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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 10-12, 14-15, 19-21, and 24-26 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,988,919 hereinafter Allen. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claim 10, Allen discloses (claim 1) a reflector comprising: a carrier comprising a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first surface; a first wavelength selective reflector on the first surface of the carrier, the first wavelength selective reflector to transmit more than 60 percent of normal incident light of a first wavelength range and reflect more than 60 percent of normal incident light of a second wavelength range different from the first wavelength range; and a second wavelength selective reflector on the second surface of the carrier, the second wavelength selective reflector to transmit more than 60 percent of normal incident light of the first wavelength range and reflect more than 60 percent of normal incident light of a third wavelength range different from the first wavelength range.
Regarding claim 11, Allen discloses (claim 2) the second wavelength range equals the third wavelength range.
Regarding claim 12, Allen discloses (claim 3) the first wavelength selective reflector transmits more than 60 percent of normal incident light of the third wavelength range, and the second wavelength selective reflector transmits more than 60 percent of normal incident light of the second wavelength range.
Regarding claim 14, Allen discloses (claim 4) the first wavelength selective reflector comprises a first stack of alternating low index and high index dielectric layers, the second wavelength selective reflector comprises a second stack of alternating low index and high index dielectric layers.
Regarding claim 15, Allen discloses (claim 5):
PNG
media_image1.png
426
788
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19, Allen discloses (claim 6) a plurality of patterned reflectors on the first wavelength selective reflector or the second wavelength selective reflector.
Regarding claim 20, Allen discloses (claim 7) a backlight comprising: a substrate; a plurality of light sources proximate the substrate to emit light within a first wavelength range; a reflective layer proximate the substrate; a patterned diffuser comprising a carrier, a first wavelength selective reflector on a first surface of the carrier, and a plurality of patterned reflectors on the first wavelength selective reflector or on a second surface of the carrier opposite to the first surface of the carrier; and a color conversion layer to convert light of the first wavelength range into light of a second wavelength range higher than the first wavelength range and into light of a third wavelength range higher than the second wavelength range, wherein the first wavelength selective reflector transmits more the 60 percent of normal incident light of the first wavelength range and reflects more than 60 percent of normal incident light of the second wavelength range.
Regarding claim 21, Allen discloses (claim 8):
PNG
media_image2.png
284
802
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 24, Allen discloses (claim 9) the first wavelength selective reflector reflects more than 60 percent of normal incident light of the third wavelength range.
Regarding claim 25, Allen discloses (claim 10) the patterned diffuser further comprises a second wavelength selective reflector on the second surface of the carrier, the second wavelength selective reflector to transmit more the 60 percent of normal incident light of the first wavelength range and reflect more than 60 percent of normal incident light of the third wavelength range.
Regarding claim 26, Allen discloses (claim 11):
PNG
media_image3.png
276
800
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 1-4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 20200183234) hereinafter Kim ‘234.
Regarding claim 1, Kim ‘234 discloses (Figs. 1-11; in particular Figs. 6, 9F-11) a backlight comprising: a substrate (210); a plurality of light sources (211) proximate the substrate; a reflective layer proximate the substrate (section 0067); a first diffuser plate (216, 216p) over the plurality of light sources; a second diffuser plate (218); and a color conversion layer (217) between the first diffuser plate (216, 216p) and the second diffuser plate (218).
Regarding claim 2, Kim ‘234 discloses (Figs. 1-11; in particular Figs. 6, 9F-11) the first diffuser plate (216, 216p) comprises a patterned diffuser comprising a plurality of patterned reflectors (216p; section 0073), each patterned reflector aligned with a corresponding light source (211).
Regarding claim 3, Kim ‘234 discloses (Figs. 1-11; in particular Figs. 6, 9F-11) the first diffuser plate (216, 216p) is between the plurality of light sources (211) and the color conversion layer (217).
Regarding claim 4, Kim ‘234 discloses (Figs. 1-11; in particular Figs. 6, 9F-11) the patterned diffuser comprises a carrier (216), and the plurality of patterned reflectors (216p) are on a first surface of the carrier.
Regarding claim 8, Kim ‘234 discloses (Figs. 1-11; in particular Figs. 6, 9F-11) the color conversion layer (217) comprises a phosphor film (section 0077).
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 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim ‘234 in view of Park et al. (US 20210165277).
Regarding claim 5, Kim ‘234 does not necessarily disclose the patterned diffuser comprises a diffusive layer on a second surface of the carrier opposite to the first surface of the carrier.
Park discloses (Figs. 2, 6) the patterned diffuser (combination of 310, 320, 400) comprises a diffusive layer (400) on a second surface of the carrier (310) opposite to the first surface of the carrier. 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 teaching of Park to diffuse light incident through the bottom surface of the carrier.
Regarding claim 6, Kim ‘234 does not necessarily disclose the first diffuser plate comprises a glass.
Park discloses (Figs. 2, 6) the first diffuser plate (combination of 310, 320, 400) comprises a glass (section 0145). 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 teaching of Park to obtain material that transmit light incident through the bottom surface of the carrier.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim ‘234 in view of Kim et al. (US 20210026203) hereinafter Kim ‘203.
Regarding claim 7, Kim ‘234 does not necessarily disclose the color conversion layer comprises a quantum dot film.
Kim ‘203 discloses (Fig. 1) the color conversion layer (218) comprises a quantum dot film (section 0042). 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 teaching of Kim ‘203 to obtain material that absorbs blue light to emit white light.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim ‘234 in view of Lee et al. (US 20210055607).
Regarding claim 9, Kim ‘234 does not necessarily disclose the first diffuser plate comprises a first Young's modulus and the second diffuser plate comprises a second Young's modulus less than half the first Young's modulus, and the second diffuser plate scatters light through a thickness of the second diffuser plate.
Lee discloses (Fig. 2A) the diffuser plate could be various materials (section 0054). Examples of materials such as polycarbonate and glass are similar to the materials disclosed in the present application. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first diffuser plate comprising a first Young's modulus and the second diffuser plate comprising a second Young's modulus less than half the first Young's modulus, and the second diffuser plate scattering light through a thickness of the second diffuser plate, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. 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 teaching of Lee to obtain material that causes diffusion of the incident light that is emitted from the light sources.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13, 16-18, 22-23, and 27 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art does not disclose or suggest the reflector of claim 13, in particular the limitations of the first wavelength range is within a range between 430 nanometers and 470 nanometers, the second wavelength range is within a range between 530 nanometers and 570 nanometers, and the third wavelength range is within a range between 620 nanometers and 680 nanometers. The prior art does not disclose or suggest the reflector of claim 16, in particular the limitations of the first stack comprises at least 4 dielectric layers, and the second stack comprises at least 4 dielectric layers. The prior art does not disclose or suggest the reflector of claim 17, in particular the limitations of each high index dielectric layer comprises ZrO2, Nb2O5, TiO2, Al2O3, or Si3N4. The prior art does not disclose or suggest the reflector of claim 18, in particular the limitations of each low index dielectric layer comprises MgF2 or SiO2. The prior art does not disclose or suggest the backlight of claim 22, in particular the limitations of each high index dielectric layer comprises ZrO2, Nb2O5, TiO2, Al2O3, or Si3N4. The prior art does not disclose or suggest the backlight of claim 23, in particular the limitations of each low index dielectric layer comprises MgF2 or SiO2. The prior art does not disclose or suggest the backlight of claim 27, in particular the limitations of the first wavelength range is within a range between 430 nanometers and 470 nanometers, the second wavelength range is within a range between 530 nanometers and 570 nanometers, and the third wavelength range is within a range between 620 nanometers and 680 nanometers.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES S CHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5024. 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, Michael Caley can be reached at (571) 272-2286. 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.
/CHARLES S CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871