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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-2, 6, 8-10, 12-20 in the reply filed on 3/02/2026 is acknowledged.
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, 6, 8-10, 12, 13-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (US 20200411574 A1) in view of Park (US 8508690 B2).
Re Claim 1, Chang discloses, on Fig. 2-3 and 5, an optical device, comprising: an electronic component (Fig. 5: chip 3) having a top surface (Fig. 5: top of chip 3), wherein the top surface of the electronic component has an optical region (see Fig. 3 and 4: center area over sensing region 32) [Par 25-30] and a carrying region (area outside of sensing region 32) that surrounds the optical region; a ring-shaped adhesive layer (adhesive loop 2) disposed on the carrying region of the electronic component and surrounding the optical region (See Fig. 3 and 5) [Par 25-30], wherein the ring-shaped adhesive layer includes a plurality of light-weakening slots (protrusions 22) that are formed on an inner side surface (inner peripheral surface 21) thereof and that face toward the optical region [Par 27], wherein the ring-shaped adhesive layer includes a plurality of strips in a ring-shaped arrangement (see Fig. 3), and each of the strips includes an inner layout segment (Fig. 3: horizontal sides of loops 2) [Par 25-30] and two outer layout segments (vertical sides of loop 2) that are respectively connected to two opposite ends of the inner layout segment (see Fig. 3),
and wherein the light-weakening slots (protrusions 22) are recessed in the inner layout segments of two of the strips facing toward each other (horizontal sides of loop 2 face each other) [Par 25-30]; and a light-permeable layer (Fig. 5: light transmissible substrate 1) [Par 25-30] disposed on the ring-shaped adhesive layer, wherein the light-permeable layer, the inner side surface of the ring-shaped adhesive layer, and the top surface of the electronic component jointly define an enclosed space (Fig. 5: adhesive loop 2, thew top of chip 3, and substrate 1 defied an enclosed space) [Par 25-30]; wherein each of the light-weakening slots has a slot opening and a slot bottom that is spaced apart from the slot opening by a slot depth (Fig. 3: Center-to-center distance shows a slot opening and a slot bottom), and wherein a width of each of the light-weakening slots gradually decreases along a direction from the slot opening to the slot bottom (Fig. 3: triangular shape of protrusions creates a an opening that gradually decreases) [Par 25-30], the slot opening each of the light-weakening slots has a slot width (Fig. 3: protrusions 22 have width and depth), such that each of the light-weakening slots is configured to weaken light that irradiates thereon by entering into the enclosed space (light scattering and reducing of flare by protrusions 22)[Par 30]
But Chang does not explicitly disclose, a ratio of the slot width to the slot depth is within a range from 1:0.86 to 1:11.4.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Park teaches, on Fig. 3, that it is desirable in light diffusing structures to include a ratio of the slot width to the slot depth within a range from 1:0.86 to 1:11.4 (1:0.05 to 1:5) [Col 2, Lines 25-30]. Note: MPEP 2144.05 I states “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the art a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Chang with Park in order to provide maximized light diffusing power as taught by Park [Col 4, Lines 30-35].
Re Claim 2, Chang in view of Park discloses, the optical device according to claim 1, and Chang further discloses on Fig. 3, wherein each of the light-weakening slots includes two inner side walls (walls of adjacent protrusions 22), and wherein, in each of the light-weakening slots, two corresponding ends respectively of the two inner side walls are spaced apart from each other and jointly define the slot opening (Fig. 3 shows the Walls of adjacent protrusions 22 define an opening), and another two corresponding ends of the two inner side walls are connected to each other to jointly define the slot bottom (Fig. 3 shows the walls of adjacent protrusions connect at the slot bottom).
Re Claim 6, Chang in view of Park discloses, the optical device according to claim 2, and Chang further discloses on Fig. 3 and 5, wherein the two inner side walls of each of the light-weakening slots (Fig. 3: adjacent walls of protrusions 22 of adhesive loop 2) are sandwiched between the electronic component ( Fig. 5: chip 3) and the light-permeable layer (transmissible substrate 1) [Par 25-30].
Re Claim 8, Chang in view of Park discloses, the optical device according to claim 1, and Chang further discloses on Fig. 3, wherein the light-weakening slots include a plurality of first light-weakening slots (protrusions 22 of horizontal sides of loop 2) [Par 25-30] and a plurality of second light-weakening slots (protrusions 22 of vertical sides of loop 2), each of the first light-weakening slots has a first shape and each of the second light-weakening slots has a second shape (triangular protrusion shape of horizontal and vertical sides respectively), and wherein the first light-weakening slots are recessed in the inner layout segments of the strips (protrusions 22 of horizontal sides of loop 2), and the second light-weakening slots are recessed in the outer layout segments of the strips (protrusions 22 of vertical sides of loop 2) [Par 25-30].
But Chang in view of Park does not explicitly disclose, wherein the first shape is different from the second shape.
However, Park does disclose, on Fig. 2-3, alternate shapes for light diffusion slots in different directions (“Alternatively, the diffusing cavities 120 can be arrayed irregularly along the horizontal and vertical directions with different intervals (so that horizontal and/or vertical lines are not parallel to each other.”) [Col 4, Lines 5-15]. Thus, the prior art explicitly teaches providing alternate shapes for slots disposed in different directions. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of simply applying said design of the shape of the light diffusion slots, taught in the prior art, to Chang, who teaches wherein the first light-weakening slots are recessed in the inner layout segments of the strips (protrusions 22 of horizontal sides of loop 2), and the second light-weakening slots are recessed in the outer layout segments of the strips (protrusions 22 of vertical sides of loop 2) [Par 25-30], and each individual protrusion can be different [Par 27]. Further, Park teaches that one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to change the shape of the slots in order to provide, improved luminance [Col 2, Lines 55-60].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Chang in view of Park such that, the first shape is different from the second shape, in order to provide improved luminance [Col 2, Lines 55-60], as taught by Park.
Re Claim 9, Chang in view of Park discloses, the optical device according to claim 8, and Chang further discloses on Fig. 3, wherein the light-weakening slots further include a plurality of third light-weakening slots recessed in connection parts between the inner layout segment and the two outer layout segments of each of the strips (Fig. 3 shows an irregular slot in each of the four corners between the horizontal slots defining the inner layout segments and the vertical slots defining the outer layout segments) [Par 25-30].
But Chang in view of Park does not explicitly disclose, wherein each of the third light-weakening slots has a third shape formed by a half of the first shape and a half of the second shape.
However, Park does disclose, on Fig. 2-3, alternate shapes for light diffusion slots in different directions (“Alternatively, the diffusing cavities 120 can be arrayed irregularly along the horizontal and vertical directions with different intervals (so that horizontal and/or vertical lines are not parallel to each other.”) [Col 4, Lines 5-15], and Chang further teaches that the shape of each individual protrusion can be different [Par 27]. Thus, the prior art explicitly teaches providing alternate shapes for slots disposed in different directions. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of simply adjusting the shape of the third light weakening slots such that, each of the third light-weakening slots has a third shape formed by a half of the first shape and a half of the second shape. Further, Park teaches that one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to change the shape of the slots in order to provide, improved luminance [Col 2, Lines 55-60].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Chang in view of Park such that, each of the third light-weakening slots has a third shape formed by a half of the first shape and a half of the second shape, in order to provide improved luminance [Col 2, Lines 55-60], as taught by Park.
Re Claim 10, Chang in view of Park discloses, the optical device according to claim 8, and Chang further discloses on Fig. 3 and 5, wherein the light-weakening slots (protrusions 22) are in a ring-shaped arrangement and surround the optical region (adhesive loop 2 of protrusions 22 is in a ring shape with sensing region 32 in the middle) [Par 25-30].
Re Claim 12, Chang in view of Park discloses, the optical device according to claim 1, and Chang further discloses on Fig. 3, wherein the strips are in a rectangular ring-shaped arrangement (protrusions 22 of adhesive loop 2 are in a rectangular ring), and include two first strips facing each other (horizontal sides of adhesive loop 2) [Par 25-30] and two second strips facing each other (Vertical sides of adhesive loop 2) [Par 25-30], the light-weakening slots include a plurality of first light-weakening slots (protrusions 22 on horizontal sides of adhesive loop 2) and a plurality of second light-weakening slots (Protrusions 22 on vertical sides of adhesive loop 2) [Par 25-30], each of the first light-weakening slots has a first shape (triangular shape), and each of the second light-weakening slots has a second shape (Triangular shape), and wherein the first light-weakening slots are recessed in the inner layout segments of the two first strips (Triangular shapes are recessed in horizontal sides of adhesive loop 2) [Par 25-30], and the second light-weakening slots are recessed in the second strips and the outer layout segments of the two first strips (triangular shapes are recessed in vertical sides of adhesive loop 2) [Par 25-30].
But Chang in view of Park does not explicitly disclose, wherein the first shape is different from the second shape.
However, Park does disclose, on Fig. 2-3, alternate shapes for light diffusion slots in different directions (“Alternatively, the diffusing cavities 120 can be arrayed irregularly along the horizontal and vertical directions with different intervals (so that horizontal and/or vertical lines are not parallel to each other.”) [Col 4, Lines 5-15]. Thus, the prior art explicitly teaches providing alternate shapes for slots disposed in different directions. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of simply applying said design of the shape of the light diffusion slots, taught in the prior art, to Chang, who teaches wherein the first light-weakening slots are recessed in the inner layout segments of the strips (protrusions 22 of horizontal sides of loop 2), and the second light-weakening slots are recessed in the outer layout segments of the strips (protrusions 22 of vertical sides of loop 2) [Par 25-30]. Further, Park teaches that one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to change the shape of the slots in order to provide, improved luminance [Col 2, Lines 55-60].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Chang in view of Park such that, the first shape is different from the second shape, in order to provide improved luminance [Col 2, Lines 55-60], as taught by Park.
Re Claim 13, Chang in view of Park discloses, the optical device according to claim 12, and Chang further discloses on Fig. 3, wherein the light-weakening slots further include a plurality of third light-weakening slots recessed in connection parts between the inner layout segment and the two outer layout segments of each of the strips (Fig. 3 shows an irregular slot in each of the four corners between the horizontal slots defining the inner layout segments and the vertical slots defining the outer layout segments) [Par 25-30].
But Chang in view of Park does not explicitly disclose, wherein each of the third light-weakening slots has a third shape formed by a half of the first shape and a half of the second shape.
However, Park does disclose, on Fig. 2-3, alternate shapes for light diffusion slots in different directions (“Alternatively, the diffusing cavities 120 can be arrayed irregularly along the horizontal and vertical directions with different intervals (so that horizontal and/or vertical lines are not parallel to each other.”) [Col 4, Lines 5-15]. Thus, the prior art explicitly teaches providing alternate shapes for slots disposed in different directions. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of simply adjusting the shape of the third light weakening slots such that, each of the third light-weakening slots has a third shape formed by a half of the first shape and a half of the second shape. Further, Park teaches that one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to change the shape of the slots in order to provide, improved luminance [Col 2, Lines 55-60].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Chang in view of Park such that, each of the third light-weakening slots has a third shape formed by a half of the first shape and a half of the second shape, in order to provide improved luminance [Col 2, Lines 55-60], as taught by Park.
Re Claim 14, Chang in view of Park discloses, the optical device according to claim 12.
But Chang in view of Park does not explicitly disclose, wherein a quantity of the first light-weakening slots is within a range from 90% to 110% of a quantity of the second light-weakening slots.
However, Chang does disclose on Fig. 3, that the shape of each individual protrusion can be different [Par 27], and that the center-to-center distance between adjacent protrusions may range from 1 μm to 1 mm [Par 27]. Thus, Chang explicitly teaches the control and optimization of the size and spacing of said protrusions, both of the necessary factors to control the quantity of protrusions of both the first and second light weakening slots, as a variable that has a recognized result. Note that the Court has held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation; see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235. Further Chang teaches one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize said quantity in order to reduce flare [Par 30].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Chang in view of Park such that, a quantity of the first light-weakening slots is within a range from 90% to 110% of a quantity of the second light-weakening slots, in order to provide, reduced flare, as taught by Chang [Par 30].
Re claim 15, Chang in view of Park discloses, the optical device according to claim 1, and Chang further discloses on Fig. 3 and 5, wherein the slot openings of the light-weakening slots (openings of protrusions 22 in loop 2 in Fig. 3) are coplanar with each other (adhesive loop 2 is coplanar as can be seen in Fig. 5) [Par 27-30].
Re claim 16, Chang in view of Park discloses, the optical device according to claim 1.
But Chang in view of Park does not explicitly disclose, wherein the slot depth of each of the light-weakening slots is less than or equal to 50% of a width of a corresponding one of the strips.
However, Park teaches, on Fig. 5, that it is desirable in light diffusing structures to explicitly control the slot depth and (ratio of diameter to depth) [Col 4, Lines 25-10], and the placement of the slot bottom (bottom edges 132b). Thus, Park teaches the slot depth as a result effective variable, and optimizing said variable achieves a recognized result; Maximizing light diffusing power [Col 4, Lines 30-35].Note that the Court has held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation; see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Chang with Park such that, the slot depth of each of the light-weakening slots is less than or equal to 50% of a width of a corresponding one of the strips, in order to provide maximized light diffusing power as taught by Park [Col 4, Lines 30-35].
