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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 8/10/26 and 1/6/26 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang, US 2009/0244714 in view of Lee et al., US 2019/0108786.
Regarding claim 1, Chang teaches (at least in Figure 1) an optical film (20), comprising: an upper surface (top surface); a lower surface (bottom surface with grooves) opposite to the upper surface; a plurality of parallel grooves (202) disposed on the lower surface; and a plurality of microstructures (206), and each of the microstructures being located on the upper surface of the optical film (see Figure 1), wherein each of the microstructures has a pyramid structure ([0027]) with a plurality of facets (see Figure 1); wherein at least some of plurality of the microstructures have a common pyramid apex direction oriented at a first desired angle with respect to one side of the optical film (disposed at a 45 degree angle), and an extending direction of the grooves of the optical film is oriented at a second desired angle (parallel with side of the optical film) with respect to the side of the optical film. Chang is silent as to the grooves being prisms.
However, in the same field of endeavor of optical films, Lee teaches a plurality of parallel prisms (Figure 1, prisms 122, [0076]) disposed on the lower surface of an optical film. Further, Lee teaches the prisms help direct light evenly, thereby improving display quality ([0077]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to substitute the prisms of Lee for the grooves of Chang in order to solve a similar problem of improving the evenness of light emission.
Regarding claim 2, Chang and Lee teach the invention as explained above regarding claim 1 and Chang further teaches the microstructures are a plurality of pyramid concaves adjacent to each other ([0027] pyramid depressions 204).
Regarding claim 3, Chang and Lee teach the invention as explained above regarding claim 1 and Chang further teaches the microstructures are pyramid bumps adjacent to each other ([0027] parallelogram microstructures).
Regarding claim 4, Chang and Lee teach the invention as explained above regarding claim 1 and Chang further teaches the microstructures are arranged obliquely in an array (see oblique angle of orientation in Figure 1), and the first desired angle is larger than the second desired angle (second desired angle is 0, and the first angle is 45).
Regarding claim 6, Chang and Lee teach the invention as explained above regarding claim 1 and Chang further teaches the microstructures (206) are arranged in an array in a horizontal direction and a vertical direction (see Figure 1), and the first desired angle is defined as zero when measured in the horizontal direction or defined as a right angle when measured in the vertical direction (id).
Claims 7, 8, 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Lee and further in view of O’Neill et al., US 2011/0051047.
Regarding claim 7, Chang and Lee teach the invention as explained above regarding claim 1, but are silent as to a backlight module comprising a plurality of prism sheets. However, in the same field of endeavor of optical films, O’Neill teaches (at least in Figures 5 and 7) a light guide plate (700) having a light incident surface and a light exiting surface opposite to the light incident surface, wherein the light exiting surface has a normal line; a plurality of prism sheets (530), wherein each of the prism sheets includes plural parallel prism lenticulars (see Figure 5); a light source adjacent to the light incident surface (566), wherein the light source has a plurality of light-emitting diodes ([0058]); and wherein the optical film is located between the prism sheets and the light exiting surface of the light guide plate (see Figures 5 and 7).
Regarding claim 8, Chang, Lee and O’Neill teach the invention as explained above regarding claim 7, and O’Neill further teaches the extending direction of the prism lenticulars of one of the prism sheets is oriented perpendicular to an extending direction of the prism lenticulars of another one of the prism sheets, and the extending direction of the prisms of the optical film is oriented at a desired angle with respect to the extending direction of the prism lenticulars of one of the prism sheets (see Figure 5, with parallel and perpendicular directions of prism lenticulars).
Regarding claim 10, Chang, Lee and O’Neill teach the invention as explained above regarding claim 7, and O’Neill further teaches the light-emitting diodes are arranged along a straight line (566 in Figure 5), an extending direction of the prism lenticulars of one of the prism sheets is oriented parallel to the straight line (536), and an extending direction of the prism lenticulars of another one of the prism sheets is oriented perpendicular to the straight line (534).
Regarding claim 13, Chang, Lee and O’Neill teach the invention as explained above regarding claim 7, and O’Neill further teaches a display device and a display panel ([0016]). It would have been obvious to combine the teachings for the reasons set forth above regarding claim 7.
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 5, 9, 11 and 12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 11921314 and 12248164. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are each drawn to an optical film and plurality of prism sheets having a defined prism extension angle.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Higuchi, US 5966192 teaches an optical film having obliquely arranged microstructures but fails to teach the parallel prisms on the lower side of the optical film.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARY-ELLEN BOWMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5383. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday; 7:00 am-5:00 pm.
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, James Greece can be reached at (571) 272-3711. 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.
MARY ELLEN BOWMAN
Examiner
Art Unit 2875
/MARY ELLEN BOWMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights