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 with respect to claim(s) 1 and 7 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2019/0324328) in view of Pham et al. (US 2023/0228918).
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses a micro-structure film (see figures 1-3C and 11B, for instance), comprising a light-incident surface (102) and a light-exit surface (101) located on two opposite sides, wherein a plurality of micro-structures (20) are uniformly distributed on at least one of the light-incident surface and the light-exit surface (101), each micro-structure (20) is convex or concave from the light-incident surface or the light-exit surface (see figure 2A), a vertical projection of the micro-structure on the light-incident surface is provided with a projection long axis (Dm, see figure 3C), a base surface, and a central curve (see line which intersects point P), a periphery of the base surface is provided with two end corners (see figure 3C) located on opposite sides and respectively connected to two ends of the projection long axis (Dm), a vertical distance (Hp) of the central curve relative to the base surface is maximum at a center point (P) of the central curve, and a first arc edge and a second arc edge are respectively formed on a periphery of the base surface other than the two end corners relative to the central curve (see figure 3C), wherein for a plane that is perpendicular to the light-incident surface and parallel to the central curve and that passes through the center point of the central curve, a triangular central section is defined among intersections of the plane with the first arc edge and the second arc edge (wherein the sides intersect edges of 20, forming angles a at each edge at element 201, see figure 3C, for instance), and the center point (P) of the central curve, and the central section has a first angle (angle a at left side) and a second angle (angle a at right side) at the intersections of the central section with the first arc edge and the second arc edge (left and right edges of 20 on surface 101). However, Chen does not expressly disclose wherein the central curve of each of the micro-structures is parallel to one another, the micro-structures are arranged in a staggered manner on the light-incident surface or the light-exit surface where the micro-structures are located, and vertical projections of the micro-structures on a plane perpendicular to the light-incident surface at least partially overlap with one another.
Pham discloses a microstructure film (see figures 1 and 4, for instance), wherein the central curve of each of the micro-structures (40) is parallel to one another ([0022]: “Each elongated structure may include a peak such that, in a plane of a cross-section of the elongated structure that is parallel to the first direction and includes the peak”, see also figure 4), the micro-structures (40) are arranged in a staggered manner on the light-incident surface or the light-exit surface where the micro-structures are located (see figure 4, see also [], “According to some aspects of the present description, an optically diffusive film includes an optical substrate layer with opposing first and second major surfaces, and an optical layer disposed on the second major surface of the optical substrate layer. In some embodiments, the optical layer may include a structured major surface facing away from the optical substrate layer which may include a plurality of spaced apart elongated structures.” Thus, Pham teaches that the micro-structures can be arranged on either the light-incident or light-exit surface), and vertical projections of the micro-structures (40) on a plane perpendicular to the light-incident surface (z-axis of figure 4) at least partially overlap with one another (see modified figure 4, below).
PNG
media_image1.png
508
532
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 4 of Pham.
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 micro-structure arrangements of Pham in the light-incident or light-exit surface of Chen. The motivation for doing so would have been to prevent wet-out and moire patterns (e.g., Newton's rings) and similar effects between adjacent films, as taught by Pham ([0021]).
Regarding claim 2, Chen in view of Pham discloses the micro-structure film according to claim 1, wherein the first angle ranges from 20° to 40° (since the ratio of Hp to Dm averages 0.01 ~ 0.2, see [0035]; the angle is calculated to be at least 22°).
Regarding claim 3, Chen in view of Pham discloses the micro-structure film according to claim 1, wherein the second angle ranges from 20° to 40° (since the ratio of Hp to Dm averages 0.01 ~ 0.2, see [0035]; the angle is calculated to be at least 22°).
Regarding claim 4, Chen in view of Pham discloses the micro-structure film according to claim 1, wherein a micro-structure width (Dm) is provided on the base surface between an intersection of the first arc edge and the central section and an intersection of the second arc edge and the central section, and the micro-structure width ranges from 50 μm to 200 μm ([0034]).
Regarding claim 5, Chen in view of Pham discloses the micro-structure film according to claim 1, wherein the vertical distance (Hp) of the central curve relative to the base surface ranges from 5 μm to 30 μm at the center point of the central curve ([0035], since the range is 0.01 to 0.2 = 0.5 to 40 µm).
Regarding claim 6, Chen in view of Pham discloses the micro-structure film according to claim 1, wherein a distance between projection long axes of two adjacent micro-structures (20) is a pitch, and the pitch ranges from 50 μm to 300 μm (Ds, [0034], since the foot of one microstructure 20 where it contacts the surface 101 at the projection long axis is adjacent the foot of the next).
Regarding claim 7, Chen discloses a light emitting module (see figures 1-3C and 11B, for instance), comprising: a substrate (440), having a first surface (upon which 420 lie); a plurality of light sources (420), arranged on the first surface; a package layer (10), arranged on the first surface to contact with and cover the light sources (420); and a micro-structure film (442), arranged on an other side of the package layer (10) opposite to the first surface (of 440), wherein a plurality of micro-structures (20) are uniformly distributed on an other surface (101) of the micro-structure film opposite to the package layer (10), each micro-structure (20) is concave toward the first surface or convex away from the first surface (101; see figure 2A), a vertical projection of the micro-structure on the light-incident surface is provided with a projection long axis (Dm, see figure 3C), a base surface, and a central curve (see line which intersects point P), a periphery of the base surface is provided with two end corners (see figure 3C) located on opposite sides and respectively connected to two ends of the projection long axis (Dm), a vertical distance (Hp) of the central curve relative to the base surface is maximum at a center point (P) of the central curve, and a first arc edge and a second arc edge are respectively formed on a periphery of the base surface other than the two end corners relative to the central curve (see figure 3C), wherein for a plane that is perpendicular to the first surface and parallel to the central curve and that passes through the center point of the central curve, a triangular central section is defined among intersections of the plane with the first arc edge and the second arc edge (wherein the sides intersect edges of 20, forming angles a at each edge at element 201, see figure 3C, for instance), and the center point (P) of the central curve, and the central section has a first angle (angle a at left side) and a second angle (angle a at right side) at the intersections of the central section with the first arc edge and the second arc edge (left and right edges of 20 on surface 101). However, Chen does not expressly disclose wherein the central curve of each of the micro-structures is parallel to one another, the micro-structures are arranged in a staggered manner on the light-incident surface or the light-exit surface where the micro-structures are located, and vertical projections of the micro-structures on a plane perpendicular to the light-incident surface at least partially overlap with one another.
Pham discloses a microstructure film (see figures 1 and 4, for instance), wherein the central curve of each of the micro-structures (40) is parallel to one another ([0022]: “Each elongated structure may include a peak such that, in a plane of a cross-section of the elongated structure that is parallel to the first direction and includes the peak”, see also figure 4), the micro-structures (40) are arranged in a staggered manner on the light-incident surface or the light-exit surface where the micro-structures are located (see figure 4, see also [], “According to some aspects of the present description, an optically diffusive film includes an optical substrate layer with opposing first and second major surfaces, and an optical layer disposed on the second major surface of the optical substrate layer. In some embodiments, the optical layer may include a structured major surface facing away from the optical substrate layer which may include a plurality of spaced apart elongated structures.” Thus, Pham teaches that the micro-structures can be arranged on either the light-incident or light-exit surface), and vertical projections of the micro-structures (40) on a plane perpendicular to the light-incident surface (z-axis of figure 4) at least partially overlap with one another (see modified figure 4, 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 micro-structure arrangements of Pham in the light-incident or light-exit surface of Chen. The motivation for doing so would have been to prevent wet-out and moire patterns (e.g., Newton's rings) and similar effects between adjacent films, as taught by Pham ([0021]).
Regarding claim 8, Chen in view of Pham discloses the light emitting module according to claim 7, wherein the first angle ranges from 20° to 40° (since the ratio of Hp to Dm averages 0.01 ~ 0.2, see [0035]; the angle is calculated to be at least 22°).
Regarding claim 9, Chen in view of Pham discloses the light emitting module according to claim 7, wherein the second angle ranges from 20° to 40° (since the ratio of Hp to Dm averages 0.01 ~ 0.2, see [0035]; the angle is calculated to be at least 22°).
Regarding claim 10, Chen in view of Pham discloses the light emitting module according to claim 7, wherein a micro-structure width (Dm) is provided on the base surface between an intersection of the first arc edge and the central section and an intersection of the second arc edge and the central section, and the micro-structure width ranges from 50 μm to 200 μm ([0034]).
Regarding claim 11, Chen in view of Pham discloses the light emitting module according to claim 7, wherein the vertical distance (Hp) of the central curve relative to the base surface ranges from 5 μm to 30 μm at the center point of the central curve ([0035], since the range is 0.01 to 0.2 = 0.5 to 40 µm).
Regarding claim 12, Chen in view of Pham discloses the light emitting module according to claim 7, wherein a distance between projection long axes of two adjacent micro-structures (20) is a pitch, and the pitch ranges from 50 μm to 300 μm (Ds, [0034], since the foot of one microstructure 20 where it contacts the surface 101 at the projection long axis is adjacent the foot of the next).
Regarding claim 13, Chen in view of Pham discloses the light emitting module according to claim 7, wherein refractivity of the package layer (10) is different from refractivity of a material (see OP, figure 12B, for instance) on the other side of the package layer (10) opposite to the substrate (440).
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 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 8/6/2026
Prosecution Insights