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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Priority
As required by M.P.E.P. 201.14(c), acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on the application filed on April 8th, 2020 (JP 2020-070044). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) in application 17/907,671 which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609, the applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statements dated October 18th, 2024, November 25th, 2024, March 18th, 2025, July 16th, 2025, and December 24th, 2025 are acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending.
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 1-3 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 claim 1, the limitation “gradual decrease and a gradual increase in protrusion height are repeated” is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. Specifically, the words “gradual” before increase and decrease are relative in nature as they are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Further, it is unclear if the protrusion height needs to be continuously varying as it decreases/increases in height, or if a stepped approach would meet this limitation due to the word gradual having multiple accepted meanings. Finally, it is unclear if there needs to just be more than one increase/decrease in height to qualify as “repeated” (with a pattern of decrease/decrease/increase/increase as an example) or if applicant intends for a specific pattern to repeat such as increase/decrease/increase/decrease or similar. Accordingly, for the purpose of examining the claims currently pending, this limitation will be interpreted to mean “decrease and an increase in protrusion height exist”.
Regarding claims 2-3, these claims depend on a rejected base claim and are therefore rejected for at least the reason stated supra.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kozasa et al. (US 2010/0196062 A1) in view of Miyazaki et al. (JP 2022154615 A) (Note a translated version of this document is being cited below and has been provided).
Regarding claim 1, Kozasa teaches a transfer sheet comprising a plurality of linear protrusions extending and arranged side by side on a surface thereof (See, e.g., transfer belt 501 in Fig. 3 and paragraph [0049]-[0051] which explain linear convexities which are linear protrusions).
Kozasa lacks an explicit disclosure wherein the plurality of linear protrusions are arranged in a manner that a gradual decrease and a gradual increase in protrusion height are repeated.
However, in an analogous field of endeavor Miyazaki teaches the use of protrusions on a transfer sheet having a gradual decrease and increase in protrusion height (See, e.g., Figs. 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3, and 5 which show the protrusions having various shapes and configurations. Specifically note Fig. 5 which shows a gradual increase/decrease in protrusion height).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kozasa to include a gradual increase/decrease in protrusion heights, as taught by Miyazaki, for the purpose of having more spectral control over the light passing the device, as the height variations allow for a more diffuse spectral profile.
Regarding claim 2, Kozasa in view of Miyazaki teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein a difference in protrusion height between at least one pair of adjacent linear protrusions is less than or equal to (Hmax - Hmin)/800 × 2 × 8, where Hmax is a protrusion height of a highest linear protrusion and Hmin is a protrusion height of a lowest linear protrusion of the plurality of linear protrusions (See, e.g., paragraph [0050] which explains the height may be preferably from 0.02 um to 0.1 um and paragraph [0056] which explains they can also be the same height, so the required value is within the claimed range when two protrusions have the same height).
Regarding claim 3, Kozasa in view of Miyazaki teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein a difference in protrusion height between every pair of adjacent linear protrusions is less than or equal to (Hmax - Hmin)/800 × 2 × 8 (See, e.g., paragraph [0050] which explains the height may be preferably from 0.02 um to 0.1 um and paragraph [0056] which explains they can also be the same height, so the required value is within the claimed range when the protrusions have the same height as well as when the protrusions are barely off each other height wise).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mitchell Oestreich whose telephone number is (571)270-7559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-11:00 MT.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at 571-272-2713. 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.
/MITCHELL T OESTREICH/ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights