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 .
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.
Claims 3-4 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 3, Applicant recites “wherein the width of the boundary portion is a width of a curved portion of a vertex of ridgelines that partition the plurality of depressed portions” in lines 1-3 of the claim. However, it is unclear as to what “a width of a curved portion of a vertex of ridgelines” is referring to since “a curved portion of a vertex of ridgelines” is not clearly disclosed in the claim or the disclosure. Examiner notes that it is unclear as to how “a width of a curved portion of a vertex of ridgelines” can be determined or interpreted without clearly disclosing the metes and bounds of what “a curved portion of a vertex of ridgelines” is referring to. Therefore, the recitation of “wherein the width of the boundary portion is a width of a curved portion of a vertex of ridgelines that partition the plurality of depressed portions” renders the claim as a whole to be indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the recitation of “wherein the width of the boundary portion is a width of a curved portion of a vertex of ridgelines that partition the plurality of depressed portions” will be broadly interpreted as “wherein the width of the boundary portion is a width of a vertex of ridgelines that partition the plurality of depressed portions.”
Claim 4 is rejected as being dependent on claim 3 for the same reasons as noted above. For the purposes of examination, the recitation of “a width occupied by a curved portion of a vertex of the ridgelines in the first direction” and “a width occupied by a curved portion of a vertex of the ridgelines in the second direction” in claim 4 will be broadly interpreted as “a width occupied by a vertex of the ridgelines in the first direction” and “a width occupied by a vertex of the ridgelines in the second direction,” respectively.
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.
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) 1-8 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurokawa et al. (U.S. 2007/0171671).
Regarding claim 1, Kurokawa discloses a light-diffusing sheet (10, Fig. 1; page 4, para [0053]) including a plurality of depressed portions (3, Fig. 3; page 4, para [0053]) formed in an approximately inverted polygonal pyramid (Figs. 2-3; page 4, para [0053]) on at least a first surface (2, Fig. 3; page 4, para [0053]).
Kurokawa does not expressly disclose that an array pitch of the plurality of depressed portions is 300 um or more and 1500 um or less, and a width of a boundary portion between adjacent depressed portions (3, Fig. 3) in the plurality of depressed portions is 25% of the array pitch or less. However, Kurokawa discloses that an array pitch (a, Fig. 3; page 6, para [0075]) of the plurality of depressed portions (3, Fig. 3) can be 100-500 um (such as a=500 um, Fig. 3; page 6, para [0075]) in order to configure the light-diffusing sheet (10, Fig. 1) to have increased brightness with a small brightness peak angle (page 2, para [0015]).
Therefore, before the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the array pitch (a, Fig. 3) of the plurality of depressed portions (3, Fig. 3) of Kurokawa to be 500 um (such as a=500 um, Fig. 3; page 5, para [0075]) in order to obtain the benefits of configuring the light-diffusing sheet (10, Fig. 1) to have increased brightness with a small brightness peak angle as taught by Kurokawa (page 2, para [0015]). Furthermore, with the array pitch (a, Fig. 3) of the plurality of depressed portions (3, Fig. 3) of Kurokawa being 500 um (such as a=500 um, Fig. 3; page 5, para [0075]), Kurokawa discloses that a width of a boundary portion between adjacent depressed portions in the plurality of depressed portions is 25% of the array pitch or less (since a width of a boundary portion between adjacent depressed portions is a vertex of 10 having a width of nearly 0 um, which is less than 25% of an array pitch “a” of 500 um, Fig. 3; page 6, para [0075]).
Regarding claim 2, Kurokawa discloses a light-diffusing sheet with all the limitations above and further discloses wherein the array pitch (a, Fig. 3) is 1000 um or less (such as a=500 um, Fig. 3; page 6, para [0075]).
Regarding claim 3, Kurokawa discloses a light-diffusing sheet with all the limitations above and further discloses wherein the width of the boundary portion (a width of a boundary portion between adjacent depressed portions is a vertex of 10 having a width of nearly 0 um, which is less than 25% of an array pitch “a” of 500 um, Fig. 3; page 6, para [0075]) is a width of a vertex of ridgelines (such as vertex of 10 between adjacent recesses 3, Fig. 3) that partition the plurality of depressed portions (3, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 4, Kurokawa discloses a light-diffusing sheet with all the limitations of claim 3 above and further discloses wherein:
the plurality of depressed portions (3, Fig. 3) is formed in an approximately inverted square pyramid (Fig. 2; page 4, para [0053]),
the ridgelines extend in a first direction (such as 4 in the right direction, Fig. 3) and a second direction (such 4 in the left direction, Fig. 3),
the array pitch (a, Fig. 3) is an average value of a first array pitch of the plurality of depressed portions (3, Fig. 3) in the first direction (a is an average value of a first array pitch of the plurality of depressed portions 3 in the right direction, Fig. 3) and a second array pitch of the plurality of depressed portions in the second direction (a is an average value of a second array pitch of the plurality of depressed portions 3 in the left direction, Fig. 3), and
the width of the boundary portion (width of vertex of 10, which is nearly 0 um, Fig. 3) is an average value of a width of a vertex of the ridgelines in the first direction (width of vertex 10 in the right direction, Fig. 3) and a width of a vertex of the ridgelines in the second direction (width of vertex 10 in the left direction, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 5, Kurokawa discloses a light-diffusing sheet with all the limitations above and further discloses wherein:
an angle (θ, Fig. 3; page 6, para [0069]) formed between a wall surface (such as face of 4, Fig. 3; page 6, para [0069]) of the plurality of depressed portions (3, Fig. 3) and a sheet surface (such as 3, Fig. 3) of the light-diffusing sheet (10, Fig. 3) is 20-55 degrees (page 6, para [0069]). However, Kurokawa does not expressly disclose that the angle (θ, Fig. 3) is 40 degrees or more and 65 degrees or less. However, Kurokawa discloses that the angle (θ, Fig. 3) can be configured to be 55 degrees (page 6, para [0069]) in order to reduce the brightness peak angle (page 6, para [0069]).
Therefore, before the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the angle (θ, Fig. 3; page 6, para [0069]) formed between the wall surface (such as face of 4, Fig. 3; page 6, para [0069]) of the plurality of depressed portions (3, Fig. 3) and the sheet surface (such as 3, Fig. 3) of the light-diffusing sheet (10, Fig. 3) of Kurokawa to be 55 degrees in order to obtain the benefits of reducing the brightness peak angle (page 6, para [0069]).
Regarding claim 6, Kurokawa discloses a light-diffusing sheet with all the limitations above and further discloses wherein:
the plurality of depressed portions (3, Fig. 3) are only provided on the first surface (2, Fig. 3), and a second surface (5, Fig. 3) of the light-diffusing sheet is a flat surface (flat surface of 5, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 7, Kurokawa discloses a backlight unit (Fig. 7; page 9, para [0098]) which is built into a liquid crystal display device (page 5, para [0065]; page 11, para [0107]) and which guides light emitted by a light source (40, Fig. 7; page 11, para [0107]) toward a display screen (display screen, Fig. 7; page 11, para [0107]), the backlight unit comprising:
at least one light-diffusing sheet (10, Fig. 3) according to claim 1 between the display screen and the light source (40, Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 8, Kurokawa discloses a backlight unit with all the limitations of claim 7 above and further discloses:
a plurality of the light-diffusing sheets (10, Fig. 3; page 11, para [0106]), wherein
the first surface (3, Figs. 3 and 7) of a light-diffusing sheet (such as upper one of two of 14, Fig. 7; page 11, para [0106]) which is farthest from the light source (40, Fig. 7) among the plurality of light-diffusing sheets (page 11, para [0106]) is a light incident surface.
Regarding claim 16, Kurokawa discloses a liquid crystal display device (page 5, para [0065]; page 11, para [0107]), comprising:
the backlight unit (Fig. 7; page 9, para [0098]) according to claim 7; and
a liquid crystal display panel (liquid crystal display panel screen, Fig. 7; page 11, para [0107]).
Regarding claim 17, Kurokawa discloses an information apparatus (such as a computer monitor; page 1, para [0001]) with all the limitations of claim 16 above and further discloses:
the liquid crystal display device (page 5, para [0065]; page 11, para [0107]) according to claim 16.
Claim(s) 9 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurokawa et al. (U.S. 2007/0171671) in view of Kurokawa (U.S. 2009/0262428).
Regarding claim 9, Kurokawa discloses a backlight unit with all the limitations of claim 7 above but does not expressly disclose at least another light-diffusing sheet which does not have depressed portions formed in an approximately inverted polygonal pyramid or an approximately inverted truncated polygonal pyramid between the display screen (display screen, Fig. 7; page 11, para [0107]) and the light source (40, Fig. 7). However, Kurokawa ‘428 discloses a backlight unit (Fig. 6; page 8, para [0072]) comprising a light-diffusing sheet (F, Fig. 6; page 8, para [0074]) which does not have depressed portions disposed between a display screen (display screen above BLU, Fig. 6; page 10, para [0094]) and a light-diffusing sheet (S1, Fig. 6; page 8, para [0073]) including a plurality of depressed portions (1, Figs. 2 and 6; page 8, para [0077]) and between the display screen and a light source (L, Fig. 6; page 8, para [0073]) in order to provide uniformity of luminance (page 1, para [0007]).
Therefore, before the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the backlight unit (Kurokawa: Fig. 7) of Kurokawa with the light-diffusing sheet (Kurokawa ‘428: F, Fig. 6) of Kurokawa ‘428 which does not have depressed portions such that the light-diffusing sheet (Kurokawa ‘428: F, Fig. 6) which does not have depressed portions is arranged between the display screen (Kurokawa: display screen, Fig. 7; page 11, para [0107]) and the light source (Kurokawa: 40, Fig. 7; Kurokawa ‘428: L, Fig. 6) in order to obtain the benefits of providing uniformity of luminance to the backlight of Kurokawa as taught by Kurokawa ‘428 (page 1, para [0007]).
Regarding claim 13, Kurokawa as modified by Kurokawa ‘428 discloses a backlight unit with all the limitations of claim 9 above and further discloses wherein:
the other light-diffusing sheet (Kurokawa ‘428: F, Fig. 6) contains a light-diffusing agent (Kurokawa ‘428: page 6, para [0059]) and is arranged so as to face a light exit surface of the light-diffusing sheet (Kurokawa: such as 14, Fig. 7; Kurokawa ‘428: S1, Fig. 6), and
a brightness-improving sheet (Kurokawa: 30, Fig. 7; page 4, para [0053]; page 1, para [0003]) arranged so as to face a light exit surface of the other light-diffusing sheet (Kurokawa ‘428: F, Fig. 6) is further provided.
Regarding claim 14, Kurokawa as modified by Kurokawa ‘428 discloses a backlight unit with all the limitations of claim 9 above and further discloses wherein the other light-diffusing sheet (Kurokawa ‘428: F, Fig. 6) is arranged closer to the display screen (Kurokawa ‘428: display screen above BLU, Fig. 6; page 10, para [0094]) than the light-diffusing sheet (Kurokawa: 14, Fig. 7; Kurokawa ‘428: S1, Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 15, Kurokawa as modified by Kurokawa ‘428 discloses a backlight unit with all the limitations of claim 14 above and further discloses wherein:
the light-diffusing sheet (Kurokawa: 10, Fig. 3) is constructed such that the plurality of depressed portions (Kurokawa: 3, Fig. 3) are only provided on the first surface (Kurokawa: 2, Fig. 3), and a second surface (Kurokawa: 5, Fig. 3) of the light-diffusing sheet is a flat surface (flat surface of 5, Fig. 3), and
the light-diffusing sheet (Kurokawa: such as 14, Fig. 7) is arranged so that the second surface (Kurokawa: such as bottom surface of 14, Fig. 7) faces the light source (Kurokawa: 40, Fig. 7).
Claim(s) 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurokawa et al. (U.S. 2007/0171671) in view of Kurokawa (U.S. 2009/0262428) and Takahagi (U.S. 2017/0329057).
Regarding claim 10, Kurokawa as modified by Kurokawa ‘428 discloses a backlight unit with all the limitations of claim 9 above and further discloses
a plurality of the light-diffusing sheets (Kurokawa: 10, Fig. 3; page 11, para [0106]), wherein
the other light-diffusing sheet (Kurokawa ‘428: F, Fig. 6) is arranged between the display screen (Kurokawa: display screen, Fig. 7; page 11, para [0107]; Kurokawa ‘428: display screen above BLU, Fig. 6) and the plurality of light-diffusing sheets (Kurokawa: 10, Fig. 3; page 11, para [0106]; Kurokawa: S1, Fig. 6).
However, Kurokawa as modified by Kurokawa ‘428 does not expressly disclose that both surfaces of the other light-diffusing sheet (Kurokawa ‘428: F, Fig. 6) are matte surfaces of which surface roughness Ra is 0.1 um or more and 10 um or less. However, Takahagi discloses a light diffusing film comprising a matte surface with a surface roughness of 3 um (page 5, para [0070]) in order to provide a light-diffusing film with excellent light diffusion properties (page 1, para [0014]).
Therefore, before the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure both surfaces of the other light-diffusing sheet (Kurokawa ‘428: F, Fig. 6) to be matte surfaces of which surface roughness Ra is 0.1 um or more and 10 um or less, such as 3 um (Takahagi: page 5, para [0070]), in order to obtain the benefits of providing the other light-diffusing sheet (Kurokawa ‘428: F, Fig. 6) with excellent light diffusion properties as taught by Takahagi (page 1, para [0014]).
Regarding claim 12, Kurokawa as modified by Kurokawa ‘428 and Takahagi discloses a backlight unit with all the limitations of claim 10 above and further discloses wherein the other light-diffusing sheet (Kurokawa ‘428: F, Fig. 6) contains 0.5 parts by mass or more and 1.5 parts by mass or less of a light diffusing agent per 100 parts by mass of a matrix resin (Kurokawa ‘428: such as 1% by mass; page 6, para [0059-0060]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art as presently searched does not disclose the backlight unit of claim 11 (having all the combination of features including wherein a difference in surface roughness Ra between both surfaces of the other light-diffusing sheet is 0.5 um or more, and a surface with smaller surface roughness Ra of the other light-diffusing sheet is a light incident surface).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL CHANG LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7923. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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 H 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.
/PAUL C LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights