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
The amendments to the specification of the disclosure in the preliminary amendment filed 12/20/2024 are acknowledged and accepted.
The amendments to Claims 1-14, 16 in the preliminary amendment filed 12/20/2024 are acknowledged and accepted.
The cancellation of Claims 15, 17-20 in the preliminary amendment filed 12/20/2024 is acknowledged and accepted.
The addition of Claims 21-23 in the preliminary amendment filed 12/20/2024 is acknowledged and accepted.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The originally filed drawings were received on 12/20/2024. These drawings are acceptable.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Abstract, line 1- ‘The invention relates to a’ should read ‘A’
Abstract, line 1- ‘comprising’ should read ‘including’
Abstract, line 4- ‘comprising’ should read ‘including’
Abstract, line 6- ‘The invention therefore also relates to an’ should read ‘Also, an’
Abstract, line 6- ‘comprising’ should read ‘including’.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. Examples of such errors are set forth below.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 2, line 3- ‘brakes’ should read ‘breaks’.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Woolf et al. (CN 101384967 A).
Woolf et al. discloses a method (See for example Abstract; Figures 1-31, and in particular Figures 3-6, 22-24) for manufacturing a lenticular device (See for example Figures 23-24) having a profiled surface defining an array of elongate lenticular elements, the method comprising providing a plate (See for example 30 in Figure 3) with an engravable surface, the engravable surface extending in an x-direction and in a y-direction perpendicular to the x-direction, the engravable surface having a z-direction perpendicular to the engravable surface; providing an apparatus comprising a chisel (See for example 20, 22, 24, 25 in Figure 3) having a shape that corresponds in negative relief to a shape of a cross-section of an elongate lenticular element in the lenticular device; and engraving (See for example Figures 3, 22-24) a plurality of parallel elongate lenticular elements in the plate with the chisel by moving the chisel in the y-direction, and at least one of the x-direction or the z-direction (In the instant case, the chisel is moved relative to the substrate in both the y- and x-directions), of the plate to form the profiled surface, the elongate lenticular elements of the array of elongate lenticular elements that are formed in the plate intersecting with one another at a curved intersection line (See for example Figures 23-24).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14, 21-23 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 1 is allowable over the cited art of record for at least the reason that the cited art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest a lenticular device as generally set forth in Claim 1, the device including, in combination with the features recited in Claim 1, the profiled surface having a profiling in a z-direction perpendicular to the profiled surface; and the elongate lenticular elements of the array of elongate lenticular elements having lenticular surfaces that intersect with one another along a corresponding intersection line, at least one intersection line being a curved intersection line. Claims 2-14, 21-23 are dependent on Claim 1, and hence are allowable for at least the same reasons Claim 1 is allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2010/0053500 A1 to Sugita et al.- Liquid crystal display device utilizing a lenticular lens array that has been modified to minimize moiré effects.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARNEL C LAVARIAS whose telephone number is (571)272-2315. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30 AM-7 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, Stephone Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
ARNEL C. LAVARIAS
Primary Examiner
Group Art Unit 2872
8/18/2026
/ARNEL C LAVARIAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights