DETAILED ACTION
Amendment
Acknowledgment is made of Amendment filed December 29, 2025. Claim 16 is amended. Claims 16-35 are pending.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 19-20, 25 and 28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,774,068. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 19-20, 25 and 28 of the present application are anticipated by claim 16 of U.S. 11,774,068.
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 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.
Claims 16-17, 20, 22-27, 29 and 32-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsukahara (US 2010/0238648) in view of Roberts et al (US 2009/0231835).
Regarding claim 16, Tsukahara discloses a display unit comprising: a light source device 1 configured to emit illumination light; a display section 200 configured to display an image using the illumination light from the light source device, wherein the light source device comprising: a substrate 15; a plurality of light sources 10 disposed on the substrate; a wavelength conversion member 20 comprising a wavelength conversion material (see para [0030]) and disposed to face the plurality of light sources; a diffuser 54 with a shaped surface disposed between the display section and the plurality of light source, wherein the shaped surface faces the wavelength conversion member 20 (see at least Figure 20 and paragraphs [0024]-[0054]). Examiner note: the recitation that the diffuser is “configured to modify a distribution of traveling direction angles of light incident on the wavelength conversion member so as to control interaction between the incident light and the wavelength conversion material” relates to an intended use of the device, and it has been held that a recitation with respect to eh manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations (MPEP 2114(II). Examiner notes however, that the diffuser 54 in Tsukahara inherently modifies a distribution of traveling direction angles of light incident on the wavelength conversion member 20 (i.e., a diffuser by nature inherently scatters light to modify incident angles) so as to control interaction between the incident light and the wavelength conversion material.
Tsukahara does not specifically teach that the shaped surface of the diffuser 54 deviate from a planar shape and is not continuous and not smooth in plan view. However, forming diffuser surfaces to deviate from a planar shape and in plan view be not continuous and not smooth is common in the art and taught in Roberts (see Roberts, at least Figures 6A-6B and paragraphs [0047]-[0048]). Accordingly it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to specify that the shaped surface of the diffuser 54 in Tsukahara be formed to deviate from a planar shape and in plan view be not continuous and not smooth as taught by Roberts in order to provide a refractive diffuser with uniform light distribution and reduced light loss.
Regarding claim 17, the diffuser 54 in Tsukahara is disposed between the wavelength conversion member 20 and the plurality of light sources 10 (see at least Figure 20).
Regarding claim 20, the display unit in Tsukahara further comprises a reflective sheet (at least 13) disposed in a region on the substrate, the region being different from a region provided with the plurality of light sources 10 (see at least Figures 1 and 20).
Regarding claim 22, each light source of the light sources 10 in Tsukahara further comprises a sealing member being formed in a dome lens shape by sealant to form a sealing lens (see at least Figure 2 and paragraph [0028]).
Regarding claim 23, the wavelength conversion member 20 in Tsukahara is configured such that a portion of light reflected off of the reflective sheet 13 that propagates to the wavelength conversion member and through the wavelength conversion member in the oblique direction propagates without colliding with the wavelength conversion material (see at least Figures 2 and 18-20 and paras [0027] and [0051]-[0052] which teaches that while lessened, some light travels obliquely through member 20 without conversion; see Figure 20; a portion of light necessarily travels through without colliding because there is spaces between the wavelength conversion material phosphors; see also paragraph [0030] which specifically teaches that some of the blue excitation light from light sources 10 is not converted by the phosphor material in order to mix with the converted light to emit white light).
Regarding claims 24-25, the diffuser 54 in Tsukahara is configured to cause uniform distribution of traveling direction angle of incident light, but does not explicitly teach that the diffusion member have optical elements two-dimensionally arranged on a surface thereof and having a predetermined shape such as a pyramid-shaped convex pattern shaped surface. However the formation of optical elements arranged two-dimensionally with a pyramid-shaped convex pattern is common in the art and specifically taught in Roberts (see Roberts, at least Figures 6A-6B and paragraphs [0047]-[0048]). Accordingly it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to specify that the shaped surface of the diffuser 54 in Tsukahara comprise optical elements arranged two-dimensionally with pyramid-shaped convex patterns as taught by Roberts in order to provide a refractive diffuser with uniform light distribution and reduced light loss.
Regarding claim 26, each of the light sources 10 in Tsukahara has a light emitting element chip that is sealed by sealant (see at least Figure 2 and paragraph [0028]).
Regarding claim 27, each of the light sources 10 in Tsukahara has a light emitting element chip on a chip mounting layer that has a light reflective function (see at least Figure 2 and paragraph [0028]).
Regarding claim 29, the sealant in Tsukahara is formed into a dome lens and a following condition is satisfied, 0.65≤h/r≤1 where h is a height of the dome lens and r is a radius of the dome lens (see at least Figure 2; values are equal thus h/r is 1).
Regarding claims 32-35, although generally implied in order to transfer current and power to the plurality of light sources 10, Tsukahara does not specifically teach that the substrate 15 include a wiring pattern to provide independent local dimming light emission control with light reflectivity. However, wiring patterns that provide independent light control with reflectivity are well-known in the art (Official Notice), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to specify that the substrate 15 in Tsukahara include a wiring pattern in order to provide current and power to the light sources 10 and allow for independent control of the light sources 10.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsukahara (US 2010/0238648) and Roberts et al (US 2009/0231835), and further in view of Oh (US 2014/0029239).
Regarding claim 18, some light from the plurality of light sources 10 passes through the wavelength conversion member 20 in an oblique direction without colliding with the wavelength conversion material and is emitted from the wavelength conversion member (see at least Figures 18-20 and paras [0051]-[0052] which teaches that while lessened, some light travels obliquely through member 20 without conversion; see Figure 20; a portion of light necessarily travels through without colliding because there is spaces between the wavelength conversion material phosphors; see also paragraph [0030] which specifically teaches that some of the blue excitation light from light sources 10 is not converted by the phosphor material in order to mix with the converted light to emit white light), but Tsukahara does not specifically teach that the wavelength conversion material comprise a plurality of quantum dots. However wavelength conversion members comprising quantum dots are common in the art and taught in Oh (see Oh, at least paragraphs [0065]-[0067]). Accordingly it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to specify that the wavelength conversion member in Tsukahara comprise quantum dots as taught by Oh in order to provide well-known conversion means having improved light efficiency characteristics for a brighter and more efficient device.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsukahara (US 2010/0238648) and Roberts et al (US 2009/0231835), and further in view of Pan et al (US 2009/0231847).
Regarding claim 21, each light source in Tsukahara further comprises a sealing member but not specifically teach that it be formed substantially flat. However substantially flat sealing members are well-known in the art and specifically taught in Pan (see Pan, at least Figures 4-5 and paragraph [0029]; flat sealing members 42 and 56), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to specify that the sealing member be substantially flat in order to provide a wider, less concentrated beam pattern to prevent bright spots while maintaining a protecting layer, and since it has been held that changing the form or shape of prior art parts does not make the claimed invention patentable over said prior art (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B)).
Claims 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsukahara (US 2010/0238648) and Roberts et al (US 2009/0231835), and further in view Shim (US 2007/0097708).
Regarding claims 30-31, Tsukahara generally teaches at least a first sheet 11 and a second sheet 52 disposed between the wavelength conversion member 20 and the diffusion member 54, but does not specifically teach that the sheets be prism sheets having a plurality of first prisms extending in a first direction on the first sheet and a plurality of second prisms on the second sheet orthogonal to the first direction. However the use of first and second prism sheets with a plurality of prisms on each sheet extending orthogonal to each other is common in the art and specifically taught in Shim (see Shim, at least Figure 1 and paragraphs [0010]-[0012]). Accordingly it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to specify that first and second sheets in Tsukahara comprise a plurality of first prisms and a plurality of second prism respectively extending orthogonal to each other as taught by Shim so that the light passing through the sheets emerges perpendicular to the sheets to obtain uniform brightness distribution across the wavelength conversion member 20.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 29, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 16, for the reasons set forth in the rejection above, Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s submission that the addition of an intended use of the diffuser (which the diffuser in Tsukahara necessarily achieves) patentably distinguishes the claim over Tsukahara in view of Roberts. Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
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 SEAN P GRAMLING whose telephone number is (571)272-9082. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5pm EST.
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, Abdulmajeed Aziz can be reached at (571) 270-5046. 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.
/SEAN P GRAMLING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875