DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-3 and 5-14 in the reply filed on 10-06-2025 is acknowledged.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 7, and 9-13 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Although the prior art teaches similar sheets for display devices, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest such a sheet featuring the periodic pattern as set forth in the equation of the present claim 5. The prior art likewise does not teach or reasonably suggest such a sheet in which the width of each of the particles is less than half the pitch of the asperities (as in claim 7), in which the pattern has a period of less than 120 microns (as in claim 9) or in which the transparent resin layer contains a second binder resin and second resin particles (as in claim 10). Claims 11-13 would be allowable due to their dependency from claim 10.
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.
Claims 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 2 states that the minimum distance between the surface of the design layer and the surface of the transparent resin layer is 10 microns, but claim 1 (from which claim 2 depends) states that the transparent resin layer is laminated on the design layer. It is unclear how the surfaces could be separated by 10 microns or more if one layer is laminated to the other.
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 1-3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rouser, US 5204160, in view of Hattori et al., US 2019/0232583 A1.
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Rouser teaches an optical laminate for a light-emitting display device comprising design layer (10 of Fig. 1 and 3) and a transparent resin layer (20 of Fig. 1) laminated onto the design layer, the design layer having light transmitting portions made from light transmitting apertures (portions “S” of Fig. 1). See Abstract, col. 2 ln. 24-62, and col. 3 ln. 44-48.
The teachings of Rouser differ from the present invention in that Rouser does not teach the presence of asperities on the surface of the transparent resin layer opposite the design layer. Hattori, however, teaches that such optical laminates may be provided with asperities on the outer surface of the laminate to function as a prism sheet or microlens array; see Abstract, Fig. 1, and [0059], [0064]-[0065]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the optical laminate of Rouser with asperities on the outer surface of the transparent resin layer, in accordance with the teachings of Hattori, as doing so would allow one to provide the optical laminate of Rouser with the functionality of a prism sheet or microlens array.
Regarding claim 2, as discussed above, it is unclear what Applicant intends to claim. It would, however, be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select an appropriate thickness for each layer in the product, including the transparent resin layer, based on the intended use and desired geometry of the final product. Additionally, arbitrary recitations of size or relative proportion cannot distinguish the claimed invention from that of the prior art when the differences would otherwise have been obvious (MPEP 2144.04 IV).
Regarding claim 3, Hattori teaches a haze value of 0.3-3% ([02229]). Although Hattori does not teach any specific surface roughness, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the need to adjust the roughness as necessary to achieve a haze value of 0.3-3% because Hattori explicitly teaches such a haze value.
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rouser, US 5204160, in view of Hattori et al., US 2019/0232583 A1, and further in view of Murata et al., US 2019/0302327 A1.
Regarding claim 6, the teachings of Rouser and Hattori differ from the present invention in that although Hattori teaches a diffusion layer ([0250]), neither Rouser nor Hattori teach that a diffusion layer may comprise particles in a binder resin. Murate, however, teaches that an isotropic diffusion layer on the outer surface of such an optical film maybe formed by dispersing particles in a transparent resin material ([0109]-[0111]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the product of Rouser and Hattori with a diffusion layer containing particles and a binder resin, as taught by Murata, because doing so would allow the product to isotropically diffuse light, in accordance with the teachings of Murata.
Regarding claim 8, although Rouser does not explicitly teach an aperture ratio, Rouser teaches that the apertures may have a width of 0.0055 inches and be separated by a distance of 0.0004 inches (col. 3 ln. 16-19), which equates to an aperture ratio of more than 10%.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ian A Rummel whose telephone number is (571)270-5692. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternating Fridays, 8:30-5:00.
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.
/IAN A RUMMEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785