DETAILED ACTION
In light of a new reference, finality has been withdrawn. A new non-final rejection follows below.
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 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 and 21-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rinko (US 2020/0257044 A1) in view of Umemoto et al. (US 6,196,692 B1) and Tsuda et al. (US 6,765,233 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Rinko teaches a lightguide component for illumination devices comprising:
a lightguide layer (101; see at least figures 13 and 14) having a first principal face, a second principal face at an opposite side from the first principal face, and a light-receiving side face (see at least figure 13 where light source 31 is positioned) to receive light emitted from a light source (31);
a first low-refractive index layer (141; see paragraph [0148] and at least figure 13) that is disposed at the first principal face side of the lightguide layer (14), the first low-refractive index layer (141) having a refractive index ni which is smaller than a refractive index nep of the lightguide layer (see paragraph [0148]); and
a light distribution controlling structure (see at least figure 13 and paragraphs [0148]-[0149]) capable of at least directing a portion of light propagating in the lightguide layer (101) toward the first low-refractive index layer (141; see paragraph [0148]) or in an opposite direction from the first low-refractive index layer (141),
wherein the light distribution controlling structure (see at least figure 13) is formed in a first redirection layer (10; see at least figure 13) that is provided on the first principal face side or the second principal face side of the lightguide layer and includes a plurality of internal spaces (12) creating an interface that directs light via total internal reflection toward the first low-refractive index layer (141; see paragraph [0148] and at least figure 13) or in an opposite direction from the first low-refractive index layer (141; see paragraph [0148] and at least figure 13),
wherein the plurality of internal spaces are discretely arranged in a light propagation direction of the lightguide layer (101; see at least figures 13 and 14) and in a direction perpendicular to the light propagation direction, and in a plan view of the lightguide layer (101; see at least figures 13 and 14) from a normal direction of the first principal face.
Rinko does not explicitly teach wherein the lightguide component has a visible light transmittance of 80% or more and a haze value of less than 5%.
Umemoto et al. discloses a light guide member for a lighting device, wherein the light transmittance is more than 80% and the haze value is preferably 15%, more preferably 10% or lower (see column 11, line 66 to column 12, line 9, figure 1 and 2).
It would have been obvious to one skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify Rinko to include a light transmittance of more than 80% and haze value of less than 5% as taught by Umemoto et al. so that the light emitted from the light source can be efficiently utilized and has excellent brightness (see column 12, lines 10-20 of Umemoto et al.).
Rinko modified by Umemoto et al. do not explicitly teach a ratio of an area of the plurality of internal spaces to an area of the lightguide layer is less than 10% throughout the lightguide layer.
Tsuda et al. teaches a ratio of an area of the plurality of internal spaces to an area of the lightguide layer is less than 10% throughout the lightguide layer (see paragraph [0130] where the ratio of the opening portions of 602 with respect to the entire area is less than about 10%.It would have been obvious to one skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify Rinko to include a ratio of an area of the plurality of internal spaces to an area of the lightguide layer is less than 10% as taught by Tsuda et al. as an obvious design choice and way of achieving a desired illumination output.
Regarding claim 21, Rinko further teaches the light guide component for illumination devices of claim 1, wherein the first redirection layer (10; see at least figure 13) is provided between the lightguide layer (101) and the first low-refractive index layer (141; see paragraph [0148] and at least figure 13).
Regarding claim 22, Rinko further teaches the lightguide component for illumination devices wherein the light distribution controlling structure at least directs a portion of light propagating in the lightguide layer toward the first low-refractive index layer (see at least figure 1-18 and paragraphs [0002]-[0259]).
Regarding claim 23, Rinko further teaches the lightguide component for illumination devices wherein the light distribution controlling structure (10; see at least figures 13 and 14) at least directs a portion of light propagating in the lightguide layer (101) in an opposite direction from the first low-refractive index layer( 141) (see at least figure 1-18 and paragraphs [0002]-[0259]).
Regarding claim 24, Rinko further teaches the lightguide component for illumination devices further comprising a first hard coat layer that is disposed at an opposite side of the first low-refractive index layer from the lightguide layer (101), the first hard coat layer having a hardness which is pencil hardness H or higher (see at least figure 1-18 and paragraphs [0002]-[0259]).
Regarding claim 25, Rinko further teaches the lightguide component for illumination devices comprising a first base layer (16; see at least figures 1-18) at an opposite side of the first low-refractive index layer (15) from the lightguide layer (16), wherein the first hard coat layer (17; see at least figures 1-18) is formed at an opposite side of the first base layer (16) from the first low-refractive index layer (15).
Regarding claim 26, Rinko further teaches the lightguide component for illumination devices further comprising a first light coupling layer (see at least figure 14) that is provided between the lightguide layer (101) and the first redirection layer (see at least figure 14); and the first light coupling layer (see at least figure 14) includes a plurality of first low-refractive index (141) regions having a refractive index nc1 which is smaller than the refractive index ngp of the lightguide layer (101).
Regarding claim 27, Rinko further teaches the lightguide component for illumination devices further comprising a second low-refractive index layer (see at least figure 14) that is disposed at the second principal face side of the lightguide layer (101; see at least figure 14), the second low- refractive index layer having a refractive index ni2 which is smaller than the refractive index ngp of the lightguide layer (101; see at least figure 14).
Regarding claim 28, Rinko further teaches the lightguide component for illumination devices further comprising a second hard coat layer (paragraph [0160]) that is disposed at an opposite side of the second low-refractive index layer from the lightguide layer (101; see at least figure 14), the second hard coat layer having a hardness HH2 which is higher than a hardness HGP of the lightguide layer (101; see at least figure 14).
Regarding claim 29, Rinko further teaches the lightguide component for illumination devices comprising a second base layer at an opposite side of the second low-refractive index layer (141; see at least figure 14 and paragraph [0158]) from the lightguide layer (101; see at least figure 14), wherein the second hard coat layer is formed at an opposite side of the second base layer from the second low-refractive index layer (see at least figure 14).
Regarding claim 30, Rinko further teaches the lightguide component for illumination devices of claim 24, further comprising: a second low-refractive index layer (paragraph [0167] and figure 16) that is disposed at the second principal face side of the lightguide layer, the second low-refractive index layer having a refractive index nz2 which is smaller than the refractive index nep of the lightguide layer (101), and
a second hard coat layer (paragraph [0160]) that is disposed at an opposite side of the second low-refractive index layer from the lightguide layer (101), the second hard coat layer having a hardness Hu2 which is higher than a hardness Hep of the lightguide layer, wherein the first hard coat layer has a haze value which is greater than a haze value of the second hard coat layer (see paragraph [0160]).
Regarding claim 31, Rinko teaches the lightguide component for illumination devices of claim 1, further comprising an anti-soiling layer (141,151) which is water repellent and/or oil repellent as an outermost layer at the first principal face side (see figure 14) or the second principal face side.
Regarding claim 32, Rinko further teaches the lightguide component for illumination devices of claim 31, further comprising an anti-reflection layer provided at the lightguide layer side of the anti- soiling layer (see paragraph [0145]).
Regarding claim 33, Rinko further teaches an illumination device comprising:
the lightguide component (see at least figure 13; paragraph [0156] where 101 is a lightguide) )for illumination devices of claim 1; and
a light source(31; see at least figure 13) to emit light toward the light-receiving side face.
Regarding claim 34, Rinko further teaches a construction component comprising the lightguide component (see at least figures 1-13) for illumination devices of claim 1.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rinko (US 2020/0257044 A1) in view of Umemoto et al. (US 6,196,692 B1) and Tsuda et al. (US 6,765,233 B2) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Gandhi et al. (CN 103698837 A).
Regarding claim 35, Rinko modified by Umemoto et al. and Tsuda et al. teaches the lightguide component for illumination devices of claim 1, but Rinko does not explicitly teach wherein the ratio of the area of the plurality of internal spaces to the area of the lightguide layer is uniform throughout the light guide.
Gandhi et al. teaches wherein the ratio of the area of the plurality of internal spaces to the area of the lightguide layer is uniform throughout the light guide (holes 1513; see figure 15).
It would have been obvious to one skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify Rinko to have a uniform ratio throughout the light guide as taught by Gandhi et al. for improved optical efficiency of the display (see paragraph [0005] of translation of Gandhi et al.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 21-35 have been considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, applicant amended the claim to recite, a ratio of an area of the plurality of internal spaces to an area of the lightguide layer is less than 10% throughout the lightguide layer. Applicant states that the prior art of record does not disclose the recited limitations in remarks filed on 01/09/2026. Specifically, applicant argues that the prior art of record does not disclose the limitation, inter alia, “a ratio of an area of the plurality of internal spaces to an area of the lightguide layer is less than 10% throughout the lightguide layer. After consideration of applicant’s arguments, finality has been withdrawn and a new reference, Tsuda et al., has been found to teach the limitation.
Claims 21-35 are rejected based on dependency on a rejected base claim. See rejection above
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA MCMILLAN APENTENG whose telephone number is (571)272-5510. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 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, ABDULMAJEED 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.
/JESSICA M APENTENG/Examiner, Art Unit 2875
/ABDULMAJEED AZIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights