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 Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of the amendment filed 6/05/2026. Claim 1 is amended, and claims 1-5 and 7-13 are currently pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “a light-transmitting structural plate having a first side and a second side opposite to each other; a plurality of first optical microscopic structures regularly arrayed and formed on the second side, each of first the optical microscopic structures … a base plate separated from the second side by a space; a plurality of light emitting elements located inside the space and disposed on the base plate, a side of the first optical microscopic structures facing to the light emitting elements being free from connection with any physical layer” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5 and 7-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “a light-transmitting structural plate having a first side and a second side opposite to each other; a plurality of first optical microscopic structures regularly arrayed and formed on the second side, each of first the optical microscopic structures … a base plate separated from the second side by a space; a plurality of light emitting elements located inside the space and disposed on the base plate, a side of the first optical microscopic structures facing to the light emitting elements being free from connection with any physical layer”. Applicant did not evidence possession of the full scope of the invention at the time of the invention. In summary, the silence as to a structure is not in this case evidence of the absence of a structure. Applicant’s Fig. 12-14 depicts first optical microscopic structures 120 are provided at a distance from light emitting elements 160 and base plate 150 . The volume between these elements is not explicitly disclosed, though there is an analogous embodiment in Fig. 1 labeling this volume as “space”. A person having ordinary skill in the art would not understand “space” to necessarily require emptiness (i.e. devoid of solid and/or fluid material). Applicant did not evidence possession of the claimed “being free from connection with any physical layer” as (1) the display apparatus and space formed therein requires physical layer connection with a side of the light-transmitting structural plate and (2) there is only absence as to the composition of “space” between structural surfaces and light emitting elements. As to the former, there is no evidence that the side of the light-transmitting structural plate is capable of maintaining the claimed space absent a connection to a physical layer. A person having ordinary skill in the art would not understand the layer to be capable of suspension in an arrangement relative to other components absent a physical layer connection. The scope of the negative limitation excludes connection with an air layer, as air is within the scope of “any physical layer” and there is no disclosure of the display apparatus in a vacuum nor a structure capable of structural stability with low-pressure voids. The following examples from pertinent prior art structures demonstrate the myriad ways in which microstructure platers are connected to a physical layer despite also providing spaces free from solid and liquid support in portions thereof.
US Pat. No 5,247,390 provides a void between convex optical structures integrated within a plate and further elements via protrusions made from adjacent elements.
JP H08-327828 discloses a “additional elements” (3) connected to a leading edge portion (4a) of a housing to provide convex optical structures facing light sources.
US Pat. 5,600,456 provides diffusion lens (108) with convex structures facing light sources via peripheral adhesive (110) and no intervening connection (Fig. 8).
US Pat. No. 6,044,196 provides spacers (68) providing an air gap between redirecting layer (82) and light sources (Fig. 6A).
JP 3553475 provides a rectangular spacer annulus providing a gap between convex optical structures and further optical layers (Fig. 21-26).
US Pat. 7,009,771 provides a light management diffusing plate with integrated spacers (Fig. 1-5).
JP 3954681 and JP 4049854 provide a spacer integrated with the micro-optical element array for providing a space to adjacent optical elements (Fig. 1).
US Pat. 7,336,329 provides spacers (142) manufactured apart from diffusing layer (141) to provide air gap (143) (Figs. 3-4).
WO 2010016571 provides prisms at end portions (47) of prism sheet (28) adhered to a light-shielding structure (48) at apexes (Fig. 5).
US PG Pub. 2020/0370727 embeds prisms at peripheral portions of prism sheets in bonding structures (60-62) (Fig. 3b).
CN 112147788 discloses a lens plate providing peripheral portions for bondage to support structures away from optical active zones (Figs. 1-4).
In summary, these disclosures of prior art both evidence optical systems for which a portion of the optical structure plate is “free from connection with any physical layer” in order to provide a space but not a single example provides “a side of the first optical microscopic structures … being free from connection with any physical layer” as claimed. The negative limitations removing “connection with any physical layer” is neither evidenced in the originally filed disclosure nor seemingly possible within a display structure as claimed.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5 and 7-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a light-transmitting structural plate having a first side and a second side opposite to each other; a plurality of first optical microscopic structures regularly arrayed and formed on the second side, each of first the optical microscopic structures … a base plate separated from the second side by a space; a plurality of light emitting elements located inside the space and disposed on the base plate, a side of the first optical microscopic structures facing to the light emitting elements being free from connection with any physical layer”. The metes and bounds of language cannot be determined as it is unclear if any specie exists within the genus captured by the negative limitation. The silence as to a structure is not in this case a definition of the metes and bounds of an absence of structure. Applicant’s Fig. 12-14 depicts first optical microscopic structures 120 are provided at a distance from light emitting elements 160 and base plate 150 . The volume between these elements is not explicitly disclosed, though there is an analogous embodiment in Fig. 1 labeling this volume as “space”. A person having ordinary skill in the art would not understand “space” to necessarily require emptiness (i.e. devoid of solid and/or fluid material). Applicant did not provide disclosure enough to define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention limited as: (1) providing no physical layer connected defining a space in the display apparatus and (2) an absence of material in the “space” between surfaces and light emitting elements. As to the former, there is no evidence that the side of the light-transmitting structural plate is capable of maintaining the claimed space absent a connection to a physical layer. A person having ordinary skill in the art would not understand the layer to be capable of suspension in an arrangement relative to other components absent a physical layer connection. The scope of the negative limitation excludes connection with an air layer, as air is within the scope of “any physical layer” and there is no disclosure of the display apparatus in a vacuum nor a structure capable of structural stability with low-pressure voids. The above examples from pertinent prior art structures demonstrate the myriad ways in which microstructure platers are connected to a physical layer despite also providing spaces free from solid and liquid support in portions thereof. One source of indefiniteness is the metes and bounds of “a side of the first optical microscopic structures” as unclearly limiting that which is further limited. In the below annotation of Applicant’s Figs. 8 and 12, the reference letters (A), (B), and (C) indicate possible interpretations of the claimed “side”. In light of the 6/05/2026 Remarks (Page 7), Applicant does not intend to limit only a portion of an optical microscopic structure as free of connection (similar to Horiguchi and Yoon) and thus the claim appears limited to the whole side of a single microscopic structure (B) or the whole side (i.e. a half-space) of all microscopic structures. Even assuming en arguendo that Applicant intended not to limit “a side of the first optical microscopic structures” that only includes a portion of the light-transmitting structural plate, Applicant has not disclosed the composition of the space formed between the optical microstructures and the light emitting elements nor the lack thereof. In light of the Specifications, a person having ordinary skill in the art would not understand that which the limitation captures.
PNG
media_image1.png
900
1392
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 CHRISTOPHER J STANFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-3337. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-4PM PST M-F.
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.
/CHRISTOPHER STANFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights