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 of February 20, 2026 have been fully considered, but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection based upon the newly-cited Ogasawara reference.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 recites: “utilizing a solvent to form said lenslets on said plastic”. However, Claim 1, from which Claim 3 depends, does not require plastic in the formation of lenslets, but merely requires “forming lenslets on glass or plastic”. Therefore, it is believed that Claim 3 may have been intended to affirmatively state a requirement of plastic in the formation of the lenslets, in addition to the “utilizing a solvent” requirement.
Appropriate clarification is requested.
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.
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.
Claim 14 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 14 relates to one or more wavelength ranges of light (UV, visible, IR) in which the optical diffuser exhibits light transmission. Specifically, Claim 14 recites: “wherein said optical diffuser exhibits light transmission of greater than 80% in at least one of the ultraviolet, visible, or infrared wavelength ranges used to drive the photochemical reaction”.
However, neither Claim 14, nor independent Claim 1 (from which Claim 14 depends), affirmatively recites any photochemical reaction. Claim 1, in the preamble, recites an intended use or desired outcome of the invention, specifically “improved photochemical reactions” (see MPEP § 2111.02, Section II). However, none of the recited steps of Claim 1 actually require a photochemical reaction to occur, nor do they even require that a chemical capable of undergoing a light-induced chemical reaction is placed into the container.
Thus, it is unclear which wavelength range(s) of light the optical diffuser must be transmissive of, because there is no affirmatively recited photochemical reaction step upon which to base this claim limitation. For examination, this phrase will be treated as: “wherein said optical diffuser exhibits light transmission of greater than 80% in at least one of the ultraviolet, visible, or infrared wavelength ranges”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5-9 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ogasawara et al., JP 2009157340 A, newly-cited (citations below are to the English translation retrieved from https://worldwide.espacenet.com and provided herewith).
Regarding Claim 1, Ogasawara discloses: A method of manufacturing an optical diffuser to improve photon capture for improved photochemical reactions, comprising (the Office notes that the term “comprising” is an open-ended transitional phrase which permits additional elements or features):
forming lenslets on glass or plastic to remove any sharp scattering surfaces to form an optical diffuser (lens sheet 31 includes a cylindrical lens part 311 formed on a base material part 310 which may comprise glass, polycarbonate, polyacrylate, or other resins/plastics; see paragraphs [0020]-[0023], [0044], [0045] and FIGS. 1-4 of Ogasawara, but see especially FIGS. 2, 4 of Ogasawara);
coupling a container with said optical diffuser wherein said container is configured to hold a chemical (a container may be identified as housing 12 and display screen 21, which together define an interior space containing diffusing elements 14, 31, 32 [collectively known as optical member 15] and fluorescent tubes 13 therein, wherein such container is coupled with lens sheet 31, and wherein housing 12 is configured to hold fluorescent tubes 13 and the layers of optical member 15 which each comprise chemicals; paragraphs [0012]-[0014] and FIGS. 1, 2 of Ogasawara);
wherein said container is transmissive of light transmitted through said optical diffuser (the container defined by housing 12 and display screen 21 is transmissive of light which is emitted from fluorescent tubes 13, travels through lens sheet 31, and exits through display screen 21; paragraphs [0001], [0014]-[0017], [0030] and FIGS. 1, 2 of Ogasawara);
wherein said lenslets transmit over a percentage of light through said optical diffuser, and wherein said percentage of light is over 80% (the transmittance of the diffusion sheet 31 is set to 80% or more; paragraph [0036] and FIGS. 2-4 of Ogasawara).
Regarding Claim 5, Ogasawara discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: utilizing lithography to form said lenslets on said glass or said plastic to form micro-optics on one or both surfaces (plate-like lithographic plate may be used for manufacture of the lens sheet 31 resulting in the cylindrical lens part 311 at an upper surface of the base material part 310; paragraphs [0044], [0045] and FIGS. 2-4 of Ogasawara).
Regarding Claim 6, Ogasawara discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein the lenslets are configured to refract incident light while inhibiting light scattering through the optical diffuser (the lenses of lens sheet 31 are lenses and thus refract light which is incident upon them, and are shown having an orderly and repeated geometry [described as “cylindrical”], which would necessarily inhibit light scattering which would be caused by a non-orderly surface, e.g., a roughened surface, or a surface having random angular variations; paragraphs [0008], [0016] and FIGS. 2-4 of Ogasawara).
Regarding Claim 7, Ogasawara discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein the container comprises a reaction chamber, flask, beaker, tube, or reactor vessel configured to contain a photoreactive chemical (the container defined by housing 12 and display screen 21 may be defined as a reaction chamber which is configured to contain fluorescent tubes 13, wherein fluorescent lights operate by running electric current through a gas which then emits light as a result [i.e., the gas is photoreactive]; see paragraphs [0001], [0014]-[0017], [0030] and FIGS. 1, 2 of Ogasawara, but see especially paragraph [0015] of Ogasawara).
Regarding Claim 8, Ogasawara discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein the optical diffuser is configured to homogenize radiation to provide more uniform, controlled radiation of the chemical within the container and to reduce hot spots and photon shadowing within the chemical (the dimensions of the lenses of lens sheet 31 are selected to reduce a luminance unevenness, and thus a luminance unevenness is reduced for light exiting lens sheet 31 and incident upon diffusion sheet 32 of the optical member 15, wherein the Office notes that the claimed “chemical” of Claim 1 may be identified as the one or more chemicals of the diffusion sheet 32 of the optical member 15; see paragraph [0030] and FIGS. 2-4 of Ogasawara, and the rejection of Claim 1 above).
Regarding Claim 9, Ogasawara discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein the optical diffuser is formed on an inner surface of the container (diffusion plate 14 is contained within the container defined by housing 12 and display screen 21, and thus the upper surface of diffusion plate 14 may be identified as an inner surface therein, wherein lens sheet 31 is formed on the upper surface of diffusion plate 14; FIGS. 1-4 of Ogasawara).
Regarding Claim 12, Ogasawara discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein said container comprises a photochemical reaction container wherein said container is configured to irradiate and contain said chemical comprising a photoreactive chemical during a light-induced chemical reaction (the device of Ogasawara is capable of containing a photoreactive chemical, e.g., in the space surrounding fluorescent tubes 13 in FIG. 2 and such space also being capable of being irradiated through the display screen 21, and thus the requirements of this claim appear to be satisfied because the actual presence or absence of a photoreactive chemical does not appear to alter the claimed container structure; see, e.g., MPEP §§ 2111.02, Section II).
Regarding Claim 13, Ogasawara discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein said lenslets are configured to refract and angularly redistribute incident light to homogenize photon flux within an interior reaction volume of said container (the lenses of lens sheet 31 are lenses and thus refract light which is incident upon them into different angular directions, and the dimensions of the lenses of lens sheet 31 are selected to reduce a luminance unevenness, and thus a luminance unevenness is reduced for light exiting lens sheet 31 and incident upon diffusion sheet 32 of the optical member 15, wherein the Office notes that the claimed “interior reaction volume” may be identified as the diffusion sheet 32 of the optical member 15 which occupies a volume within the container defined by housing 12 and display screen 21, and reacts to light incident thereon by diffusing such light; see paragraph [0030] and FIGS. 2-4 of Ogasawara, and the rejection of Claim 1 above).
Regarding Claim 14, as best understood, Ogasawara discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein said optical diffuser exhibits light transmission of greater than 80% in at least one of the ultraviolet, visible, or infrared wavelength ranges used to drive the photochemical reaction (the transmittance of the diffusion sheet 31 is set to 80% or more, and its components are described as “transparent to visible light”; paragraphs [0020], [0021], [0036] and FIGS. 2-4 of Ogasawara).
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogasawara in view of Zhang et al., US 2019/0331948 A1, newly-cited.
Regarding Claim 2, Ogasawara discloses the limitations of Claim 1 but does not appear to further disclose: utilizing an acid to form said lenslets on said glass or said plastic to remove any of said sharp scattering surfaces.
Zhang is related to Ogasawara with respect to manufacture of lens array for display apparatus.
Zhang teaches: utilizing an acid to form said lenslets on said glass or said plastic to remove any of said sharp scattering surfaces (arrays of lenses may be manufactured through a femtosecond laser acid etching method in combination with a precision injection molding method; paragraph [0052] of Zhang).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the formation method of Zhang for the lenses of Ogasawara because such method enables smooth surfaces with control of divergence angle of the light source to thereby reduce light leakage, as taught in paragraph [0052] of Zhang.
Regarding Claim 3, as best understood, Ogasawara discloses the limitations of independent Claim 1 but does not appear to further disclose: utilizing a solvent to form said lenslets on said plastic to remove any of said sharp scattering surfaces.
Zhang is related to Ogasawara with respect to manufacture of lens array for display apparatus.
Zhang teaches: utilizing a solvent to form said lenslets on said plastic to remove any of said sharp scattering surfaces (arrays of lenses may be manufactured through a femtosecond laser acid [wherein acid is a solvent] etching method in combination with a precision injection molding method; paragraph [0052] of Zhang).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the formation method of Zhang for the lenses of Ogasawara because such method enables smooth surfaces with control of divergence angle of the light source to thereby reduce light leakage, as taught in paragraph [0052] of Zhang.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogasawara in view of Mionetto, US 2008/0006859 A1, previously-cited.
Regarding Claim 4, Ogasawara discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: utilizing etching to form said lenslets on said glass or said plastic to form micro-optics on one or both surfaces of said glass or said plastic (plate-like lithographic plate [i.e., lithography, an etching method] may be used for manufacture of the lens sheet 31 resulting in the cylindrical lens part 311 at an upper surface of the base material part 310; paragraphs [0044], [0045] and FIGS. 2-4 of Ogasawara).
Ogasawara does not appear to explicitly disclose that the etching is a laser etching, such that: utilizing a laser to form said lenslets, wherein said laser operates at a pico or femto second time frame.
Mionetto is related to Ogasawara with respect to manufacture of lens array.
Mionetto teaches: utilizing a laser to form said lenslets, wherein said laser operates at a pico or femto second time frame (use of femtosecond laser in lens formation; paragraph [0053] of Mionetto).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the femtosecond laser of Mionetto for the etching of Ogasawara because such short pulse rate, as compared with nanosecond lasers, enables reduction in the thermally affected zone, i.e., avoiding non-localized degradation of material [and thus achieving greater precision and control of the etching], as taught in paragraph [0053] of Mionetto.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogasawara in view of Li et al., US 2017/0038597 A1, newly-cited.
Regarding Claim 11, Ogasawara discloses the limitations of Claim 1 but does not appear to further disclose: wherein said forming said lenslets comprises abrading a surface and subsequently chemically passivating the abraded surface to remove sharp microfacets that cause backward or lateral light scattering.
Li is related to Ogasawara with respect to manufacture of microlens array in display apparatus.
Li teaches: wherein said forming said lenslets comprises abrading a surface and subsequently chemically passivating the abraded surface to remove sharp microfacets that cause backward or lateral light scattering (microlens array may be structuralized by means of ultrasonic grinding or sand blasting, and be further polished, including a chemical etching method; paragraph [0062] of Li).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the abrasion and passivation method of Li for the device of Ogasawara because such method enables adequate control of thickness, flatness, and roughness, as taught in paragraph [0062] of Li.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
With respect to Claim 10, although the prior art discloses various methods of manufacturing an optical diffuser to improve photon capture for improved photochemical reactions, including (see rejection of Claim 1 above):
PNG
media_image1.png
226
556
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The prior art does not appear to disclose or suggest the above features further comprising:
PNG
media_image2.png
64
534
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner Note – Consider Entirety of References
Although various text and figures of the cited references have been specifically cited in this Office Action to show disclosures and teachings which correspond to specific claim language, Applicant is advised to consider the complete disclosure of each reference, including portions which have not been specifically cited by the Examiner.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendments necessitated the new grounds 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 RYAN S DUNNING whose telephone number is 571-272-4879. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday 11:00AM to 4:00PM Eastern Time Zone. 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, BUMSUK WON can be reached at 571-272-2713. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RYAN S DUNNING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights