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 .
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-3 and 12-13 are objected to because of the following informalities: “the first included angle = the first incident angle – the second incident angle/2” is a confusing mixture of sentence and equation. It should be rewritten as “the first included angle equals the first incident angle minus half the second included angle” or it should be typed out as a formal equation.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the first and second prisms being alternately arranged (as claimed in claims 8 and 18) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). The center, as claimed in claims 3 and 13, must also be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 11: It is unclear what is meant by “a plurality of dot structures” and “the dot structure comprises a first inclined surface”. First, “the dot structure” lacks proper antecedent basis because the claim defines a plurality of dot structures, so it is unclear which of the plurality of dot structures is the dot structure. It is also unclear because the structural nature of the dot structure is unclear. What is required of the structure for it to be considered a dot structure? For clarity, the examiner looked to the drawings and found that only a cross-section of the dot structures is shown, so it remains unclear what is the structure of the dot structure and how the inclined surface is incorporated in 3D. For the purpose of examination, the dot structures are interpreted as any structures having a surface inclined with respect to the base surface of the light guide plate, based on the cross-sections shown in Figs. 1-4.
Also regarding claims 1 and 11: “an included angle between the light emitted by the backlight and a horizontal line is a second included angle” is also unclear. First, it is understood that the light emitted from a backlight source is emitted in a range of angles, so it is not clear how the angle of the light should be determined. Additionally, “horizontal” is not defined with respect to any structural feature of the backlight module, so it can any axis. Finally, included angle is understood to be the angle formed by two sides that share a common vertex. Without specifically defined sides, it is not clear how to determine an included angle. For the purpose of examination, “an included angle between the light emitted by the backlight and a horizontal line is a second included angle” is being interpreted as describing what is shown in Fig. 1,which depicts a particular line between the backlight source and a tip of a particular dot structure of the plurality of dot structures, and a horizontal line being parallel to the light exiting surface, coplanar with the particular line, and extending from the tip of the particular dot structure, wherein a second included angle is an included angle between the particular line and the horizontal line.
Also regarding claims 1 and 11: “the first prism” lacks proper antecedent basis because the claim defines a plurality of first prisms. It is unclear which of the plurality of first prisms is the first prism. For the purpose of examination, the first prism is interpreted as the prism depicted in Fig. 1 as having light reflecting off of its inner surfaces, directly above the particular dot structure (described in point b), as depicted in Fig. 1.
Regarding claims 3 and 13: “only the dot structure located at a center of the light guide plate” is unclear for several reasons. First, claims 3 and 13 depend on claims 1 and 11, respectively, which use the open-ended transition comprising, allowing for additional elements not in the claims to be included in the device. Therefore, this limitation is confusing because it appears to limit the dot structures so that only one can have the claimed relationship, but it is unclear whether additional dot structures not mapped to the claimed dot structures can be present elsewhere in the device having that same claimed relationship. Second, it is unclear how the center is defined. In claims 1/11, the dot structures are stated to be on the bottom surface of the light guide plate, so is the center the center of that surface? Is it a point at the geometric center of the bottom surface, wherein the dot structure located at the center is a dot structure intersecting that point? Or is the center a region, and, if so, how large is that region? It appears that the center refers to a region, since dot structures are claimed to be identical only at the center, so it appears that the center is large enough to include multiple dot structures. Third, this claim suffers from antecedent basis issues. Since we don’t know which of the dot structures is the dot structure and which of the first prisms is the first prism, it is also unclear how to evaluate the condition of the first vertex angle being equal to the refraction angle of the refracted light formed by the incident light penetrating through the second inclined surface, the first included angle = the first incident angle – the second included angle/2, since these angles are all defined with respect to the dot structure and/or the first prism.
Regarding claims 6 and 16: The terms “close” and “away” in claim 6 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “close” and “away” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of examination, any two dot structures may be compared, and whichever is closer to the backlight source will be considered to be “close” and whichever is further from the backlight source will be considered to be “away”.
Regarding claims 7 and 17: “the density” lacks proper antecedent basis, and “a direction from the backlight source to be away from the backlight source” is confusing. For the purpose of examination “the density” is being interpreted as “a density” and “a direction from the backlight source to be away from the backlight source” is interpreted as “a direction from the backlight source toward the light guide plate”.
Regarding claims 8 and 18: It is unclear what it means for the first prisms and the second prisms to be alternately arranged when the second prism layer is stacked in a layer above the first prism layer. If they are not arranged together in one layer, or stacked in an alternating fashion with multiple layers of first prism layers and second prism layers that are alternating, how can the first prisms and second prisms be alternately arranged? For clarification, the examiner looked to the figures. However, the second prisms of the second prism layer are not shown. For the purpose of examination, alternately arranged is interpreted to mean that the first and second prisms are arranged in the layers of the first and second prism layers, respectively.
Regarding claims 2-10 and 12-20: Claims 2-10 and 12-20 inherently contain all of the deficiencies of any base or intervening claims from which they depend.
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 1-2, 4, 6-7, 11-12, 14, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hirayama et al. (US 2017/0115446; hereinafter Hirayama).
Regarding claim 1: Hirayama disclosesA backlight module (see Figs. 2-7), comprising: a light guide plate (Figs. 2-7, light guide plate 19), comprising a first bottom surface (Figs. 2-7, plate surface 19c) and a light exiting surface (Figs. 2-7, light emission surface 19a) which are arranged opposite to each other and a light incident surface (Figs. 2-7, light incident surface 19b) connecting the first bottom surface and the light exiting surface, wherein the first bottom surface of the light guide plate is provided with a plurality of dot structures (Figs. 3, 5-6, prism portions 41), and the dot structure comprises a first inclined surface (Fig. 6, reflective inclined surface 41a1) forming a first included angle (Fig. 6, inclination angle θ7) with the first bottom surface; a backlight source (Figs. 2-5, LEDs 17), located on a side of the light incident surface (Figs. 2-5 show this), wherein the backlight source is configured to emit light (see paragraph 0048), the light emitted by the backlight source is incident to the first inclined surface (see paragraph 0054), and an included angle between the light emitted by the backlight source and a horizontal line is a second included angle (the device of Figs. 2-6 inherently has an included angle between the light emitted by the backlight source and a horizontal line; call it a second included angle); and a first prism layer (Figs. 2-3, 5-6, prism sheet 20), located on a side of the light exiting surface of a light guide plate (Figs. 2-3, 5-6 show this), wherein the first prism layer comprises a plurality of first prisms (Figs. 2-3, 5-6, prism portions 43) arranged in parallel with the light incident surface (Figs. 2-3, 5-6 show this), the first prism comprises: a second bottom surface (see Fig. 6, surfaces of prism portions 43 in contact with plate surface 20a2) arranged in parallel with the first bottom surface and a second inclined surface (Fig. 6, inclined surfaces 43a1) connected with the second bottom surface, and an included angle between the second inclined surface and the second bottom surface is a first vertex angle (Fig. 6, θ4); whereinthe first vertex angle is an acute angle (Fig. 6 shows this), and the first included angle, the second included angle and the first vertex angle satisfy that: the light emitted by the backlight source is incident to the first inclined surface and then reflected to the second inclined surface of the first prism (see paragraphs 0054-0055), and a first incident angle between incident light reflected by the second inclined surface of the first prism and a normal of the second inclined surface is a Brewster angle (see paragraph 0014).
Regarding claim 11: Hirayama discloses the backlight module according to claim 1, and therefore also discloses the backlight module according to claim 11. Hirayama further discloses a display device that comprises the backlight module (see paragraphs 0029-0034). Therefore, Hirayama also anticipates claim 11.
Regarding claims 2 and 12: Hirayama disclosesThe backlight module according to claim 1 (as applied above) and the display device module according to claim 11 (as applied above), wherein the first included angle is an acute angle (Fig. 6, inclination angle θ7 is an acute angle, taught to be in the range of 0.5 to 3 degrees in paragraph 0077), the second included angle is an acute angle (since the horizontal line can be drawn with any orientation with respect to the light emitted from the backlight source, by rotating the device, this can be any angle, including an acute angle), the first vertex angle is equal to a refraction angle of refracted light formed by the incident light penetrating through the second inclined surface (taught to be in the range of -3 to 3 degrees in paragraph 0080), and the first included angle (a value between 0.5 and 3 degrees, paragraph 0077) = the first incident angle (33.9 degrees, paragraph 0014) – the second included angle/2 (this can be any value between 0 and 45 degrees, by rotation of the device; therefore, the claim limitation can be met by a rotation of the device).
Regarding claims 4 and 14: Hirayama disclosesThe backlight module according to claim 1 (as applied above) and the display device according to claim 11, wherein a sum of the first vertex angle (46 to 61 degrees, see paragraph 0074) and the first incident angle (33.9 degrees) is 90 degrees.
Regarding claims 6 and 16: Hirayama disclosesThe backlight module according to claim 1 (as applied above) and the display device according to claim 11 (as applied above), wherein a density of the dot structures close to the backlight source is smaller than a density of the dot structures away from the backlight source (Fig. 3 shows this).
Regarding claims 7 and 17: Hirayama disclosesThe backlight module according to claim 6 (as applied above) and the display device according to claim 16 (as applied above), wherein the density of the dot structures is an increasing trend in a direction from the backlight source to be away from the backlight source (Fig. 3 shows this).
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 3, 5, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirayama et al. (US 2017/0115446; hereinafter Hirayama).
Regarding claims 3 and 13: Hirayama disclosesThe backlight module according to claim 2 (as applied above) and the display device according to claim 12 (as applied above), wherein only the dot structure located at a center of the light guide plate satisfies that: the first included angle (a value between 0.5 and 3 degrees, paragraph 0077) = the first incident angle (33.9 degrees) – the second included angle/2 (can be any value between 0 and 90 degrees), and all the dot structures are structurally identical (Fig. 6 shows this; see also paragraph 0054).
Hirayama fails to disclose that the first vertex angle is equal to the refraction angle of the refracted light formed by the incident light penetrating through the second inclined surface. However, Hirayama does disclose that ϕ8 is in a range of -3 to 3 degrees and θ4 is in the range of 46 to 61 degrees, putting the refraction angle ϕ7 between 43 and 64 degrees; the first vertex angle θ6 is in a range of 39 degrees to 69 degrees. These values both affect the path that the light takes in the device and the angle at which light is output. Since these ranges overlap, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify these parameters in the Hirayama device in order to optimize it for a particular application, including such that the first vertex angle is equal to the refraction angle of the refracted light formed by the incident light penetrating through the second inclined surface.
Regarding claims 5 and 15: Hirayama discloses the backlight module according to claim 4 (as applied above) and the display device according to claim 14 (as applied above), wherein the first prism further comprises a third inclined surface (Fig. 6, inclined surface 43a2) connecting the second inclined surface and the second bottom surface, an included angle between the third inclined surface and the second bottom surface is a second vertex angle (Fig. 6, θ5). Hirayama fails to disclose that the second vertex angle is equal to the first vertex angle. However, Hirayama teaches an embodiment wherein the second vertex angle is 60 degrees. Hirayama also teaches a range of angles for the first vertex angle, being between 46 and 61 degrees. Both vertex angles affect the path that the light takes in the device and the angle at which light is output. Since Hirayama teaches parameters for the first and second vertex angles, including overlapping values, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify those parameters based on optimizing the device for their intended application, including so that the first and second vertex angles are equal.
Claims 8-10 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirayama et al. (US 2017/0115446; hereinafter Hirayama) in view of Sugita et al. (US 2009/0086466; hereinafter Sugita).
Regarding claims 8 and 18: Hirayama discloses the backlight module according to claim 1 and the display device according to claim 11, as applied above. Hirayama fails to teach a second prism layer located on a side of the first prism layer away from the light guide plate, wherein the second prism layer comprises a plurality of second prisms arranged in parallel, the first prisms and the second prisms are alternately arranged, and the first prisms are structurally identical with the second prisms. However, Sugita, also related to backlights (see paragraph 0002), teaches a second prism layer (Fig. 9, prism sheet 41) located on a side of the first prism layer (Fig. 9, prism array 39) away from the light guide plate (Fig. 9, light guide plate 31), wherein the second prism layer comprises a plurality of second prisms arranged in parallel (Fig. 9 shows this), the first prisms and the second prisms are alternately arranged (see Fig. 9, considered to be an alternate arrangement, as interpreted in view of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above), and the first prisms are structurally identical with the second prisms (Fig. 9 shows this). Sugita teaches that the second prism array refracts the light output from the device so that it is closer to the direction normal to the display (see Fig. 9 and paragraph 0117). In order to further modify the light path, including bring the emerging light closer to the direction normal to the display, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the Hirayama device by adding a second prism layer, as taught by Sugita, wherein the second prism layer comprises a plurality of second prisms arranged in parallel, the first prisms and the second prisms are alternately arranged, and the first prisms are structurally identical with the second prisms.
Regarding claims 9 and 19: Modified Hirayama teachesThe backlight module according to claim 8 (as applied above) and the display device according to claim 18 (as applied above), further comprising: a first buffering layer (Hirayama Figs. 3-7, prism portions 42 and prism sheet 20 are considered to be a buffer layer between the light guide plate and the first prism layer 43) located between the light guide plate and the first prism layer, and a second buffering layer (Figs. 3-7, liquid crystal panel 11) located on a side of the second prism layer facing away from the light guide plate; wherein surfaces of the first buffering layer in contact with the light guide plate and the first prism layer, a surface of the second buffering layer in contact with the second prism layer, and a surface of the second buffering layer facing away from the second prism layer all comprise protective particles (these surfaces comprise particles that inherently provide protection to the device, so they are considered to be protective particles).
Regarding claims 10 and 20: Modified Hirayama teachesThe backlight module according to claim 8 (as applied above) and the display device according to claim 18 (as applied above), further comprising a reflection layer located on a side of the first bottom surface of the light guide plate (Fig. 6, reflection sheet 40).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kirsten D Endresen whose telephone number is (703)756-1533. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday.
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, Thomas Hollweg can be reached at (571)270-1739. 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.
/KIRSTEN D. ENDRESEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874