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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Election
1. Applicant's election of claims 12-18, without traverse, in the reply filed on May 27, 2026, is acknowledged. Claims 1-11 and 19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse.
The requirement is deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 112
2. 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
3. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
In claim 17, the phrase, “plurality of substantially optical microstructures forming a diffraction grating” is indefinite. It is unclear if optical microstructures are identical or not.
Claim 17 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.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
4. 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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
5. Claims 12-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biteau et al. (WO 2021/209527).
Biteau discloses an optical structure (10) comprising at least one optical microstructure (30), in particular a microlens, wherein a base structure (12) is provided, , at least one template structure (11) is printed on ( paragraph 0143) the base structure (12), wherein the template structure (11) is built up from at least one droplet of printing ink, in particular from at least one layer of printing ink deposited through targeted placement of droplets of printing ink at least partially side by side (paragraph 0143, inkjet), wherein in a smoothing layer (20) is printed (paragraph 0140) at least on top of the template structure (11), wherein the smoothing layer (20) is built up from at least one layer of printing ink deposited through targeted placement of droplets of printing ink at least partially side by side (paragraph 0140, inkjet), wherein the smoothing layer (20) is cured (paragraph 0140), as shown in Figures 2a and 2b:
PNG
media_image1.png
476
692
media_image1.png
Greyscale
. Although Biteau does not explicitly disclose the height of the microstructure and template structure,
height modifications involve a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art and therefore obvious. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) See MPEP 2144.04, as in claim 12.
Concerning claim 13, Biteau discloses an optical structure (10) comprising at least one optical microstructure (30), in particular a microlens, wherein a base structure (12) is provided, , at least one template structure (11) is printed on ( paragraph 0143) the base structure (12), wherein the template structure (11) is built up from at least one droplet of printing ink, in particular from at least one layer of printing ink deposited through targeted placement of droplets of printing ink at least partially side by side (paragraph 0143, inkjet), wherein in a smoothing layer (20) is printed (paragraph 0140) at least on top of the template structure (11), wherein the smoothing layer (20) is built up from at least one layer of printing ink deposited through targeted placement of droplets of printing ink at least partially side by side (paragraph 0140, inkjet), wherein the smoothing layer (20) is cured (paragraph 0140).
Although Biteau does not explicitly disclose the thickness of the base structure or height of the template structure, thickness and height modifications involve a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art and therefore obvious. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) See MPEP 2144.04.
Concerning claims 14-15, Although Biteau does not explicitly disclose the height of the microstructure and template structure, height modifications involve a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art and therefore obvious. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) See MPEP 2144.04.
Concerning claim 16, Although Biteau does not explicitly disclose the lateral width of the microstructure and template structure, lateral width modifications involve a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art and therefore obvious. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) See MPEP 2144.04.
Concerning claim 18, Biteau discloses an optical structure (10) comprising at least one optical microstructure (30), in particular a microlens, wherein a base structure (12) is provided, , at least one template structure (11) is printed on ( paragraph 0143) the base structure (12), wherein the template structure (11) is built up from at least one droplet of printing ink, in particular from at least one layer of printing ink deposited through targeted placement of droplets of printing ink at least partially side by side (paragraph 0143, inkjet), wherein in a smoothing layer (20) is printed (paragraph 0140) at least on top of the template structure (11), wherein the smoothing layer (20) is built up from at least one layer of printing ink deposited through targeted placement of droplets of printing ink at least partially side by side (paragraph 0140, inkjet), wherein the smoothing layer (20) is cured (paragraph 0140), as shown in Figures 2a and 2b:
PNG
media_image1.png
476
692
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
Although Biteau does not disclose a coating layer on top of the smoothing layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to duplicate the smoothing layer of Biteau to function as a coating layer, since it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Conclusion
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lawrence Ferguson whose telephone number is 571-272-1522. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday 9:00 AM – 5:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Frank Vineis, can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/LAWRENCE D FERGUSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights