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 .
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) 1-6, 8, 9, 11-16, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2015/0234234 A1) in view of Chen et al. (US 11,106,086 B2), Yokota (US 2012/0081632 A1) and Cheng et al. (Us 2019/0064590 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lee et al. teach a backlight unit comprising:
a light source module comprising a plurality of light sources (400; see at least figure 2);
a reflection sheet (200; paragraph [0050]; see at least figure 2) configured to reflect light emitted rearward from the plurality of light sources (400); and
a diffuser plate (100; see at least figure 2) provided in front of the light source module (400).
Lee et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the diffusion properties are the result of a first gloss of a first region and a second gloss of a second region and wherein the at least two regions are different from each other and wherein the at least two regions are provided on a rear surface of the diffuser plate.
However, Chen et al. teaches a display device (see abstract of Chen et al.) and diffusion plate (410; figure 11A) having a first surface and a second surface having different diffusion properties (102 and 101, respectively; figure 11A) and a first and second gloss that differ from each other, the regions being provided on a rear surface of the diffuser plate (410) (see column 15, lines 21-45 where a gloss of surface 101 is greater than 90 and the gloss at the four corners of the diffuser plate differ in table 1 in column 14).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the diffuser of Lee et al. to include a first and second gloss that are different from each other and provided on a rear surface of the diffuser plate as taught by Chen et al. so that the backlight module can have high uniformity of luminance (see column 15, lines 21-45 of Chen et al.).
Lee modified by Chen et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the diffuser plate comprises at least two regions having different distances to the plurality of light sources.
Yokota teaches a diffuser 22 comprising two regions having different distances to the plurality of light sources (50).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the diffuser of Lee et al. to include at least two regions having different distances to the plurality of light sources as taught by Yokota to suppress luminance unevenness (see paragraph [0047]-[0048] of Yokota).
Lee modified by Chen et al. and Yokota do not explicitly teach wherein the second region comprises an edge area on the diffuser plate enclosing the first region, and wherein the second gloss of the second region is higher than the first gloss of the first region.
PNG
media_image1.png
452
725
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Cheng et al. teaches wherein the second region (s2; figure 8) comprises an edge area enclosing the first region (S1; figure 8) and wherein the second gloss of the second region (S2; figure 8) is higher than the first gloss of the first region (S1; see paragraph [0016] where first surface S1 has a first gloss, the second surface s2 has a second gloss, the first gloss is less than the second gloss.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lee et al. to include a second region comprising an edge area enclosing the first region and the second gloss of the second region higher than the first gloss of the first region as taught by Cheng et al. to improve light incident uniformity (see paragraph [0018] of Cheng et al.).
Regarding claim 2, Lee et al. modified by Chen et al, Yokota and Cheng et al. teaches the backlight unit of claim 1, and Lee et al. further teaches wherein the first region (region A1 of figure 5) is at a first distance from the plurality of light sources (400), wherein the second region (region A2; figure 5) is at a second distance to the plurality of light sources (400) that is greater than the first distance.
Regarding claim 3, Lee et al. modified by Chen et al., Yokota and Cheng et al. teach the backlight unit of claim 2, and Lee et al. further teaches wherein the first region (region A1; figure 5) comprises an area on the diffuser plate (200; figure 5) facing the plurality of light sources (400; figure 1).
Regarding claim 4, Lee et al. modified by Chen et al., Yokota and Cheng et al. teaches the backlight unit of claim 3, and Lee et al. further teaches wherein a border between the first region (region A1; figure 5) and the second region (region A2; figure 5) is determined based on positions of outermost light sources (400) among the plurality of light sources (see figure 5).
Regarding claim 5, Lee et al. modified by Chen et al., Yokota and Cheng et al. teaches the backlight unit of claim 2, and Lee et al. further teaches wherein the light source module (400) further comprises a plurality of substrates (500; see at least figure 1) having a bar shape (see at least figure 1, shape of 500 is bar shape), and wherein the plurality of light sources (400; see figure 1) are provided on the plurality of substrates (500; see at least figure 1).
Regarding claim 6, Lee et al. modified by Chen et al., Yokota and Cheng et al. teaches the backlight unit of claim 5, and Lee et al. further teaches wherein the first region (A1; see at least figure 5) comprises a plurality of sub-regions in the diffuser plate (100; see at least figure 5) corresponding to the plurality of substrates (500; see at least figure 1), and wherein the second region (A2; see at least figure 5) comprises an area of the diffuser plate (100; see at least figure 5) not corresponding to the plurality of sub-regions (see at least figure 5).
Regarding claim 8, Lee et al. modified by Chen et al., Yokota and Cheng et al. teaches the backlight unit of claim 1, and Lee et al. further teaches wherein the first region (region A1; see figure 5) has a first roughness (see at least figure 5 where pattern 111 is positioned) that is higher than a second roughness of the second region (see pattern 112 in at least figure 5).
Regarding claim 9, Lee et al. modified by Chen et al., Yokota and Cheng et al. teaches the backlight unit of claim 1, and Lee et al. further teaches wherein a first thickness of the diffuser plate (100; see at least figure 5) at a first location corresponding of the first region (A1; figure 5) is larger than a second thickness of the diffuser plate (100; see at least figure 5) at a second location corresponding to the second region (region A2; see figure 5; the thickness of region A1 is larger than the thickness of region A2 where 111 in region A1 is greater than 112 is region A2).
Lee et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the first region is of substantially uniform thickness across the first region and the second region is of a substantially uniform thickness across the second region.
Chen et al. further teaches wherein the first region is of substantially uniform thickness across the first region and the second region is of a substantially uniform thickness across the second region (see at least figure 11A).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the diffuser of Lee et al. to include a uniform thickness across a first region and a second region of the diffuser plate as taught by Chen et al. as an obvious design choice to prove better average luminance uniformity (see column 4, lines 53-60 of Chen et al.).
Regarding claim 11, Lee et al. teaches a display apparatus comprising: a liquid crystal panel; and a backlight unit (see abstract of Lee et al.) provided behind the liquid crystal panel and configured to supply light to the liquid crystal panel (not shown but known in the art for backlight unit to provide or supply light to a display), a light source module comprising a plurality of light sources (400; see at least figure 2);
a reflection sheet (200; paragraph [0050]; see at least figure 2) configured to reflect light emitted rearward from the plurality of light sources (400); and
a diffuser plate (100; see at least figure 2) provided in front of the light source module (400),
wherein the diffuser plate (100) comprises at least two regions (figure 5; regions A1 and A2; paragraph [0061], [0062], [0063]) having different distances to the plurality of light sources (400; A1 is directly above the light source 400 while region A2 is to a left and right of light sources 400).
Lee et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the diffusion properties are the result of a first gloss of a first region and a second gloss of a second region and wherein the at least two regions are different from each other and wherein the at least two regions are provided on a rear surface of the diffuser plate.
However, Chen et al. teaches a display device (see abstract of Chen et al.) and diffusion plate (410; figure 11A) having a first surface and a second surface having different diffusion properties (102 and 101, respectively; figure 11A) and a first and second gloss that differ from each other, the regions being provided on a rear surface of the diffuser plate (410) (see column 15, lines 21-45 where a gloss of surface 101 is greater than 90 and the gloss at the four corners of the diffuser plate differ in table 1 in column 14).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the diffuser of Lee et al. to include a first and second gloss that are different from each other and provided on a rear surface of the diffuser plate as taught by Chen et al. so that the backlight module can have high uniformity of luminance (see column 15, lines 21-45 of Chen et al.).
Lee modified by Chen et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the diffuser plate comprises at least two regions having different distances to the plurality of light sources.
Yokota teaches a diffuser 22 comprising two regions having different distances to the plurality of light sources (50).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the diffuser of Lee et al. to include at least two regions having different distances to the plurality of light sources as taught by Yokota to suppress luminance unevenness (see paragraph [0047]-[0048] of Yokota).
Lee modified by Chen et al. and Yokota do not explicitly teach wherein the second region comprises an edge area on the diffuser plate enclosing the first region, and wherein the second gloss of the second region is higher than the first gloss of the first region.
PNG
media_image1.png
452
725
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Cheng et al. teaches wherein the second region (s2; figure 8) comprises an edge area enclosing the first region (S1; figure 8) and wherein the second gloss of the second region (S2; figure 8) is higher than the first gloss of the first region (S1; see paragraph [0016] where first surface S1 has a first gloss, the second surface s2 has a second gloss, the first gloss is less than the second gloss.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lee et al. to include a second region comprising an edge area enclosing the first region and the second gloss of the second region higher than the first gloss of the first region as taught by Cheng et al. to improve light incident uniformity (see paragraph [0018] of Cheng et al.).
Regarding claim 12, Lee et al. teaches the display apparatus of claim 11, and Lee et al. further teaches wherein the first region (region A1 of figure 5) is at a first distance from the plurality of light sources (400), wherein the second region (region A2; figure 5) is at a second distance to the plurality of light sources (400) that is greater than the first distance.
Regarding claim 13, Lee et al. teaches the display apparatus of claim 12, and Lee et al. further teaches wherein the first region (region A1; figure 5) comprises an area on the diffuser plate (200; figure 5) facing the plurality of light sources (400; figure 1).
Regarding claim 14, Lee et al. teaches the display apparatus of claim 13, and Lee et al. further teaches wherein a border between the first region (region A1; figure 5) and the second region (region A2; figure 5) is determined based on positions of outermost light sources (400) among the plurality of light sources (see figure 5).
Regarding claim 15, Lee et al. modified by Chen and Yokota and Cheng et al. teaches the display apparatus of claim 12, Lee et al. further teaches wherein the light source module (400) further comprises a plurality of substrates (500; see at least figure 1) having a bar shape (see at least figure 1, shape of 500 is bar shape), and wherein the plurality of light sources (400; see figure 1) are provided on the plurality of substrates (500; see at least figure 1).
Regarding claim 16, Lee et al. modified by Chen et al. and Yokota and Cheng et al. teaches the display apparatus of claim 15, and Lee et al. further teaches wherein the first region (A1; see at least figure 5) comprises a plurality of sub-regions in the diffuser plate (100; see at least figure 5) corresponding to the plurality of substrates (500; see at least figure 1), and wherein the second region (A2; see at least figure 5) comprises an area of the diffuser plate (100; see at least figure 5) not corresponding to the plurality of sub-regions (see at least figure 5).
Regarding claim 18, Lee et al. modified by Chen et al., Yokota and Cheng et al. teaches the display apparatus of claim 11, and Lee et al. further teaches wherein the first region (region A1; see figure 5) has a first roughness (see at least figure 5 where pattern 111 is positioned) that is higher than a second roughness of the second region (see pattern 112 in at least figure 5).
Regarding claim 19, Lee et al. modified by Chen et al, Yokota and Cheng et al. teaches the display apparatus of claim 11, and Lee et al. further teaches wherein a first thickness of the diffuser plate (100; see at least figure 5) at a first location corresponding of the first region (A1; figure 5) is larger than a second thickness of the diffuser plate (100; see at least figure 5) at a second location corresponding to the second region (region A2; see figure 5; the thickness of region A1 is larger than the thickness of region A2 where 111 in region A1 is greater than 112 is region A2) and Chen et al. further teaches wherein the first region is of substantially uniform thickness across the first region and the second region is of a substantially uniform thickness across the second region (see at least figure 11A).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the diffuser of Lee et al. to include a uniform thickness across a first region and a second region of the diffuser plate as taught by Chen et al. so that the backlight module can have high uniformity of luminance (see column 15, lines 21-45 of Chen et al.).
Claim(s) 7, 17 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2015/0234234 A1) in view of Chen et al. (US 11,106,086 B2) and Yokota (US 2012/0081632 A1) and Cheng et al. (US 2019/0064590 A1) as applied to claims,1, 2 and 12, respectively, above and further in view of Cotte (US 2017/0082273 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Lee et al. modified by Chen et al., Yokota and Cheng et al. teaches the backlight unit of claim 2, but does not explicitly teach wherein the first gloss of the first region is between 5 gloss units (GU) to 10 GU, and wherein the second gloss of the second region is between 20 GU to 30 GU. Cotte teaches a gloss of preferably less than 10GU and a gloss preferably lass than 50GU (see paragraph [0049]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the diffuser of Lee et al. modified by Chen et al., Yokota and Cheng et al. to have a first and second gloss in the range of 5 GU to 10 GU and 20 GU to 30 GU, respectively, as taught by Cotte to achieve a particular type of surface to achieve a desired illumination output (see paragraph [0049]), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223.
Regarding claim 17, Lee et al. modified by Chen et al., Yokota and Cheng et al. teaches the backlight unit of claim 12, but do not explicitly teach wherein the first gloss of the first region is between 5 gloss units (GU) to 10 GU, and wherein the second gloss of the second region is between 20 GU to 30 GU.
Cotte teaches a gloss of preferably less than 10GU and a gloss preferably lass than 50GU (see paragraph [0049]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the diffuser of Lee et al. modified by Chen et al., Yokota and Cheng et al. to have a first and second gloss in the range of 5 GU to 10 GU and 20 GU to 30 GU, respectively, as taught by Cotte to achieve a particular type of surface to achieve a desired illumination output (see paragraph [0049]), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223.
Regarding claim 21, Lee et al. modified by Chen et al. and Yokota teaches the display apparatus of claim 1, and Yokota further teaches wherein the first region comprises an area on the diffuser plate (22) facing the plurality of light sources (50), but does not explicitly teach wherein the first gloss of the first region is between 5 gloss units (GU) to 10 GU, and wherein the second gloss of the second region is between 20 GU to 30 GU.
Cotte teaches a gloss of preferably less than 10GU and a gloss preferably lass than 50GU (see paragraph [0049]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the diffuser of Lee et al. modified by Chen et al., Yokota and Cheng et al. to have a first and second gloss in the range of 5 GU to 10 GU and 20 GU to 30 GU, respectively, as taught by Cotte to achieve a particular type of surface to achieve a desired illumination output (see paragraph [0049]), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-9 and 11-19 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection necessitated by applicant’s arguments and amendment of claims 1 and 11. Claims 1 and 11 have been amended to include the limitation, “wherein the second region comprises an edge area on the diffuser plate enclosing the first region, and wherein the second gloss of the second region is higher than the first gloss of the first region.”. A new reference, Cheng et al. (US 2019/0064590 A1), has been found to teach the limitation added to claims 1 and 11.
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 on 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