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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-11 and 17-22 in the reply filed on August 12, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 14-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 1, 2024 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The extensive drawings have 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 drawings.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: apparent inadvertent typographical error. The examiner suggests and for purposes of examination will use “… comprise: a curved grating extending …” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 3, 5, 7-11, 19 and 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 3 and 19 “wherein the plurality of groups of gratings comprise: a curved grating extending along a curved surface, and a linear grating extending along a straight line” raises clarity issues. Regarding the “curved surface” is unclear if a curved line structure (e.g. ≈) is being required or if a straight line structure (e.g. =) on a curved surface is being required or something else. Insofar as the examiner can discern, in light of paragraph [0010] and figures 4 & 24, that the plurality of gratings (on a surface) that cross include at least one straight type and at least one curved type. For purposes of examination the examiner will use “wherein the plurality of groups of gratings comprise: a curved grating
Regarding claims 5 and 21 “wherein the plurality of groups of gratings include two groups of gratings, and at least one of the two groups of gratings comprises a linear grating extending along a straight line a slope of the grating surface of the linear grating differs in the extension direction” raises clarity issues. It is unclear the directions of the gratings are crisscrossed, i.e. not parallel (assumed in light of figures 1-2, 4 & 7) or if the depth (slope?) changes in the extension direction. Since claims 1 and 17 already requires groups of gratings being arranged on a surface of the substrate in a crisscross pattern for purposes of examination the examiner will use “wherein the plurality of groups of gratings include two groups of gratings, and at least one of the two groups of gratings comprises a linear grating
Regarding claim 7 (and its dependent claim 8) “wherein a tangent value of an angle between the grating surface and the surface of the substrate is between 1:150 and 20:1” raises clarity issues. Angles do not have tangent values. Curves have tangent values. It is unclear if a tangent values of a curved grating is meant or if the angle of a tangent of a groove wall is meant or something else. The examiner best guess is that applicant is indicating that the angle between a tangent of a groove wall and the substrates surface (possible supported by figures 3 & 5). The phrase “between 1:150 and 20:1” is giving a ratio range. A ratio is a comparison between two similar things. Since only a “a tangent value of an angle” is noted it is unclear what the other part of the ratio is or if a ratio is not meant. The specification does not clarify this issue. The examiner has no idea how to interpret this phrase but wonders if a ratio between the tangent angles of two different groups is mean. Using this unsupported guess by the examiner as the interpretation for purposes of examination the examiner will use “wherein a ratio between two groups of gratings tangent values of an angle between a side of the grating
Regarding claim 8 “wherein the tangent value of the angle between the grating surface of at least one set of gratings and the surface of the substrate is between 2:15 and 20:1, and/or, the tangent value of the angle between the grating surface of at least one set of gratings and the surface of the substrate is between 1:150 and 2:15” raises clarity issues. In addition to inheriting all of the issues in that are present in claim 7, as set forth above, it is unclear if two different ranges are being claimed making it unclear if the two different ranges are applied to two different pairings of gratings (meaning at least three gratings) or if only two gratings are present that the range is between 1:150 and 20:1 (assumed). For purposes of examination the examiner will use “wherein “wherein the tangent 20:1.” It is noted that this interpretation is still unclear, for the reasons stated above and, furthermore, this interpretation fails to further limit claim 7. The examiner respectfully suggests cancelling this claim.
Regarding claim 9 (and its dependent claims 10-11) “wherein an area where orthographic projections of the plurality of groups of gratings overlap on the substrate is configured as an overlapping area, and the structure of the grating corresponding to the overlapping area is configured as an intersection portion, the overlapping area has a plurality of location points A (x, y), heights corresponding to the plurality of groups of intersecting gratings at each position point A (x, y) are h1, h2 ,..., hn respectively, the corresponding height H to the intersection portion at the corresponding position point A (x, y) is (h1+h2 +......+hn)/n, or the height H corresponding to the intersection portion at the corresponding position point A(x, y) is the smallest one among h1, h2,...,hn, where n is the number of the plurality of gratings intersecting in the overlapping area” raises clarity issues. It is unclear what the further limitation is. The first part of the claim – it labels the area where the crisscrossed gratings intersect as “an overlap area” a.k.a. “an intersection portion”. Labeling an inherent feature and not adding any limitations (such as shape as in claims 10 and 11) fails to further limit the invention. Regarding the second part of the claim – it defines H as either the average height or the lowest height. However, there is no limitation using this definition (such as a height range) and also fails to further limit the invention. The examiner respectfully suggests defining the intersection portion and the intersections in claims 10 and 11, respectively and cancelling claim 9.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Insofar as claim 9 is understood it fails to further limit the invention as set forth above. Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Porter US Patent 734,134.
Regarding claim 1 Porter discloses a texture structure (title), comprising: a substrate (inter alia page 1 lines 9-13 “glass, metal and other ware” e.g. figure 5 tumbler T); and a plurality of groups of gratings (e.g. figures 2-4 ) arranged on one side of the substrate (see figure 5), the plurality of groups of gratings being arranged on a surface of the substrate in a crisscross pattern (see figure 5), each of the plurality of groups of gratings comprising a plurality of grating units arranged side by side and extending in a same extension direction (e.g. see figure 1), and each of the plurality of groups of grating units being configured to have a grating surface inclined to the substrate (e.g. see figure 5).
Regarding claim 2 Porter discloses the texture structure according to claim 1, as set forth above. Porter further discloses wherein the plurality of groups of gratings are configured to intersect (e.g. see figures 2-4) so that a reflective surface of the texture structure in any direction exhibits a changing trend (axiomatic, further 25-32 “a p1urality of sets of parallel lines crossing each other angularly, so as to diffract the light-rays indifferent directions and produce the highly-colored rainbow appearance no matter from what direction the surface so decorated is viewed”).
Regarding claim 3 Porter discloses the texture structure according to claim 1, as set forth above. Porter further discloses wherein the plurality of groups of gratings comprises: a curved grating (inter alia page 1 lines 38-47 “sets of parallel lines, straight or otherwise” & page 2 lines 64-67 “lines are herein shown as straight lines, but are not necessarily so”) and a linear grating (inter alia page 1 lines 38-47 “sets of parallel lines, straight or otherwise” & page 2 lines 64-67 “lines are herein shown as straight lines, but are not necessarily so”).
Regarding claim 4 Porter discloses the texture structure according to claim 1, as set forth above. Porter further discloses wherein the plurality of groups of gratings comprise at least two groups of curved gratings (inter alia page 1 lines 38-47 “sets of parallel lines, straight or otherwise” & page 2 lines 64-67 “lines are herein shown as straight lines, but are not necessarily so”).
Regarding claim 5 Porter discloses the texture structure according to claim 1, as set forth above. Porter further discloses wherein the plurality of groups of gratings include two groups of gratings (e.g. figures 2 & 5 one group is horizontal and the other is vertical), and at least one of the two groups of gratings comprises a linear grating (e.g. figures 2 & 5 one of horizontal and vertical).
Regarding claim 6 Porter discloses the texture structure according to claim 1, as set forth above. Porter further discloses wherein a cross section of a grating perpendicular to the extension direction comprises a triangular or arcuate shape (implicit that the grooves are rounded, see page 3 lines 43-47, since the substrate is glass, an amorphous material, and the grooves are formed by etching with HF, which would dissolve the glass at identical rates in all directions, a.k.a. isotropic wet etching).
Regarding claims 7-8 Porter discloses the texture structure according to claim 1, as set forth above. Porter further discloses wherein a ratio between two groups of gratings tangent values of an angle between a side of the grating and the surface of the substrate is between 1:150 and 20:1 (implicit that the different gratings would have substantially similar cross sectional shapes given the manufacturing using isotropic wet etching and the ratio of tangent at comparable points would necessarily be 1).
Regarding claim 9 Porter discloses the texture structure according to claim 1, as set forth above. Porter further discloses wherein an area where orthographic projections of the plurality of groups of gratings overlap on the substrate is configured as an overlapping area (see figure 5), and the structure of the grating corresponding to the overlapping area is configured as an intersection portion, the overlapping area has a plurality of location points A (x, y), heights corresponding to the plurality of groups of intersecting gratings at each position point A (x, y) are h1, h2 ,..., hn respectively, the corresponding height H to the intersection portion at the corresponding position point A (x, y) is (h1+h2 +......+hn)/n, or the height H corresponding to the intersection portion at the corresponding position point A(x, y) is the smallest one among h1, h2,...,hn, where n is the number of the plurality of gratings intersecting in the overlapping area (no patentable weight since this is a definition and fails to limit the invention as set forth in the 112 rejection above).
Regarding claim 11 Porter discloses the texture structure according to claim 9, as set forth above. Porter further discloses wherein the texture structure has a plurality of intersections, and shapes of the plurality of intersections are different (e.g. see figure 3 intersections where B overlays C are differently shaped than the area where C is not covered by B and similar with figure 4 and intersections where C overlays D are differently shaped than the area where D is not covered by C, further since page 1 lines 38-47 & page 2 lines 64-67 allow for the gratings to be differently shaped, i.e. curved instead of straight, which in turn would cause the intersection to be further varied).
Claims 1-11 and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1 & 2) as being anticipated by Yang et al. foreign patent document CN11016522, of record.
Regarding claim 1 Yang discloses a texture structure (abstract e.g. figures 1-5 decorative films 100, 200, 300, 400 and/or 500), comprising: a substrate (e.g. figure 4 carrier layer 402); and a plurality of groups of gratings arranged on one side of the substrate (e.g. first, second and third textures 201, 202 & 203), the plurality of groups of gratings being arranged on a surface of the substrate in a crisscross pattern (abstract “intersecting stripes” e.g. see figures 1-2), each of the plurality of groups of gratings (e.g. 201, 202 & 203) comprising a plurality of grating units arranged side by side and extending in a same extension direction (see figure 2), and each of the plurality of groups of grating units being configured to have a grating surface inclined to the substrate (abstract “depth of at least one of the stripes varies along the extension direction” e.g. depths h1 & h2).
Regarding claim 2 Yang discloses the texture structure according to claim 1, as set forth above. Yang further discloses wherein the plurality of groups of gratings are configured to intersect (see figures 1-2) so that a reflective surface of the texture structure in any direction exhibits a changing trend (axiomatic, further abstract “presents different light and shadow changes from different viewing angles. The optical effect twists with the apex of the curve and the brightness alternates with the change of texture depth, thus making the decorative effect cool”).
Regarding claim 3 Yang discloses the texture structure according to claim 1, as set forth above. Yang further discloses wherein the plurality of groups of gratings comprise: a curved grating and a linear grating (abstract “are straight, curved, or zigzag” e.g. see figures 3 & 5).
Regarding claim 4 Yang discloses the texture structure according to claim 1, as set forth above. Yang further discloses wherein the plurality of groups of gratings comprise at least two groups of curved gratings (e.g. see figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 5 Yang discloses the texture structure according to claim 1, as set forth above. Yang further discloses wherein the plurality of groups of gratings include two groups of gratings (e.g. see figure 2), and at least one of the two groups of gratings comprises a linear grating (inter alia abstract “stripes are straight” & paragraph [0046] “curve could be replaced with a straight line” e.g. see figure 5).
Regarding claim 6 Yang discloses the texture structure according to claim 1, as set forth above. Yang further discloses wherein a cross section of a grating perpendicular to the extension direction comprises a triangular or arcuate shape (paragraph [0046] “cross-sectional shape is arc-shaped, rectangular, triangular, or bow-shaped”).
Regarding claims 7-8 Yang discloses the texture structure according to claim 1, as set forth above. Yang further discloses wherein a ratio between two groups of gratings tangent values of an angle between a side of the grating and the surface of the substrate is between 1:150 and 20:1 (implicit that the different gratings would have substantially similar cross sectional shapes given the shape being arc-shaped, rectangular, triangular, or bow-shaped).
Regarding claim 9 Yang discloses the texture structure according to claim 1, as set forth above. Yang further discloses wherein an area where orthographic projections of the plurality of groups of gratings overlap on the substrate is configured as an overlapping area, and the structure of the grating corresponding to the overlapping area is configured as an intersection portion (abstract “intersecting stripes” e.g. see figures 1-2), the overlapping area has a plurality of location points A (x, y), heights corresponding to the plurality of groups of intersecting gratings at each position point A (x, y) are h1, h2 ,..., hn respectively, the corresponding height H to the intersection portion at the corresponding position point A (x, y) is (h1+h2 +......+hn)/n, or the height H corresponding to the intersection portion at the corresponding position point A(x, y) is the smallest one among h1, h2,...,hn, where n is the number of the plurality of gratings intersecting in the overlapping area (no patentable weight since this is a definition and fails to limit the invention as set forth in the 112 rejection above).
Regarding claim 10 Yang discloses the texture structure according to claim 9, as set forth above. Yang further discloses wherein the intersection portion is configured as a pyramid or a prism (inter alia abstract “texture pattern being a raised structure and/or a recessed structure” & paragraph [0046] “cross-sectional shape is … triangular”).
Regarding claim 11 Yang discloses the texture structure according to claim 9, as set forth above. Yang further discloses wherein the texture structure has a plurality of intersections (abstract “plurality of intersecting stripes” e.g. see figures 1-2), and shapes of the plurality of intersections are different (inherent given the stripes are varying in extension direction and being straight, curved, or zigzag and would necessarily have differently shaped intersections, e.g. see figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 17 Yang discloses a mobile terminal (title “electronic device”) comprising a cover plate (abstract “cover plate for electronic devices”), wherein the cover plate comprises the texture structure according to claim 1 (as set forth above).
Regarding claims 18-22, the limitations of claims 18-22 are the same as the limitations of claims 2-6, respectively, and claims 18-22 are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. foreign patent document CN211843904, of record in view of Porter US Patent 734,134.
Regarding claim 17 Yang discloses a mobile terminal comprising a cover plate (inter alia paragraph [0033] “cover is preferably used in portable smart devices such as mobile phones and tablets”), wherein the cover plate comprises a texture structure (abstract “a decorative film with a pyramidal texture and a cover plate mounted thereon” e.g. figure 1 pyramid texture decorative film 100) and the texture structure comprises: a substrate (paragraph [0016] “carrier layer”) and an array of optical variously shaped elements for visual effects (abstract “decorative film comprises an array of pyramids … at least two of the pyramid faces (side faces) have different areas ... resulting in variations in brightness and shadow … creating a unique light and shadow effect on the decorative film” e.g. pyramids 101 & 102).
Yang does not disclose Porter teaches the texture structure having a grating structure according to claim 1.
Porter teaches a similar texture structure (as set forth above); and further teaches said texture structure has a grating structure according to claim 1, as set forth above. One would be motivated to substitute Porter’s texture structure for the purpose of producing highly-colored rainbow appearance no matter from what direction the surface is viewed (page 1 lines 28-32). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the mobile terminal comprising a cover plate as disclosed by Yang to use the texture structure having a grating structure according to claim 1 as taught by Porter for the purpose of producing highly-colored rainbow appearance no matter from what direction the surface is viewed.
Regarding claims 18-22 the combination of Yang as modified by Porter discloses the mobile terminal according to claim 17, as set forth above. The limitations of claims 18-22 are the same as the limitations of claims 2-6, respectively. Yang does not disclose the limitations of claims 18-22. Porter further teaches limitations of claims 18-22, see rejections of the same as the limitations in claims 2-6 above, and claims 18-22 are rejected for the same reasons. One would be motivated to substitute Porter’s texture structure having a grating structure for the purpose of producing highly-colored rainbow appearance no matter what direction the surface is viewed (page 1 lines 28-32). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the mobile terminal comprising a cover plate as disclosed by Yang to use the texture structure having a grating structure with the limitations of claims 18-22 (same as claims 2-6, respectively) as taught by Porter for the purpose of producing highly-colored rainbow appearance no matter what direction the surface is viewed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Staub et al. US Patent 5,969,863; in regards to a similar texture structure including structures in the form of grating structures composed of at least two superimposed gratings to achieve novel optical effects (abstract e.g. see figure 7).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to George G King whose telephone number is (303)297-4273. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571) 272-2333. 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.
/George G. King/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 August 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights