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 .
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 states “wherein an arithmetic mean height of a profile in the predetermined area is 12 nm or more and 20 nm or less, the profile being obtained by removing height information of 1 µm or more from height information of the plurality of convex parts;” so it would have been unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention the location of the mean height profile and what structure to which it is referring; and since the specification appears to lack guidance on exactly how this calculation is performed. The Examiner notes paragraph 34 of the instant specification, but after review the calculation still appears to be unclear. Furthermore, the limitation appears to be open ended and indefinite due to the phrase “1 µm or more.”
The Examiner recommends amending the claim by deleting the limitation(s) and adding “and a surface roughness of high-frequency components present on at least one of the plurality of convex parts; wherein an arithmetic mean height Sa of the high-frequency components on the convex parts is 12 nm or more and 20 nm or less” or the like to further define the structure.
The Examiner notes, if claim 1 is amended claim 2 would need to be addressed.
Claims 8 states wherein the resin molded product is provided on a surface of a concave-convex structure; so the structure would have been clear to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, e.g., is it provided as a layer on a substrate or integrated into a concave-convex structure. For examination purposes, it will be assumed that it is integrated into a concave-convex structure; wherein the convexities are the plurality of convex parts of claim 1.
Claims 2-12 are rejection for failing to cure the deficiencies of claim 1.
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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], 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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, 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.
Claim 2 states “wherein the profile is present in at least one convex part of plurality of convex parts;” but this is improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends since the profile would have to be present in (or on) at least one convex part of plurality of convex parts since no other structure is given.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oikawa (US 2025/0269566 A1) in view of Rawlings et al (US 2016/0325823 A1).
Regarding claims 1-8, Oikawa teaches a resin molded product, comprising: a plurality of convex parts distributed in a predetermined area; wherein the resin molded product is formed from a black-colored resin material; wherein each part of the plurality of convex parts has a curvature that is substantially equal to a curvature of each other part of the plurality of convex parts; wherein the resin molded product is provided on a surface of a concave-convex structure (abstract, para 37, 69).
Oikawa fails to teach wherein a height of each of the plurality of convex parts is 2 µm or more and 15 µm or less, and wherein an arithmetic mean height of a profile in the predetermined area is 12 nm or more and 20 nm or less, the profile being obtained by removing height information of 1 µm or more from height information of the plurality of convex parts; wherein the profile is present in at least one convex part of plurality of convex parts; wherein, as a bidirectional reflectance distribution function value in the predetermined area, a peak luminance is 62 cd/m2 or more and 112 cd/m2 or less, and an average luminance in an area where a reflection angle is -30 degrees or more and 0 degrees or less is 10 cd/m2 or more and 19 cd/m2 or less; wherein an average interval between the plurality of convex parts is 20 µm or more and 60 µm or less.
However, Oikawa teaches that highly pleasant design is desired for the exterior surface of resin parts that are used for casings and outer shells of various products; and it is desired for product design, a luxurious outer surface with a sense of brilliance is desired for particularly improving the design (para 2, 6).
Rawlings teaches the forming of microstructures and nanostructures for on the microstructures by molding wherein varying shape of the microstructures towards the base surfaces facilitates light components reflecting from the microstructure; and the sub-microstructures reduce and/or minimize reflections or glint resulting from incident light (para 31-32, 37-42). Rawlings further teaches the microstructures (i.e., convex part) and nanostructures (i.e., profile) may be any shape or geometry allow different optical effects to convey an image, and/or glint reduction. (para 43, 47-450).
Therefore, per Rawlings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to adjust the shape and geometry (and therein the size) of the convex portions or Oikawa including the use of nanostructures (i.e., a profile) to optimize the optical effects of the surface of the resin molded product.
Rawlings teaches the term “microstructure” may refer to geometric features, dimensions and/or distances between geometric features (e.g., periodic distances, heights and/or widths, etc.) having sizes of approximately 10-200 microns (i.e., µm) and the nanostructure or sub-microstructures (i.e., profile) may also refer to dimensions less than about 0.4 microns (i.e., 400 nm). These ranges substantially overlap that of the instant claims. It has been held that overlapping ranges are sufficient to establish prima facie obviousness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Oikawa as modified by Rawlings, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP § 2144.05).
Regarding the limitation “wherein, as a bidirectional reflectance distribution function value in the predetermined area, a peak luminance is 62 cd/m2 or more and 112 cd/m2 or less, and an average luminance in an area where a reflection angle is -30 degrees or more and 0 degrees or less is 10 cd/m2 or more and 19 cd/m2 or less;” Oikawa as modified by Rawlings teaches or would have rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention the structure, composition, and process of forming the resin molded product of the instant claims, so it is deemed to possess these properties.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). (MPEP § 2112.01 I).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Oikawa teaches resin molded products are made through a transfer mold (para 61-77) which would have suggested or otherwise rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention forming a mold comprising a molding surface including a plurality of concave parts configured to mold the plurality of convex parts of the combination of Oikawa as modified by Rawlings (i.e., a plurality of concave parts configured to mold the plurality of convex parts of claim 1).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Oikawa teaches a camera comprising the resin molded product and a printer comprising the resin molded product (para 81; figs 10a-b).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN L VAN SELL whose telephone number is (571)270-5152. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur, Generally 7am-6pm.
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, M. Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
NATHAN VAN SELL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1783
/NATHAN L VAN SELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
