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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “configured to” in claims 2, 6, 8, 9, 10, 15, and any other claims dependent upon those claims.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Liu et al. (TW I567454 B).
Regarding independent claim 1, Liu (‘454) teaches in figures 1-2 and the corresponding text, a surface light source device (2) comprising a plurality of light source blocks (each row, no number)) arranged in a first direction (arrows pointing up) and a second direction (arrows pointing down) orthogonal to the first direction, wherein each of the plurality of light source blocks includes one or more lines (top row) of a light-emitting element array including a plurality of light-emitting elements (20) arranged in the first direction; wherein each of the plurality of light-emitting elements includes a plurality of light emission chips (101) arranged in the first direction, the plurality of light emission chips being different from each other in color of emission light (RGB and 201, 202, 203); and wherein in the one or more lines of the light-emitting element array in the light source block, colors of light emitted from all of the light emission chips at both end portions are the same.
Regarding dependent claim 2, Liu (‘454) teaches the plurality of light-emitting elements includes a red emission chip (201) configured to emit red light, a green light emission chip (202) configured to emit green light, and a blue emission chip (203) configured to emit blue light.
Regarding dependent claim 3, Liu (‘454) teaches each of the plurality of light source blocks, a plurality of lines of the light-emitting element array is disposed in the second direction (bottom row).
Regarding dependent claim 4, Liu (‘454) teaches the plurality of light-emitting elements, a first light-emitting element and a second light-emitting element adjacent to each other are disposed such that a color of light emitted from a light emission chip at a position closest to the second light-emitting element in the first light-emitting element and a color of light emitted from a light emission chip at a position closest to the first light-emitting element in the second light-emitting element are the same (Z adjacent to Z and Y adjacent to Y in figure 2 for each diode package 20 across a row).
Regarding dependent claim 5, Liu (‘454) teaches the plurality of light-emitting elements is disposed in a rectangular grid (figures 2 and 3).
Regarding dependent claim 6, Liu (‘454) teaches a plurality of light flux controlling members (120, 41) configured to control light emitted from the plurality of light-emitting elements.
Regarding dependent claim 7, Liu (‘454) teaches each of the plurality of light flux controlling members includes a scattering member.
Regarding dependent claim 8, Liu (‘454) teaches each of the plurality of light source blocks includes one line of the light- emitting element array, wherein each of the plurality of light source blocks further includes one light flux controlling member configured to control light emitted from the one line of the light-emitting element array, and wherein the light flux controlling member is configured such that light advances farther in the second direction than in the first direction.
Regarding dependent claim 13, Liu (‘454) teaches an order of the plurality of light emission chips is the same in a first light source block and a second light source block adjacent to each other in the first direction among the plurality of light source blocks (similar to claim 4).
Regarding dependent claim 14, Liu (‘454) teaches an order of the plurality of light emission chips is the same in a third light source block (no number) and a fourth light source block (no number) adjacent to each other in the second direction among the plurality of light source blocks (note there are 4 rows shown).
Regarding dependent claim 15, Liu (‘454) teaches a diffusion plate (120, 41) configured to diffuse light emitted from the plurality of light-emitting elements while transmitting the light emitted from the plurality of light-emitting elements.
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.
Claims 12 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (TW I567454 B), of record.
Regarding dependent claims 12, 16, and 17, the claim limitations all disclose a distance or size which is not disclosed by Liu et al. (‘454).
However, Liu (‘454) does teach the general claimed structure of the invention. The claims distances or sizes do not appear critical to the claimed invention and furthermore the structure of Liu (‘454) could teach the claimed distances or sizes depending upon how small or large the device (a notebook computer or an LCD TV) is made for the purpose of providing an efficient backlight source.
Hence it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the backlight structure of Liu for the purpose of providing an efficient backlight source. The actual sizes and distances are a matter of obvious choices in design based upon the intended size of the display.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (TW I567454 B) in view of Li et al. (US 2019/0280163), both of record.
Regarding dependent claim 9, Liu (‘454) teaches all of the claimed limitations expect for the light flux controlling member includes: an incidence surface that is an inner surface of a recess opening at a bottom surface, the incidence surface being disposed to intersect optical axes of an even number of the light-emitting elements; a total reflection surface configured to reflect at least in the second direction light entered from the incidence surface; and an emission surface configured to emit to outside light reflected by the total reflection surface, and wherein the total reflection surface includes: two first total reflection surfaces extending along the first direction and each including two end portions in the first direction; and two second total reflection surfaces each configured to connect both ends of the two first total reflection surfaces in the first direction.
Further regarding claim 9, Li et al. (‘163) discloses a surface light source comprised of, in part, in figures 3-5 and the corresponding text, the light flux controlling member (600) includes: an incidence surface that is an inner surface of a recess (500) opening at a bottom surface (3), the incidence surface being disposed to intersect optical axes of an even number of the light-emitting elements; a total reflection surface (no number) configured to reflect at least in the second direction light entered from the incidence surface (no number, top of (200)); and an emission surface (no number) configured to emit to outside light reflected by the total reflection surface, and wherein the total reflection surface includes: two first total reflection surfaces (intersecting directions of (500) extending along the first direction and each including two end portions in the first direction; and two second total reflection surfaces each configured to connect both ends of the two first total reflection surfaces in the first direction for the purpose of reducing internal reflection of light and thus improve the brightness of the display.
Hence it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the light flux controlling member and total reflection surface of Li in the display of Liu for the purpose of reducing internal reflection of light and thus improve the brightness of the display.
Regarding dependent claim 10, Li et al. (‘163) discloses each of the two second total reflection surfaces is disposed such that the greater a distance from the optical axis in the first direction, the farther each of the two second total reflection surfaces is from the light-emitting element in a direction along the optical axis, each of the two second total reflection surfaces including an inner end portion disposed on an optical axis side and an outer end portion disposed at a position farther from the optical axis than the inner end portion in the first direction, wherein the incidence surface includes: a first incidence surface disposed opposite to a light-emitting surface of the light-emitting element; and a second incidence surface configured to connect the first incidence surface and the bottom surface, and wherein in the first direction, an end portion of the first incidence surface is disposed on inside than the inner end portion of the second total reflection surface.
The reason for combing is the same as for claim 9 above.
Regarding dependent claim 11, Li et al. (‘163) discloses in the first direction, the optical axis of the light-emitting element at both ends included in the light- emitting element array in the light source block coincides with the end portion of the first incidence surface.
The reason for combing is the same as for claim 9 above.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH L WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-2465. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:30 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, JAMES R. GREECE can be reached at (571) 272-3711. 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.
JOSEPH L. WILLIAMS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2875
/JOSEPH L WILLIAMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875