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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/12/2026 has been entered.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (TW 201022575 A1), hereinafter “Lin”, in view of Chang et al. (USPG Pub No. 2017/0205555), hereinafter “Chang”.
Regarding claim 1, Lin discloses a light source module (see Fig. 2), comprising: a light guide plate (120), having: a first surface (top surface of 120) (see Fig. 2); a second surface (bottom surface of 120) (see Fig. 2), opposite to the first surface (see Fig. 2); a light incident surface (124), connecting the first surface and the second surface (see Fig. 2); and two side surfaces that are opposite to each other, each of the side surfaces connecting the first surface and the second surface, and the light incident surface connecting the two side surfaces (see Fig. 2); and a light source (110), disposed beside the light incident surface for emitting an illumination beam toward the light incident surface (see Fig. 2), wherein the light guide plate (120) comprises a plurality of optical microstructures (126) disposed on the side surface and near the light incident surface, and the optical microstructures (126) comprise a plurality of curved convex surfaces arranged from an end near the light incident surface to another end away from the light incident surface (see Fig. 2), wherein a length of the side surface having the optical microstructures (126) accounts for 1/3 to 1/2 of an overall length of the side surface (see Fig. 2). Lin discloses the claimed invention, but does not specify optical microstructures disposed on each of the side surfaces. In the same field of endeavor, Chang discloses optical microstructures disposed on each of the side surfaces (see Figs. 1, 4, 7). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the module of Lin with optical microstructures disposed on each of the side surfaces of Chang for the purpose of preventing degradation of desired optical conditions (Paragraph 6).
Regarding claim 8, Lin further discloses wherein the light source comprises a plurality of light emitting diodes (12) arranged in a straight line along the light incident surface (see Figs. 1A-2).
Claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (TW 201022575 A1) in view of Chang (USPG Pub No. 2017/0205555) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tai et al. (USPG Pub No. 2015/0212250), hereinafter “Tai”.
Regarding claim 2, Lin and Chang disclose the claimed invention, but do not specify wherein each of the curved convex surfaces has an inclination angle α relative to a normal direction of the light incident surface, and the inclination angle α is defined as arctan(h/w), wherein h is a height of the optical microstructure having the curved convex surface, and w is a length of a bottom edge of the optical microstructure, wherein the height of the optical microstructure is parallel to the light incident surface, and the bottom edge of the optical microstructure is perpendicular to the light incident surface. In the same field of endeavor, Tai discloses wherein each of the curved convex surfaces has an inclination angle α relative to a normal direction of the light incident surface, and the inclination angle α is defined as arctan(h/w), wherein h is a height of the optical microstructure having the curved convex surface, and w is a length of a bottom edge of the optical microstructure, wherein the height of the optical microstructure is parallel to the light incident surface, and the bottom edge of the optical microstructure is perpendicular to the light incident surface (see Figs. 2-9, Paragraphs 45, 46, 52). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the module of Lin and Chang with wherein each of the curved convex surfaces has an inclination angle α relative to a normal direction of the light incident surface, and the inclination angle α is defined as arctan(h/w), wherein h is a height of the optical microstructure having the curved convex surface, and w is a length of a bottom edge of the optical microstructure, wherein the height of the optical microstructure is parallel to the light incident surface, and the bottom edge of the optical microstructure is perpendicular to the light incident surface of Tai for the purpose of providing a miniaturized module with minimal light leakage (Paragraph 7).
Regarding claim 3, Lin and Chang disclose the claimed invention, but do not specify wherein each of the curved convex surfaces has an inclination angle α relative to a normal direction of the light incident surface, and the inclination angle α is defined as arctan(h/w), wherein h is a height of the optical microstructure having the curved convex surface, and w is a length of a bottom edge of the optical microstructure, wherein 0 <α< 21.25°. In the same field of endeavor, Tai discloses wherein each of the curved convex surfaces has an inclination angle α relative to a normal direction of the light incident surface, and the inclination angle α is defined as arctan(h/w), wherein h is a height of the optical microstructure having the curved convex surface, and w is a length of a bottom edge of the optical microstructure, wherein 0 <α< 21.25° (see Figs. 2-9, Paragraphs 45, 46, 52). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the module of Lin and Chang with wherein each of the curved convex surfaces has an inclination angle α relative to a normal direction of the light incident surface, and the inclination angle α is defined as arctan(h/w), wherein h is a height of the optical microstructure having the curved convex surface, and w is a length of a bottom edge of the optical microstructure, wherein 0 <α< 21.25° of Tai for the purpose of providing a miniaturized module with minimal light leakage (Paragraph 7). Furthermore, such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape and size of a component. A change in shape and size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). Lastly, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 4, Lin and Chang disclose the claimed invention, but do not specify wherein each of the curved convex surfaces has an inclination angle α relative to a normal direction of the light incident surface, and the inclination angle α is defined as arctan(h/w), wherein h is a height of the optical microstructure having the curved convex surface, and w is a length of a bottom edge of the optical microstructure, wherein h ranges from 10 micrometers to 100 micrometers, and w ranges from 28.2 micrometers to 582 micrometers. In the same field of endeavor, Tai discloses wherein each of the curved convex surfaces has an inclination angle α relative to a normal direction of the light incident surface, and the inclination angle α is defined as arctan(h/w), wherein h is a height of the optical microstructure having the curved convex surface, and w is a length of a bottom edge of the optical microstructure (see Figs. 2-9, Paragraphs 45, 46, 52). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the module of Lin and Chang with wherein each of the curved convex surfaces has an inclination angle α relative to a normal direction of the light incident surface, and the inclination angle α is defined as arctan(h/w), wherein h is a height of the optical microstructure having the curved convex surface, and w is a length of a bottom edge of the optical microstructure of Tai for the purpose of providing a miniaturized module with minimal light leakage (Paragraph 7). Miyashita, Pao and Tai disclose the claimed invention except for wherein h ranges from 10 micrometers to 100 micrometers, and w ranges from 28.2 micrometers to 582 micrometers. Such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape and size of a component. A change in shape and size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). In addition, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the module of Lin, Chang and Tai with wherein h ranges from 10 micrometers to 100 micrometers, and w ranges from 28.2 micrometers to 582 micrometers for the purpose of providing a miniaturized module with minimal light leakage (Paragraph 7 of Tai).
Regarding claim 5, Lin and Chang disclose the claimed invention, but do not specify wherein each of the curved convex surfaces has an inclination angle α relative to a normal direction of the light incident surface, and the inclination angle α is defined as arctan(h/w), wherein h is a height of the optical microstructure having the curved convex surface, and w is a length of a bottom edge of the optical microstructure, wherein w:h = sin(θ/2):(1-cos(θ/2)), wherein θ = arcsin(1/n), wherein n is a refractive index of the light guide plate. In the same field of endeavor, Tai discloses wherein each of the curved convex surfaces has an inclination angle α relative to a normal direction of the light incident surface, and the inclination angle α is defined as arctan(h/w), wherein h is a height of the optical microstructure having the curved convex surface, and w is a length of a bottom edge of the optical microstructure (see Figs. 2-9, Paragraphs 45, 46, 52). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the module of Lin and Chang with wherein each of the curved convex surfaces has an inclination angle α relative to a normal direction of the light incident surface, and the inclination angle α is defined as arctan(h/w), wherein h is a height of the optical microstructure having the curved convex surface, and w is a length of a bottom edge of the optical microstructure of Tai for the purpose of providing a miniaturized module with minimal light leakage (Paragraph 7). Lin, Chang and Tai disclose the claimed invention except for wherein w:h = sin(θ/2):(1-cos(θ/2)), wherein θ = arcsin(1/n), wherein n is a refractive index of the light guide plate. Such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape and size of a component. A change in shape and size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). In addition, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the module of Lin, Chang and Tai with wherein w:h = sin(θ/2):(1-cos(θ/2)), wherein θ = arcsin(1/n), wherein n is a refractive index of the light guide plate for the purpose of providing a miniaturized module with minimal light leakage (Paragraph 7 of Tai).
Regarding claim 6, Lin and Chang disclose the claimed invention, but do not specify wherein each of the curved convex surfaces has an inclination angle α relative to a normal direction of the light incident surface, and the inclination angle α is defined as arctan(h/w), wherein h is a height of the optical microstructure having the curved convex surface, and w is a length of a bottom edge of the optical microstructure, wherein 0 <α≤θ/2, wherein θ = arcsin(1/n), wherein n is a refractive index of the light guide plate. In the same field of endeavor, Tai discloses wherein each of the curved convex surfaces has an inclination angle α relative to a normal direction of the light incident surface, and the inclination angle α is defined as arctan(h/w), wherein h is a height of the optical microstructure having the curved convex surface, and w is a length of a bottom edge of the optical microstructure (see Figs. 2-9, Paragraphs 45, 46, 52). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the module of Lin and Chang with wherein each of the curved convex surfaces has an inclination angle α relative to a normal direction of the light incident surface, and the inclination angle α is defined as arctan(h/w), wherein h is a height of the optical microstructure having the curved convex surface, and w is a length of a bottom edge of the optical microstructure of Tai for the purpose of providing a miniaturized module with minimal light leakage (Paragraph 7). Lin, Chang and Tai disclose the claimed invention except for wherein 0 <α≤θ/2, wherein θ = arcsin(1/n), wherein n is a refractive index of the light guide plate. Such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape and size of a component. A change in shape and size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). In addition, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the module of Lin, Chang and Tai with wherein 0 <α≤θ/2, wherein θ = arcsin(1/n), wherein n is a refractive index of the light guide plate for the purpose of providing a miniaturized module with minimal light leakage (Paragraph 7 of Tai).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (USPG Pub No. 2017/0205555) in view of Lin (TW 201022575 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Chang discloses an electrophoretic display device (100) (see Fig. 2, Paragraph 29), comprising: an electrophoretic display panel (130) (see Fig. 2, Paragraph 29); and a light source module (120), disposed on the electrophoretic display panel (see Fig. 2) and comprising: a light guide plate (110) (see Fig. 2, Paragraph 29), having: a first surface (112); a second surface (114), opposite to the first surface (112) and facing the electrophoretic display panel (130) (see Fig. 2, Paragraph 29); a light incident surface (118), connecting the first surface (112) and the second surface (114) (see Fig. 2); and two side surfaces that are opposite to each other, each of the side surfaces connecting the first surface and the second surface (see Fig. 2), and the light incident surface connecting the two side surfaces (see Fig. 2); and a light source (120), disposed beside the light incident surface (118) for emitting an illumination beam toward the light incident surface (see Fig. 2, Paragraph 29), wherein the light guide plate (110) comprises a plurality of optical microstructures disposed on each of the side surfaces and near the light incident surface (see Figs. 1, 4, 7), and the optical microstructures comprise a plurality of curved convex surfaces arranged from an end near the light incident surface to another end away from the light incident surface (see Figs. 1, 4, 7). Chang discloses the claimed invention, but does not specify wherein a length of the side surface having the optical microstructures accounts for 1/3 to 1/2 of an overall length of the side surface. In the same field of endeavor, Lin discloses wherein a length of the side surface having the optical microstructures accounts for 1/3 to 1/2 of an overall length of the side surface (see Fig. 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of Chang with wherein a length of the side surface having the optical microstructures accounts for 1/3 to 1/2 of an overall length of the side surface of Lin for the purpose of providing a compact panel where undesirable reflection is prevented (Abstract).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (USPG Pub No. 2017/0205555) in view of Lin (TW 201022575 A1) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Tai (USPG Pub No. 2015/0212250).
Regarding claim 10, Chang and Lin disclose the claimed invention, but do not specify wherein each of the curved convex surfaces has an inclination angle α relative to a normal direction of the light incident surface, and the inclination angle α is defined as arctan(h/w), wherein h is a height of the optical microstructure having the curved convex surface, and w is a length of a bottom edge of the optical microstructure, wherein w:h = sin(θ/2):(1-cos(θ/2)), wherein θ = arcsin(1/n), wherein n is a refractive index of the light guide plate. In the same field of endeavor, Tai discloses wherein each of the curved convex surfaces has an inclination angle α relative to a normal direction of the light incident surface, and the inclination angle α is defined as arctan(h/w), wherein h is a height of the optical microstructure having the curved convex surface, and w is a length of a bottom edge of the optical microstructure (see Figs. 2-9, Paragraphs 45, 46, 52). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of Chang and Lin with wherein each of the curved convex surfaces has an inclination angle α relative to a normal direction of the light incident surface, and the inclination angle α is defined as arctan(h/w), wherein h is a height of the optical microstructure having the curved convex surface, and w is a length of a bottom edge of the optical microstructure of Tai for the purpose of providing a miniaturized module with minimal light leakage (Paragraph 7). Chang, Lin and Tai disclose the claimed invention except for wherein w:h = sin(θ/2):(1-cos(θ/2)), wherein θ = arcsin(1/n), wherein n is a refractive index of the light guide plate. Such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape and size of a component. A change in shape and size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). In addition, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the module of Chang, Lin and Tai with wherein w:h = sin(θ/2):(1-cos(θ/2)), wherein θ = arcsin(1/n), wherein n is a refractive index of the light guide plate for the purpose of providing a miniaturized module with minimal light leakage (Paragraph 7 of Tai).
Regarding claim 11, Chang and Lin disclose the claimed invention, but do not specify wherein each of the curved convex surfaces has an inclination angle α relative to a normal direction of the light incident surface, and the inclination angle α is defined as arctan(h/w), wherein h is a height of the optical microstructure having the curved convex surface, and w is a length of a bottom edge of the optical microstructure, wherein 0 <α≤θ/2, wherein θ = arcsin(1/n), wherein n is a refractive index of the light guide plate. In the same field of endeavor, Tai discloses wherein each of the curved convex surfaces has an inclination angle α relative to a normal direction of the light incident surface, and the inclination angle α is defined as arctan(h/w), wherein h is a height of the optical microstructure having the curved convex surface, and w is a length of a bottom edge of the optical microstructure (see Figs. 2-9, Paragraphs 45, 46, 52). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the module of Chang and Lin with wherein each of the curved convex surfaces has an inclination angle α relative to a normal direction of the light incident surface, and the inclination angle α is defined as arctan(h/w), wherein h is a height of the optical microstructure having the curved convex surface, and w is a length of a bottom edge of the optical microstructure of Tai for the purpose of providing a miniaturized module with minimal light leakage (Paragraph 7). Chang, Lin and Tai disclose the claimed invention except for wherein 0 <α≤θ/2, wherein θ = arcsin(1/n), wherein n is a refractive index of the light guide plate. Such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape and size of a component. A change in shape and size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). In addition, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the module of Chang, Lin and Tai with wherein 0 <α≤θ/2, wherein θ = arcsin(1/n), wherein n is a refractive index of the light guide plate for the purpose of providing a miniaturized module with minimal light leakage (Paragraph 7 of Tai).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-6 and 8-11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHIDERE S SAHLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3329. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 AM to 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, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571 272-2333. 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.
/MAHIDERE S SAHLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 3/5/2026