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, 2, 4, 5, 6-11, and 13-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae et al. (US 2019/0094450 A1) in view of Lue et al. (US 20150378084 A1),Chen et al. (US 2015/0338052 A1) and Wang (US 2020/0073044 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Bae et al. teaches an area light source device, comprising:
a light guide body (310; see at least figure 14) comprising an incidence plane (see side surface of 310 adjacent to LSU in at least figure 14), and a front exit plane and a rear exit plane extending along two opposite sides of the incidence plane (see at least figure 14) respectively;
a light emitting body (LSU; see figure 14) disposed along a side of the incidence plane of the light guide body (301; see at least figure 14);
multiple structural layers (400 and DM combined) disposed on a side of the rear exit plane, and used for changing a direction of light from the light guide body (310) to the structural layer (400, 510, 520 and DM combined) and emitting the light in a direction away from the rear exit plane;
first medium layers (IL or Intermediate layer of 321;see at least figures 4 and 14) disposed between the rear exit plane and the adjacent structural layers (400, 510, 520 and DM combined), as well as between the light guide body (310) and one of the structural layers (400 and DM combined), wherein a refractive index of a material of the light guide body (310) is greater than or equal to a refractive index of a material of the first medium layer (IL or Intermediate layer of 321, see figure 4; see paragraph [0009]), and the structural layer (400 and DM combined) is bonded on a surface of the first medium layer (321)parallel to the rear exit plane;
and second medium layers (322) wrapped in each of the structural layer (400, 510, 520 and DM combined).
Bae et al. does not explicitly teach the light guide body comprises a reflection plane opposite to the incidence plane, and an angle between the reflection plane and the rear exit plane is an acute angle.
PNG
media_image1.png
325
682
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lue et al. teaches a light guide body (310) comprising a reflection plane (see claim 4 of Lue et al. and at least figure 3) opposite to the incidence plane and an angle between the reflection plans and the rear exit plane is an acute angle (see paragraph [0034]).
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 light guide of Bae et al. to include a reflection plane and an acute angle between the reflection plane and the rear exit plane as taught by Lue et al. to prevent the halo phenomenon at the edge region of the display surface from occurring and therefore improve the display quality (see paragraph [0035] of Lue et al.).
Bae et al. modified by Lue et al. does not explicitly teach wherein a refractive index of a material of the structural layer is greater than a refractive index of a material of the second medium layers.
Chen et al. teaches wherein a refractive index of a material of the structural layer (110; paragraph [0080]) is greater than a refractive index of a material of the second medium layers (220; paragraph [0080]).
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 light guide of Bae et al. to have the structural layer have a greater refractive index than the second medium layers as taught by Chen et al. to achieve a more uniform emitting light (see paragraph [0089] of Chen et al.).
Bae et al. modified by Chen et al. does not explicitly teach wherein a refractive index of a material of the light guide body is greater than a refractive index of a material of the first medium layers.
Wang teaches a refractive index of a material of the light guide body is greater than a refractive index of a material of the first medium layers (see paragraph [0021] where the refractive index of the substrate layer 50 is greater than the refractive index of strips 40).
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 light guide of Bae et al. to have the refractive index of the light guide greater than the refractive index of the medium layers as taught by Wang to improve brightness (see paragraph [0073] of Wang).
Regarding claim 2, Bae et al. modified by Lue et al. and Chen et al. teaches the area light source device according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the refractive index of the material of the structural layer is 1.65, and the refractive index of the material of the second medium layers is 1.33. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the structural layer and the second medium layers of Bae et al. to have refractive index that is 1.65 and 1.33, respectively, as an alternative design choice and way of achieving a desired illumination output, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 4, Bae et al. modified by Lue et al. and Chen et al. teaches the area light source device according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the refractive index of the material of the light guide body is 1.58, and the refractive index of the material of the first medium layer is 1.48. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the light guide body and the first medium layer of Bae et al. to have refractive index that is 1.58 and 1.48, respectively, as an alternative design choice and way of achieving a desired illumination output, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 5, Bae et al. further teaches the area light source device according to claim 1, wherein a cross-section of each of the second medium layers (321; LCP; see at least figure 14) perpendicular to a plane direction of the structural layer is a trapezoid (paragraph [0101]), an edge, close to the light guide body (310), of the trapezoid is a long edge (see figure 14), and an edge, away from the light guide body (310), of the trapezoid is a short edge (see figure 14).
Regarding claim 6, Bae et al. further teaches the area light source device according to claim 1, wherein the light guide body (310) further comprises a reflector (400a) disposed along a side of the reflection plane (400b).
Regarding claim 7, Bae et al. further teaches the area light source device according to claim 1, wherein multiple structural layers (321, 322; figure 4) are stacked on a side of the rear exit plane, and the structural layers (DM, 400) are used for changing a direction of light from the light guide body (310) to the structural layers (400, 510, 520 and DM combined), and emitting the light in the direction away from the rear exit plane, second medium layers (322; figure 4) are wrapped in each of the structural layers (400, 510, 520 and DM combined), and a refractive index of a material of the structural layers (400, 510, 520 and DM combined) is greater than a refractive index of a material of the second medium layers (see paragraph [0097}.
Regarding claim 8, Bae et al. further teaches the area light source device according to claim 7, wherein a cross-section of each of the second medium layers (322; see figure 4) perpendicular to a plane direction of the structural layers is rectangular (see figures 4 and 14).
Regarding claim 9, Bae et al. further teaches the area light source device according to claim 7, wherein first medium layers (321) are disposed between the adjacent structural layers (see at least figures 4 and 14), as well as between the light guide body (310; see at least figure 4 and 14) and the structural layer (400, 510, 520 and DM combined), and
a refractive index of a material of the light guide body (310; figure 4 and 14) is greater than a refractive index of a material of the first medium layers (321).
Regarding claim 10, Bae et al. teaches a flat panel display device, comprising an area light source device (LSU; see at least figure 14) and a flat panel display panel (100; see at least figure 14) disposed on a side of a rear exit plane, and the area light source device comprises:
a light guide body (310; figure 14) comprising an incidence plane (see surface of 310 face LSU in at least figure 14), and a front exit plane (top surface of 310; see figure 14) and a rear exit plane (bottom surface of 310; see at least figure 14) extending along two opposite sides of the incidence plane respectively;
a light emitting body (LSU; figure 14) disposed along a side of the incidence plane of the light guide body (310; see at least figure 14);
a structural layer (400, 510, 520 and DM combined) disposed on a side of the rear exit plane, and used for changing a direction of light from the light guide body (see at least figure 14) to the structural layer and emitting the light in a direction away from the rear exit plane;
a first medium layer (IL or Intermediate layer of 321;see at least figures 4 and 14) disposed between the rear exit plane and the structural layer (400, 510, 520 and DM combined), wherein a refractive index of a material of the light guide body (310) is greater than or equal to a refractive index of a material of the first medium layer (IL or Intermediate layer of 321, see figure 4; see paragraph [0009]);
and second medium layers wrapped in the structural layer (400, 510, 520 and DM combined).
Bae et al. does not explicitly teach the light guide body comprises a reflection plane opposite to the incidence plane, and an angle between the reflection plane and the rear exit plane is an acute angle.
Lue et al. teaches a light guide body (310) comprising a reflection plane (see claim 4 of Lue et al. and at least figure 3) opposite to the incidence plane and an angle between the reflection plans and the rear exit plane is an acute angle (see paragraph [0034]).
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 light guide of Bae et al. to include a reflection plane and an acute angle between the reflection plane and the rear exit plane as taught by Lue et al. to prevent the halo phenomenon at the edge region of the display surface from occurring and therefore improve the display quality (see paragraph [0035] of Lue et al.).
Bae et al. modified by Lue et al. does not explicitly teach wherein a refractive index of a material of the structural layer is greater than a refractive index of a material of the second medium layers.
Chen et al. teaches wherein a refractive index of a material of the structural layer (110; paragraph [0080]) is greater than a refractive index of a material of the second medium layers (220; paragraph [0080]).
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 light guide of Bae et al. to have the structural layer have a greater refractive index than the second medium layers as taught by Chen et al. to achieve a more uniform emitting light (see paragraph [0089] of Chen et al.).
Bae et al. modified by Chen et al. does not explicitly teach wherein a refractive index of a material of the light guide body is greater than a refractive index of a material of the first medium layers.
Wang teaches a refractive index of a material of the light guide body is greater than a refractive index of a material of the first medium layers (see paragraph [0021] where the refractive index of the substrate layer 50 is greater than the refractive index of strips 40).
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 light guide of Bae et al. to have the refractive index of the light guide greater than the refractive index of the medium layers as taught by Wang to improve brightness (see paragraph [0073] of Wang).
Regarding claim 11, Bae et al. modified by Lue et al. and Chen et al. teaches the flat panel display device according to claim 10, wherein the refractive index of the material of the structural layer is 1.65, and the refractive index of the second medium layers is 1.33. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the structural layer and the second medium layers of Bae et al. to have refractive index that is 1.65 and 1.33, respectively, as an alternative design choice and way of achieving a desired illumination output, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 13, Bae et al. modified by Lue t al. and Chen et al. teaches the flat panel display device according to claim 10, but does not explicitly teach wherein the refractive index of the material of the light guide body is 1.58, and the refractive index of the material of the first medium layer is 1.48. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the light guide body and the first medium layer of Bae et al. to have refractive index that is 1.58 and 1.48, respectively, as an alternative design choice and way of achieving a desired illumination output, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 14, Bae et al. further teaches the flat panel display device according to claim 10, wherein a cross-section of each of the second medium layers perpendicular to a plane direction of the structural layer is a trapezoid (LCP, 321, see at least figure 11 and 14), an edge, close to the light guide body (310), of the trapezoid (LCP; see at least figures 11 and 14) is a long edge, and an edge, away from the light guide body (310; see at least figure 11 and 14), of the trapezoid is a short edge.
Regarding claim 15, Bae et al. further teaches the flat panel display device according to claim 10, wherein the light guide body (310) further comprises a reflector (400a) disposed along a side of the reflection plane (400b; see figure 14).
Regarding claim 16, Bae et al. further teaches the flat panel display device according to claim 10, wherein multiple structural layers (400, 510, 520 and DM combined) are stacked on a side of the rear exit plane (see at least figure 14), the structural layers are used for changing a direction of light from the light guide body (310) to the structural layers (400, 510, 520 and DM combined), and emitting the light in a direction away from the rear exit plane; second medium layers (322; see figure 4 and 14) are wrapped in each of the structural layers (see at least figure 14); a refractive index of a material of the structural layers is greater than a refractive index of a material of the second medium layers (see paragraph [0097]).
Regarding claim 17, Bae et al. further teaches the flat panel display device according to claim 16, wherein a cross-section of each of the second medium layers (322; figure 14) perpendicular to a plane direction of the structural layers is rectangular (see at least figure 14).
Regarding claim 18, Bae et al. further teaches the flat panel display device according to claim 16, wherein first medium layers (321; see figure 4 and 14) are disposed between the adjacent structural layers (400, 510, 520 and DM combined; see at least figure 14), as well as between the light guide body (310) and the structural layer (see at least figure 14), and
a refractive index of a material of the light guide body (310; see paragraph [0009]) is greater than a refractive index of a material of the first medium layers (lower light collection pattern (see at least paragraph [0009].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, and 17 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection necessitated by applicant’s amendment of independent claims 1 and 10.
Dependent claims 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 13, 14, 15 and 17 remain rejected based on dependency on a rejected base claim.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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.
/J.M.A/ Examiner, Art Unit 2875
/ABDULMAJEED AZIZ/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights