims 3 and 4: Schilling teaches that along the preset direction of the reflective graphic, the angles between the specified directions of the plurality of first-level regions and the preset direction are in a gradient change between -90° and 90° (figures 9A to 9B of Schilling).
Regarding Claims 5-8: Schilling teaches that the first-level region is in a shape of an irregular polygon (e.g., rectangle) (figure 7 and [0226] of Schilling).
Regarding Claims 9-12: Schilling teaches that the second-level region is in a shape of an irregular polygon (figures 1D, 9B, and 17 of Schilling).
Regarding Claims 13-16: Schilling teaches that in the same first-level region, the plurality of second-level regions are in puzzle-like splicing distribution, in which adjacent second-level regions abut to one another such that no gap is formed between the adjacent second-level regions, or dot matrix spacing distribution, in which adjacent second-level regions are separated by a gap therebetween (figures 1D and 9A to 9B of Schilling).
Regarding Claim 19: Schilling teaches that the base material is selected from a plastic sheet (figure 1C, [0171], [0173], and [0177] of Schilling).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schilling et al. (US 201/0192897 A2) as applied to claim 1 above.
Schilling is relied upon as stated above.
Regarding Claim 17: Schilling discloses that a spacing between the plurality of strip-shaped grooves in the same second-level region ranges from 0.2 µm to 500 µm, a width of the strip-shaped groove ranges from 0.2 µm to 500 µm, and a depth of the strip-shaped groove ranges from 150 nm to 2000 nm (0.15 µm to 2 µm) (figures 1D, 3A, [0026], [0201], and [0233] of Schilling); which overlaps the presently claimed ranges of --0 µm to 50 µm--, --10 µm to 50 µm--, and --0.5 µm to 10 µm--, respectively. Schilling differs from the claims by failing to disclose an anticipatory example or a range that is sufficiently specific to anticipate the claimed range. However, it has been held that overlapping ranges are sufficient to establish prima facie obviousness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Schilling, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP §2144.05.
Regarding Claim 18: Schilling discloses that the second-level region is provided with a plurality of strip-shaped protrusions, the plurality of strip-shaped protrusions are arranged in parallel, the strip-shaped groove is a single strip-shaped groove is formed between two adjacent strip-shaped protrusions, a width of the strip-shaped protrusion ranges from 0.2 µm to 500 µm, a height of the strip-shaped protrusion ranges from 150 nm to 2000 nm (0.15 µm to 2 µm), and a spacing between the two adjacent strip-shaped protrusions ranges from 0.2 µm to 500 µm (figures 1D, 3A, [0026], [0201], and [0233] of Schilling); which overlaps the presently claimed ranges of --0 µm to 50 µm--, --0.5 µm to 10 µm--, and --0 µm to 50 µm--, respectively. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Schilling, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP §2144.05.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schilling et al. (US 2015/0192897 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2021/0030134 A1).
Schilling is relied upon as stated above.
Regarding Claim 20: Schilling discloses that the glitter module can be applied to a product as a decorative element ([0118] of Schilling), but does not disclose the product can be --an electronic product--.
Kim discloses the application of a decoration member to a portable electronic device ([0215] and [0126] of Kim).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have combined the decorative member of Kim with the glitter module disclosed by Schilling in order to have --an electronic product comprising the glitter module--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have combined the decorative member of Kim with the glitter module disclosed by Schilling, from the stand-point of having a decorative member applied to an electronic product ([0215] of Kim). (In the instant case, the aspect of applying the glitter module to an electronic device amounts to an aesthetic design choice, which would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.)
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