Re Claim 18, Chang discloses, on Fig. 2-3 and 5, an optical device, comprising: an electronic component (Fig. 5: chip 3) having a top surface (Fig. 5: top of chip 3), wherein the top surface of the electronic component has an optical region (see Fig. 3 and 4: center area over sensing region 32) [Par 25-30] and a carrying region (area outside of sensing region 32) that surrounds the optical region; a ring-shaped adhesive layer (adhesive loop 2) disposed on the carrying region of the electronic component and surrounding the optical region (See Fig. 3 and 5) [Par 25-30], wherein the ring-shaped adhesive layer includes a plurality of light-weakening slots (protrusions 22) that are formed on an inner side surface (inner peripheral surface 21) thereof and that face toward the optical region [Par 27], wherein the light weaking slots are in a ring-shaped arrangement (see Fig. 3), and surround the optical region (Fig. 5: loop 2 surrounds sensing reigon 32)[Par 25-30],
and a light-permeable layer (Fig. 5: light transmissible substrate 1) [Par 25-30] disposed on the ring-shaped adhesive layer, wherein the light-permeable layer, the inner side surface of the ring-shaped adhesive layer, and the top surface of the electronic component jointly define an enclosed space (Fig. 5: adhesive loop 2, thew top of chip 3, and substrate 1 defied an enclosed space) [Par 25-30]; wherein each of the light-weakening slots has a slot opening and a slot bottom that is spaced apart from the slot opening by a slot depth (Fig. 3: Center-to-center distance shows a slot opening and a slot bottom), and wherein a width of each of the light-weakening slots gradually decreases along a direction from the slot opening to the slot bottom (Fig. 3: triangular shape of protrusions creates a an opening that gradually decreases) [Par 25-30], the slot opening each of the light-weakening slots has a slot width (Fig. 3: protrusions 22 have width and depth), such that each of the light-weakening slots is configured to weaken light that irradiates thereon by entering into the enclosed space (light scattering and reducing of flare by protrusions 22)[Par 30]
But Chang does not explicitly disclose, a ratio of the slot width to the slot depth is within a range from 1:0.86 to 1:11.4.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Park teaches, on Fig. 3, that it is desirable in light diffusing structures to include a ratio of the slot width to the slot depth within a range from 1:0.86 to 1:11.4 (1:0.05 to 1:5) [Col 2, Lines 25-30]. Note: MPEP 2144.05 I states “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the art a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Chang with Park in order to provide maximized light diffusing power as taught by Park [Col 4, Lines 30-35].
Re Claim 19, Chaing in view of Park discloses, the optical device according to claim 18, and Chang further discloses on Fig. 3, wherein the light-weakening slots have a same shape (protrusions 22 have the same shape) [Par 25-30].
Re claim 20, Chang in view of Park discloses, the optical device according to claim 19.
But Chang in view of Park does not explicitly disclose, wherein the slot depth of each of the light-weakening slots is less than or equal to 50% of a width of a corresponding one of the strips.
However, Park teaches, on Fig. 5, that it is desirable in light diffusing structures to explicitly control the slot depth and (ratio of diameter to depth) [Col 4, Lines 25-10], and the placement of the slot bottom (bottom edges 132b). Thus, Park teaches the slot depth as a result effective variable, and optimizing said variable achieves a recognized result; Maximizing light diffusing power [Col 4, Lines 30-35].Note that the Court has held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation; see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Chang with Park such that, the slot depth of each of the light-weakening slots is less than or equal to 50% of a width of a corresponding one of the strips, in order to provide maximized light diffusing power as taught by Park [Col 4, Lines 30-35].
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Park as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamamoto (US 20160370512 A1).
Re Claim 17, Chang in view of Park discloses, the optical device according to claim 1.
But Chang in view of Park does not explicitly disclose, wherein, in each of the light-weakening slots, a length of the inner layout segment is within a range from 90% to 120% of a sum of lengths of the two outer layout segments.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Yamamoto teaches, on Fig. 14, that it is desirable in light diffusing layers to explicitly control the length of the inner layout segment, and the length of the outer layout segment (length of long and short axis of control layers 171 in film 167) [Par 167], and Yamamoto specifically teaches that the wavelength control layer 171 can any polygonal shape [170]. Since a square is a polygonal shape, in which a length of the inner layout segment 100% of a sum of lengths of the two outer layout segments, Yamamoto also teaches the claimed limitation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Chang in view of Park with Yamamoto in order to provide, increased light diffusion as taught by Yamamoto [Par 169].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Nirmal (US 20190146126 A1) teaches a light diffusing film with slots.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAY ALEXANDER DEAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571)-272-2713. 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.
/RAY ALEXANDER DEAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights