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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5, 11, and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 6-10, 12, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Taniguchi et al. (US Pub. 20230367045, Taniguchi).
As per claim 1, Taniguchi teaches (in figures 1-5) a viewing angle diffusion film (optical film 100), comprising: a substrate (film layer body 102A); and a plurality of refractive protrusions (lens units 110), forming a plurality of columns of refractive protrusions in parallel (columns along direction D1), wherein the plurality of refractive protrusions are arranged on the substrate in an array and configured to change a propagation direction of light entering the viewing angle diffusion film (paragraph 81), and a part of the light is shifted away from a center of the viewing angle diffusion film by light refraction, to enhance a brightness at a large viewing angle; wherein in each column of refractive protrusions, two adjacent refractive protrusions are staggered (see figures 3 and 4).
Regarding the functional limitation “a part of the light is shifted away from a center of the viewing angle diffusion film by light refraction” since the structure of the device of Taniguchi is identical to the claimed structure, the device of Taniguchi is considered to be as capable of performing the function as the claimed invention, absent any claimed structural difference. See MPEP § 2114 I & II, "While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function... A claim containing a 'recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus' if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.” in the instant case, Taniguchi teaches that a low-refractive index layers (102) forms the lens units (110) and forms an interface with a high-refractive index layer (103), the inclination angle of first element side surfaces (111) of the lens unit is in the range of 2- 30 degrees (paragraph 111), the low-refractive index layer has a refractive index in a range of 1.4-1.55, the high-refractive index layer has a refractive index in the range of 1.55-1.9, and the difference in refractive index between the low and high refractive index layers is in the range of .05 to .5 (paragraph 71) and as such light incident on the first element side surfaces at an angle less than the critical angle will be refracted away from the center of the viewing angle diffusion film and therefore the viewing angle diffusion film (optical film 100) of Taniguchi is considered capable of performing the recited function.
As per claim 2, Taniguchi teaches (in figures 1-5) that in each column of refractive protrusions (columns of lens units 110 along direction D1), a staggered distance (distance along the x axis from left side side surface 111 of lens unit 110-3 to the left side side surface 111 of lens unit 110-1) between a left side of a first refractive protrusion and other refractive protrusions changes periodically from up to down; and a staggered distance between two adjacent refractive protrusions is less than or equal to a width of the refractive protrusions (see figures and paragraph 112).
As per claim 4, Taniguchi teaches (in figures 1-5) that each column of refractive protrusions (columns of lens units 110 along direction D1) are arranged obliquely (along direction D1) and are arranged in a steplike staggered layout (see figure 4); and the refractive protrusions are connected from up to down (connected by film layer body 102A) and are staggered left and right (see figure 4).
As per claim 6, Taniguchi teaches (in figures 1-5) that a pattern of the refractive protrusions (lens units 110) in each column is the same (paragraph 83); and the substrate (film layer body 102A) and the refractive protrusions (lens units 110) are integrally formed (paragraph 67 and 73 and figures 2 and 5).
As per claim 7, Taniguchi teaches (in figures 1-5) a protective layer (substrate 101) disposed on the substrate (film layer body 102A), covering the refractive protrusions (lens units 110).
As per claim 8, Taniguchi teaches (in figures 1-5) a viewing angle diffusion film (optical film 100, cover glass 40, touch panel 30, and circularly polarizing plate 20), comprising: a substrate (cover glass 40); and a plurality of refractive protrusions (lens units 110), forming a plurality of columns of refractive protrusions in parallel (columns along direction D1), wherein the plurality of refractive protrusions are arranged on the substrate in an array; wherein in each column of refractive protrusions, two adjacent refractive protrusions are staggered (see figures 3 and 4) and a polarizing film (circularly polarizing plate 20) disposed on a side of the substrate (cover glass 40) away from the refractive protrusions.
As per claim 9, Taniguchi teaches (in figures 1-5) a display panel, comprising a display screen body (organic LED panel 15) and a viewing angle diffusion film (optical film 100), wherein the viewing angle diffusion film is provided on a light emitting side of the display screen body; and the viewing angle diffusion film comprises a substrate (film layer body 102A); and a plurality of refractive protrusions (lens units 110), forming a plurality of columns (columns along direction D1) of refractive protrusions in parallel, wherein the plurality of refractive protrusions are arranged on the substrate in an array and configured to change a propagation direction of light entering the viewing angle diffusion film (paragraph 81), and a part of the light is shifted away from a center of the viewing angle diffusion film by light refraction; wherein in each column of refractive protrusions, two adjacent refractive protrusions are staggered (see figures 3 and 4).
Regarding the functional limitation “a part of the light is shifted away from a center of the viewing angle diffusion film by light refraction” since the structure of the device of Taniguchi is identical to the claimed structure, the device of Taniguchi is considered to be as capable of performing the function as the claimed invention, absent any claimed structural difference. See MPEP § 2114 I & II, "While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function... A claim containing a 'recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus' if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.” in the instant case, Taniguchi teaches that a low-refractive index layers (102) forms the lens units (110) and forms an interface with a high-refractive index layer (103), the inclination angle of first element side surfaces (111) of the lens unit is in the range of 2- 30 degrees (paragraph 111), the low-refractive index layer has a refractive index in a range of 1.4-1.55, the high-refractive index layer has a refractive index in the range of 1.55-1.9, and the difference in refractive index between the low and high refractive index layers is in the range of .05 to .5 (paragraph 71) and as such light incident on the first element side surfaces at an angle less than the critical angle will be refracted away from the center of the viewing angle diffusion film and therefore the viewing angle diffusion film (optical film 100) of Taniguchi is considered capable of performing the recited function.
As per claim 10, Taniguchi teaches (in figures 1-5) that in each column of refractive protrusions (columns of lens units 110 along direction D1), a staggered distance (distance along the x axis from left side side surface 111 of lens unit 110-3 to the left side side surface 111 of lens unit 110-1) between a left side of a first refractive protrusion and other refractive protrusions changes periodically from up to down; and a staggered distance between two adjacent refractive protrusions is less than or equal to a width of the refractive protrusions (see figures and paragraph 112).
As per claim 12, Taniguchi teaches (in figures 1-5) that each column of refractive protrusions (columns of lens units 110 along direction D1) are arranged obliquely (along direction D1) and are arranged in a steplike staggered layout (see figure 4); and the refractive protrusions are connected from up to down (connected by film layer body 102A) and are staggered left and right (see figure 4).
As per claim 14, Taniguchi teaches (in figures 1-5) that a pattern of the refractive protrusions (lens units 110) in each column is the same (paragraph 83); and the substrate (film layer body 102A) and the refractive protrusions (lens units 110) are integrally formed (paragraph 67 and 73 and figures 2 and 5).
As per claim 15, Taniguchi teaches (in figures 1-5) a protective layer (substrate 101) disposed on the substrate (film layer body 102A), covering the refractive protrusions (lens units 110).
As per claim 16, Taniguchi teaches (in figures 1-5) a display panel, comprising a display screen body (organic LED panel 15) and a viewing angle diffusion film (optical film 100, cover glass 40, touch panel 30, and circularly polarizing plate 20), wherein the viewing angle diffusion film is provided on a light emitting side of the display screen body; and the viewing angle diffusion film comprises a substrate (cover glass 40); and a plurality of refractive protrusions (lens units 110), forming a plurality of columns (columns along direction D1) of refractive protrusions in parallel, wherein the plurality of refractive protrusions are arranged on the substrate in an array; wherein in each column of refractive protrusions, two adjacent refractive protrusions are staggered (see figures 3 and 4) and a polarizing film (circularly polarizing plate 20) disposed on a side of the substrate (cover glass 40) away from the refractive protrusions.
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.
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taniguchi et al. (US Pub. 20230367045, Taniguchi) as applied to claim 9 above and in further view of Yui et al. (US Pub. 20160139453, Yui).
As per claim 17, Taniguchi teaches that the display screen body can be a liquid crystal display panel (paragraph 37).
Taniguchi does not explicitly teach a backlight module arranged on a side of the display screen body away from the viewing angle diffusion film.
However, Yui teaches (in figures 1 and 2) providing a backlight module (backlight 2) arranged on a side of a display screen (liquid crystal panel 4) body away from the viewing angle diffusion film (light diffusing member 7) in order to provide light to the display while reducing blurriness (paragraph 50).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the backlight from Yui in the display of Taniguchi in order to provide light to the display while reducing blurriness.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-6 of applicant’s response, filed 02/27/2026, with respect to the rejections under 35. U.S.C. 102 and 103 over Suga (USP 6297908) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections under 35. U.S.C. 102 and 103 over Suga (USP 6297908) of claims 1-17 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 02/27/2026, with respect to the rejections under 35. U.S.C. 102 over Taniguchi et al. (US Pub. 20230367045, Taniguchi) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that the refractive protrusions are simple convex structures) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). As shown in the rejection above Taniguchi teaches each of the claimed limitations and as such applicant’s argument is unpersuasive and the rejection is maintained.
In response to applicant’s argument that the cited reference fails to teach the limitation of “two adjacent refractive protrusions are staggered. This argument is unpersuasive. As shown in the rejection above Taniguchi teaches a plurality of refractive protrusions (lens units 110), forming a plurality of columns of refractive protrusions in parallel (columns along direction D1), wherein in each column of refractive protrusions, two adjacent refractive protrusions are staggered (see figures 3 and 4 which show that adjacent columns are interlaced and staggered) applicants argument is therefore unpersuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER P GROSS whose telephone number is (571)272-5660. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm EST.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at (571) 272-9791. 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.
/ALEXANDER P GROSS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights