DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A1, B1, C1, and D1 in the reply filed on is acknowledged. The unelected species are considered herein to be withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Objections
Claim 26 objected to because of the following informalities: it recites “PMMA” without defining the acronym, which is improper. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 18-21, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The meaning of claim 18 is unclear because it recites that the claimed diffusion is capable of converting blue light with a wavelength in the range of 430 to 500 nm into white light, but does not recite what wavelengths qualify as “white”. The claim further recites that an organic dye is included for such light conversion, but the instant disclosure and claim 19 clarify that the dye has an emission wavelength in the range of 490 to 650 nm (Applicant’s published application, par. 45). Individual wavelengths within the range of 490 to 650 are not generally considered “white”. Additionally, the product of Example 1 emits what is described as “white slightly yellow” light (Table 1). If “slightly yellow” qualifies as “white”, it is not clear what other colors qualify as “white”. As such, it is not clear what specifically qualifies as “white light” in the context of the claims. For the sake of compact prosecution, a diffusion plate that absorbs blue light and emits a wavelength in the taught and recited range is considered herein to qualify as being capable of “converting blue light into white light”, as claimed. Appropriate explanation and correction are required.
Claim 25 is indefinite because it recites “the light-input surface has said micro-structure layer” but depends from claim 24, which already recites that the micro-structure layer is on the light-output surface. As “said micro-structure layer” refers to the micro-structure layer of claim 24, it is not clear how the same micro-structure layer can be on both sides, and surfaces, of the recited plate. For the sake of compact prosecution, claim 25 is interpreted herein as requiring the light-input surface to also have a micro-structure layer.
Claims 19-21, 24, and 25 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because they depend from claim 18.
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, 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.
Claims 18, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi (JP 2012-002941A), cited herein according to an English language translation.
Regarding claims 18, 19, and 21, Kobayashi teaches a light diffusion sheet (i.e. “light diffusion plate”) comprising a plastic substrate having two parallel surfaces (i.e. “light-input surface” and “light-output surface”) and comprising a resin, 0.5 to 4 wt. % of a light emitting material (i.e. “light-color conversion material”), which may comprise one or more organic dyes including perylene, dispersed in the resin, 0.01 to 8 wt. % of a bubble nucleating agent, which may be calcium carbonate, dispersed in the resin, and bubbles, which reflect, refract, and scatter light, dispersed in the resin (Abstract; par. 9, 20, 22, 26, 29, 30, 40, 53, 67, and 74).
The teachings of Kobayashi may be considered to differ from the current invention in that he does not explicitly exemplify a light diffusion plate including all of the components discussed above, wherein the bubbles are “microbubbles” and the diffusion plate converts blue light having a wavelength in the range of 430 to 500 nm to light having a wavelength in the range of 490 to 650. However, Kobayashi does exemplify several light diffusing sheets that include bubbles having an average size in the range of 102 to 111 µm and that include a fluorescent pigment that absorbs light with wavelengths in the range of 470 to 570 nm and emits light with wavelengths in the range of 570 to 700 nm (i.e. “white” light) (Table 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make a light diffusion plate including any or all of the components/features discussed above, wherein the bubbles dispersed in the plate are microbubbles with an average size in the range of 102 to 111 µm and wherein the plate absorbs light with a wavelength in the range of 470 to 570 nm and emits light with a wavelength in the range of 570 to 700 nm because Kobayashi teaches or demonstrates that each component/feature is appropriate for his product. The instantly claimed organic dye content, nucleating agent content, blue light wavelength, and emission wavelength ranges are overlapped or encompassed and rendered by Kobayashi. See MPEP 2144.05.
Kobayashi’s teachings also differ from the current invention in that he does not disclose the “weight-reduction ratio” that occurs in his product as a result of foaming. However, as described in the instant disclosure, the “weight-reduction ratio” compares the density of the product before and after foaming and is a measure of the amount of microbubbles to the substrate (Applicant’s published application, par. 46). Kobayashi teaches that too low of a density of the foamed sheet can reduce the sheet’s light-diffusion properties and too high of a density can reduce the sheet’s lightness or flexibility (par. 38). Kobayashi also teaches that too few bubbles in the sheet will cause the light-diffusion properties to decrease and too many bubbles will cause the sheet to have a decrease in light transmittance (par. 40). Kobayashi further indicates that the density resultant of foaming and size of bubbles within the sheet can be adjusted by adjusting the amount of foaming agent used (par. 57). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select an appropriate density for Kobayashi’s product, thereby also selecting an appropriate “weight-reduction ratio”, including by selecting an appropriate amount of foaming agent and including selecting a final density that results in a weight-reduction ratio of 15 to 25 %, according to the required/desired sheet light diffusion and transmittance properties, lightness, and flexibility.
The claim limitations describing the extrusion, foaming, and bubble condensing and shrinking processes used to form the claimed product are product-by-process limitations. Product-by-process claims are not limited to the recited processing steps, but rather the structure that is implied by the recited procedure. See MPEP 2113. Kobayashi’s product, or a product rendered obvious by Kobayashi, meets the claim requirements because it is a foam having the recited types and commensurate quantities of dye and nucleating agent and dispersed microbubbles falling in the size range recited to be achieved by the claimed process.
The claim requirements that the recited diffusion plate can be assembled with a blue light source module of particular wavelengths and in a particular orientation are statements of intended use. Kobayashi’s product meets these requirements because it is capable of being placed, oriented, and used as claimed. As noted above, Kobayashi’s product absorbs blue wavelengths and emits other wavelengths that qualify as “white” in the context of the instant claims and disclosure.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi, as applied to claims 18 and 19 above, and further in view of Peeters (WO 2012/042415 A1). Claims 18-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi in view of Peeters.
Regarding claims 18-20, as discussed above, Kobayashi teaches or renders obvious a light diffusion sheet that includes one or more organic dyes (i.e. “light-color conversion materials”) that absorb light with wavelengths in the blue range and emits light of different wavelengths, including in the range of 570 to 700 nm, that is considered herein to meet requirements of claims 18 and 19.
The teachings of Kobayashi differ from the current invention in that his product is not taught to further include a dye that emits light with wavelengths in the range of 520 to 530 nm. Kobayashi’s product might also be considered to differ from the current invention in that the light diffusion plate is not disclosed to emit “white” light. However, Kobayashi does teach the concept of selecting dyes according to the color of light that the diffusion sheet is intended to emit (par. 33). Peeters also teaches light conversion material and teaches using dyes to achieve a desired color rendering index (CRI) and to provide white light (p. 1, ln. 6-9; p. 1, ln. 28-p. 2, ln. 10). In order to accomplish both of these goals, Peeters teaches to include a dye that demonstrates an emission below 530 after self-absorption and a dye that has an intrinsic emission in the range of 550 to 700 nm in a conversion layer (p. 1, ln. 28-p. 2, ln. 10). Both dyes may be included in the same layer and Peeters teaches that the combination of dyes provides the material with the ability to convert blue light within a wavelength range of 400-500 nm to white light in the wavelength range of 530 to 700 nm (p. 2, ln. 22-24; p. 5, ln. 1-5). Peeters teaches that the combination of dyes with such emission wavelengths leads to a conversion material that produces white light and demonstrates a desired CRI at high efficiency (p. 1, ln. 25-27; p. 2, ln. 7-8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure Kobayashi’s product to include a dye that demonstrates an emission below 530 after self-absorption and a dye that has an intrinsic emission in the range of 550 to 700 nm in order to allow the conversion material to blue light within a wavelength range of 400-500 nm to white light, or at least light with a more “white” appearance, in the wavelength range of 530 to 700 nm and to achieve a desired CRI with high efficiency. The instantly claimed wavelength ranges are overlapped or encompassed and rendered obvious by Peeters. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi and, optionally, Peeters, as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Chen (US PG Pub. No. 2014/0071695).
Regarding claims 24 and 25, Kobayashi’s light diffusion sheet (i.e. which is also the “substrate”) preferably has a thickness of 0.5 to 1.5 mm (par. 49).
The teachings of Kobayashi differ from the current invention in that the sheet is not taught to have a microstructure layer including concave microstructures having a semi-spherical and/or pyramidal shape. However, Kobayashi’s product is intended to diffuse light (Abstract). Chen further teaches that surface roughness can improve the hiding power of light diffusion materials, thereby “hiding” the light source and achieving a more uniform light distribution, and discloses that a synergistic effect can be seen when a diffusion material includes a non-random surface texture, such as a texture comprising semi-spherical- and/or pyramid-shaped microstructures, and internal light diffusing elements (par. 17-19, 26, 27). The surface texture may be applied to one or both surfaces of a light-diffusing sheet (par. 26). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to fashion Kobayashi’s light diffusion sheet to have microstructure layers including semi-spherical- and/or pyramid-shaped microstructures on one or both of its surfaces in order to improve its light source “hiding” power and to produce a more uniform light distribution.
The claim requirements that the microstructure layer is on the light-input and/or light-output surfaces are statements of intended use regarding how the material is oriented. The prior art product meets this limitation because it is capable of being oriented as claimed.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi and, optionally, Peeters as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Jinno (JP 2009-128489A) and Lu (CN 102303438 A), the text of each which is cited herein according to an English language translation.
Regarding claim 26, the teachings of Kobayashi differ from the current invention in that the plastic substrate of his light diffusion sheet/plate is not disclosed to be a three-layer composite of polymethyl methacrylate (“PMMA”) and polycarbonate (“PC”) arranged as PMMA/PC/PMMA with the relative thicknesses as claimed, wherein only the PC layer contains the microbubbles and nucleating agent. However, Kobayashi does teach that the thermoplastic resin constituting the light diffusing sheet is not particularly limited and can include two or more types of resins (par. 9). Jinno further teaches that aromatic polycarbonates are widely used for various applications due to their excellent mechanical properties, heat and weather resistance, and high light transmittance, and that polycarbonate light diffusers are known for their high excellent performance in terms of impact resistance, heat resistance, and flame retardancy (par. 2, 5). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make Kobayashi’s light diffusion sheet, which includes dispersed dyes, nucleating agent, and bubbles as discussed above, from polycarbonate because is a known material for light diffusers, as taught by Jinno, and due to its excellent mechanical, optical, and resistive properties.
Lu further teaches a PMMA/PC/PMMA optical film with a three-layer structure, wherein the PMMA layers each make up 10 to 30 % of the total film thickness and the PC layer makes up 40 to 60 % of the total thickness (par. 6). Lu’s combination of material layers is beneficial because PC optical films have high strength and toughness, the PMMA films offer high hardness, and the combination of layers achieve an optical film with excellent toughness and scratch resistance (par. 4, 18). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure Kobayashi and Jinno’s light diffusion plate to also include PMMA layers on each side of the light-diffusing PC layer such that it has a three-layer PMMA/PC/PMMA structure, wherein the PMMA layers each make up 10 to 30 % of the total film thickness and the PC layer makes up 40 to 60 % of the total thickness Lu teaches that such a combination of layers is useful for optical films and in order to achieve a product with excellent properties as discussed above and including high scratch resistance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA L RUMMEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6288. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:30 am -5:00 pm PT.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571) 272-0604. 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.
/JULIA L. RUMMEL/
Examiner
Art Unit 1784
/MARK RUTHKOSKY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights