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 7/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments that Yasunaga does not disclose “a first optical sheet comprising a first surface on which a first print pattern at least partially reducing transmission of light from the plurality of point light sources is formed” is not persuasive. However, Yasunaga discloses light reflecting portions 22 formed of white ink on a surface of light transmissive plate 21 by printing. Yasunaga also teaches that the reflecting portion have a higher distribution density in the LED overlapping region, whereby a greater portion of light form the LEDS is reflected and made less likely to pass through that region, thereby reducing luminance unevenness. Therefor, Yasanuga teaches the claimed first print patter.
Applicant’s arguments that Vasylyev’s sheets 10,20,30 are light guiding sheets rather than diffuser and there is no motivation to combine. This is not persuasive. Vasylyev is not relied upon for teaching the claimed diffuser. Vasylyev is a reference used to teach providing printed optical patterns on opposing surfaces and/or multiple optical sheets. Vasylyev teaches printed light extraction features on opposing surfaces who spatial distributions may differ, also teaches varying the spatial density of such features “in order to achieve a uniform emission.” It would have been obvious to apply Vasylyev’s known multi surface printed pattern arrangement to Yasunaga’s optical sheet arrangement to provide additional control of light distribution and further improve luminance uniformity. Therefore the rejection is maintained.
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.
Claim(s) 1-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasunaga et al (US 10754195) in view of Vasylyev et al (US 20200319391)
Regarding Claim 1,
Yasunaga et al discloses (Fig. 1 and Fig. 3) an optical sheet laminate (16) built in a liquid crystal display device (11) including a display screen, on a back surface side of which a plurality of point light sources (13) are provided in a dispersed manner, comprising: a first optical sheet (17) comprising a first surface on which a first print pattern (22a) at least partially reducing transmission of light from the plurality of point light sources (13) is formed.
Yasunaga et al does not disclose wherein a second print pattern at least partially reducing transmission of light from the plurality of point light sources is formed on a second optical sheet different from the first optical sheet or on a second surface of the first optical sheet, and the first print pattern and the second print pattern reduce luminance unevenness attributed to the plurality of point light sources, thereby making the luminance uniform.
Vasylyev et al discloses print patterns (Fig. 15) on each diffuser. Therefore wherein a second print pattern ([0288], white ink 91-94) at least partially reducing transmission of light from the plurality of point light sources is formed on a second optical sheet different from the first optical sheet or on a second surface of the first optical sheet, and the first print pattern and the second print pattern reduce luminance unevenness attributed to the plurality of point light sources, thereby making the luminance uniform.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yasunaga et al to include Vasylyev et al discloses print patterns (Fig. 15) on each diffuser. Therefore wherein a second print pattern at least partially reducing transmission of light from the plurality of point light sources is formed on a second optical sheet different from the first optical sheet or on a second surface of the first optical sheet, and the first print pattern and the second print pattern reduce luminance unevenness attributed to the plurality of point light sources, thereby making the luminance uniform motivated by the desire to achieve different visual effects displaying different illuminated patterns and/or colors to obtain different predefined luminance distributions [0288].
Regarding Claim 2,
In addition to Yasunaga et al and Vasylyev et al, Yasunaga et al discloses (Fig. 1 and Fig. 3) wherein the first print pattern (22a) and the second print pattern (taught by Vasylyev et al) are each a collection of unit patterns arranged in a gradation manner so that a level of reduction in light transmission decreases from a vicinity of a portion directly above one single point light source (13) out of the plurality of point light sources toward an intermediate region between the one single point light source (13) and another point light source adjacent to the one single point light source, and the unit patterns are arranged two-dimensionally without uneven distribution to serve as the first print pattern and the second print pattern (as shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 3,
In addition to Yasunaga et al and Vasylyev et al, Yasunaga et al discloses (Fig. 1 and Fig. 3) wherein at least one of the first print pattern (22a) or the second print pattern (taught by Vasylyev et al) is a pattern comprising a print density corresponding to luminance in a luminance distribution produced by the plurality of point light sources (13) when the first print pattern (22a) and the second print pattern (taught by Vasylyev et al) are not provided, and the luminance and the print density have a positive correlation with each other (column 6, lines 3-30)
Regarding Claim 4,
In addition to Yasunaga et al and Vasylyev et al, Yasunaga et al discloses (Fig. 1 and Fig. 3) wherein a pattern formed by stacking the first print pattern (22a) and the second print patterns (taught by Vasylyev et al) is a pattern comprising a print density corresponding to luminance in a luminance distribution produced by the plurality of point light sources (13) when the first print pattern and the second print pattern are not provided, and the luminance and the print density have a positive correlation with each other. (column 6, lines 3-30)
Regarding Claim 5,
In addition to Yasunaga et al and Vasylyev et al, Yasunaga et al discloses (Fig. 1 and Fig. 3) wherein a high luminance region in the luminance distribution is a region directly above the plurality of point light sources (13).
Regarding Claim 6,
In addition to Yasunaga et al and Vasylyev et al, Yasunaga et al discloses (Fig. 1 and Fig. 3) wherein a high luminance region in the luminance distribution is a region between point light sources (13) adjacent to each other out of the plurality of point light sources.
Regarding Claim 7,
In addition to Yasunaga et al and Vasylyev et al, Yasunaga et al discloses (Fig. 1 and Fig. 3) wherein the first optical sheet (17) is a first light diffusion sheet.
Regarding Claim 8,
In addition to Yasunaga et al and Vasylyev et al, Yasunaga et al discloses (Fig. 1 and Fig. 3) wherein the second print pattern (taught by Vasylyev et al) is formed on the second optical sheet, in the first light diffusion sheet (17), the first surface is a flat surface or a matte surface, and the second surface comprises a plurality of recesses arranged two-dimensionally (white ink (fig.3), and the second optical sheet (24) is a second light diffusion sheet comprising a flat surface or a matte surface on which the second print pattern is formed.
Regarding Claim 9,
In addition to Yasunaga et al and Vasylyev et al, Yasunaga et al discloses (Fig. 1 and Fig. 3) wherein the second print pattern (22) is formed on the first light diffusion sheet (17), and in the first light diffusion sheet, one of the first surface or the second surface comprises a plurality of recesses arranged two-dimensionally (Fig. 3), and the other one of the first surface or the second surface is a flat surface or a matte surface.
Regarding Claim 10,
In addition to Yasunaga et al and Vasylyev et al, Yasunaga et al discloses (Fig. 1 and Fig. 3) wherein the plurality of recesses comprise an inverted polygon pyramid shape, an inverted truncated polygon pyramid shape, or a lower hemisphere shape (column 20, lines 39-44).
Regarding Claim 11,
In addition to Yasunaga et al and Vasylyev et al, Yasunaga et al discloses (Fig. 1 and Fig. 3) A backlight unit built in the liquid crystal display device and leading light emitted from the plurality of point light sources (13) toward the display screen, comprising: the optical sheet (17) laminate of claim 1 between the display screen (11) and the plurality of point light sources (13).
Regarding Claim 12,
In addition to Yasunaga et al and Vasylyev et al, Yasunaga et al discloses (Fig. 1 and Fig. 3) wherein a distance between the plurality of point light sources (13) and the optical sheet (17) laminate is 2 mm or less. One would have recognized wherein a distance between the plurality of point light sources and the optical sheet laminate is 2 mm or less as a result-effective variable.
Regarding Claim 13,
In addition to Yasunaga et al and Vasylyev et al, Yasunaga et al discloses (Fig. 1 and Fig. 3) wherein the plurality of point light sources (13) are LED elements.
Regarding Claim 14,
In addition to Yasunaga et al and Vasylyev et al, Yasunaga et al discloses (Fig. 1 and Fig. 3) wherein the plurality of point light sources (13) are arranged on a reflection member (15) provided on an opposite side of the display screen (11) when viewed from the optical sheet laminate.
Regarding Claim 15,
In addition to Yasunaga et al and Vasylyev et al, Yasunaga et al discloses (Fig. 1 and Fig. 3) the backlight unit of claim 11; and a liquid crystal display panel (10).
Regarding Claim 16,
In addition to Yasunaga et al and Vasylyev et al, Yasunaga et al discloses (Fig. 1 and Fig. 3) An information equipment, comprising: the liquid crystal display device of claim 15.
Regarding Claim 17,
In addition to Yasunaga et al and Vasylyev et al, Yasunaga et al discloses (Fig. 1 and Fig. 3) A production method for an optical sheet (17) laminate built in a liquid crystal display device including a display screen (11), on a back surface side of which a plurality of point light sources (13) are provided in a dispersed manner, comprising: a step A of forming a first print pattern (22) at least partially reducing transmission of light from the plurality of point light sources (13), on a first surface of a first optical sheet (17); on a second optical sheet (19) different from the first optical sheet (17) or on a second surface of the first optical sheet, wherein the step A and the step B are performed so that the first print pattern (22) and the second print pattern (taught by Vasylyev et al) reduce luminance unevenness attributed to the plurality of point light sources (13), thereby making the luminance uniform.
Yasunaga et al does not disclose and a step B of forming a second print pattern at least partially reducing transmission of light from the plurality of point light sources.
Vasylyev et al discloses print patterns (Fig. 15) on each diffuser. Therefore wherein a second print pattern ([0288], white ink 91-94) at least partially reducing transmission of light from the plurality of point light sources is formed on a second optical sheet different from the first optical sheet or on a second surface of the first optical sheet, and the first print pattern and the second print pattern reduce luminance unevenness attributed to the plurality of point light sources, thereby making the luminance uniform.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yasunaga et al to include Vasylyev et al discloses print patterns (Fig. 15) on each diffuser. Therefore wherein a second print pattern at least partially reducing transmission of light from the plurality of point light sources is formed on a second optical sheet different from the first optical sheet or on a second surface of the first optical sheet, and the first print pattern and the second print pattern reduce luminance unevenness attributed to the plurality of point light sources, thereby making the luminance uniform motivated by the desire to achieve different visual effects displaying different illuminated patterns and/or colors to obtain different predefined luminance distributions [0288].
Regarding Claim 18,
In addition to Yasunaga et al and Vasylyev et al, Yasunaga et al discloses (Fig. 1 and Fig. 3) wherein the first print pattern (22a) and the second print pattern (taught by Vasylyev et al) are each a collection of unit patterns arranged in a gradation manner so that a level of reduction in light transmission decreases from a vicinity of a portion directly above one single point light source out of the plurality of point light sources toward an intermediate region between the one single point light source and another point light source adjacent to the one single point light source, and the unit patterns are arranged two-dimensionally without uneven distribution to serve as the first print pattern and the second print pattern. (column 6, lines 3-30)
Regarding Claim 19,
In addition to Yasunaga et al and Vasylyev et al, Yasunaga et al discloses (Fig. 1 and Fig. 3) wherein at least one of the first print pattern or the second print pattern is a pattern comprising a print density corresponding to luminance in a luminance distribution produced by the plurality of point light sources when the first print pattern and the second print pattern are not provided, and the luminance and the print density have a positive correlation with each other. (column 6, lines 3-30)
Regarding Claim 20,
In addition to Yasunaga et al and Vasylyev et al, Yasunaga et al discloses (Fig. 1 and Fig. 3) wherein a pattern formed by stacking the first print pattern (22) and the second print patterns (taught by Vasylyev et al) is a pattern comprising a print density corresponding to luminance in a luminance distribution produced by the plurality of point light sources when the first print pattern and the second print pattern are not provided, and the luminance and the print density have a positive correlation with each other. (column 6, lines 3-30)
Regarding Claim 21,
In addition to Yasunaga et al and Vasylyev et al, Yasunaga et al discloses (Fig. 1 and Fig. 3) wherein a high luminance region in the luminance distribution is a region directly above the plurality of point light sources (13). (column 6, lines 3-30)
Regarding Claim 22,
In addition to Yasunaga et al and Vasylyev et al, Yasunaga et al discloses (Fig. 1 and Fig. 3) wherein a high luminance region in the luminance distribution is a region between point light sources (13) adjacent to each other out of the plurality of point light sources. (column 6, lines 3-30)
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 LUCY P CHIEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8579. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM 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, Michael Caley can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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.
/LUCY P CHIEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights