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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/20/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3,5,8 & 10-16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The specification is not enabling because it fails to provide a consistent structural definition for the gradual refractive layer (6) [0022]. There is a conflict between the written description and the provided drawings. The text describes layer 6 as a gradual refractive index layer and a first layer 61 formed on the surface of the gradual refractive index layer 6 and a second layer 62 formed on a surface of the gradual refractive index layer. Yet the drawings depict first layer 61 and second layer 62 as parts that make up the gradual refractive index layer 6. This makes it difficult to determine if layer 6 is the foundation for these components(61,62) or the collective sum of these components(61,62). Furthermore, The claim of a gradual refractive index is unsupported. The specification provides discrete refractive indices for the first and second refractive index (1.7 and 1.6) [0024] . It simultaneously states that the first refractive index ranges between the second refractive index and the optical component refractive index while providing discrete values for the first and second refractive indices which is inconsistent with a gradual refractive index layer. The specification describes a stack of distinct layers and not a gradual refractive index layer. Therefore, these inconsistencies makes the specification not enabling.
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 1-3,5,8 & 10-16 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.
With regards to claim 1, the claim recites “the optical component has a single linear side surface” (line 9 of claim 1) but later refers to “the sides of the optical component” in the plural (line 13 of claim 1). The limitation of “the sides” lacks antecedent basis. It is unclear if the optical component has a singular side or plural sides. It is unclear if “the sides” refer exclusively to the “singular linear side surface” previously recited or if it includes other surfaces not defined of the optical component. The structural configuration of the optical component is ambiguous. The claim also states “the adhesive layer refractive index is less than the optical component refractive index” and then states that “wherein the first refractive index ranges between the second refractive index and an optical component refractive index of the optical component”. It is unclear if the optical component has a singular refractive index or if more than one refractive index exists. Furthermore, the limitation of “wherein the first refractive index ranges between the second refractive index and an optical component refractive index of the optical component” is unclear because the limitation “an optical component refractive index of the optical component” appears redundant and does not provide clarity to the end points
of which the first refractive index ranges. Without endpoints, the range for the first refractive index remains undefined. Appropriate correction is required because the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined.
Regarding claim 12, the structural features of claim 12 is unclear. The drawing fig. 8b show that the optical adhesive layer (5) is aligned with the top surface the light emitting surface (41)of the optical component(4) but it does not show the optical adhesive layer covering the light emitting surface of the optical component. It is unclear if the claim is describing another surface as a light emitting surface of the optical component. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the light emitting surfaces". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, since “the light emitting surfaces” of the optical component (singular) has not been introduced, the structure of the invention is ambiguous. Are the gradual refraction units stacked on one of the light emitting surface of a single optical component? Or on each optical component of each light emitting unit? Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3,5,8,10,12,13,14, & 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sizov (US Pub no. 2020/0343230 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Sizov et al discloses A display device comprising: a substrate(400)[0044][0073]: and a light source array(175) having a plurality of light light-emitting units arranged on the substrate(400) [0044][0073], each of the light-emitting units (510)comprises: a light source(175) provided on the substrate(400)[0073], and a side of light source(175) opposite to the substrate(400) having a light source luminous surface (surface of 151) [0068]; an optical component (506)provided on the light source(175), each of the optical component(506) having a light receiving surface(bottom portion of 506) and a light emitting surface(top portion of 506) fig. 9b, and the light receiving surface(bottom portion of 506) is connected to the light source luminous surface(surface of 151) fig. 3b/fig. 9b, wherein the optical component (506)has a single linear side surface connecting the light receiving surface(bottom of 506) and the light emitting surface(top of 506) fig. 9b, the side surface and the light receiving surface(bottom of 506) have an included angle therebetween within the optical component (506), the included angle [0096](Sizov et al discloses a sidewall angle of 45-60 degrees to horizontal , examiner notes that the included angle can be achieved by subtracting the sidewall angle from 180 degrees);and an optical adhesive layer(502) arranged to cover the sides of the optical component(506), wherein the optical adhesive layer(502) has an adhesive layer refractive index(502), the optical component(506) has an optical component refractive index, and the adhesive layer (502) refractive index is less than the optical component refractive index[0075]: and a gradual refractive layer (520)provided on the light emitting surface of the optical component(506), wherein a portion of the gradual refractive layer adjacent to the light emitting surface has a first refractive index[0077], and a portion of the gradual refractive layer away from the light emitting surface has a second refractive index(high and low index materials)[0077] but fails to teach the included angle ranges from 100 degree to 130 degree; and wherein the first refractive index ranges between the second refractive index and an optical component refractive index of the optical component. However , it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to achieve the included angle ranges from 100 degree to 130 degree through routine experimentation to optimize light intensity. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) . Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to achieve the first refractive index ranges between the second refractive index and an optical component refractive index of the optical component through routine experimentation to optimize light extraction efficiency. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. "In Re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
Regarding claim 2, Sizov et al discloses wherein, the included angle but fails to teach further ranges from 105 degree to 125 degree. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to achieve ranges from 105 degree to 125 degree through routine experimentation. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Regarding claim 3, Sizov et al discloses wherein, the included angle but fails to teach further ranges from 115 degree to 120 degree. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to achieve ranges from 115 degree to 120 degree through routine experimentation. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Regarding claim 5, Sizov et al discloses wherein, a top surface of the optical adhesive layer(502) is aligned with the light emitting surface(top of 506) of the optical component(506), and light leaving from the light emitting surface of the optical component(506) is outwardly emitted after passing through the optical adhesive layer(502) fig. 9b([0075] discloses that the reflective layer is optional; (Examiner notes without the reflective layer(504) the top surface of the adhesive layer would be aligned with the light emitting surface of the optical component 506).
Regarding claim 8, Sizov et al discloses wherein, the reflectivity of the optical adhesive layer(502) is higher than 50 %[0075] (total internal reflection).
Regarding claim 10, Sizov et al discloses wherein, the gradual refractive layer(520) has a first layer and a second layer overlapped with each other(520 is a multiple layer stack with high and low index materials) [0077], the first layer (high index material)is closer to the light emitting surface than the second layer(low index material) [0077], the first layer has the first refractive index; the second layer has the second refractive index[0077].
Regarding claim 12 Sizov et al discloses wherein, the optical adhesive layer(502) is configured to cover and is aligned with the light emitting surface of the optical component (506) (Examiner notes without the reflective layer(504) the top surface of the adhesive layer would be aligned with the light emitting surface of the optical component 506) [0077] fig. 9b but fails to teach and a first refractive index ranges between the second refractive index and the adhesive layer. it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to achieve the first refractive index ranging between the second refractive index and the adhesive layer refractive index through routine experimentation to optimize light extraction efficiency. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. "In Re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
Regarding claim 13, Sizov et al discloses wherein the gradual refractive layer(520) having a plurality of gradual refraction units(multiple layer stack) provided independently of each other on the light emitting surfaces of the optical component(506), wherein each gradual refraction unit corresponds to one of the light emitting surfaces of the optical component(506)[0077].
Regarding claim 14, Sizov et al discloses the top surface of the optical
adhesive layer(502) is aligned with the light emitting surface of the optical component(506), so that each of the
plurality of gradual refraction unit (multiple layer stacks- each pair represents a unit)provides protruding protrudes from the top surface of the optical
adhesive layer(502) fig. 9b[0077].
Regarding claim 15, Sizov et al discloses wherein, the second refractive index ranges between the first refractive index and the adhesive layer refractive index. it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to achieve the second refractive index ranging
between the first refractive index and the adhesive layer refractive index through routine experimentation to optimize light extraction efficiency. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. "In Re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LATANYA N CRAWFORD EASON whose telephone number is (571)270-3208. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 AM-4:30 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, Steven B Gauthier can be reached at (571)270-0373. 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.
/LATANYA N CRAWFORD EASON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights