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 1 and Specie A in the reply filed on 09/14/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 8 and 10-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group 2 and Specie B, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 09/14/2026.
The restriction requirement has been made FINAL.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwase et al. (US 2015/0362634 A1)
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites a plurality of concavities or convexities at the beginning, but then seems to recite concavities are what is required in the last limitation. Iwase teaches a master/mold for making an antireflective optical member. This means the corresponding optical member taught in Iwase is the inverse of the master. Iwase teaches the master comprises a plurality of concave-convex groups provided on a base material, where the concave-convex group each including a plurality of convexities or concavities. Iwase teaches the average widths of the protrusions of the optical member are less than the visible wave length (Paragraph 0040); therefore, the average width of the areas occupied by the concavities or convexities at a surface of the base material are smaller than or equal to a visible light band wavelength. Iwase teaches the respective concave-convex groups are laid out regularly. (Fig. 3-4).
Iwase teaches the protrusions of the optical member are spaced apart from each other such that protrusions are not provided continuously and are spaced apart from each other at an interval wider than an interval between the protrusions (Fig. 8; Paragraph 0065). Therefore, Iwase teaches the concave-convex groups are spaced apart from each other such that concavities are not provided continuously and are spaced apart from each other at an interval wider than an interval between the concavities within the convex groups.
Iwase teaches the protrusions can have different heights in a group (Fig. 5, 6, 9-10). Iwase teaches a group of protrusions can have different heights, thereby creating formed lengths of convexities from the surface of the base material in each the concave-converse groups each belong to any of least two or more groups having different central values. (Paragraph 0063, 0070-0072). Iwase teaches these different lengths can be used to set specific quality at specific viewing angles or to improve visual quality. Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to set the formed lengths of convexities from the surface of the base material in each the concave-converse groups each belong to any of least two or more groups having different central values in the embodiment recited in Fig. 8 for varying the quality at specific viewing angles or to improve visual quality.
Regarding Claim 2, Iwase teaches the average widths of the areas occupied by the respective concavities or convexities at the surface of the base material in each of the concave-convex groups belong to any of at least two or more groups having different central values. (Fig. 5, 9-10).
Regarding Claim 3, Iwase teaches the average widths of the areas occupied by the concavities or convexities at the surface of the base material increase as the formed lengths of the concavities or convexities at the surface of the base material increase. (Fig. 5, 9-10).
Regarding Claim 4, Iwase teaches the areas occupied by the respective concavities or convexities at the surface of the base material have a circular planar shape. (Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 5, Iwase teaches interval at which each of the concave-convex groups is provided is larger than the wavelength belonging to a visible light band. (Paragraph 0065).
Regarding Claim 7, Iwase teaches the formed lengths of the respective concavities or convexities from the surface of the bas material are changed gradually within each of the concave-convex groups. (Fig. 5-10)
Regarding Claim 9, Iwase teaches a transfer object comprising a transferred concave-convex structure including the plurality of concave-convex groups provided in the master has been transferred. (Abstract; Fig. 2A-2C).
Regarding Claim 14, Iwase teaches interval at which each of the concave-convex groups are spaced apart is larger than the wavelength belonging to a visible light band. (Paragraph 0065).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwase in view of Hayashibe et al. (US 2011/0102900 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Iwase does not specifically teach the respective concavities or convexities in each of the concave-convex groups are provide in a closet-packed arrangement. 18.
However, Hayashibe teaches that arranging nanostructures in a closest-packing pattern produces a reflection-reducing result (Paragraph 0019). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to ensure the concavities and convexities in the groups of Iwase are also in closest packed arrangement to ensure anti-reflective properties.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-7, 9 and 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,352,926. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because a master and concave-convex structure can be considered the same type of product.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0358. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday: 9:30am-3:30pm, 8:30PM-10:30PM.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/Michael Zhang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
