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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 29 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
That Takizawa fails to disclose the limitation “wherein the intersections of the ridge are located at a highest position on the first surface”, as the plurality of ribs are higher than the first and second lenses;
That Takizawa fails to disclose the limitation “wherein a maximum height difference between the straight line and the ridge is 1 µm or more and 10 µm or less”, since Takizawa discloses wherein h + 10 µm < hr is satisfied in claim 1.
Regarding i.), although Examiner agrees that Takizawa does not expressly disclose the limitation “wherein the intersections of the ridge are located at a highest position on the first surface”, Examiner notes that the primary reference Chuang discloses this limitation, as shown in figures 2A-2C, wherein the ridges intersect at apex portions 210. Takizawa is relied upon for the teaching about the maximum height difference between the straight line connecting intersections and the ridge, and not the structure of the ridges per se. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is moot regarding Chuang’s disclosure, and not persuasive.
Regarding ii.), Examiner notes that the range disclosed by Takizawa claim 1 intersects with the claimed range at the value of 10 µm. Thus, Takizawa anticipates Applicant’s claimed range, and it would have been obvious to modify the ridge structure of Chuang according to the range of Takizawa, as per the motivation previously disclosed (see MPEP § 2144.05 I. “OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES, AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS”). Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chuang et al. (US 2009/0316430) in view of Ahn (US 2010/0124047), and in further view of Takizawa (JP2010160438A; translation previously submitted).
Regarding claim 1, Chuang discloses a light diffusion sheet (see figures 2A-2E, for instance) comprising: at least in its first surface (P1), a plurality of recesses (220) formed in a substantially inverted polygon pyramid or in a substantially inverted truncated polygon pyramid ([0044]), wherein: a ridge (starting at C1, and continuing in the dotted lines of Fig. 2A) parting the plurality of recesses has a recessed shape between intersections of the ridge, wherein the intersections of the ridge are located at a highest position on the first surface (see Fig. 2A-2C, C1, which is comprised within 210). However, Chuang does not expressly disclose with respect to a straight line connecting the intersections a ratio Wr/P is 0.3 or less, where P is an arrangement pitch of the plurality of recesses and Wr is a dimension occupied by a curved portion at a top portion of the ridge in an arrangement direction of the plurality of recesses; and a maximum height difference between the straight line and the ridge is 1 μm or more and 10 μm or less.
Ahn discloses a light diffusion sheet (see figures 1-5, for instance), with respect to a straight line (along which width d1 occupies the ridge) connecting the intersections a ratio Wr/P is 0.3 or less (if d1 = 10µm and p1 > 50µm, then Wr/P < 0.2; [0055]), where P is an arrangement pitch (p1) of the plurality of recesses and Wr is a dimension (d1) occupied by a curved portion at a top portion of the ridge in an arrangement direction of the plurality of recesses.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the straight line ridge dimensions of Ahn in the diffusion sheet of Chuang. The motivation for doing so would have been to prevent the generation of stain phenomenon in the diffusion sheet optics, as taught by Ahn ([0050]).
Takizawa discloses a light diffusion sheet (see figures 6-7, for instance), a maximum height difference between the straight line (top of 31, represented by height h1) and the ridge (top of 43, represented by h2) is 1 μm or more and 10 μm or less (since h1 = 18µm and h2 = 12µm in the second example, see paragraph 8 of page 8; see also claim 1 of Takizwa; see Response to Arguments, above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the height difference dimensions of Takizawa in the diffusion sheet of Chuang. The motivation for doing so would have been to suppress a deterioration of a light collecting function even when it is rubbed with another member to obtain high luminance, as taught by Takizawa (see Abstract).
Regarding claim 2, Chuang in view of Ahn and in further view of Takizawa discloses the light diffusion sheet of claim 1, wherein the maximum height difference is 1.5 μm or more and 7 μm or less (Takizawa, paragraph 8, page 8).
Regarding claim 3, Chuang in view of Ahn and in further view of Takizawa discloses the light diffusion sheet of claim 2, wherein the maximum height difference is 2.5 μm or more and 5 μm or less (see paragraph 9 of page 8 of Takizawa).
Regarding claim 4, Chuang in view of Ahn and in further view of Takizawa discloses the light diffusion sheet of claim 1, wherein the ratio Wr/P is 0.2 or less (Ahn [0055]).
Regarding claim 5, Chuang in view of Ahn and in further view of Takizawa discloses the light diffusion sheet according to claim 4, wherein the ratio Wr/P is 0.1 or less (Ahn [0055]; since p1 ranges from 50 to 100 µm).
Regarding claim 6, Chuang in view of Ahn and in further view of Takizawa discloses the light diffusion sheet of claim 1, wherein: the arrangement pitch P is 50 μm or more and 500 μm or less (Ahn [0055]); and an angle formed between a wall surface of each of the plurality of recesses and a sheet surface of the light diffusion sheet is 40 degrees or more and 65 degrees or less (see Ahn claim 2).
Regarding claim 7, Chuang in view of Ahn and in further view of Takizawa discloses the light diffusion sheet of claim 1, wherein the ridge between the intersections is recessed in a substantially parabolic shape, a substantially arc shape, a substantially triangular shape, or a substantially trapezoidal shape (see Chuang fig. 2B).
Regarding claim 8, Chuang in view of Ahn and in further view of Takizawa discloses the light diffusion sheet of claim 1, wherein: the plurality of recesses (220) are each formed in a substantially inverted quadrangular pyramid or a substantially inverted truncated quadrangular pyramid shape ([0044]); the ridge extends in a first direction and a second direction; the maximum height difference is an average of a maximum height difference (dx) between the straight line and the ridge in the first direction and a maximum height difference (dy) between the straight line and the ridge in the second direction; the arrangement pitch P is an average of an arrangement pitch (Px) of the plurality of recesses in the first direction and an arrangement pitch (Py) of the plurality of recesses in the second direction; and the dimension Wr is an average of a dimension (Wrx) occupied by the curved portion at the top portion of the ridge in the first direction and a dimension (Wry) occupied by the curved portion at the top portion of the ridge in the second direction (see figures 2A-2B).
Regarding claim 9, Chuang in view of Ahn and in further view of Takizawa discloses the light diffusion sheet of claim 1, wherein; the plurality of recesses are provided only in the first surface (S1); and the second surface (S2) is a matte surface.
Regarding claim 10, Chuang in view of Ahn and in further view of Takizawa discloses a backlight unit (see Abstract) built in a liquid crystal display device and leading light emitted from light sources toward a display screen, wherein the backlight unit comprises: the light diffusion sheet of claim 1 provided between the display screen and the light sources ([0070]).
Regarding claim 11, Chuang in view of Ahn and in further view of Takizawa discloses the backlight unit of claim 10, wherein the light sources are arranged on a reflective sheet provided on an opposite side of the display screen as seen from the light diffusion sheet ([0070]).
Regarding claim 12, Chuang in view of Ahn and in further view of Takizawa discloses the backlight unit of claim 10, wherein the light diffusion sheet includes a plurality of light diffusion sheets layered and arranged between the display screen and the light sources ([0070]).
Regarding claim 13, Chuang in view of Ahn and in further view of Takizawa discloses the backlight unit of claims 12, wherein the light diffusion sheet includes three or more light diffusion sheets layered and arranged between the display screen and the light sources ([0070]).
Regarding claim 14, Chuang in view of Ahn and in further view of Takizawa discloses the backlight unit of claim 13, wherein: of the three or more light diffusion sheets, the light diffusion sheet closest to the display screen contains a diffusion agent, and the other light diffusion sheets contain substantially no diffusion agent ([0070]).
Regarding claim 15, Chuang in view of Ahn and in further view of Takizawa discloses a liquid crystal display device, comprising: the backlight unit of claim 10; and a liquid crystal display panel ([0070]).
Regarding claim 16, Chuang in view of Ahn and in further view of Takizawa discloses an information apparatus, comprising the liquid crystal display device of claim 15 ([0070]).
Regarding claim 17, Chuang in view of Ahn and in further view of Takizawa discloses a method of manufacturing the light diffusion sheet of claim 1, the method comprising the step of: extrusion-molding of the light diffusion sheet at a line speed of 10 m/min or more and 30 m/min or less, with a compression line pressure of 100 kgf/cm or more and 500 kgf/cm or less ([0070]; see figures 2A-2B, for instance).
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 NATHANAEL R BRIGGS whose telephone number is (571)272-8992. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 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, 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.
/NATHANAEL R BRIGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871 6/4/2026
Prosecution Insights