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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/16/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the communication filed 12/16/2025.
Amendments to claims 1 and 9, filed 12/16/2025, are acknowledged and accepted.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 12/16/2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for reasons given as follows.
On pgs. 9-12 of the Remarks, Applicant’s main contention appears to be that the prior art does not disclose that “the plurality of optical microstructures completely cover the first surface of the light guide substrate”, as newly amended. While Applicant’s specific arguments are difficult to parse – due to grammatical deficiencies, lack of cohesion, and substantive bases of the arguments not clearly articulated – Examiner nonetheless disagrees with the broader argument by noting that the term “microstructure” can generally be interpreted to encompass the small-scale structures on whole surface regions. That is, microscopic protrusions as well as any accompanying reliefs that, together, create a continuous surface topography connoted by the term “microstructure”. Thus, Kong’s second dots 24 together with the interstitial spacings between them can collectively be understood to form “the plurality of optical microstructures” that “completely cover the first surface of the light guide substrate”. Claim mappings are updated in the rejections below to reflect this basic interpretation.
Examiner also acknowledges secondary arguments by Applicant which appear to attack the obviousness combination between Kong and Hebrink’s UV-reflective layer. Examiner will note that these arguments are similarly difficult to parse/understand, and that they are apparently presented to supplement the arguments addressed in the previous paragraph – though Applicant has failed to establish any clear connection between the currently argued combination and the prior argued coverage of microstructures. Despite the lack of clarity/direction, Examiner shall best attempt to address these concerns as raised on pgs. 9-10 of the Remarks, where Applicant appears to argue that Hebrink’s UV-reflective layer, when incorporated into Kong’s device, may affect how light is distributed/reflected
(“the light incident […] will not be existed [sic] with the distribution due to the reason that the an ultraviolet reflection layer in FIG. 1 of Hebrink has a refractive index that is different from air existed between [sic] the light guide plate 20 and the display panel 1 of Kong” – Remarks, pgs. 9-10)
leading to the apparent conclusion that Kong and Hebrink is are not fit for combination
(“ultraviolet reflection layer in FIG. 1 of Hebrink should be inappropriate being applied to the second surface of light guide plate 20 in FIG. 2 of Kong” – Remarks, pg. 10).
The argument is largely unpersuasive, first for being plainly speculative (“should be inappropriate”), and thus improper. Also problematic is the absolute yet conclusory statement:
“light[…] will not enter the display panel 1” – Remarks pg. 10
which Applicant derives from such mere speculation
(“The above issue regarding total reflection may be occurred […]” – Remarks pg. 10)
Troubling further is that such speculation appears to depend on either a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of Kong’s actual disclosure – which says nothing about “air exist[ing] between the light guide plate 20 and the display panel 1”, contrary to Applicant’s Remarks excerpted above.
Overall, the current argument is generally improper for presuming a contrivedly rigid manner of combining Kong and Hebrink to manufacture the issues speculated above – while neglecting to consider the knowledge and creativity available to those of ordinary skill in the art and their ability to adapt and make routine design adjustments as appropriate (e.g. rearranging dots or otherwise retexturing the surface to accommodate changes in light distribution or produce some desirable light profile). Applicant is thus reminded that persons of ordinary skill are neither required to implement every single feature disclosed in the prior art – nor are they limited thereto. Applicant is also reminded that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
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 1-5, 7, 9-11, 13, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kong and Yao (CN 110488540 A, hereinafter “Kong”) in view of both Hebrink et al (US 20220026633 A1, hereinafter “Hebrink”) and Shr et al (US 20110291995 A1, hereinafter “Shr”).
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Kong discloses a front light sterilization module (front light source structure 2), comprising (see FIGs. 1-2, ¶s 33-38):
a light source (ultraviolet and white light sources 21 and 22), comprising a first light-emitting element (white light source 22) and a second light-emitting element (ultraviolet light source 21), wherein the first light-emitting element (white light source 22) provides an illumination beam, and the second light-emitting element (ultraviolet light source 21) provides a sterilization beam (i.e. ultraviolet light);
a light guide substrate (light guide plate 20), located on a transmission path of the illumination beam and the sterilization beam, wherein the light source (ultraviolet and white light sources 21 and 22) is located at a side of the light guide substrate (light guide plate 20), the light guide substrate (light guide plate 20) has a first surface (201) and a second surface (202) opposite to each other, and the first surface (201) of the light guide substrate (light guide plate 20) is disposed with a plurality of optical microstructures (second dots 24 including interstitial spaces);
wherein the plurality of optical microstructures (second dots 24 including interstitial spaces) completely cover the first surface (201) of the light guide substrate (light guide plate 20).
Kong does not disclose:
a material of the light guide substrate is an inorganic material,
an ultraviolet light reflection layer, wherein the ultraviolet light reflection layer reflects the sterilization beam, wherein the second surface of the light guide substrate faces the ultraviolet light reflection layer; and
a touch electrode layer, wherein the ultraviolet light reflection layer is located between the touch electrode layer and the second surface of the light guide substrate,
wherein the ultraviolet light reflection layer contacts both the touch electrode layer and the second surface of the light guide substrate,
Kong and Hebrink are commonly related to guided UV sterilization.
Hebrink discloses (see FIG. 1 and ¶ 85):
a material of the light guide substrate (solid light guide layer 14) is an inorganic material (see also ¶ 1: “Light guides can be solid (e.g., quartz glass…)”) ;
an ultraviolet light reflection layer (“UV-C reflective layers”, also “UV-C mirror”, comprising third and fourth optical layers 15(C,D,N) and 16(C,D,N)), wherein the ultraviolet light reflection layer (“UV-C reflective layers”) reflects the sterilization beam, wherein the second surface of the light guide substrate (solid light guide layer 14) faces the ultraviolet light reflection layer (“UV-C reflective layers”).
Kong and Shr are commonly related to guided UV sterilization of displays.
Shr discloses (see FIG. 8 and ¶s 46-47):
a touch electrode layer (transparent touch screen 64, “comprising… vertical transparent electrodes that cross multiple horizontal electrodes”), wherein the ultraviolet light reflection layer (spacer 63) is located between the touch electrode layer (transparent touch screen 64) and the second surface of the light guide substrate (light guiding member 62),
wherein the ultraviolet light reflection layer (spacer 63) contacts both the touch electrode layer (transparent touch screen 64) and the second surface of the light guide substrate (light guiding member 62).
PNG
media_image1.png
556
1482
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (FIG. 2 of Kong (left side) and FIG. 8 of Shr (right side) are annotated to highlight various features and illustrate their combination with one another as well as with Hebrink’s UV-C reflective layer.)](See annotated FIG. 2(Kong)+8(Shr) below; when Hebrink’s ultraviolet reflection layer (“UV-C reflective layers”) is applied to the second surface of Kong’s light guide substrate (light guide plate 20), they may correspond to Shr’s spacer 63 and light guiding member 62, respectively. With Shr’s touch electrode layer (transparent touch screen 64), the claimed arrangements are immediately satisfied. Note that UV light propagates by internal reflection through Shr’s light guiding member 82, which shares an interface with spacer 63. One may thus interpret spacer 63 to be an ultraviolet light reflection layer.)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kong’s light guide plate with the Hebrink UV-C reflective layers, in order to improve the transmittance of UV-C light and implement effective sanitation while preventing the degradation of surfaces (Hebrink ¶ 1-2).
It would have also been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further combine the teachings of Kong and Shr, in order to improve timing/ efficiency of sterilization for frequently touched surfaces and prevent the spread of infection (Shr ¶s 3-6).
Further regarding claim 9, Kong discloses a display device (see FIGs. 1-2, ¶s 33-38), comprising:
the front light sterilization module (front light source structure 2)
a reflective display panel (display panel 1), located on a transmission path of an illumination beam wherein the light guide substrate (light guide plate 20) is located in front of the reflective display panel (display panel 1).
Regarding claims 2 and 10, modified Kong discloses the front light sterilization module according to claim 1 and the display device according to claim 9.
Hebrink further discloses (see FIG. 1 and ¶ 85) wherein the light guide substrate (solid light guide layer 14) is a glass substrate. (See also ¶ 1: “Light guides can be solid (e.g., quartz glass…)”.)
Regarding claims 3 and 11, modified Kong discloses front light sterilization module according to claim 1 and the display device according to claim 9.
Hebrink further discloses (see FIG. 1 and ¶ 85) wherein the ultraviolet light reflection layer (“UV-C reflective layers”, also “UV-C mirror”, comprising first and second optical layers 15(C,D,N) and 16(C,D,N)) is sputtered on the second surface of the light guide substrate (solid light guide layer 14). (See also ¶s 25-26: “Depending upon the spectral region of interest, there are specific materials suitable for the region of UV-C reflection. Typically, these coatings are provided via one of two methods of physical vapor deposition (PVD) are used: evaporation or sputtering... Exemplary embodiments of UV-C mirrors can be designed to have peak reflectance at 254 nm, by both PVD methods.”)
Regarding claims 4 and 16, modified Kong discloses the front light sterilization module according to claim 1 and the display device according to claim 9.
Hebrink further discloses wherein a thickness of the ultraviolet light reflection layer (“UV-C mirror”) is 0.1 microns. (See ¶ 26; Hebrink discloses deposition practices for fabricating the UV-C mirrors – which may comprise as little as 3 layers of alternating high-index and low-index materials. Hebrink further prescribes the high-index material (e.g. HfO2) with a thickness of 30nm, and the low-index material (e.g. MgF2)) of 45.02nm, with the high-index material forming the initial layer (layer 1). The total thickness of a 3-layer UV-C mirror thus equals (30+45.02+30 = 105.02)nm = 0.10... micron.)
Regarding claims 5 and 17, modified Kong discloses the front light sterilization module according to claim 1 and the display device according to claim 9.
Hebrink further discloses wherein a thickness of the light guide substrate (solid light guide layer 14 in FIG. 1) is 100 microns to 400 microns. (See ¶ 88 (Exemplary Embodiment 8A), reciting thicknesses ranging from 5 to 5000 micron for the “polymeric layer” – corresponding to solid light guide layer 14. Examiner notes that while many of the embodiments explicitly discussed by Kong involve such (fluoro)polymeric substances for the solid light guiding layer (¶ 14: “In some embodiments, the polymeric layer comprises at least one of fluoropolymers…”), these are not the only materials that may be used (¶ 1: “Light guides can be solid (e.g., quartz glass or fluoropolymer) …”).)
Regarding claims 7 and 13, modified Kong discloses the front light sterilization module according to claim 1 and the display device according to claim 9.
Kong further discloses wherein the illumination beam (i.e. emitted by Kong’s white light source 22) is a visible light beam, the sterilization beam (i.e. emitted by Kong’s ultraviolet light source 21) is an ultraviolet light beam. (See ¶ 38.)
Hebrink further discloses the light emission wavelength of the sterilization beam ranges between 200 nm and 280 nm. (See ¶s 1-2, Hebrink characterizes disinfecting UV-C light as having wavelengths ranging from 190-280nm, which encompasses the claimed range.)
Claims 6, 8, 12, 14, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kong in view of Hebrink and Shr, as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Tan et al (US 9626024 B1, hereinafter “Tan”).
Regarding claims 6 and 12, modified Kong discloses the front light sterilization module according to claim 1 and the display device according to claim 9.
Modified Kong does not disclose wherein the touch electrode layer is sputtered on the ultraviolet light reflection layer.
Kong and Tan are commonly related to display devices with UV properties.
Tan discloses wherein the touch electrode layer (touch layer 604) is sputtered on the ultraviolet light reflection layer. (See FIG. 6 and col. 12, line 32 to col. 13 line 34; touch layers 602 and 604 are sputtered onto substrate 616 which may be formed from silicone – a common UV reflectant.)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Kong with the design aspects of Tan, in order to produce display devices that are thinner, lighter, more durable, and that have less components which can reduce manufacturing costs (Tan col. 2, lines 7-28; col. 12, lines 54-67).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, modified Kong discloses the front light sterilization module according to claim 1 and the display device according to claim 9.
Modified Kong does not disclose wherein a thickness of the touch electrode layer is 80 microns.
Kong and Tan are commonly related to display devices with UV properties.
Tan discloses wherein a thickness of the touch electrode layer (touch layer 604) is 80 microns. (See col. 2 line 58 to col. 3 line 42, discussing cover components which:
consist of top/bottom inorganic layers sandwiching at least one organic layer
maintain a thickness of less than 1mm
have (top/bottom) inorganic layers which may be 0.1mm thick
have inner organic layers between 0.3 and 0.8mm thick
Refer now to FIG. 6 and col. 12, line 32 to col. 13, line 34, where cover component 606 includes (additional layer 618 is only optional):
top/bottom layer 612/614 as inorganic layers (i.e. with 0.1mm thickness each)
substrate 616 as the organic layer (between 0.3 and 0.8mm thick)
Altogether, this leaves each touch layer 602/604 with ((1 – 0.3) /2)mm = 0.35mm = 350 microns as an upper bound on thickness, establishing a range which encompasses the claimed value.)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Kong with the design aspects of Tan, in order to produce display devices that are thinner, lighter, more durable, and that have less components to reduce manufacturing costs (Tan col. 2, lines 7-28; col. 12, lines 54-67).
Regarding claim 14, modified Kong discloses the display device according to claim 9.
Modified Kong does not disclose the display device further comprising: an optical adhesive layer, located between the front light sterilization module and the reflective display panel an optical layer, wherein the optical adhesive layer is an ultraviolet light beam cut-off layer.
Kong and Tan are commonly related to display devices with UV properties.
Tan discloses (see FIG. 6 and col. 12, line 32 to col. 13 line 51) the display device further comprising: an optical adhesive layer (optically clear adhesive OCA 622, 624), located between the front light sterilization module (i.e. located between touch layer 604 – corresponding to Applicant’s touch electrode layer located on a bottom side of the front light sterilization module) and the reflective display panel (display component 610), wherein the optical adhesive layer (OCA 622, 624) is an ultraviolet light beam cut-off layer (see also col. 3, lines 7-27, describing OCA properties including >90% transmission of light with wavelengths above 400nm, and <5% transmission of light below 300nm corresponding to the UV(-C) spectrum).
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Kong with the design aspects of Tan, in order to produce display devices that are thinner, lighter, more durable, and that have less components to reduce manufacturing costs (Tan col. 2, lines 7-28; col. 12, lines 54-67).
Regarding claim 19, modified Kong discloses the display device according to claim 9.
Modified Kong does not disclose wherein the reflective display panel is an electronic paper display.
Kong and Tan are commonly related to display devices with UV properties.
Tan discloses (see FIG. 8 and col. 15, lines 3-28) wherein the reflective display panel (display component 810) is an electronic paper display (“electronic book reader”).
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Kong with the design aspects of Tan, in order to produce display devices that are thinner, lighter, more durable, and that have less components to reduce manufacturing costs (Tan col. 2, lines 7-28; col. 12, lines 54-67).
Regarding claim 20, modified Kong discloses the display device according to claim 14.
Tan further discloses (see FIG. 6) wherein the optical adhesive layer (OCA 622, 624) is located between the touch electrode layer (touch layer 604) and the reflective display panel (display component 610) (as also established in regards to claim 14 above).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kong in view of Hebrink, Shr, and Tan, as applied claim 14 above, and further in view of Yokoyama et al (JP 2022110776 A, hereinafter “Yokoyama”).
Regarding claim 15, modified Kong discloses the display device according to claim 14.
Modified Kong does not disclose wherein a thickness of the optical adhesive layer is 100 microns.
Kong and Yokoyama are commonly related to display devices with UV properties.
Yokoyama discloses wherein a thickness of the optical adhesive layer (first adhesive layer 21) is 100 microns (see ¶ 30).
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Kong with Yokoyama’s adhesive layers, in order to achieve lower reflectance, higher brightness, and thinness of the display device (Yokoyama ¶ 9).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAI-GA D. HO whose telephone number is (571)270-1624. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 10AM - 6PM E.T..
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at (571) 272-2434. 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.
/W.D.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872