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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 04/21/2025. These drawings are accepted.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 06/03/2026 is being considered by the examiner.
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, 3-7 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2021/0286214 A1) in view of Tang et al. (US 2020/0132913 A1) and Teragaki et al. (US 6,123,431).
Regarding claim 1, Chen et al. teaches an anti-peep light source module, comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
614
451
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a light source module (figure 11), having a light source (110) and a light guide plate (100),
wherein the light source (110) is configured to provide a light beam and has a plurality of light emitting elements (see figure 11 where plurality of light sources 110 are positioned on a face of light guide 100), the plurality of light emitting elements are arranged along a first direction, the first direction is parallel to a light incidence surface (100b; (para[0033]) of the light guide plate (110) and a viewing angle limiting element (320; paragraph [0053] discloses a viewing angle limiting optical film 320) having a grating structure (paragraph [0054] teaches the viewing angle limiting optical film 320 is a “3M grating structure-like anti-peep film”) and wherein the viewing angle limiting element (320) is located between the viewing angle adjusting element (310) and the light source module (100 and 110 combined; see figure 11) and a display panel (200), located on the transmission path of the illumination beam and located on one side of the viewing angle limiting element (320) away from the light guide plate (100)
However the embodiment of figure 11 of Chen et al. does not explicitly teach wherein an included angle between an extension direction of the grating structure and the first direction is within a range from 88 degrees to 92 degrees.
Tang et al. teaches a light guide plate (101) comprising an included angle that is in a range of 0-90 degrees between an extension direction of the grating structure and the first direction is within a range which includes the recited range of 88 to 92 degrees (see paragraph [0100] of Tang et al. where included angle is 90 degrees)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the grating structure of Chen et al. to modify the display device to include an include angle within a range of 88 degrees to 92 degrees as taught by Tang et al. to achieve a desired illumination output, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05; In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223.
Chen et al. modified by Tang et al. does not explicitly teach the has a plurality of optical microstructures on a first surface of the light guide plate, the light beam leaves a second surface of the light guide plate through optical surfaces of the plurality of optical microstructures of the light guide plate and generates an illumination beam, and the light incidence surface is located between the first surface and the second surface.
PNG
media_image2.png
203
511
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Teragaki et al. teaches a light guide plate (10) comprising a plurality of optical microstructures (11) on a first surface (10b) of the light guide plate (10), the light beam (L; figure 6d) leaves a second surface (10a) of the light guide plate (10) through optical surfaces of the plurality of optical microstructures (11) of the light guide plate and generates an illumination beam (see figure 6d), and the light incidence surface (see side of light guide 10 positioned opposite light source 2 and receiving light emitting from light source 2 in figure 6d) is located between the first surface (10b) and the second surface (10a).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to modify the light guide plate of Chen et al. modified by Tang et al. to include microstructures on a first surface thereof as taught by Teragaki et al. to obtain a uniform outgoing light and improve the directivity of the outgoing light guided through the light guide plate (column 8, lines 60-67 through column 9, lines 1-8 of Teragaki et al.)
Regarding claim 3, Chen et al. modified by Tang et al. and Teragaki et al. teaches the anti-peep light source module according to claim 1, and Chen et al. teach further comprising: at least one optical film (130 and 140), located on the transmission path of the illumination beam, wherein the viewing angle limiting element (320) is located between the at least one optical film (130 and 140) and the viewing angle adjusting element (310), and the at least one optical film (130) is located between the viewing angle limiting element (310) and the light source module (100,110 combined).
Regarding claim 4, Chen et al. modified by Tang et al. and Teragaki et al. teaches the anti-peep light source module according to claim 3, and Chen et al. further teach wherein each of the at least one optical film (130, 140; para. [0038] discloses “the backlight module 50 further includes a first prism sheet 130”; figure 11) has a plurality of prism structures (para. [0038], discloses “a plurality of prism structures 132 and 142”), and the plurality of prism structures (132,142) are disposed on a surface of each of the at least one optical film (130) facing the viewing angle limiting element (320).
Regarding claim 5, Chen et al. modified by Tang et al. and Teragaki et al. teaches the anti-peep light source module according to claim 4, and Chen et al. further teaches wherein an included angle between an extension direction of the plurality of prism structures and the first direction is within a range from 0 degree to ±30 degrees (para [0039] “the extending direction of the prism structures 142 of the second prism sheet 140 may be greater than 0 degree and less than 90 degrees”).
Regarding claim 6, Chen et al. modified by Tang et al. and Teragaki et al. teaches the anti-peep light source module according to claim 4, but Chen et al. does not explicitly teach wherein an included angle between an extension direction of the plurality of prism structures and the extension direction of the grating structure of the viewing angle limiting element is within a range from 60 degrees to 120 degrees.
However, Tang et al. teaches wherein an included angle between an extension direction of the plurality of prism structures and the extension direction of the grating structure of the viewing angle limiting element is within a range from 60 degrees to 120 degrees. (see abstract of Tang et al. where included angle is in a range of 0 to 90 degrees which is included in the recited range).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the grating structure of Chen et al. to modify the display device to include an include angle within a range of 60 degrees and 120 degrees as taught by Tang et al. as an alternative design choice to achieve a desired illumination output, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05; In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223.
Regarding claim 7, Chen et al. modified by Tang et al. modified by Teragaki et al. teaches the anti-peep light source module according to claim 4,and Chen et al. further teaches wherein the at least one optical film comprises a first optical film and a second optical film (130,140; figure 11), and an included angle between an extension direction of the plurality of prism structures (142,132; figure 11) of the first optical film and an extension direction of the plurality of prism structures of the second optical film is within a range from 2 degrees to 10 degrees (Para. [0039]) “Namely, the angle between the extending direction of the prism structures 132 of the first prism sheet 130 and the extending direction of the prism structures 142 of the second prism sheet 140 may be greater than 0 degree and less than 90 degrees”) .
Regarding claim 11, Chen et al. teach a display device, comprising:
an anti-peep light source module, comprising: a light source module (100/110) , having a light source (110; figure 11) and a light guide plate (100; figure 11),
wherein the light source is configured to provide a light beam and has a plurality of light emitting elements (see at least figure 11 where a plurality of light sources 110 are shown), the plurality of light emitting elements (110; see figure 11) are arranged along a first direction,
the first direction is parallel to a light incidence surface of the light guide plate (100; see at least figure 11),
and a viewing angle switching module (paragraph [0052] discloses a viewing angle switching device 300) , located on a transmission path of the illumination;
and a viewing angle limiting element (320; paragraph [0053] discloses a viewing angle limiting optical film 320) having a grating structure (paragraph [0054] teaches the viewing angle limiting optical film 320 is a “3M grating structure-like anti-peep film”) and wherein the viewing angle limiting element (320) is located between the viewing angle adjusting element (310) and the light source module (100 and 110 combined; see figure 11) and a display panel (200), located on the transmission path of the illumination beam and located on one side of the viewing angle limiting element (320) away from the light guide plate (100)
and a display panel (200), located on the transmission path of the illumination beam and located on one side of the viewing angle limiting element (320) away from the light guide plate (100).
Chen et al. does not explicitly teach a viewing angle limiting element, having a grating structure, wherein an included angle between an extension direction of the grating structure and the first direction is within a range from 88 degrees to 92 degrees.
Tang et al. teaches a light guide plate (101) comprising an included angle that is in a range of 0-90 degrees between an extension direction of the grating structure and the first direction is within a range which includes the recited range of 88 to 92 degrees (see paragraph [0100] of Tang et al. where included angle is 90 degrees)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the grating structure of Chen et al. to modify the display device to include an include angle within a range of 88 degrees to 92 degrees as taught by Tang et al. to achieve a desired illumination output, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05; In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223.
Chen et al. modified by Tang et al. does not explicitly teaches the [light guide plate] has a plurality of optical microstructures on a first surface of the light guide plate, the light beam leaves a second surface of the light guide plate through optical surfaces of the plurality of optical microstructures of the light guide plate and generates an illumination beam, and the light incidence surface is located between the first surface and the second surface.
Teragaki et al. teaches a light guide plate (10) comprising a plurality of optical microstructures (10b) on a first surface of the light guide plate (10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to modify the light guide plate of Chen et al. modified by Tang et al. to include microstructures on a first surface thereof as taught by Teragaki et al. as an alternative design choice and way of achieve a desired output from the display device.
Regarding claim 12, Chen et al. modified by Yang et al. and Teragaki et al. teaches the display device according to claim 11, and Chen et al. further teaches wherein [the display panel] is located between the viewing angle adjusting element (310) and the viewing angle limiting element (320; paragraph [0053] discloses a viewing angle limiting optical film 320) .
Regarding claim 13, Chen et al. modified by Tang et al. and Teragaki et al. teaches the display device according to claim 11, and Chen et al. further teaches wherein the viewing angle adjusting element (controlled diffusion film 310; figure 11) is located between the display panel (200) and the viewing angle limiting element (320; viewing angle limiting optical film; paragraph [0054] and figure 11).
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2021/0286214 A1) in view of Tang et al. (US 2020/0132913 A1) and Teragaki et al. (US 6,123,431) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Skykora et al. (US 2012/0236403 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Chen et al. modified by Tang et al. and Teragaki et al. teaches the anti-peep light source module according to claim 1, but Chen et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the optical surfaces of each of the plurality of optical microstructures and the first surface has a light receiving angle, but do not explicitly teach the light receiving angle is within a range from 162 degrees to 177 degrees.
Skykora et al. teaches a light guide plate comprising a prism including an angle of about 172 degrees (para [0058] discloses a prism angle of about 172 degrees of a light guide) which is in the range of the recited 162 degrees and 177 degrees.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the optical surfaces of the light guide plate of Chen to include an angle in the range from 162 degrees to 177 degrees as taught by Sykora et al. 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. MPEP 716.02 (b); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2021/0286214 A1) in view of Tang et al. (US 2020/0132913 A1) and Teragaki et al. (US 6,123,431) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lai et al. (US 2023/0003932 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Chen et al. modified by Tang et al. and Teragaki et al. teaches the anti-peep light source module according to claim 7, but does not explicitly teach wherein the first optical film is located between the second optical film and the light source module, and a refractive index of the first optical film is smaller than a refractive index of the second optical film.
Lai et al. further teaches wherein the first optical film (120)is located between the second optical film (130) and the light source module (110,100; figure 1; paragraph [0051]), and a refractive index of the first optical film is smaller than a refractive index of the second optical film (para. [0051] teaches first and second optical films may be a low complex refractive index or a high complex refractive index material).
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 first optical film to have a refractive index smaller than a refractive index of the second optical film of Chen et al. modified by Tang et al. and Teragaki et al. as taught by Lai et al. as an alternative way and design choice to achieve a desired illumination output.
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2021/0286214 A1) in view of Tang et al. (US 2020/0132913 A1) and Teragaki et al. (US 6,123,431) as applied to claim 7 and 3, respectively, above, and further in view of Graf et al. (US 2004/0066645 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Chen et al. modified by Tang et al. and Teragaki et al. teaches the anti-peep light source module according to claim 7, and Chen teaches further comprising: a diffusion sheet (150; figure 11), but do not explicitly teach the diffusion sheet is located between [the first optical film] and [the second optical film], and a haze of a surface of [the diffusion sheet] is within a range from 3% to 30%.
Graf teaches a light diffuser material (108; figure 1) that is located between a first optical film 114 and a second optical film 106 and the light diffuser material comprising a haze of at least 10% (see abstract of Graft where light diffuser material and haze is disclosed) which is within the range of 3% to 30% recited range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the diffusion sheet of Chen et al. modified by Tang et al. and Teragaki et al. to include a haze within the range of 3% to 30% as taught by Graf as an alternative way and design choice to achieve a desired illumination output, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05;In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223.
Regarding claim 10, Chen et al. modified by Tang et al. and Teragaki et al. teaches the anti-peep light source module according to claim 3, but do not explicitly teach wherein a plurality of rough structures or a plurality of diffusion particles are arranged on a surface of each of the at least one optical film facing the light source module, and a haze of the surface of each of [the at least one optical film] facing [the light source module] is within a range from 3% to 30%.
Graf teaches a light diffuser material comprising light diffuser particles (see at least paragraph [0031] where diffusing particles are disclosed) and a haze of at least 10% (see abstract of Graft where light diffuser material and haze is disclosed) which is within the range of 3% to 30% recited range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the diffusion sheet of Chen et al. modified by Tang et al. and Teragaki et al. to include light diffusing particles and a haze within the range of 3% to 30% as taught by Graf as an alternative way and design choice to achieve a desired illumination output, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05;In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-13 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection after consideration of applicant’s arguments and reconsideration of the prior art of record.
Conclusion
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.
/JESSICA M APENTENG/ Examiner, Art Unit 2875
/ABDULMAJEED AZIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights