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 .
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 1-9 and 11-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of copending Application No. 18652702 in view of Ahn USPA_20100124047_A1. Claim 1 of the copending application teaches all of the claimed limitations of independent, instant Claim 1, except for the claimed feature of having a depressed portion of which a vertex of the approximately inverted polygonal pyramid is formed in a linear shape. Ahn also discloses a planar surface at the bottom of its inverted polygonal pyramid (element 153 in figs.) which corresponds to having a vertex that has a linear shape, as is being claimed in instant Claim 1. 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 vertex having a linear shape, of Ahn. The motivation for doing so would have been to prevent the generation of stain phenomenon in the diffusion sheet optics, as taught by Ahn (paragraphs 0010, 0050).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai TW_202138194_A (see machine English translation) in view of Ahn USPA_20100124047_A1 and Takizawa JP2010160438_A (see machine English translation).
1. Regarding Claim 1, Tsai discloses a light diffusing plate (corresponds to claimed sheet) (Abstract) made of polycarbonate and having a surface that has unevenness by way of recesses (element 52a in Figures), having an inverted pyramid shape (paragraph 0038). The area parting the plurality of said recesses has a recessed shape between its intersections (Figure 4) will correspond to the claimed “ridge”.
2. However, Tsai does not expressly disclose with respect to a straight line connecting the intersections a ratio Wr/P is 0.3 or less, where P is an arrangement pitch of the plurality of recesses and Wr is a dimension occupied by a curved portion at a top portion of the ridge in an arrangement direction of the plurality of recesses. Also, Tsai does not disclose a maximum height difference between the straight line and the ridge is 1 μm or more and 10 μm or less. Finally, Tsai does not disclose having a depressed portion of which a vertex of the approximately inverted polygonal pyramid is formed in a linear shape.
3. Ahn discloses a light diffusion sheet (see figures 1-5, for instance), with respect to a straight line (along which width d1 occupies the ridge) connecting the intersections a ratio Wr/P is 0.3 or less (if d1 = 10µm and p1 > 50µm, then Wr/P < 0.2; paragraph 0055), where P is an arrangement pitch (p1) of the plurality of recesses and Wr is a dimension (d1) occupied by a curved portion at a top portion of the ridge in an arrangement direction of the plurality of recesses. Ahn also discloses a planar surface at the bottom of its inverted polygonal pyramid (element 153 in figs.) which corresponds to having a vertex that has a linear shape, as is being claimed in instant Claim 1.
4. 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 straight-line ridge dimensions and vertex having a linear shape, of Ahn in the diffusion sheet of Tsai. The motivation for doing so would have been to prevent the generation of stain phenomenon in the diffusion sheet optics, as taught by Ahn (paragraphs 0010, 0050).
5. Takizawa discloses a light diffusion sheet (paragraph 0035, 0047, 0048; Figures 6-7), a maximum height difference between the straight line (represented by height “h1”) and the ridge (represented by “h2”) is 1 μm or more and 10 μm or less (since h1 = 18µm and h2 = 12µm in the second example, paragraph 0092).
6. 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 height difference dimensions of Takizawa in the diffusion sheet of Tsai. The motivation for doing so would have been to suppress a deterioration of a light collecting function even when it is rubbed with another member to obtain high luminance, as taught by Takizawa (Abstract).
7. Regarding claim 2, Tsai in view of Ahn and Takizawa suggests the light diffusion sheet of claim 1, wherein the maximum height difference is 1.5 μm or more and 7 μm or less (Takizawa, paragraph 8, page 8).
8. Regarding claim 3, Tsai in view of Ahn and Takizawa suggests the light diffusion sheet of claim 2, wherein the maximum height difference is 2.5 μm or more and 5 μm or less (see paragraph 9 of page 8 of Takizawa).
9. Regarding claim 4, Tsai in view of Ahn and Takizawa suggests the light diffusion sheet of claim 1, wherein the ratio Wr/P is 0.2 or less (Ahn [0055]).
10. Regarding claim 5, Tsai in view of Ahn and Takizawa suggests the light diffusion sheet according to claim 4, wherein the ratio Wr/P is 0.1 or less (Ahn [0055]; since p1 ranges from 50 to 100 µm).
11. Regarding claim 6, Tsai in view of Ahn and Takizawa suggests the light diffusion sheet of claim 1, wherein: the arrangement pitch P is 50 μm or more and 500 μm or less (Ahn [0055]); and an angle formed between a wall surface of each of the plurality of recesses and a sheet surface of the light diffusion sheet is 40 degrees or more and 65 degrees or less (see Ahn claim 2).
12. Regarding claim 7, Tsai in view of Ahn and Takizawa suggests the light diffusion sheet of claim 1, wherein the ridge between the intersections is recessed in a substantially parabolic shape, a substantially arc shape, a substantially triangular shape, or a substantially trapezoidal shape (see Tsai fig. 2B).
13. Regarding claim 8, Tsai in view of Ahn and Takizawa suggests the light diffusion sheet of claim 1, wherein: the plurality of recesses (220) are each formed in a substantially inverted quadrangular pyramid or a substantially inverted truncated quadrangular pyramid shape ([0044]); the ridge extends in a first direction and a second direction; the maximum height difference is an average of a maximum height difference (dx) between the straight line and the ridge in the first direction and a maximum height difference (dy) between the straight line and the ridge in the second direction; the arrangement pitch P is an average of an arrangement pitch (Px) of the plurality of recesses in the first direction and an arrangement pitch (Py) of the plurality of recesses in the second direction; and the dimension Wr is an average of a dimension (Wrx) occupied by the curved portion at the top portion of the ridge in the first direction and a dimension (Wry) occupied by the curved portion at the top portion of the ridge in the second direction (see figures 2A-2B).
14. Regarding claim 9, Tsai in view of Ahn and Takizawa suggests the light diffusion sheet of claim 1, wherein; the plurality of recesses are provided only in the first surface (S1); and the second surface (S2) is a matte surface.
15. Regarding claim 11, Tsai in view of Ahn and Takizawa suggests a backlight unit (see Abstract) built in a liquid crystal display device and leading light emitted from light sources toward a display screen, wherein the backlight unit comprises: the light diffusion sheet of claim 1 provided between the display screen and the light sources ([0070]).
16. Regarding claim 12, Tsai in view of Ahn and Takizawa suggests the backlight unit of claim 10, wherein the light sources are arranged on a reflective sheet provided on an opposite side of the display screen as seen from the light diffusion sheet ([0070]).
17. Regarding claim 13, Tsai in view of Ahn and Takizawa suggests the backlight unit of claim 10, wherein the light diffusion sheet includes a plurality of light diffusion sheets layered and arranged between the display screen and the light sources ([0070]).
18. Regarding claim 14, Tsai in view of Ahn and Takizawa suggests the backlight unit of claims 12, wherein the light diffusion sheet includes three or more light diffusion sheets layered and arranged between the display screen and the light sources ([0070]).
19. Regarding claim 15, Tsai in view of Ahn and Takizawa suggests the backlight unit of claim 13, wherein: of the three or more light diffusion sheets, the light diffusion sheet closest to the display screen contains a diffusion agent, and the other light diffusion sheets contain substantially no diffusion agent ([0070]).
20. Regarding claim 16, Tsai in view of Ahn and Takizawa suggests a liquid crystal display device, comprising: the backlight unit of claim 10; and a liquid crystal display panel ([0070]).
21. Regarding claim 17, Tsai in view of Ahn and Takizawa suggests an information apparatus, comprising the liquid crystal display device of claim 15 ([0070]).
22. Regarding claim 18, Tsai in view of Ahn and Takizawa suggests a method of manufacturing the light diffusion sheet of claim 1, the method comprising the step of: extrusion-molding of the light diffusion sheet at a line speed of 10 m/min or more and 30 m/min or less, with a compression line pressure of 100 kgf/cm or more and 500 kgf/cm or less ([0070]; see figures 2A-2B, for instance).
23. Regarding Claim 10, Tsai in view of Ahn and Takizawa suggests that the ratio of depressed portions of which the vertexes are formed in a linear shape among the plurality of depressed portions is more than 10% (Ahn: Fig. 4).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai TW_202138194_A (see machine English translation) in view of Ahn USPA_20100124047_A1, Takizawa JP2010160438_A (see machine English translation), and Okabe JP_2000292790_A1 (see machine English translation).
24. Regarding Claim 19, Tsai discloses a light diffusing plate (corresponds to claimed sheet) (Abstract) made of polycarbonate and having a surface that has unevenness by way of recesses (element 52a in Figures), having an inverted pyramid shape (paragraph 0038). The area parting the plurality of said recesses has a recessed shape between its intersections (Figure 4) will correspond to the claimed “ridge”.
25. However, Tsai does not expressly disclose with respect to a straight line connecting the intersections a ratio Wr/P is 0.3 or less, where P is an arrangement pitch of the plurality of recesses and Wr is a dimension occupied by a curved portion at a top portion of the ridge in an arrangement direction of the plurality of recesses. Also, Tsai does not disclose a maximum height difference between the straight line and the ridge is 1 μm or more and 10 μm or less. Finally, Tsai does not disclose having a depressed portion of which a vertex of the approximately inverted polygonal pyramid is formed in a rectangular shape.
26. Ahn discloses a light diffusion sheet (see figures 1-5, for instance), with respect to a straight line (along which width d1 occupies the ridge) connecting the intersections a ratio Wr/P is 0.3 or less (if d1 = 10µm and p1 > 50µm, then Wr/P < 0.2; paragraph 0055), where P is an arrangement pitch (p1) of the plurality of recesses and Wr is a dimension (d1) occupied by a curved portion at a top portion of the ridge in an arrangement direction of the plurality of recesses.
27. 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 straight-line ridge dimensions, of Ahn in the diffusion sheet of Tsai. The motivation for doing so would have been to prevent the generation of stain phenomenon in the diffusion sheet optics, as taught by Ahn (paragraphs 0010, 0050).
28. Takizawa discloses a light diffusion sheet (paragraph 0035, 0047, 0048; Figures 6-7), a maximum height difference between the straight line (represented by height “h1”) and the ridge (represented by “h2”) is 1 μm or more and 10 μm or less (since h1 = 18µm and h2 = 12µm in the second example, paragraph 0092).
29. 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 height difference dimensions of Takizawa in the diffusion sheet of Tsai. The motivation for doing so would have been to suppress a deterioration of a light collecting function even when it is rubbed with another member to obtain high luminance, as taught by Takizawa (Abstract).
30. Okabe discloses a light diffusion sheet (Title) comprising recessed parts on a surface having rectangular bases (corresponds to claimed rectangular vertex shapes) (Abstract) which allows a more dynamic luminance distribution of light (paragraphs 0006-0010) and diffusion ability (paragraph 0013).
31. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the vertex shape of the recessed portion, in Tsai, by trying the use of rectangular shaped bottom vertexes, as disclosed by Okabe. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in doing so in order to obtain better diffusion ability.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAHSEEN KHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1140. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Saturdays 08:00AM-10:00PM.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 5712701547. 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.
/TAHSEEN KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781 January 26, 2026