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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/20/25 (x2) and 10/17/25 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-5, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Shen [US 2020/0408383].
As to claim 1, Shen discloses a deglaring film [100, figure 3] comprising a substrate [120] having a first surface [bottom in figure 3] configured to accept input light along a nadir and having an input light distribution comprising a Lambertian light distribution [see paragraphs 65-66] and a second surface comprising a plurality of prism microstructures [112], wherein each prism microstructure has a peak-shaped cross section with an apex angle and an apex direction [see 112, figure 3], the deglaring film configured to transform the input light having the Lambertian light distribution to output light emerging from the second surface along the nadir [see figure 3] and having an output light distribution with an intensity of light at some angles greater than 60 degrees from the nadir being less than an intensity of light of the input light distribution at the some angles greater than 60 degrees from the nadir [see shape of 100, figure 3], wherein an apex angle of at least some of the plurality of prism microstructures is chosen in a range such that the output light distribution has a glare below a predetermined level in two directions [see alpha, figure 3, see also paragraphs 65-66].
As to claim 4, Shen discloses the deglaring film of claim 1, wherein the plurality of prism microstructures comprises parallel prism microstructures [412, figure 4].
As to claim 5, Shen discloses the deglaring film of claim 1, wherein the peak-shaped cross section comprises a triangular shape [412, figure 4].
As to claim 17, Shen discloses the deglaring film of claim 1, wherein the substrate comprises a flat substrate [see figure 3].
As to claim 19, Shen discloses an illumination system [see figures 3-4a] comprising: a) a light source that generates light along a nadir having a Lambertian light distribution [430, figure 4; see also paragraphs 65-66]; and b) a deglaring film [100, 410] positioned adjacent to the light source and comprising a substrate [120] having a first surface configured to receive as input light the generated light along the nadir having the Lambertian light distribution [bottom surface in figure 3] and a second surface comprising a plurality of prism microstructures [112], each prism microstructure having a peak-shaped cross section with an apex angle and an apex direction [see 112, figure 3], the deglaring film configured to transform the input light having the Lambertian light distribution to output light emerging from the second surface along the nadir [see figures 3, 4] and having an output light distribution with an intensity of light at some angles greater than 60 degrees from the nadir being less an intensity of light of the input light distribution at the some angles greater than 60 degrees from the nadir [see shape of deglaring film, figures 3, 4a], wherein an apex angle of at least some of the plurality of prism microstructures is chosen in a range such that the output light distribution has a glare below a predetermined level in two directions [see alpha, figure 3, paragraphs 65-66].
As to claim 20, Shen discloses the illumination system of claim 19, wherein the peak-shaped cross section comprises a triangular shape [412, figure 4].
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 2-3 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen.
As to claim 2, Shen fails to explicitly disclose wherein the glare below the predetermined level comprises a Unified Glare Rating less than seventeen. It would have been obvious to implement such a glare rating, as such a configuration is possible within the disclosure of Shen and requires only basic skill to determine the height and apex angles of the triangular prism structures to produce light as desired by a user [see Shen, paragraph 90].
As to claim 3, Shen fails to explicitly disclose wherein the apex angle of at least some of the plurality of prism microstructures is chosen to be in a range from 95 to 117 degrees. It would have been obvious to implement such an apex angle, as such a configuration is possible within the disclosure of Shen and requires only basic skill to determine the height and apex angles of the triangular prism structures to produce light as desired by a user [see Shen, paragraph 90].
As to claim 15, Shen fails to explicitly disclose wherein the output light distribution comprises an intensity of light at angles greater than 65 degrees from the nadir that is less than thirty percent of an intensity of light along the nadir. It would have been obvious to implement such a light intensity ratio, as such a configuration is possible within the disclosure of Shen and requires only basic skill to determine the height and apex angles of the triangular prism structures to produce light as desired by a user [see Shen, paragraph 90].
As to claim 16, Shen fails to explicitly disclose wherein the output light distribution comprises an intensity of light at angles greater than 65 degrees from the nadir that is less than twenty percent of an intensity of light along the nadir. It would have been obvious to implement such a light intensity ratio, as such a configuration is possible within the disclosure of Shen and requires only basic skill to determine the height and apex angles of the triangular prism structures to produce light as desired by a user [see Shen, paragraph 90].
Claims 6-9 and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen in view of Chen [US 9347641].
As to claim 6, Shen fails to explicitly disclose wherein the peak-shaped cross section comprises a rounded trough. Chen teaches configuring prism sheets to include a rounded trough was well known [see portions 124, between portions 122, figure 1a]. It would have been obvious to implement the prism shapes as taught by Chen in the prism sheet as disclosed by Shen, depending on the type of illumination desired for a user [see Shen, paragraph 90].
As to claim 7, Shen fails to explicitly disclose wherein the peak-shaped cross section comprises a rounded peak. Chen teaches configuring prism sheets to include a rounded peak was well known [see 122b, figure 1a]. It would have been obvious to implement the prism shapes as taught by Chen in the prism sheet as disclosed by Shen, depending on the type of illumination desired for a user [see Shen, paragraph 90].
As to claim 8, Shen fails to explicitly disclose wherein the peak-shaped cross section comprises convex sides. Chen teaches the use of convex and concave sides for prisms on a prism sheet [see 122a, figures 1c, 1d]. It would have been obvious to implement the prism shapes as taught by Chen in the prism sheet as disclosed by Shen, depending on the type of illumination desired for a user [see Shen, paragraph 90].
As to claim 9, Shen fails to explicitly disclose wherein the peak-shaped cross section comprises concave sides. Chen teaches the use of convex and concave sides for prisms on a prism sheet [see 122a, figures 1c, 1d]. It would have been obvious to implement the prism shapes as taught by Chen in the prism sheet as disclosed by Shen, depending on the type of illumination desired for a user [see Shen, paragraph 90].
As to claim 21, Shen fails to explicitly disclose wherein the peak-shaped cross section comprises a rounded trough. Chen teaches configuring prism sheets to include a rounded trough was well known [see portions 124, between portions 122, figure 1a]. It would have been obvious to implement the prism shapes as taught by Chen in the prism sheet as disclosed by Shen, depending on the type of illumination desired for a user [see Shen, paragraph 90].
As to claim 22, Shen fails to explicitly disclose wherein the peak-shaped cross section comprises a rounded peak. Chen teaches configuring prism sheets to include a rounded peak was well known [see 122b, figure 1a]. It would have been obvious to implement the prism shapes as taught by Chen in the prism sheet as disclosed by Shen, depending on the type of illumination desired for a user [see Shen, paragraph 90].
As to claim 23, Shen fails to explicitly disclose wherein the peak-shaped cross section comprises convex sides. Chen teaches the use of convex and concave sides for prisms on a prism sheet [see 122a, figures 1c, 1d]. It would have been obvious to implement the prism shapes as taught by Chen in the prism sheet as disclosed by Shen, depending on the type of illumination desired for a user [see Shen, paragraph 90].
As to claim 24, Shen fails to explicitly disclose wherein the peak-shaped cross section comprises concave sides. Chen teaches the use of convex and concave sides for prisms on a prism sheet [see 122a, figures 1c, 1d]. It would have been obvious to implement the prism shapes as taught by Chen in the prism sheet as disclosed by Shen, depending on the type of illumination desired for a user [see Shen, paragraph 90].
Claims 10-12, 18, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen in view of Shen ‘816 [US 10072816].
As to claim 10, Shen fails to explicitly disclose wherein the second surface further comprises a plurality of two-dimensional regions, at least two of the two-dimensional regions comprising a plurality of parallel prism microstructures having apex directions with different orientations. Shen ‘816 teaches that orienting prism sheets as claimed was well known [see figure 30]. It would have been obvious to implement the different regions as claimed, in order to provide for light which is deglared in all emission directions and orientations [see Shen, paragraph 90].
As to claim 11, Shen fails to explicitly disclose wherein the different orientations are orthogonal orientations. Shen ‘816 teaches that orienting prism sheets as claimed was well known [see figure 30]. It would have been obvious to implement the different regions as claimed, in order to provide for light which is deglared in all emission directions and orientations [see Shen, paragraph 90].
As to claim 12, Shen fails to explicitly disclose wherein the at least two of the two-dimensional regions are tile-shaped regions positioned adjacent to each other along a tile axis and the apex directions with different orientations are an apex direction oriented at plus 45 degrees from the tile axis and an apex direction oriented at minus 45 degrees from the tile axis. Shen ‘816 teaches that orienting prism sheets as claimed was well known [see figure 30]. It would have been obvious to implement the different regions as claimed, in order to provide for light which is deglared in all emission directions and orientations [see Shen, paragraph 90].
As to claim 18, Shen fails to explicitly disclose a fixture wherein the apex direction is aligned at 45 degrees to a major axis of the fixture. Shen ‘816 teaches that orienting prism sheets as claimed was well known [see figure 30]. It would have been obvious to implement the different regions as claimed, in order to provide for light which is deglared in all emission directions and orientations [see Shen, paragraph 90].
As to claim 25, Shen fails to explicitly disclose wherein the second surface further comprises a plurality of two-dimensional regions, at least two of the two-dimensional regions comprising a plurality of parallel prism microstructures having apex directions with different orientations. Shen ‘816 teaches that orienting prism sheets as claimed was well known [see figure 30]. It would have been obvious to implement the different regions as claimed, in order to provide for light which is deglared in all emission directions and orientations [see Shen, paragraph 90].
Claims 13 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen in view of Wu [US 2023/0175670].
As to claim 13, Shen fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first surface comprises diffuser features. Wu teaches this feature was a well known configuration for prism sheets [see 111, 140, figure 1]. It would have been obvious to include such diffuser features, depending on the type and quality of light emitted as desired by a user [see Shen, paragraph 90].
As to claim 26, Shen fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first surface comprises diffuser features. Wu teaches this feature was a well-known configuration for prism sheets [see 111, 140, figure 1]. It would have been obvious to include such diffuser features, depending on the type and quality of light emitted as desired by a user [see Shen, paragraph 90].
Claims 14 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen in view of Wang [US 2011/0234580].
As to claim 14, Shen fails to explicitly disclose wherein the second surface further comprises a light scattering agent in at least some of the plurality of prism microstructures. Wang teaches configuring the prism microstructures to include a scattering agent was well known [see figure 4b, textured surfaces]. It would have been obvious to implement a scattering agent within the prism microstructures depending on the type and quality of light as desired for a user [see Shen, paragraph 90].
As to claim 27, Shen fails to explicitly disclose wherein the second surface further comprises a light scattering agent in at least some of the plurality of prism microstructures. Wang teaches configuring the prism microstructures to include a scattering agent was well known [see figure 4b, textured surfaces]. It would have been obvious to implement a scattering agent within the prism microstructures depending on the type and quality of light as desired for a user [see Shen, paragraph 90].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zhou [see PTO-892 for references], Kamada, Wang, Vredenborg, Hwang, Oh all teach alternative embodiments of a prism sheets as claimed by applicant.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYON GYLLSTROM whose telephone number is (571)270-1498. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Jong-Suk Lee can be reached at 571-272-7044. 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.
/BRYON T GYLLSTROM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights