CTNF 18/810,012 CTNF 77289 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Election/Restrictions In Applicant’s response filed on 2/27/26 , Applicant elected claims Group II (claims 12-18) and has withdrawn non-elected claims of Group I (claims 1-11 and 19-21), with traverse. Group II will be examined on its merits. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 12-15, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rowland (3,684,348) . Regarding claims 12, Rowland discloses a reflective waveguide comprising: a first prism array (12) comprising a first material(“Cube corner reflectors molded from glass and more recently from acrylic resins”, Background of invention); a reflective coating on facets of the first prism array(30, fig. 3); and a second material over the first prism array (32, Fig. 3). In regards to claim 12, Applicant is claiming the product of a reflective waveguide, including a method (i.e. a process) of making “(claim 12) while the first prism array is supported by the flat mold, cast and cured between a first flat mold and a first prism mold , cast and cured while the first prism array is supported by the flat mold ”; is considered a “product-by-process” claim. In spite of the fact that a product-by-process claim may recite only process limitations, it is the product and not the recited process that is covered by the claim. Further, patentability of a claim to a product does not rest merely on the difference in the method by which the product is made. Rather, is the product itself which must be new and not obvious. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe , 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Accordingly, the structure implied by the process steps would be considered for assessing the patentability of product-by-process claims over the prior art (see MPEP 2113), and upon careful review of the italicized process under MPEP 2113, the Examiner finds the process unpateable because a PHOSITA would not have recognized a difference in the recited structure. In regards to claim 13, in claim 12, from which 13 depends, Applicant is claiming the product of a reflective waveguide, and claim 13 is including a method (i.e. a process) of making “ wherein the second material is cast and cured between the first prism array and a second flat mold ”; is considered a “product-by-process” claim. In spite of the fact that a product-by-process claim may recite only process limitations, it is the product and not the recited process that is covered by the claim. Further, patentability of a claim to a product does not rest merely on the difference in the method by which the product is made. Rather, is the product itself which must be new and not obvious. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe , 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Accordingly, the structure implied by the process steps would be considered for assessing the patentability of product-by-process claims over the prior art (see MPEP 2113), and upon careful review of the italicized process under MPEP 2113, the Examiner finds the process unpateable because a PHOSITA would not have recognized a difference in the recited structure. In regards to claim 14, in claim 12, from which 14 depends, Applicant is claiming the product of a reflective waveguide, and claim 14 is including a method (i.e. a process) of making; “ the second material is cast and cured between the first prism array and a featured mold. ”, is considered a “product-by-process” claim. In spite of the fact that a product-by-process claim may recite only process limitations, it is the product and not the recited process that is covered by the claim. Further, patentability of a claim to a product does not rest merely on the difference in the method by which the product is made. Rather, is the product itself which must be new and not obvious. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe , 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Accordingly, the structure implied by the process steps would be considered for assessing the patentability of product-by-process claims over the prior art (see MPEP 2113), and upon careful review of the italicized process under MPEP 2113, the Examiner finds the process unpateable because a PHOSITA would not have recognized a difference in the recited structure. In regards to claim 15, in claim 12, from which 15 depends, Applicant is claiming the product of a reflective waveguide, and claim 15 is including a method (i.e. a process) of making; “ the second material is cast and cured between the first prism array and a second prism mold .”, is considered a “product-by-process” claim. In spite of the fact that a product-by-process claim may recite only process limitations, it is the product and not the recited process that is covered by the claim. Further, patentability of a claim to a product does not rest merely on the difference in the method by which the product is made. Rather, is the product itself which must be new and not obvious. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process . In re Thorpe , 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Accordingly, the structure implied by the process steps would be considered for assessing the patentability of product-by-process claims over the prior art (see MPEP 2113), and upon careful review of the italicized process under MPEP 2113, the Examiner finds the process unpateable because a PHOSITA would not have recognized a difference in the recited structure. Regarding claim 17, Rowland discloses the first prism array comprising a plurality of optical components(18). Regarding claim 18, Rowland discloses, the reflective waveguide of claim 12, further comprising: a third material (34) on an outer surface of the reflective waveguide(fig. 3) to compensate for thickness variation of the reflective waveguide. In regards to claim 18, in claim 12, from which 18 depends, Applicant is claiming the product of a reflective waveguide, and claim 18 is including a method (i.e. a process) of making; “ a third material locally cast and cured ”, is considered a “product-by-process” claim. In spite of the fact that a product-by-process claim may recite only process limitations, it is the product and not the recited process that is covered by the claim. Further, patentability of a claim to a product does not rest merely on the difference in the method by which the product is made. Rather, is the product itself which must be new and not obvious. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process . In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Accordingly, the structure implied by the process steps would be considered for assessing the patentability of product-by-process claims over the prior art (see MPEP 2113), and upon careful review of the italicized process under MPEP 2113, the Examiner finds the process unpateable because a PHOSITA would not have recognized a difference in the recited structure . Allowable Subject Matter Claim 16 is 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. Rowland does not anticipate individually or teach in combination the limitations of the first and second material are the same material. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hatazawa et al (6,239,851) discloses a planar light source having two sheets with mating triangular prisms (fig. 1a); Sarayeddine (6,072,628) discloses an optical device with a prism structure (7) having a reflective coating(8) on facets of the prism array and a second material over the first prism array(9) . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANABEL TON whose telephone number is (571)272-2382. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 9:00pm -6:00pm (EST). 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, ABDULMAJEED AZIZ can be reached at (571)270-5046. 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. /ANABEL TON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875 Application/Control Number: 18/810,012 Page 2 Art Unit: 2875 Application/Control Number: 18/810,012 Page 3 Art Unit: 2875 Application/Control Number: 18/810,012 Page 4 Art Unit: 2875 Application/Control Number: 18/810,012 Page 5 Art Unit: 2875 Application/Control Number: 18/810,012 Page 6 Art Unit: 2875 Application/Control Number: 18/810,012 Page 7 Art Unit: 2875 Application/Control Number: 18/810,012 Page 8 Art Unit: 2875
Prosecution Insights