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.
Claims 1-3, 8, 9, 11, 13-17 and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nagaoka et al (US 5,378,520).
Regarding claim 1, Nagaoka discloses a retroreflective article (Figs. 1-3) comprising:
a mesh layer (Fig. 1, see 15) comprising a plurality of interconnected portions defining a plurality of enclosed openings therebetween (Fig. 1 and column 4, line 11 “cells 27”), a first mesh major surface (top surface of 15), and a second mesh major surface (bottom surface of 15) opposite to the first mesh major surface, the plurality of interconnected portions together forming the first mesh major surface and the second mesh major surface (see Fig. 1);
a bond layer (Fig. 2, 11) comprising a plurality of bond portions at least partially spaced apart from each other by the mesh layer (plurality of bonding portions are partially spaced apart from each other by grid as shown in Fig. 1), wherein each of the plurality of bond portions is at least partially
disposed within a corresponding enclosed opening from the plurality of enclosed openings (inside of cells 27) and fixedly bonded to one or more adjacent interconnected portions (by grid) from the plurality of interconnected portions of the mesh layer (15), and wherein the second mesh major surface (bottom surface of 15) is proximal to the bond layer (11, see Figs. 1 and 2; see column 3, lines 65-68 to column 4, lines 1-14); and
a plurality of sets of optical elements (Fig. 2, 12) corresponding to the plurality of bond portions of the bond layer (11), wherein each of the sets of optical elements comprises a plurality of optical
elements partially embedded within a corresponding bond portion from the plurality of bond
portions of the bond layer (see Figs. 2 and 3, plurality of 12 are partially embedded within 11), wherein the first mesh major surface (top surface of 15) is proximal to the sets of optical elements (see 12 near 14), and wherein the sets of optical elements are spaced apart from each other by the one or more interconnected portions of the mesh layer (by grid as shown in Fig. 1, see 27).
Regarding claim 2, the retroreflective article of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of bond
portions (11) is spaced apart from the first mesh major surface (top) along a thickness of the mesh layer (from the top surface to the bottom of the surface).
Regarding claim 3, the retroreflective article of claim 1, wherein the mesh layer comprises a mesh (column 5, lines 1-13).
Regarding claim 8, the retroreflective article of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of optical
elements comprises a transparent microsphere (column 2, lines 41 “a layer of transparent microspheres 12”).
Regarding claim 9, the retroreflective article of claim 8, wherein a median diameter of the plurality of optical elements is from about 0.015 mm to about 0.11 mm (column 5, lines 41-42 “microspheres 12 averaging 65 micrometers in diameter”).
Regarding claim 11, the retroreflective article of claim 1, further comprising a reflective layer (Fig. 2 and column 2, lines 45-52 “reflective material 13”) disposed adjacent to a surface of at least some of the plurality of optical elements facing the bond layer (Fig. 2, 11), wherein the reflective layer (13) is at least partially disposed between the plurality of optical elements (12) and the bond layer (11).
Regarding claim 13, the retroreflective article of claim 11, wherein the reflective layer comprises a metal mirror or a dielectric mirror (Fig. 2 and column 2, lines 45-52 “reflective material 13 … is typically a metal such as aluminum or silver or a dielectric material”)
Regarding claim 14, the retroreflective article of claim 1, further comprising an adhesive layer
disposed on at least one of the second mesh major surface of the mesh layer and the bond layer
opposite to the plurality of optical elements (column 5, lines 14-22 “coating the bottom surface of the fabric (opposite surface from that bonded to the layer of binder material) with a suitable material … materials should be chosen that maintain adhesion to the binder material … to enhance adhesion”).
Regarding claim 15, the retroreflective article of claim 14, wherein the adhesive layer comprises an adhesive, and wherein the adhesive is a pressure sensitive adhesive or a hot-melt adhesive (column 5, lines 14-21, when using polyurethane and spun-bond fabric, corona treatment is used to prime the fabric before polyurethane is applied, the adhesive can be absolutely pressure-sensitve).
Regarding claim 16, Nagaoka discloses a method of manufacturing a retroreflective article (Figs. 1-3), the method comprising:
providing a carrier layer (Figs. 2 and 3, column 3, lines 4-5 “carrier sheet 18”);
disposing a mesh layer (Fig. 1, see 15) on the carrier layer (18), the mesh layer comprising a plurality of interconnected portions defining a plurality of enclosed openings therebetween (Fig. 1 and column 4, line 11 “cells 27”), a first mesh major surface (top surface of 15), and a second mesh major surface (bottom surface of 15) opposite to the first mesh major surface, wherein the first mesh major surface is disposed on the carrier layer (top surface of 15 is disposed on the carrier layer 18 as shown in Fig. 2);
disposing a plurality of optical elements (Fig. 2, 12) within the plurality of enclosed openings of the mesh layer (Fig. 1, see 27); and
providing a bond layer (Fig. 2, 11) adjacent to the plurality of optical elements within the plurality of enclosed openings (27) of the mesh layer opposite to the carrier layer (bond layer 11 is opposite to the carrier layer 18, see Fig. 2), such that the plurality of optical elements is partially embedded within the bond layer (12s are partially embedded within the bond layer 11, see Fig. 2), wherein the bond layer fixedly bonds to the plurality of interconnected portions of the mesh layer (see Fig. 1, grid).
Regarding claim 17, the method of claim 16, further comprising providing a reflective layer (Fig. 2 and column 2, lines 45-52 “reflective material 13”) adjacent to a surface of at least some of the plurality of optical elements prior to providing the bond layer (Fig. 2, 11) such that the reflective layer (13) is at least partially disposed between the bond layer (11) and the plurality of optical elements (12).
Regarding claim 19, the method of claim 16, further comprising removing the carrier layer from the mesh layer and the plurality of optical elements (column 3, lines 35-36 “removal of the temporary carrier sheet 18”).
Regarding claim 20, the method of claim 16, further comprising providing an adhesive layer on at least one of the second mesh major surface of the mesh layer and the bond layer opposite to the
plurality of optical elements (column 5, lines 14-22 “coating the bottom surface of the fabric (opposite surface from that bonded to the layer of binder material) with a suitable material … materials should be chosen that maintain adhesion to the binder material … to enhance adhesion”).
Regarding claim 21, the method of claim 16, wherein disposing the mesh layer (Fig. 1, see 15) on the carrier layer (18) further comprises removably bonding the carrier layer to the mesh layer. (column 3, lines 35-36 “removal of the temporary carrier sheet 18”).
Regarding claim 22, the method of claim 21, wherein the carrier layer (18) comprises a liner (column 3, line 6 “paper sheet 18a”) and a carrier bonding layer (column 3, line 6 “polyethylene layer 18b”) bonding the liner to the mesh layer.
Regarding claim 23, the method of claim 16, wherein disposing the plurality of optical elements
within the plurality of enclosed openings further comprises disposing the plurality of optical
elements (12) on the carrier layer (18, see Fig. 2).
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.
Claims 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagaoka.
Regarding claim 6, Nagaoka discloses the claimed invention as set forth above except for wherein the mesh layer has a thickness from 0.05 mm to about 2.5 mm.
It would have been obvious to having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention before the effective filing date choose the claimed range for the mesh layer thickness, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, as being motivated to create a thin and flexible retroreflective article.
Regarding claim 10, Nagaoka discloses the claimed invention as set forth above except for wherein a minimum thickness of the mesh layer is greater than a median diameter of the plurality of optical elements by a factor of at least 2.
It would have been obvious to having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention before the effective filing date to choose a minimum thickness of the mesh layer is greater than a median diameter of the plurality of optical elements by a factor of at least 2, since it has bee held that discovering optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, as being motivated to create high quality retroreflective article.
Claims 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagaoka et al (US 5,378,520) in view of Chen-Ho et al (us 2017/0293056 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Nagaoka discloses the claimed invention as set forth above except for further comprising an interlayer at least partially disposed between the plurality of optical elements and the reflective layer.
Chen-Ho (Fig. 1G) discloses an interlayer (para 58 “color layer 130”) at least partially disposed between the plurality of optical elements (120) and the reflective layer (para 58 “reflective layer 140”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention before the effective filing date to add an interlayer between the plurality of optical elements and the reflective layer for the purpose of adding color to retroreflective article.
Regarding claim 18, the method of claim 17, further comprising providing an interlayer on at least some of the plurality of optical elements prior to providing the reflective layer is inherently met by the disclosure of the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yoon (US 2014/0022641 A1) discloses a retroreflective article having a plurality of sets of optical element comprising a plurality of optical elements partially embedded within a corresponding bond portion.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUNCHA P CHERRY whose telephone number is (571)272-2310. The examiner can normally be reached M to F 7am to 3:30pm.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached at (571) 270-1284. 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.
6/5/2026
/EUNCHA P CHERRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights