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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the filing of the Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment on 09/16/2025. Currently, claims 1-4 and 6-20 are pending in the application. Claims 6-7, 13-14 and 19 have been withdrawn from consideration. Claim 5 has been cancelled.
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 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 of this title, 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, 8-9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lu et al (US 20210341666 A1, corresponds to WO 2019033782 A1) in view of CHEN et al (US 20200395516 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Figure 1 of Lu discloses a light emitting device, comprising:
a substrate (1, [0032]);
a light guiding element (3, [0032]), disposed on the substrate and having a plurality of through holes (30);
a plurality of light sources (2, [0032]), disposed on the substrate and respectively disposed in the through holes; and
a plurality of reflecting films (5, [0032]), respectively overlapping with the light sources.
Lu does not teach a prism sheet, disposed above the light guiding element (3).
However, CHEN is a pertinent art which teaches a display device, wherein Figure 3 of CHEN teaches a diffuser film 105, optical functional film 104 ([0021]), a wavelength transformation layer 106, other layers according to actual demand. For example, in some embodiments, there may have other films between the optical functional film 104 and the display panel 102 in the display device. For example, there may be prism lens (or may be referred to brightness enhancement film (BEF) or dual brightness enhancement film (DBEF)) under the display panel 102, to redirect off-axis light and increase on-axis light passing through the display panel 102, and to elevate image brightness viewed by observers ([0048]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the light emitting device of Lu with a prism sheet, disposed above the light guiding element (3, Figure 1 of Lu) according to the teaching of CHEN in order to elevate image brightness viewed by observers ([0004] and [0048] of CHEN).
Regarding claim 2, Figure 1 of Lu discloses that the light emitting device according to claim 1, further comprising: a packaging material (4, [0032]), disposed in the through holes (30) and located between the light sources (2) and the reflecting films (5).
Regarding claim 3, Figure 1 of Lu discloses that the light emitting device according to claim 2, wherein the packaging material (4) is an ultraviolet curable adhesive ([0036]).
Regarding claim 4, Figure 1 of Lu discloses that the light emitting device according to claim 1, wherein a surface of the light guiding element (5) is a patterned surface ([0037]).
Regarding claims 8-9 and 15, Figure 1 of Lu does not teach that the light emitting device according to claim 1, further comprising: a diffusion sheet, disposed between the light guiding element and the prism sheet and a light converting layer, disposed between the diffusion sheet and the prism sheet.
Or a light converting layer, disposed between the light guiding element and the prism sheet.
However, CHEN, which is a pertinent art here, teaches a display device, wherein Figure 3 of CHEN teaches a diffuser film 105, optical functional film 104 ([0021]), a wavelength transformation layer 106, other layers according to actual demand. For example, in some embodiments, there may have other films between the optical functional film 104 and the display panel 102 in the display device. For example, there may be prism lens (or may be referred to brightness enhancement film (BEF) or dual brightness enhancement film (DBEF)) under the display panel 102, to redirect off-axis light and increase on-axis light passing through the display panel 102, and to elevate image brightness viewed by observers ([0048]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the light emitting device of Lu as claimed above according to the teaching of CHEN in order to elevate image brightness viewed by observers ([0004] and [0048] of CHEN).
Claims 10-12 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lu et al (US 20210341666 A1, corresponds to WO 2019033782 A1) in view of CHEN et al (US 20200395516 A1) as applied to claims 9 and 15 above, and further in view of Liu et al (US 20190285941 A1).
Regarding claims 10-12 and 16-18, Lu in view of CHEN does not teach that the light emitting device according to claim 9, further comprising: an optical film, disposed between the light converting layer and the prism sheet, and comprising a plurality of light dispersing microstructures,
wherein the optical film further comprises a base and a plurality of light concentrating microstructures, wherein the light concentrating microstructures are disposed between the base and the prism sheet, and the light dispersing microstructures are disposed between the base and the light converting layer, and wherein the light concentrating microstructures are a plurality of triangular pyramid-shaped microstructures, and the light dispersing microstructures are a plurality of hemispherical microstructures or a plurality of dome-shaped microstructures. Or
The light emitting device according to claim 15, further comprising: an optical film, disposed between the light converting layer and the prism sheet, and the optical film includes a plurality of light dispersing microstructures, wherein the optical film further comprises a base and a plurality of light concentrating microstructures, wherein the light concentrating microstructures are disposed between the base and the prism sheet, and the light dispersing microstructures are disposed between the base and the light converting layer, and wherein the light concentrating microstructures are a plurality of triangular pyramid-shaped microstructures, and the light dispersing microstructures are a plurality of hemispherical microstructures or a plurality of dome-shaped microstructures.
However, Liu is a pertinent art which teaches a display device, wherein Figures 57-61 of Liu teaches optical film (30-46-1, Figure 58) includes a plurality of light dispersing microstructures (402, [0177]) and wherein the optical film further comprises a base (40) and a plurality of light concentrating microstructures (162, [0184]) and wherein the light concentrating microstructures are a plurality of triangular pyramid-shaped microstructures, and the light dispersing microstructures are a plurality of hemispherical microstructures or a plurality of dome-shaped microstructures ([0188] and [0190]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the light emitting device of Lu in view of CHEN as claimed above according to the teaching of Liu for brightness-enhancement ([0061] of Liu).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lu et al (US 20210341666 A1, corresponds to WO 2019033782 A1) in view of CHEN et al (US 20200395516 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lerman et al (US 20110193106 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Figure 1 of Lu does not teach that the light emitting device according to claim 1, further comprising: a plurality of retaining wall structures, disposed on the substrate, wherein the light guiding element has a plurality of grooves extending from a bottom surface of the light guiding element to an interior of the light guiding element, and the retaining wall structures are respectively embedded in the grooves.
However, Lerman is a pertinent art which teaches a light emitting device, wherein Figures 7-14 of Lerman teaches a plurality of retaining wall structures (70, [0187]) for reflecting light upward disposed on a substrate (160), wherein a light guiding element (64) has a plurality of grooves extending from a bottom surface of the light guiding element (56, [0181]) to an interior of the light guiding element, and the retaining wall structures are respectively embedded in the grooves.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the light emitting device of Lu by using a plurality of retaining wall structures, disposed on the substrate, wherein the light guiding element has a plurality of grooves extending from a bottom surface of the light guiding element to an interior of the light guiding element, and the retaining wall structures are respectively embedded in the grooves according to the teaching of Lerman in order to reflect light upward and increase efficiency ([0187] of Lerman).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 09/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s main argument regarding claim 1 includes: The Office agreed that Lu does not teach that the light emitting device further comprises a prism sheet disposed above the light guiding element. However, the Office alleged that it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the light emitting device of Lu according to the teaching "there may be prism lens (or may be referred to brightness enhancement film (BEF) or dual brightness enhancement film (DBEF)) under the display panel 102, to redirect off-axis light and increase on-axis light passing through the display panel 102, and to elevate image brightness viewed by observers" in [0048] of Chen in order to elevate image brightness viewed by observers. However, the paragraph [0065] of Lu discloses "the backlight structures of the embodiments of the disclosure may omit several film materials such as brightness enhancement film, backlight film and the like, and thus simplify the backlight structure; and also prevent some picture defects such as Moire patterns, Newton rings, and the like." Applicant considers that, in MPEP, "A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention" (emphasis added) (MPEP § 2141.02). Based on the above contents of Lu, Applicant respectfully submits that the skilled artisans would not have been motivated to configure a prism sheet disclosed in Chen (neither Liu nor Lerman) in the light emitting device of Lu.
In response, the Examiner respectfully points out that a prior art reference that "teaches away" from the claimed invention is a significant factor to be considered in determining obviousness. However, "the nature of the teaching is highly relevant and must be weighed in substance. A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use." In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Furthermore, "the prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed…." In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs, UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 692, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023) ("a reference does not teach away if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not criticize, discredit or otherwise discourage investigation into the invention claimed.") (internal quotations omitted) (quoting DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009)); and Schwendimann v. Neenah, Inc., 82 F.4th 1371, 1381, 2023 USPQ2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2023) ("Although Oez [the prior art] used a white pigment with a cross-linking polymer, it does not discourage a skilled artisan from using the white pigment without a cross-linking polymer or lead the skilled artisan in a direction divergent from the path taken in the Appealed Patents. Thus, Oez's disclosure is substantial evidence that supports the Board's finding that Oez does not teach away from the proposed combination.").
Finally, ‘[a] given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine.’" (quoting Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165, 77 USPQ2d 1865, 1870 (Fed Cir. 2006).
In this case, the primary reference Lu merely recites “the backlight structures of the embodiments of the disclosure may omit several film materials such as brightness enhancement film, backlight film and the like, and thus simplify the backlight structure; and also prevent some picture defects such as Moirë patterns, Newton rings, and the like” ([0065] of Lu). However, using a prism sheet has advantage to redirect off-axis light and increase on-axis light passing through the display panel according to the teaching of secondary reference CHEN ([0048]). Also, it is known in prior arts to use such combination (please see Figure 68 of US 20190285941 A1).
Thus, there is not enough evidence in Lu for teaching away for such combination without having any advantage or non-functionality.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHAJA AHMAD whose telephone number is (571)270-7991. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM (Eastern Time).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, GAUTHIER STEVEN B, can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KHAJA AHMAD/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2813