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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, in line 4, Applicant recites “diffusion plurality of diffusion sheets”. It is unclear what is meant by this recitation. For examination purposes, Examiner treats the recitation as “a plurality of diffusion sheets”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim of U.S. Patent No. 12,345,980 (hereinafter US ‘980). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-12 of the present application are anticipated by claims 1-12 of US ‘980.
Regarding claim 1 of the present application, claim 1 of US ‘980 discloses an optical sheet laminate built in a backlight unit, comprising: a plurality of diffusion sheets each having surfaces, at least one of which has a plurality of recesses having a substantially inverted quadrangular pyramid shape; and a pair of prism sheets layered above the plurality of diffusion sheets and having prism extending directions perpendicular to each other, wherein: the plurality of recesses have an apex angle of 95° or more, the plurality of recesses are arrayed in a two-dimensional matrix, and a prism extending direction of a lower prism sheet which is one of the pair of prism sheets and is closer to the plurality of diffusion sheets and an arrangement direction of the plurality of recesses on an upper diffusion sheet which is one of the plurality of diffusion sheets and is closest to the lower prism sheet intersect with each other at an angular difference of 30° or less. Accordingly, claim 1 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of US ‘980.
Regarding claims 2-12 of the present application, claims 2-12 of US ‘980 are identical to claims 2-12 of the present application, thus claims 2-12 of the present application are also anticipated by claim 2-12 of US ‘980.
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai et al (US 2020/029881) in view of Ko et al (US 2006/0146566).
Regarding claim 1, as a preliminary note regarding claim interpretation, the preamble recites that the apparatus being claimed is “A diffusion sheet laminate”. The additional recitation in the preamble that the diffusion sheet laminate is “built under a pair of prism sheets having prism extending directions perpendicular to each other in a backlight unit” is not a positive recitation of “a pair of prism sheets”. Thus, the recitation in the body of the claim that “a prism extending direction of a lower prism sheet which is one of the pair of prism sheets and is closer to the plurality of diffusion sheets and an arrangement direction of the plurality of recesses on an upper diffusion sheet which is one of the plurality of diffusion sheets and is closest to the lower prism sheet intersect with each other at an angular difference of 30 or less” is not given patentable weight because Applicant is not positively claiming “a pair of prism sheets”. If Applicant wants to positively claim the positional/structural relationship between the claimed diffusion sheet laminate and the pair of prism sheets, Applicant must positively recite a pair of prism sheets.
Accordingly, regarding claim 1, Tsai discloses a diffusion sheet laminate 10 (see Figs. 3-4) comprising: a plurality of diffusion sheets 43 each having surfaces, at least one of which has a plurality of recesses 52a having a substantially inverted quadrangular pyramid shape, wherein: the plurality of recess have an apex angle of at least 90 degrees (see para [0059]), the plurality of recesses 52a are arranged in a two-dimensional matrix (see para [0059]) (see at least Figures 3-6 and paras [0057]-[0092]). Examiner note: while as noted above that claim 1 does not positively recite a pair of prism sheets and any recitations related to a pair of prism sheets are not given patentable weight, Tsai teaches that the diffusion sheet laminate 10 is built under a pair of prism sheets 24 having prism extending directions perpendicular to each other in a backlight unit (see Fig. 3 and paras [0099] and [0113] which teaches prism ridge lines of the prism sheets 24 were orthogonal to each other). Moreover, Examiner submits that a prism extending direction a lower prism sheet 24 which is one of the pair of prism sheets and is closer to the plurality of diffusion sheets and an arrangement direction of the plurality of recesses 52a on an upper diffusion sheet 42 which is one of the plurality of diffusion sheets and is closes to the lower prism sheet 24 can intersect with each other at an angular difference of 30 degrees or less (the recesses 52a extend in two primary directions as a two-dimensional matrix and one of those directions matches the prism extending direction of the lower prism sheet 24 which would be an angular difference of zero degrees which is 30 degrees or less as required by the claim).
Tsai generally teaches that the apex angle of the plurality of recesses 52a can be “90 degrees, for example” (see para [0059), but does not specifically teach that the apex angle be 95 degrees or more. However providing recesses with an apex angle of 95 degrees or more is well-known in the art and taught in Ko (see Ko, at least Figures 6A-6C and para [0046]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made specify that the recesses 52a in Tsai be 95 degrees or more as taught by Ko in order to reduce total internal reflection at the surfaces of the recesses 52a for improved brightness and efficiency of the backlight, and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 2, the apex angle in Tsai is 120 degrees or less (see para [0059]).
Regarding claim 3, the apex angle in Tsai is 110 degrees or less (see para [0059]).
Regarding claims 4 and 8, Tsai teaches a color conversion layer 25 interposed between the upper diffusion sheet 42 and the lower prism sheet 24 and teaches that the plurality of light sources 22 emit blue light to be converted to white light by the color conversion layer (see at least Fig.3-4 and paras [0038]-[0040]). However, providing white LEDs without a color conversion layer is 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 remove the color conversion layer 25 in Tsai and provide a plurality of white light sources 22 in order to reduce the thickness of the display while reducing manufacturing parts and cost to achieve a brighter and more efficient white light emission.
Regarding claim 5, the plurality of recesses 52a in Tsai are provided on a light emission surface of the upper diffusion sheet which faces the lower prism sheet 24 (see at least Figs. 3-4).
Regarding claim 6, the plurality of diffusion sheets 42 in Tsai include a lower diffusion sheet with an arrangement direction of the plurality of recesses 52a (see Fig. 3), but Tsai does not specifically teach that that the arrangement direction be different from the arrangement direction of the recesses on the upper diffusion sheet. However providing diffusion sheets with different arrangement directions of recesses or other microstructures is 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 arrange the recesses 52a on the lower diffusion sheet 42 in a different direction than the upper diffusion sheet 42 in order to improve the light scattering and diffusion effect for a more uniform light distribution pattern and less bright/dark spots across the display.
Regarding claim 7, Tsai discloses a backlight unit built in a liquid crystal display device and leading light emitted from a plurality of point light sources 22 toward a display screen 2, comprising: the diffusion sheet laminate of claim 1, and a pair of prism sheets 24 having prism extending directions perpendicular to each other, between the display screen and the plurality of point light sources, wherein the plurality of diffusion sheets are arranged between the plurality of point light sources and the pair of prism sheets (see at least Figures 1 and 3-6).
Regarding claim 9, the plurality of point light sources 22 in Tsai are arranged on a reflection sheet 41 provided opposite to the display screen when viewed from the plurality of diffusion sheets (see at least Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 10, a distance between the plurality of light sources 22 and the plurality of diffusion sheets in Tsai can be 5 mm or less (see at least paras [0053]-[0055]).
Regarding claim 11, Tsai discloses a liquid crystal display device comprising: the backlight unit of claim 7; and a liquid crystal display panel (see at least Figure 1).
Regarding claim 12, Tsai discloses an information equipment comprising the liquid crystal device of claim 11 (see at least Figure 1
Conclusion
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, Majeed 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