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 .
Response to Election/Restriction
Claims 4, 6, 10-11 and 13-14 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9 April 2026.
Foreign Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) to foreign application PCT/KR2022008532 filed on 6/16/2022. The foreign application is not in English. The certified copy of the foreign priority application has been received. Filing Dates for the Claims — All Claims Not Entitled to Priority DateTo be entitled to the filing date of the foreign priority application PCT/KR2022008532 that is not in English, an English translation of the non-English language foreign application and a statement that the translation is accurate in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55 is required to perfect the claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The foreign application must adequately support the claimed subject matter, meaning satisfy the written description and enablement requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a). See MPEP §§ 215 and 216. 37 C.F.R. 1.55(g)(3)(ii)-(iii). To demonstrate compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(a), applicant should point to support for their claimed subject matter in their translations.
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 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 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Song, D. et al. (US Pub. 20150185410), hereinafter referred to as Song D..
Regarding claim 1, Song D. teaches a display apparatus comprising: a light source device configured to emit light (Song D., Fig. 1); a display panel (Song D., 100, Fig. 1, para. 49) configured to display the light emitted from the light source device; and an optical sheet (Song D., 260, Fig. 1, para. 58) disposed at a rear of the display panel, wherein the light source device comprises: a substrate (Song. D, 500, Fig. 1, para. 48); at least one light source (Song, D. 210b, Fig. 1, para. 60) electrically connected to the substrate; a light conversion member configured to convert a wavelength of light emitted from the light source (Song, D. 220, Fig. 1, para. 58); and a conversion member cover (Song, D. 220c, Fig. 2, para. 68) covering the light conversion member and configured to allow light to pass therethrough.
PNG
media_image1.png
487
593
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
457
538
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Song, D. teaches the display apparatus of claim 1, wherein the conversion member cover (Song, D. 220c, Fig. 2, para. 68) is disposed on the substrate Song. D, 500, Fig. 1, para. 48).
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 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 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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song. D. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Im, et al. (US Pub. 20150042919), hereinafter referred to as Im and Song, H. et al. (US Pub. 20190221724, hereinafter referred to as Song H.
Regarding claim 2, Song D. teaches the display apparatus of claim 1, but does not teach wherein the at least one light source comprises a first light source on a first side of the light conversion member and a second light source on a second side of the light conversion member opposite to the first side.
However, Song H. teaches a light source (Song H., LS, Fig. 2, para. 43) is mounted on the sidewall of the apparatus and a light conversion member (Song H., CVL1, Fig. 2, para. 43) is mounted centrally in the device. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Song, D. with the component placement of Song H. provide even distribution of the generated light to the display panel (Song H., para. 4)
Additionally, Im teaches liquid crystal display apparatus (Im, 100, Fig.2, para. 60) wherein there are two light sources (Im, 131, 133, Fig. 1, para.64) mounted on either end of a light guide plate (Im, 150, Fig. 1, para. 64). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to add the second light source of Im to the apparatus of Song D., with the modifications taught by Song H. in order to slim down the design (Im, para. 6).
PNG
media_image3.png
505
532
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
518
561
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claims 5, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song D. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhou et al. (US Pub. 20210408342) hereinafter referred to as Zhou.
Regarding claim 5, Song D. teaches the display apparatus of claim 1, but does not teach wherein the light source device further comprises a light source cover covering the light source and configured to block light emitted from the light source.
However, Zhou teaches a light emitting device wherein the light source (Zhou, 530, Fig. 5D, para. 74) are surrounded on two sides by a light reflective material (Zhou, 542, Fig. 5D, para. 74-75). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the apparatus of Song D with the reflective material of Zhou to attain the desired color temperature using less photoluminescence material (Zhou, para. 75).
PNG
media_image5.png
559
615
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, modified Song D. teaches the display apparatus of claim 5, wherein the light conversion member (Song, D. 220, Fig. 1, para. 58) is disposed on a first side of the light source (Song, D. 210b, Fig. 1, para. 60) opposite to a second side of the light source on which the substrate is located (Song. D, 500, Fig. 1, para. 48).
Regarding claim 8, modified Song D. teaches the display apparatus of claim 7, wherein the light source device further comprises a reflective member (Song D., 220a, Fig. 2, paras. 68-69) covering at least a portion of the conversion member cover and configured to reflect light.
Claims 9, 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song D. and Zhou as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Im.
Regarding claim 9, modified Song D. teaches the display apparatus of claim 7, but does not teach wherein the light source is inclined with respect to the substrate.
However, Im teaches a liquid crystal display apparatus wherein one of light sources can be angled (Im, 532, Fig. 15, para. 99-102). This angle is changeable to incrementally vary the amount of illumination (Im, para. 102). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the angled light source of Im with the apparatus of modified Song D. and create a design with the optimal desired amount of light.
PNG
media_image6.png
438
521
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, modified Song teaches the display apparatus of claim 9, wherein the light source device further comprises a substrate reflection layer (Im, 570, Fig. 15, para. 99) between the substrate (Im, 512, Fig. 15, para. 98) and the light source cover (Zhou, 542, Fig. 5D, para. 74-75) and configured to reflect light.
Regarding claim 15, modified Song D. teaches the display apparatus of claim 9, wherein the light source cover (Zhou, 542, Fig. 5D, para. 74-75) covers at least two surfaces of the light source (Zhou, 530, Fig. 5D, para. 74).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Schaefer et al. (US Pub 20140374780( details an LED system for illuminating plants wherein the LED is surrounded by a reflector ring.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIERAN M CUNNINGHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-9654. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-4:3.
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, Britt Hanley can be reached at 5712703042. 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.
/KIERAN M. CUNNINGHAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/Britt Hanley/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights