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 .
Detailed Action
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I I (claims 3-8: 1-10) in response/amendment is acknowledged. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art documents submitted by Applicant(s) in the information Disclosure Statement(s) have all been considered and made of record (note the attached copy of form(s) PTO-1449).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 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.
Claims 1-5 and 9-10 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Abe, US 20080117367 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Abe teaches a light source module (see figs. 2, 513, also all figs. 1-20 and summary) comprising:
a flexible circuit substrate 5; a light-emitting component (21 i.e., LED), located on the flexible circuit substrate 5;
PNG
media_image1.png
254
407
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and a light guide “film” 22, located on the flexible circuit substrate 5, wherein the light guide film 22 and the light-emitting component 21 are located on the same side of the flexible circuit substrate 5, and a first light-emitting surface of the light-emitting component 21 faces the light guide film 22;
PNG
media_image2.png
246
257
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Abe further teaches a width is between two edges of the first light-emitting surface 21 (as shown in the figure at least two edges at top and two edges at the bottom of the light emitter 21), wherein one of the two edges (i. e., top edge) is farthest from the flexible circuit substrate 5 and the other one of the two edges (i.e., bottom edge) is nearest to the flexible circuit substrate 5; wherein the light guide film 22 has a thickness (see figures 1-6 and 10; parag. 0063).
However, Abe does not explicitly teach wherein the width of the first light-emitting surface is not larger than four times of the thickness (of light-guide). Nonetheless, as shown in the figures, the Abe’s light-emitting component and light-guide have substantially similar attributes with respect to the dimensions, the gap and the emitting surface of the light source with respect to the light-guide and one of ordinary skill in the art could easily manipulate the dimensions of the components to optimize light coupling efficiency between the light-emitting source and the light-guide (see at least parag, 0071), as it appears that the Abe’s a light source module would perform equally well with that of the applicant and a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
The statements advanced in rejection of claim 1, above, as to the applicability and disclosure of and the motivation are incorporated herein in rejection of the following claims as follows:
With regard to claim 2, though Abe is silent on the thickness of the light-guide to be not larger than 100 µm, nonetheless, the dimensions of the light source module of Abe in the orders of microns (see at least parag. 0055) and that such limitation is extremely conventional (see US 10073211 B1) with thickness as little as 50 µm, and see similar motivation as claim 1. .
3. (Original) The light source module of claim 1, further comprising: an opaque film, located on the light guide film, wherein the opaque film and the flexible circuit substrate are located on opposite sides of the light guide film.
4. (Original) The light source module of claim 3, wherein the opaque film 31 covers a top surface of the light-emitting component 21 (see fig. 2).
5. (Original) The light source module of claim 4, wherein the opaque film 31 covers the top surface of the light-emitting component 21 completely (see fig. 2).
9. (Original) The light source module of claim 1, wherein the first light-emitting surface directly touches the light guide film (see fig. 2).
10. (Original) The light source module of claim 1, wherein a distance between the first light-emitting surface and the light guide film is not larger than 1 mm (see fig. 2 and analogous motivation and arguments in claim 1 is applicable to claim 10) .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6-8 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.
Claim is allowable because the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious its respective limitations in combination with the rest of the limitations of the base claim. Claim 13 is allowable because of dependency.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
Prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. In accordance with MPEP 707.05 the following references are pertinent in rejection of this application since they provide substantially the same information disclosure as this patent does. These references are:
US 20130155723 A1
US 20080117367 A1
US 20220268984 A1
US 20180373097 A1
US 20100231826 A1
US 10620361 B2
US 10082614 B2
US 20210397049 A1
US 20090135627 A1
US 8749729 B2
US 4445759 A
US 7583349 B2
US 6579606 B1
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Error! Unknown document property name. whose telephone number is Error! Unknown document property name.. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-19.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Hollweg can be reached on571-270-1739. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KAVEH C KIANNI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874