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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claims 1 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200379159 A1 to Li in view of US 20100027294 A1 to Lee et al.
Regarding Claim 1. Li discloses a brightness enhancement film adapted to be disposed on a light-exiting surface of a light-emitting module (See at least Fig. 2 light guide plate 100), comprising: a substrate that is light transmissive (See Fig. 2 substrate 141), that is disposed on said light-exiting surface (as shown in Fig. 2), and that has a top surface away from said light-exiting surface (as shown in Fig. 2); and a brightness enhancement structure that is disposed on said top surface of said substrate (See at least Fig. 2 prism structures 142), and that includes a plurality of prism portions (See at least Fig. 2 prism structures 142).
Li does not specifically disclose a plurality of modified patterns formed downwardly from a surface of each of said plurality of prism portions
However, Lee discloses a plurality of modified patterns formed downwardly from a surface of each of said plurality of prism portions (See at least Fig. 4A diffusion member 1220) o refract or reflect light incident light therethrough (para 15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s effective filing date to include a plurality of modified patterns formed downwardly from a surface of each of said plurality of prism portions.
Regarding Claim 4. Lee further discloses each of said modified patterns has multiple rings (See at least Fig. 4A and para 136).
Regarding Claim 5. Lee further discloses each of said modified patterns has multiple ripples (See at least Fig. 4A and para 136).
Claims 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li and Lee as applied to claim 1 in view of US 20180348411 A1 to Yamaki et al.
Regarding Claim 2. As stated above Li and Lee discloses all the limitations of base claim 1.
Li and Lee do not specifically disclose a diameter of each of said plurality of pores ranges from 10 nm to 500 nm, and porosity of said plurality of prism portions is no greater than 10%.
However, Yamaki discloses a diameter of each of said plurality of pores ranges from 10 nm to 500 nm (para 65 “the median diameter of the primary particles is preferably from 0.1 to 2500 nm, more preferably from 0.2 to 1500 nm, further preferably from 0.5 to 500 nm”), and porosity of said plurality of prism portions is no greater than 10%. (See para 154).
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) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range."). (See MPEP 2144.05).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s effective filing date to include a diameter of each of said plurality of pores ranges from 10 nm to 500 nm, and porosity of said plurality of prism portions is no greater than 10%.
Regarding Claim 8. Li and Lee do not specifically disclose a refractive index of each of said plurality of pores is smaller than a refractive index of each of said plurality of prism portions.
However, Li discloses the refractive index of prism portions may be between 1.62 and 1.75 (See para 44).
Yamaki discloses that microparticles can include material such as aluminum having a refractive index of 0.96 (See Table 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s effective filing date to include a refractive index of each of said plurality of pores is smaller than a refractive index of each of said plurality of prism portions.
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li and Lee as applied to claim 1 in view of US 20210406496 A1 to Tao et al.
Regarding Claim 7. As stated above Li and Lee discloses all the limitations of base claim 1.
Li further discloses each of said plurality of prism portions has a vertex with an angle ranging from 80 degrees to 100 degrees (para 44).
Li and Lee do not specifically disclose a distance between two adjacent ones of said vertexes of said plurality of prism portions ranges from 10 µm to 100 µm.
However, Tao discloses a distance between two adjacent ones of said vertexes of said plurality of prism portions ranges from 10 µm to 100 µm (para 151 “a distance between two adjacent prisms may range from 24 µm to 110 µm”).
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) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range."). (See MPEP 2144.05).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s effective filing date to include a distance between two adjacent ones of said vertexes of said plurality of prism portions ranges from 10 µm to 100 µm.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 6 and 9 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDMOND C LAU whose telephone number is (571)272-5859. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-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.
/EDMOND C LAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871