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’s Comment
This Office action is in correction of the shortened statutory period of reply within the Final rejection dated 26 January 2026. In regards to applicant’s inaccurate record of substance of an interview, the Examiner notes that the reply filed on 11 December 2025 is not fully responsive to the prior Office action because it fails to include a complete or accurate record of the substance of the 13 November 2025 interview.
Applicant is given a shortened statutory period of *THREE (3) MONTHS from the mailing date of this notice within which to supply the omission or correction in order to avoid abandonment. EXTENSIONS OF THIS TIME PERIOD MAY BE GRANTED UNDER 37 CFR 1.136(a) but in no case can any extension carry the date for reply to this letter beyond the maximum period of SIX MONTHS set by statute (35 U.S.C. 133).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Please see response to arguments presented below in the present Office action.
In response to the applicant's argument that "Applicant respectfully traverses because the regular, unvaried grid intervals in Arima do not render obvious the varied grid intervals recited in the present claims," the Examiner traverses. Per Non-Final Rejection dated 26 August 2025 of the present application, Arima discloses microlenses being arranged utilizing a random locating method, for the center positions of microlenses are not arranged at uniform intervals, there is no consistent pattern in the arrangement, and the layout varies across the surface, and thus, forms a non-uniform spatial grid i.e., a type of grid variation ([0075-84]; fig. 7a; See Final Rejection dated 18 April 2025). The random locating method of lenses teaches the variation in grid of a diffuser plate, for the perturbation i.e., variations of the microlens array properties e.g., different regions, curvatures, trajectory, etc., directly contribute to the light scattering mechanisms e.g., varying grid patterns and intervals of the diffuser plate ([0002] & [0050]; See Final Rejection dated 18 April 2025). See also MPEP §§ 2112 and 2123.
In response to the applicant's argument that "In the presently claimed invention, as shown in Figures 5 and 11 (reproduced below), the grid widths Wx and Wy of the rectangular grid are varied, but they are not random. They are constant in the same row or column, but each row or column may have a varied width. This is not the same as Arima's fixed grid, in which there is no variation in the rows or columns. As recited in the present claims, the grid widths Wx of multiple lenses are varied collectively in rows in the X direction ("the grid intervals Wx in an X direction of the microlenses disposed in the X direction of the rectangular grid are different from each other") and the grid widths Wy of multiple lenses are varied collectively in columns in the Y direction ("the grid intervals Wy in a Y direction of the microlenses disposed in the Y direction of the rectangular grid are different from each other")," the Examiner traverses. Applicant argues that “the grid widths Wx and Wy of the rectangular grid are varied, but they are not random” despite Claim 1 explicitly reciting “wherein the grid intervals Wx in the X direction are each varied at random at a varying rate 5Wx within ±10% using a reference grid interval Wx k as a reference, and the grid intervals Wy in the Y direction are each varied at random at a varying rate 5Wy within ±10% using a reference grid interval Wy k as a reference.” Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because claim 1 expressly requires randomness, for the claim language states that the grid intervals are “each varied at random at a varying rate…” Asserting that the grid widths are not random directly contradicts the claim’s requirement and improperly reads the “at random” limitation out of the claim. Examiner notes that the claims must particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or joint inventor regards as the invention. See 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
In response to the applicant's argument that "In other words, the variation that occurs in the presently claimed invention occurs in the rows (in the X direction) and the columns (in the Y direction), as opposed Arima, which uses a fixed grid and varied lens placements within that grid," the Examiner traverses. Per Non-Final Rejection dated 26 August 2025 of the present application, Arima discloses microlenses being arranged utilizing a random locating method, for the center positions of microlenses are not arranged at uniform intervals, there is no consistent pattern in the arrangement, and the layout varies across the surface, and thus, forms a non-uniform spatial grid i.e., a type of grid variation ([0075-84]; fig. 7a; See Final Rejection dated 18 April 2025). The random locating method of lenses teaches the variation in grid of a diffuser plate, for the perturbation i.e., variations of the microlens array properties e.g., different regions, curvatures, trajectory, etc., directly contribute to the light scattering mechanisms e.g., varying grid patterns and intervals of the diffuser plate ([0002] & [0050]; See Final Rejection dated 18 April 2025). See also MPEP §§ 2112 and 2123.
In response to the applicant's argument that "Thus, the presently claimed invention regularly arranges multiple microlenses based on a rectangular grid whose columns and rows have widths and heights that are varied from each other, but which are constant within each column or row," the Examiner traverses. 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., presently claimed invention regularly arranges multiple microlenses based on a rectangular grid whose columns and rows have widths and heights that are varied from each other, but which are constant within each column or row) 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).
In response to the applicant's argument that "By doing so, the regular lens arrangement based on the presently claimed rectangular grid ensures light distribution control in both the X and Y directions while (A) reducing the unevenness in the intensity distribution of diffused light caused by interference and diffraction of diffused light due to the periodic structure of the regularly arranged lenses; and (B) further reducing diffraction components caused by the periodic structure of the lenses," the Examiner traverses. Examiner notes that the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
In response to the applicant's argument that "This is different from Arima's fixed grid arrangement, described in Paragraph Nos. [0075]-[0084], which contains a random placement of microlenses within that fixed grid. In Arima, the widths and heights of the rows and columns in its grid do not vary from one another in the manner that the presently claimed invention recites. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art would not have had a reason to have changed Arima's disclosure in this respect, since Arima is entirely silent regarding the presently claimed grid arrangement," the Examiner traverses. Per Non-Final Rejection dated 26 August 2025 of the present application, Arima discloses microlenses being arranged utilizing a random locating method, for the center positions of microlenses are not arranged at uniform intervals, there is no consistent pattern in the arrangement, and the layout varies across the surface, and thus, forms a non-uniform spatial grid i.e., a type of grid variation ([0075-84]; fig. 7a; See Final Rejection dated 18 April 2025). The random locating method of lenses teaches the variation in grid of a diffuser plate, for the perturbation i.e., variations of the microlens array properties e.g., different regions, curvatures, trajectory, etc., directly contribute to the light scattering mechanisms e.g., varying grid patterns and intervals of the diffuser plate ([0002] & [0050]; See Final Rejection dated 18 April 2025). See also MPEP §§ 2112 and 2123.
In response to the applicant's argument that "Arima, by not disclosing or suggesting the variation in grid widths and heights recited in the present claims, fails to disclose or suggest the lens arrangement required in the present claims, since the lenses are not located at the same positions as the presently claimed invention," the Examiner traverses. See previous response to argument above. Per Advisory Action dated 25 July 2025, Arima discloses the diffuser plate according to Claim 1, wherein a planar position of a vertex (as seen in fig. 7a) of each of the microlenses (plurality of single lenses 21; [0057]) disposed in the X direction and the Y direction (xy coordinate system; [0076)) is off-centered ( varied overlying width; [0075-77]; fig. 5a & 7a) from a central point of each of rectangles of the rectangular grid (as seen in fig. 6a-b, & 7a-b; See Final Rejection dated 18 April 2025; at once envisage; See MPEP § 2131.02(III)).
In response to the applicant's argument that "The lens placements of the presently claimed invention provide for an unexpectedly more reliable achievement of "top hat diffusion characteristics," which are described in the present specification in, for example, Paragraph No. [0177]," the Examiner traverses. Examiner reminds the applicant that the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
In response to the applicant's argument that "As a result of having the presently claimed characteristics, the uniformity of the light distribution in two mutually perpendicular directions (X and Y directions) is sufficiently improved within the diffusion angle (full width at half maximum) of 20° or less. Furthermore, the anisotropy of the light distribution in the X and Y directions and the cutoff characteristics of the diffused light intensity distribution are appropriately improved," the Examiner traverses. Examiner reminds the applicant that the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
In response to the applicant's argument that "This effects above are unexpected and are not disclosed or suggested in Arima. There is no disclosure in Arima that its random locating method recited in Paragraph Nos. [0075]-[0084] will result in the specific lens positions that are presently claimed. And the presently claimed invention results in the unexpected and unique effects discussed above, which are distinct from the effects, and the structure, in Arima," the Examiner traverses. Examiner reminds the applicant that the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § 716. Per Non-Final Rejection dated 26 August 2025 of the present application, Arima discloses the ratio |ΔR/R| of the perturbation width ΔR to the reference radius of curvature R is more than or equal to 5% and less than or equal to 70% ([0051]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also MPEP § 2144.05. Arima further discloses Rx_k/Wx_k ≥ 1.85 ... (A) (since reference aperture size φ is more than or equal to 5% and less than or equal to 25% & reference radius of curvature R is more than or equal to 5% and less than or equal to 70%, then ΔR/Δφ ≈ ΔR ≥ ±35%/Δφ = ±18.5% ≥ 1.89; [0051]); and Ry_k/Wy_k ≥ 1.85 ... (B) (ΔR/Δφ ≈ ΔR ≥ ±35%/Δφ = ±18.5% ≥ 1.89; [0051]; reference aperture size and a reference radius of curvature of a microlens in the reference array are represented by φ and R, respectively, and the maximum perturbation amount is represented by M/2; [0051]; table 1 & 2). Arima also explicitly discloses a diffused light distribution having a top hat shape, and an energy change at a top part is less than or equal to 20% ([0119]; table 1 & 2). Thus, counsel's assertion is merely an argument unaccompanied by evidentiary support, and, thus, is insufficient to rebut Examiner's finding of obviousness. Arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.”). MPEP § 2145, 716.01(c). See Claim 1 § 103 rejection below in the present Office action.
In response to the applicant's argument that "Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that the different lens arrangement disclosed in Arima does not render obvious the presently claimed invention, and the unexpectedly superior results achieved by the presently claimed invention also provide a reason why the presently claimed invention is not rendered obvious by Arima," the Examiner traverses. See previous arguments above.
In response to the applicant's argument that "As noted above, the present claims recite a variation in the grid widths. Arima does not disclose or suggest this aspect of the claims. Accordingly, Arima also fails to disclose or suggest the combination of the variation of the grid widths with the variation of the curvature radii recited in the present claims. This combination, not being present in Arima, is therefore another reason why Applicant respectfully submits that the presently claimed invention is not rendered obvious by Arima," the Examiner traverses. See previous arguments above.
In response to the applicant's argument that "Applicant thanks the Examiners for the courtesy extended during the Interview on November 13, 2025. During the Interview, the subject matter in the Interview Agenda submitted herewith was discussed. The Examiners' comments have been taken into consideration in the preparation of this Response. Applicant's representative notes that the Interview Summary contains inaccuracies. Applicant's representative emailed the Interview Agenda to the Office a few hours prior to the Interview in an email containing language authorizing electronic communications, and during the Interview Applicant's representative apologized for not sending it one day prior. An electronic communication authorization form was later filed. Further, the Interview Summary indicates that the Interview Agenda did not indicate in advance what issues Applicant's representative wished to discuss. This is inaccurate, as the attached Agenda clearly lists the issue that Applicant's representative wished to, and did, discuss during the Interview. The same issue is discussed in more detail in the present Response. Further, Applicant's representative was fully prepared to discuss the issues, as evidenced by the fact that the Examiners and Applicant's representative did indeed discuss the issue described in the Agenda," the Examiner traverses. The reply filed on 11 December 2025 is not fully responsive to the prior Office action because it fails to include a complete or accurate record of the substance of the 13 November 2025 interview.
Applicant’s assertions regarding the interview are not accurate. The interview was agenda was not received in advance as requested and agreed upon, and the Examiner explicitly notified counsel prior to the interview that the agenda had not been received and that the Examiner therefore lacked adequate time to review any materials. Examiner further attempted to reschedule the interview on the basis that counsel was not prepared, consistent with MPEP § 713:
“An interview should be had only when the nature of the case is such that the interview could serve to develop and clarify specific issues and lead to a mutual understanding between the examiner and the applicant, and thereby advance the prosecution of the application.
Thus, the attorney or agent should be fully prepared to discuss the issues raised in the Office action at the time of the interview. When it is obvious that the attorney or agent is not so prepared, the interview should be rescheduled. It is desirable that the attorney, agent, or applicant submit an agenda which indicates in advance what issues they desire to discuss at the interview by submitting, in writing, a proposed amendment or argument. This would permit the examiner to prepare in advance for the interview and to focus on the matters set forth in the proposed amendment.”
Examiner informed counsel in advance that the interview summary would reflect this. Counsel did not respond. As indicated in the Examiner Interview Summary Record, dated 14 November 2025, no proposed amendment or substantive argument was presented in the writing prior to the interview, not during the interview, as required by MPEP §§ 713.01 ad 713.02. The agenda merely indicated a desire to discuss a concept already argued on the record and to solicit guidance on what arguments the Examiner might find persuasive, which does not constitute a proposed amendment or argument. Thus, no substantive discussion of the application occurred during the interview. Applicant’s contention that the agenda was emailed “a few hours prior” is unavailing, for the agenda was sent outside the Examiner’s stated availability hours (see last two pages of Office action(s) dated 05 December 2024, 18 April 2025, and 26 August 2025 for Examiner availability), was not agreed upon, and did not afford a reasonable opportunity for review. Furthermore, Examiner informed counsel that attempting to authorize electronic communications via email was improper, as such authorization must be filed separately in accordance with 37 CFR § 1.4 and MPEP § 713:
“The Internet authorization must be submitted on a separate paper to be entitled to acceptance in accordance with 37 CFR 1.4(c). The separate paper will facilitate processing and avoid confusion.”
Therefore, the interview summary reflects that counsel was not prepared and that no substantive issues were discussed. Applicant’s record of the interview and reliance on the agenda is inconsistent with the record, and the present reply fails to cure the outstanding deficiencies of the prior Office action.
Since the above-mentioned reply appears to be bona fide, applicant is given a shortened statutory period of *THREE (3) MONTHS from the mailing date of this notice within which to supply the omission or correction in order to avoid abandonment. EXTENSIONS OF THIS TIME PERIOD MAY BE GRANTED UNDER 37 CFR 1.136(a), but in no case can any extension carry the date for reply to this letter beyond the maximum period of SIX MONTHS set by statute (35 U.S.C. 133).
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
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, and 6-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arima et al. US 20180284326 A1 (herein after "Arima").
With respect to Claim 1, Arima discloses a diffuser plate (diffuser plate 1; [0007-127]; fig. 1-18) of a microlens array type (microlens array diffuser plate; [0055]; fig. 1) comprising:
a base material (transparent base material 10; [0055]); and
a microlens array (single lens group 20; [0055]) composed of a plurality of microlenses (plurality of single lenses 21; [0057]) disposed regularly (single lenses are arranged regularly as a reference, such that a moved amount from the reference falls within a predetermined range; [0015]) on an X-Y plane (x-y coordinates as seen in fig. 7a; [0031]) on at least one surface of the base material (disposed on transparent base material 10; [0057]) using an irregular rectangular grid (a rectangle is an irregular polygon; Arima teaches the transparent base material 10 being rectangular, the shape of the transparent base material 10 is not limited to a rectangle, but may have an arbitrary shape, depending on the shape of a display device, a projection device, a lighting device, or the like in which the diffuser plate 1 is provided; [0056]; irregular rectangular grid as seen in fig. 1) having grid intervals Wx and Wy different from each other (random locating method, intervals varied at random wherein the x coordinate and y coordinate of the lens locating position are decided by random numbers, and thus, intervals are different from each other; [0075-84]; fig. 7a) as a reference (single lenses 21 are located in a square manner; [0069]; rectangular grid as seen in fig. 1, 6a, & 7a), wherein
the grid intervals Wx in an X direction of the microlenses disposed in the X direction of the rectangular grid are different from each other (lens center i.e., vertex position of each single lens 21 moved at random from a lattice point, and thus, grid intervals are different from each other; [0051] & [0071]; fig. 6a-b),
the grid intervals Wy in a Y direction of the microlenses disposed in the Y direction of the rectangular grid are different from each other (lens center i.e., vertex position of each single lens 21 moved at random from a lattice point, and thus, grid intervals are different from each other; [0051] & [0071]; fig. 6a-b), and
surface shapes of the plurality of microlenses are different from each other (performing perturbation using the aperture size φ and radius of curvature R of the single lenses 21 locating at random single lenses 21 having random shapes, and thus, microlens shapes are different from each other; [0072]; as seen in fig. 1 & 3),
wherein the grid intervals Wx in the X direction are each varied at random (random locating method, intervals varied at random wherein the x coordinate and y coordinate of the lens locating position are decided by random numbers; [0075-84]; fig. 7a) at a varying rate δWx (in the microlens array, ratio |Δφ/φ| of the perturbation width Δφ to the reference aperture size φ; [0051]; table 1 & 2) using a reference grid interval Wx_k as a reference (locations of microlenses constituting the microlens array can be locations perturbed at random from a periodic array, where a lattice position to serve as a reference is represented by P and a perturbation/variation width is represented by ΔP; [0051]; fig. 1, 6a, & 7a),
the grid intervals Wy in the Y direction are each varied at random (random locating method, intervals varied at random wherein the x coordinate and y coordinate of the lens locating position are decided by random numbers; [0075-84]; fig. 7a) at a varying rate δWy (in the microlens array, ratio |Δφ/φ| of the perturbation width Δφ to the reference aperture size φ; [0051]; table 1 & 2) using a reference grid interval Wy_k as a reference (locations of microlenses constituting the microlens array can be locations perturbed at random from a periodic array, where a lattice position to serve as a reference is represented by P and a perturbation/variation width is represented by ΔP; [0051]; fig. 1, 6a, & 7a),
wherein the curvature radii Rx in the X direction are each varied at random at a varying rate δRx (in the microlens array, ratio |ΔR/R| of the perturbation width ΔR to the reference radius of curvature R; [0051]) using a reference curvature radius Rx_k as a reference (reference radius of curvature R; [0051]), and
the curvature radii Ry in the Y direction are each varied at random at a varying rate δRy (in the microlens array, ratio |ΔR/R| of the perturbation width ΔR to the reference radius of curvature R; [0051]) using a reference curvature radius Ry_k as a reference (reference radius of curvature R; [0051]),
wherein the surface shapes of the plurality of microlenses are aspherical shapes (curved surface portion of each microlens is an aspherical body; [0051]; the surface shape of each single lens 21 is not particularly limited, and may include an aspherical component; [0059]) in which the reference grid intervals Wx_k, Wy_k and the reference curvature radii Rx k, Ry k satisfy relational expressions (A) and (B) below (reference aperture size and a reference radius of curvature of a microlens in the reference array are represented by φ and R, respectively, and the maximum perturbation amount is represented by M/2; [0051]; table 1 & 2), and
a diffusion angle (a full width at half maximum) of diffused light output from the diffuser plate is less than or equal to 20° (diffused light distribution has a top hat shape, and an energy change at a top part is less than or equal to 20%; [0119]; table 1 & 2):
Rx_k/Wx_k ≥ 1.85 ... (A) (since reference aperture size φ is more than or equal to 5% and less than or equal to 25% & reference radius of curvature R is more than or equal to 5% and less than or equal to 70%, then ΔR/Δφ ≈ ΔR ≥ ±35%/Δφ = ±18.5% ≥ 1.89; [0051]); and
Ry_k/Wy_k ≥ 1.85 ... (B) (since reference aperture size φ is more than or equal to 5% and less than or equal to 25% & reference radius of curvature R is more than or equal to 5% and less than or equal to 70%, then ΔR/Δφ ≈ ΔR ≥ ±35%/Δφ = ±18.5% ≥ 1.89; [0051]).
Arima does not appear to teach the following limitations wherein a varying rate δWx is explicitly within ±10%, a varying rate δWy is explicitly within ±10%, the curvature radii Rx in the X direction are each varied at random at a varying rate δRx explicitly within ±10%, and the curvature radii Ry in the Y direction are each varied at random at a varying rate δRy within ±10%.
Arima instead teaches varying rates wherein, in the microlens array, the ratio |Δφ/φ| of the perturbation width Δφ to the reference aperture size φ is more than or equal to 5% and less than or equal to 25% ([0051]; table 1 & 2), the ratio |ΔR/R| of the perturbation width ΔR to the reference radius of curvature R is more than or equal to 5% and less than or equal to 70% ([0051]), and R perturbation ± (%) values within a range of ±10% (tables 1 & 2).
Therefore, 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 diffuser plate of Arima to include the technical feature of satisfying varying rates within ±10% since a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); See also In re Woodruff; In re Geisler; In re Bergen; & MPEP § 2144.05.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because a person skilled in the art would find various alterations and modifications within the scope of the diffuser plate, microlenses, and provided perturbations described, and for the purpose of achieving a high homogenous diffusion function, as taught by Arima ([0050] & [0127]).
With respect to Claim 6, Arima teaches the diffuser plate according to Claim 1, wherein a planar position of a vertex (as seen in fig. 7a) of each of the microlenses (plurality of single lenses 21; [0057]) disposed in the X direction and the Y direction (xy coordinate system; [0076]) is off-centered (varied overlying width; [0075-77]; fig. 5a & 7a) from a central point of each of rectangles of the rectangular grid (as seen in fig. 6a-b, & 7a-b).
With respect to Claim 7, Arima teaches the diffuser plate according to Claim 6, wherein
when distances in the X direction and the Y direction (xy coordinate system; [0076]) from the central point of each of the rectangles to the planar position of the vertex of each of the microlenses (varied overlying width; [0075-77]; as seen in fig. 6a-b, & 7a-b) having been off-centered are denoted by an off-centering amount Ecx and an off-centering amount Ecy (maximum overlaying amount Ov as the maximum value of the overlying width between the single lenses 21 adjacent to each other; [0077]), respectively, and proportions of the off-centering amounts Ecx and Ecy with respect to the grid intervals Wx and Wy of the rectangular grid are denoted by an off-centering rate δEcx and an off-centering rate δEcy (ratio |Δφ/φ| of the perturbation width Δφ to the reference aperture size φ is more than or equal to 5% and less than or equal to 25% & locations of microlenses constituting the microlens array can be a random array; [0051]; table 1 & 2), respectively,
the planar position of the vertex (as seen in fig. 7a) of each of the microlenses (plurality of single lenses 21; [0057]) is off-centered at random (x coordinate and y coordinate of the lens locating position are decided by random numbers; [0076]) at the off-centering rates δEcx and δEcy within ±10% to ±50% (since reference aperture size φ is more than or equal to 5% and less than or equal to 25%; [0051] & maximum overlapping amount Ov μm is between 11 to 80 μm; tables 1 & 2, then off-centering rate = perturbation width Φ±(%)/maximum overlapping amount Ov μm ≈ ±12.5% to ±50%, wherein ±10% to ±50% are cut-off percentages for grid intervals; table 1 & 2; [0051], & [0075-77]).
With respect to Claim 8, Arima teaches the diffuser plate according to Claim 1, wherein height positions of vertices of the plurality of microlenses (plurality of single lenses 21; [0057]) disposed in the X direction and the Y direction (x-y coordinates as seen in fig. 7a; [0031]) are different from each other (elevation and height difference in vertex position, and thus, vertices height positions different from each other; [0090]; as seen in fig. 1; table 1 & 2).
With respect to Claim 9, Arima teaches the diffuser plate according to Claim 1, wherein the microlenses (plurality of single lenses 21; [0057]) disposed in the X direction and the Y direction (x-y coordinates as seen in fig. 7a; [0031]) are arranged continuously with no gap between each other (locating the single lenses 21 on the transparent base material 10 without a gap wherein filling rate of the single lenses is 100%; [0057]; as seen in fig. 1-2).
With respect to Claim 10, Arima teaches the diffuser plate according to Claim 1, wherein a boundary line between adjacent ones of the microlenses (plurality of single lenses 21; [0057]) includes a straight line and a curve (boundary between the adjacent single lenses is not structured by a straight line alone, but at least partly includes a curve; [0062]).
With respect to Claim 11, Arima teaches the diffuser plate according to Claim 1, wherein
the microlens array (single lens group 20; [0055]) includes a plurality of unit cells (respective unit cells constituting the microlens array; [0050]) which are basic arrangement patterns of the microlenses (optical bodies including many bents and curved surfaces that have a plurality of bent and curved surface regions; [0050] & the lattice spacing which is a parameter is reduced from a value corresponding to a close packed pattern; [0070]; fig. 6a & 6b), and
the microlens array (single lens group 20; [0055]) is configured by disposing the plurality of unit cells (respective unit cells constituting the microlens array; [0050]) with no gap between each other (diffuser plate 1 wherein single lens group 20 is formed—plurality of single lenses 21 adjacent to each other i.e., a gap/flat portion does not exist between the single lenses 21; [0057]; fig. 1; component of incoming light that transmits through the diffuser plate surface as it is without scattering reduced by locating single lenses 21 on transparent base material 10 without a gap; [0057]) while maintaining continuity of the microlenses at boundary portions between the plurality of unit cells (achieving optical bodies having a high homogeneous diffusion function; [0050] & single lens group 20 including plurality of single lenses 21 located adjacent to each other further improving diffusion capability; [0057]; as seen in fig. 1).
With respect to Claim 12, Arima teaches the diffuser plate according to Claim 1, wherein surface shapes of the microlenses (plurality of single lenses 21; [0057]) are aspherical shapes having anisotropy in the X direction or the Y direction (curved surface portion of each microlens is an aspherical body; [0051]; the surface shape of each single lens 21 is not particularly limited, and may include an aspherical component; [0059]; & perturbation using the aperture size φ and the radius of curvature R of the single lenses 21, and thus, anisotropy as seen in fig. 1 & 6a-b; [0072]).
With respect to Claim 13, Arima teaches a display device (display device which the diffuser plate 1 is provided; [0056]) comprising: the diffuser plate as defined in Claim 1 (diffuser plate 1; [0007-127]; fig. 1-18).
With respect to Claim 14, Arima teaches a projecting device (projection device which the diffuser plate 1 is provided; [0056]) comprising: the diffuser plate as defined in Claim 1 (diffuser plate 1; [0007-127]; fig. 1-18).
With respect to Claim 15, Arima teaches a lighting device (lighting device which the diffuser plate 1 is provided; [0056]) comprising: the diffuser plate as defined in Claim 1 (diffuser plate 1; [0007-127]; fig. 1-18).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 K MUHAMMAD whose telephone number is (571)272-4210. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 1:00pm - 9:30pm EDT.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. 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.
/K MUHAMMAD/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 02 February 2026
/SHARRIEF I BROOME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872