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 1-15 and 17, in the reply filed on May 4, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 16 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on May 4, 2026.
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 06/13/2025 and 05/05/2026 have been considered by the examiner.
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 1-11, 14, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hong et al. (US 2020/0084311).
Regarding claims 1 and 17, Hong et al. teaches an optical element (200h; appearance decorative member) comprising a first texture pattern (1h) and a second texture pattern (2h) which include a first sub-texture pattern unit (11h) and a second sub-texture pattern unit (21h) respectively ([0064], see Fig. 8 reproduced below).
PNG
media_image1.png
445
322
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The first and second units (1h, 2h) are each represented by a plurality of small short lines arranged in accordance with a first curve (S1) and are each a linear cylindrical mirror [0064]. As shown in Fig. 8, the texture surface of the optical element is divided into multiple partition units configured in multiple rows and multiple columns, where each linear cylindrical mirror can be taken to correspond to a sub-texture within a partition unit. As shown in Fig. 8, texture angles of two adjacent sub-textures in each of the rows are different, and texture angles of sub-textures in each of the columns form an arithmetic progression along a column direction.
Hong et al. further teaches a mobile phone cover plate including the above-described optical element, wherein the mobile phone cover plate functions to protect the parts inside the mobile phone (electronic device) and to beautify and decorate the mobile phone ([0003], [0056]).
Regarding claim 2, Hong et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. As shown in Fig. 8 above, the difference between the texture angles of two adjacent sub-textures in any of the multiple rows is greater than 5°.
Regarding claim 3, Hong et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. As shown in annotated Fig. 8 below, an absolute value of a common difference of an arithmetic progression formed by the texture angle of the sub-textures in each of the columns shown in the two rows annotated below is within the claimed range of greater than 0° and less than 60°.
PNG
media_image2.png
552
390
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Hong et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 3 above. As shown in annotated Fig. 8 below, texture angles of sub-textures in the same column (i.e., any of the columns shown) have multiple common differences along the column direction. In the example shown below where three rows are selected, the common difference between texture angles in the top and middle rows is greater than 0° and less than 60°, while the common difference between texture angles in the middle and bottom rows is 0°.
PNG
media_image3.png
552
390
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Hong et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 4 above. As shown in Fig. 8 above, sub-textures in at least two rows form a row texture group along the row direction, where the texture angle of sub-textures in the row texture group has one common difference along the row direction.
Regarding claim 6, Hong et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. As noted above, Hong et al. teaches that the sub-texture pattern units may each be formed as a linear cylindrical mirror ([0052], [0064]), thus having a structure which is rotationally symmetrical.
Regarding claims 7-10, Hong et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches that at least one parameter of lengths, widths, cross-sectional shapes, reliefs, numbers, arrangement, or offset angles of the different sub-texture pattern units may be different [0051]. Therefore, structures of the sub-texture pattern units may be either the same or different, and shapes and/or sizes of the multiple partition units may be the same or different. It is further noted that the partition unit corresponds to an arbitrary region which includes the sub-texture unit, such that the shape and/or size of the multiple partition units can be arbitrarily defined to be the same or different.
Regarding claims 11, 14, and 15, Hong et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. As noted above, Hong et al. teaches that the sub-texture pattern units are small short lines which may be in the form of a linear cylindrical mirror ([0051], [0064]), thus having a linear structure with a cross-sectional shape which comprises an arc shape and has a chamfer.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al. (US 2020/0084311) as applied to claim 11 above.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Hong et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 11 above. Although Hong et al. teaches that the small short lines (linear structure) may be a linear cylindrical mirror or a curved cylindrical lens with a length greater than or equal to 10 µm ([0020]), Hong et al. does not expressly teach a width or a height of the short lines. It would, however, have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the width and height of the short lines taught by Hong et al., such as to values within the ranges of claims 12 and 13, in order to obtain the desired optical properties and aesthetic appearance of the optical element. Furthermore, it is well settled that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Utsuro et al. (US 2011/0090564) teaches an exterior part (100) having a structural color region (110) made up on first and second structural color regions (111, 112) in which a plurality of linear grooves are arranged in perpendicular X- and Y-directions ([0042]-[0046], Figs. 1A-1B). Utsuro et al. further teaches an exterior part (300) having four structural color regions (311, 312, 313, 314) forming rows and columns in which the texture angle of adjacent regions has a common difference of 45° (Figs. 3A-3B, 4A-4B).
Toda (US 2010/0254007) teaches a display (1) including light-scattering regions (20) having constituted by light-scattering cells (21a-21b) and diffraction grating regions (10) constituted by diffraction grating cells (12a-12f) having orientations different from one another ([0101]-[0104], Figs. 10-11).
Wang et al. (CN 113189688, machine translation via EPO provided) teaches a cover plate (100) comprising a substrate (10) and an optical texture layer (20) provided with a plurality of gratings (21) including multiple grating units (211) having multiple grating grooves (212) arranged at intervals, wherein the grating grooves in at least two grating units extend in different directions on the optical texture layer ([0024], Figs. 1-4).
Wu et al. (WO 2024/187791, machine translation via EPO provided) teaches a glass housing (100) comprising a body portion (10) and a grating texture (30) having a plurality of grating portions (31) which make the housing present a light and shadow texture ([0089], Figs. 1-5). Wu et al. teaches that the height of the grating portion ranges from 0.1 to 16 µm, and that the width of the grating portion ranges from 0.3 to 80 µm, in order to achieve the desired light and shadow textures and to ensure manufacturability ([0102]-[0103]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA L GRUSBY whose telephone number is (571) 272-1564. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM-5:30 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/Rebecca L Grusby/Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights