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 Amendment
The amendment filed by the Applicant on 12/12/25 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
before the effective filing date.
Claims 25-28 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura (US 7001060 B1, cited previously) in view of Lin (CN 103713351 A, cited previously)
Regarding claim 25, Kimura teaches a frontlight module (Fig.1A,2, 8A) configured for disposing on a side of a display panel (LCD), the frontlight module comprising: a light source 102; a light guide plate 101; and a plurality of light guide dots (106,306), wherein the light guide plate includes a first surface (upper surface 101c) and a second surface 101d disposed opposite to each other, the display panel is disposed facing the second surface (see LCD panel in Fig.1A) , the light source is disposed on a side surface of the light guide plate, the plurality of light guide dots are disposed on the second surface of the light guide plate, each light guide dot, from the plurality of light guide dots, has a columnar structure, each light guide dot, from the plurality of light guide dots, has a light guide surface disposed at an angle with respect to a surface of the light guide plate, a side surface of the columnar structure away from the light source forms the light guide surface, first light is reflected on the light guide surface and propagates to the display panel, and second light is refracted on the light guide surface and propagates to the display panel (Fig.4 and 5 of Kimura and Fig.1B and Fig.2 shows the LCD panel below).
Regarding, a center distance P between every two adjacent light guide dots is within a range of 20-500 micrometers (which is considered as the pitch),
Kimura teaches a pitch of : Thus, the pitch P is preferably set on the order of several hundreds of micrometers, for example, in the range of 100 to 500 .mu.m.
Further regarding: a ratio H/D of a heigh H to a width D of each light guide dot is within a range of 0.1-10. Kimura discloses:
Preferably, the width W and the height H are set on the order of several tens of micrometers, for example, in the range of 10 to 50 .mu.m. Therefore, the range of 0.1-10 is covered in Kimura’s disclosure of 10-50 micron range.
Kimura does not teach the light guide dots, from the plurality of light guide dots, in two adjacent rows are arranged in a staggered manner.
Lin teaches microstructures formed on the surface of the light guide, that are arranged in a staggered manner (Fig.2,3,4 [0041]-[0048]) and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the arrangement as disclosed in Lin in order to optimize the brightness.
Regarding claims 26-28, Kimura in view of Lin already teaches (from teachings of Kimura) a distance between two adjacent light guide dots in its design (P in Fig.2); and also height H that is accounted for in the design; and the refractive index of the light guide (see disclosure from Kimura in rejection in claim 1 above) and also the angles (see disclosure from Kimura in rejection in claim 1 above). Further even more, Kimura also teaches the same ray tracing that is outcome of causing reflection at the light guide dot inclined surface, therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to achieve, S > H * tan(arcsin((n/n1)sin(90°-p))) wherein H is a height of the columnar structure, n is a refractive index of the light guide plate, n1 is a refractive index of an outer side medium of the light guide plate, and p is an incident angle of light on the side surface of the light guide plate and D/H1/tan3 wherein p is the incident angle of light on the side surface of the light guide plate; wherein a cross section of the columnar structure is a rectangle, a width of the rectangle is D, a height of the rectangle is H, and D and H satisfy: D/H1/tan3 wherein p is the incident angle of light on the side surface of the light guide plate; and , wherein a cross section of the columnar structure is an inverted trapezoid, a top surface of the inverted trapezoid is connected to the second surface, a width of the top surface of the inverted trapezoid is D, a height of the inverted trapezoid is H, and D and H satisfy: D/H1/tan3 + 1/tanO wherein p is the incident angle of light on the side surface of the light guide plate, and o is the angle between the light guide surface and the surface of the light guide plate, since where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the “optimum range” of an result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art in order to achieve the desired reflection at the trapezoidal side surface.
Further for claim 28, Kimura in view of Lin teaches (from the teachings in Kimura); the angle Ɵ between the light guide surface and the surface of the light guide plate is between 80 and 90° (from the teachings of Fig.3A to 5, wherein the angles increase as we move on in the various drawings).
Regarding claim 32, Kimura in view of Lin teaches a frontlight module; wherein the center distance P is preferably within the range of 50 to 200 microns Kimura teaches a pitch of: Thus, the pitch P is preferably set on the order of several hundreds of micrometers, for example, in the range of 100 to 500 .mu.m;
and the ratio H/D is preferably within the range of 0.1 to 2 (Kimura discloses: Preferably, the width W and the height H are set on the order of several tens of micrometers, for example, in the range of 10 to 50 .mu.m. Therefore, the range of 0.1-10 is covered in Kimura’s disclosure of 10-50 micron range).
Claims 1 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura (US 7001060 B1, cited previously) in view of Shinkai (JP 2012089385 A)
Regarding claim 1, Kimura teaches a frontlight module (Fig.1A,2, 8A) configured for disposing on a side of a display panel (LCD), the frontlight module comprising: a light source 102; a light guide plate 101; and a plurality of light guide dots (106,306), wherein the light guide plate includes a first surface (upper surface 101c) and a second surface 101d disposed opposite to each other, the display panel is disposed facing the second surface (see LCD panel in Fig.1A) , the light source is disposed on a side surface of the light guide plate, the plurality of light guide dots are disposed on the second surface of the light guide plate, each light guide dot, from the plurality of light guide dots has trapezoidal structure, each light guide dot, from the plurality of light guide dots, has a light guide surface 106d disposed at an angle with respect to a surface of the light guide plate,
a top surface of the trapezoidal structure is connected to the second surface, a waist on a side of the trapezoidal structure away from the light source forms the light guide surface, and light is fully reflected and/or refracted on the light guide surfaces and propagates to the display panel (light rays in Fig.3A, 4,5, 7B, 1A and 2).
Kimura teaches total internal reflection within the light guide as well as the rays reflected by the inclined surface of the dots, and also the shape of the dots (instant Fig.17a is relied upon in the rejection which has the same ray trajectory), but does not teach:
the angle between the light guide surface and the surface of the light guide plate is θ, an incident angle of light on the side surface of the light guide plate is β, and β and θ satisfy: β + θ≥ 90° + arcsin (n1/n) wherein n is a refractive index of the light guide plate, and n1 is a refractive index of an outer side medium of the light guide plate.
However, the parameters as claimed are result effective variables, which are disclosed in Kimura in:
PNG
media_image1.png
82
269
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
140
280
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
249
299
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
125
255
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Such that φout of Kimura is equivalent of Ɵ as claimed
90 degrees minus Ɵ1 of Kimura is equivalent of β as claimed
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide: the angle between the light guide surface and the surface of the light guide plate is θ, an incident angle of light on the side surface of the light guide plate is β, and β and θ satisfy: β + θ≥ 90° + arcsin (n1/n) wherein n is a refractive index of the light guide plate, and n1 is a refractive index of an outer side medium of the light guide plate; by routine experimentation/simulations, since where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the “optimum range” of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art in order to achieve the desired/optimized reflection at the trapezoidal side surface.
Regarding the limitation of “wherein a width of the top surface of the trapezoidal structure is D, a height of the trapezoidal structure is H, and D and H satisfy: D/H ≤ 1/tanβ− tan (θ− 90°) wherein θ is the angle between the light guide surface and the surface of the light guide plate, and β is an incident angle of light on the side surface of the light guide plate”;
W of Kimura is equivalent of D as claimed
H of Kimura is equivalent of H as claimed
90 degrees minue Ɵ1 of Kimura is equivalent of β as claimed
Therefore, the claimed relation depends on result effective variables that are used in Kimura in view of Shinkai’s (from teachings of Kimura) design and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide: a width of the top surface of the trapezoidal structure is D, a height of the trapezoidal structure is H, and D and H satisfy: D/H ≤ 1/tanβ− tan (θ− 90°) wherein θ is the angle between the light guide surface and the surface of the light guide plate, and β is an incident angle of light on the side surface of the light guide plate; by routine experimentation/simulations, since where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the “optimum range” of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art in order to achieve desired/optimized reflection at the trapezoidal side surface.
Kimura does not teach:
a width of the bottom surface of each of the plurality of light guide dots, connected to the light guide plate is the same; vertex angles of the trapezoidal structure of each light guide are the same; and
the heights of the plurality of the light guide dots gradually increase from a side close to the light source to a side away from the light source.
However, increase in height of microstructures on light guide surfaces, as the distance from the light source increases, are well known techniques in the art.
Shinkai explicitly teaches a trapezoidal light guide dot, and explicitly mentions the change in height alone (therefore it implies that all other parameters are the same, because if they width and angel were also to change with respect to the distance from the light source, then Shinkai would mention/disclose it), as we go pass the light source,
Wherein Shinkai discloses 11 as the light guide dot below:
PNG
media_image5.png
98
148
media_image5.png
Greyscale
And further Shinkai explicitly discloses:
Each convex portion 11 has a shape that decreases in height as it approaches the light source 20, and specifically, as shown in FIG. It has a trapezoidal shape.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the height increase as distance from light source increases, as disclosed in Shinkai, in the device of Kimura, in order to adjust the intensity of light away from the light source, thereby achieving uniformity of light.
Regarding claim 33, Kimura in view of Shinkai teaches a frontlight module; wherein the center distance P between every two adjacent light guide dots is within the range of 50 to 200 microns (Kimura teaches a pitch of: Thus, the pitch P is preferably set on the order of several hundreds of micrometers, for example, in the range of 100 to 500 .mu.m);
and the ratio H/D of a height H to a width D of each light guide dot is within the range of 0.1 to 2 (Kimura discloses: Preferably, the width W and the height H are set on the order of several tens of micrometers, for example, in the range of 10 to 50 .mu.m. Therefore, the range of 0.1-10 is covered in Kimura’s disclosure of 10-50 micron range).
Claims 10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura in view of Shinkai and further in view of Arai (US 20080055928 A1, cited previously)
Regarding claim 10, Kimura in view of Shinkai teaches the invention set forth in claim 1 above, but is silent regarding a light receiving element, wherein the light receiving element is connected between the light source and the light guide plate, and the light receiving element is configured to converge light emitted by the light source and enable an emission angle of incident light that enters the light guide plate to be within a preset angle range.
Arai teaches a light receiving element (6 in Fig.4), wherein the light receiving element is connected between the light source and the light guide plate, and the light receiving element is configured to converge (claim 1 of Arai) light emitted by the light source and enable an emission angle of incident light that enters the light guide plate to be within a preset angle range and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the converging lens before the light source, in the device of Kimura in view of Shinkai in order to converge the light from the light source.
Regarding claim 14, Kimura in view of Shinkai and Arai teaches the invention set forth in claim 10 above, but is silent regarding the preset angle range is −35° to +35°. However, since Kimura in view of Shinkai and Arai already teaches the converging lens before the light source, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the converging lens before the light source with a preset angle with the claimed range, by routine experimentation/simulation in order to optimize the convergence.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura in view of Shinkai and Arai and further in view of Han (US 20190317263 A1, cited previously)
Regarding claim 11, Kimurai in view of Shinkai and Arai teaches the invention set forth in claim 10 above, but is silent regarding the light receiving element includes a microstructural film bonded to the side surface of the light guide plate using an optical adhesive.
Han teaches the light receiving element includes a microstructural film (500 DBR in [0066]) bonded to the side surface of the light guide plate using an optical adhesive ([0072]) and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a Bragg filter film as a light receiving element before the light source, in the device of Kimurai in view of Shinkai and Arai in order to improve the light efficiency.
Regarding claim 12, Kimurai in view of Shinkai, Arai and Han teaches the microstructural film includes a plurality of light blocking grids, an extension direction of the plurality of light blocking grids is perpendicular to a thickness direction of the light guide plate, the plurality of light blocking grids are arranged at intervals in a thickness direction of the light guide plate, and a light transmission region is between two adjacent light blocking grids of the plurality of light blocking grids (Fig.7-8 and [0097]/[0099]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimurai in view of Shinkai, Arai and Han further in view of Jia (CN 105987327 A, cited previously)
Regarding claim 13, Kimurai in view of Shinkai, Arai and Han teaches the invention set forth in claim 12 above, but is silent regarding a cross section of each light blocking grid, of the plurality of light blocking grids, in the thickness direction of the light guide plate is a triangle, and a sharp angle of the triangle faces a side proximate to the light guide plate.
Jia teaches a cross section of each light blocking grid ( a plurality of light sources 102, two adjacent light sources 102 is provided with a dark area compensating unit 103), of the plurality of light blocking grids 103 (Fig.1-2), in the thickness direction of the light guide plate is a triangle, and a sharp angle of the triangle faces a side proximate to the light guide plate and from the teachings of Jia, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the tapered opaque regions, at the light source output of Kimurai in view of Shinkai, Arai and Han in order to achieve collimating back light emission.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura in view of Shinkai and further in view of Kawashima (JP 2002231030 A, cited previously)
Regarding claim 15, Kimura in view of Shinkai teaches the invention set forth in claim 1 above, but is silent regarding a refractive index buffer layer, wherein the refractive index buffer layer is disposed on a side of the light guide plate facing the light guide dots.
Use of buffer layers between light guides and the other neighboring layers is well known in the art. Kawashima teaches a buffer layer 15 with a low refractive index (In the above embodiment, the case where the buffer material is the fluid 15 composed of a transparent low refractive index substance in the form of a gel or a liquid has been described as an example) and from the teachings of Kawashima, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a similar buffer layer, wherein the refractive index buffer layer is disposed on a side of the light guide plate facing the light guide dots, in the device of Kimura in view of Shinkai in order to improve the optical performance.
Further, Kimura in view of Shinkai and Kawashima teaches the refractive index of the buffer layer is less than the refractive index of the light guide plate (see in Kawashima: In this case, the refractive index n2 of the fluid 15 is set smaller than the refractive index n1 of the transparent substrate 2A), but is silent regarding and the refractive index buffer layer has a buffer rate within a range of 1.2 to 1.6.
Use of a buffer layer between the light guide and the Microstructures and with the claimed refractive index is well known in the art. Wang teaches a buffer layer between the light guide and the microstructures, and a buffer rate of the refractive index buffer layer is within a range of 1.2 to 1.6 (In a preferred embodiment, the preferred refractive index of the buffer layer 7 is between 1.4 and 1.7) and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the refractive index value, wherein the refractive index buffer layer is disposed on a side of the light guide plate facing the light guide dots in order to provide an additional protective layer.
Claims 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura in view of Lin (US 20220179261 A1, cited previously) and further in view of Shinkai
Regarding claim 17, Kimura teaches a display apparatus, comprising: a display panel ((Fig.1A,2, 8A, LCD panel in the lower portions of the Drawings); and a frontlight module, the frontlight module is disposed on a side of the display panel, and the frontlight module comprises:
a light source 102; a light guide plate 101; and a plurality of light guide dots (106,306), wherein the light guide plate includes a first surface (upper surface 101c) and a second surface 101d disposed opposite to each other, the display panel is disposed facing the second surface (see LCD panel in Fig.1A) , the light source is disposed on a side surface of the light guide plate, the plurality of light guide dots are disposed on the second surface of the light guide plate, each light guide dot, from the plurality of light guide dots has trapezoidal structure, each light guide dot, from the plurality of light guide dots, has a light guide surface 106d disposed at an angle with respect to a surface of the light guide plate,
a top surface of the trapezoidal structure is connected to the second surface, a waist on a side of the trapezoidal structure away from the light source forms the light guide surface, and light is fully reflected and/or refracted on the light guide surfaces and propagates to the display panel (light rays in Fig.3A, 4,5, 7B, 1A and 2).
Kimura teaches total internal reflection within the light guide as well as the rays reflected by the light guide surface of the dots, and the shape of the dots (instant Fig.17a is relied upon in the rejection which has the same ray trajectory), but does not teach:
the angle between the light guide surface and the surface of the light guide plate is θ, an incident angle of light on the side surface of the light guide plate is β, and β and θ satisfy: β + θ≥ 90° + arcsin (n1/n) wherein n is a refractive index of the light guide plate, and n1 is a refractive index of an outer side medium of the light guide plate. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide:
However, the parameters as claimed are result effective variables, which are disclosed in Kimura in:
PNG
media_image1.png
82
269
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
140
280
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
249
299
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
125
255
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Such that φout of Kimura is equivalent of Ɵ as claimed
90 degrees - Ɵ1 of Kimura is equivalent of β as claimed
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide: the angle between the light guide surface and the surface of the light guide plate is θ, an incident angle of light on the side surface of the light guide plate is β, and β and θ satisfy: β + θ≥ 90° + arcsin (n1/n) wherein n is a refractive index of the light guide plate, and n1 is a refractive index of an outer side medium of the light guide plate; by routine experimentation/simulations, since where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the “optimum range” involves only routine skill in the art in order to achieve reflection at the trapezoidal surface.
Kimura does not teach the display panel is connected to the frontlight module using an optical adhesive.
Lin teaches the display panel 4 is connected to the frontlight module 1 using an optical adhesive 3 ([0041]) and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the adhesive, in the device of Kimura, in order to robustly fix the layers.
Kimura in view of Lin does not teach:
Kimura does not teach:
a width of the bottom surface of each of the plurality of light guide dots, connected to the light guide plate is the same; vertex angles of the trapezoidal structure of each light guide are the same; and
the heights of the plurality of the light guide dots gradually increase from a side close to the light source to a side away from the light source.
However, increase in height of microstructures on light guide surfaces, as the distance from the light source increases, are well known techniques in the art.
Shinkai explicitly teaches a trapezoidal light guide dot, and explicitly mentions the change in height alone (therefore it implies that all other parameters are the same, because if they width and angel were also to change with respect to the distance from the light source, then Shinkai would mention/disclose it), as we go pass the light source,
Wherein Shinkai discloses 11 as the light guide dot below:
PNG
media_image5.png
98
148
media_image5.png
Greyscale
And further Shinkai explicitly discloses:
Each convex portion 11 has a shape that decreases in height as it approaches the light source 20, and specifically, as shown in FIG. It has a trapezoidal shape.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the height increase as distance from light source increases, as disclosed in Shinkai, in the device of Kimura, in order to adjust the intensity of light away from the light source, thereby achieving uniformity of light.
Regarding claim 20, wherein a width of the top surface of the trapezoidal structure is D, a height of the trapezoidal structure is H, and D and H satisfy: D/H ≤ 1/tanβ− tan (θ− 90°) wherein θ is the angle between the light guide surface and the surface of the light guide plate, and β is an incident angle of light on the side surface of the light guide plate;
W of Kimura is equivalent of D as claimed
H of Kimura is equivalent of H as claimed
90 degrees - Ɵ1 of Kimura is equivalent of β as claimed
Therefore, the claimed relation depend on result effective variables that are already used in the disclosure of Kimura in view of Lin and Shinkai (from Kimura’s design).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide: a width of the top surface of the trapezoidal structure is D, a height of the trapezoidal structure is H, and D and H satisfy: D/H ≤ 1/tanβ− tan (θ− 90°) wherein θ is the angle between the light guide surface and the surface of the light guide plate, and β is an incident angle of light on the side surface of the light guide plate; by routine experimentation/simulations, since where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the “optimum range” of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art in order to achieve reflection at the trapezoidal surface.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura in view of Lin and Shinkai and further in view of Friederich (US 20170331253 A1, cited previously)
Regarding claim 21, Kimura in view of Lin and Shinkai teaches the invention set forth in claim 17 above, but is silent regarding the front light module further comprises a light receiving element, the light receiving element is connected between the light source and the light guide plate, and the light receiving element is configured to converge light emitted by the light source and enable an emission angle of incident light that enters the light guide plate to be within a preset angle range.
Friederich teaches a light guide plate comprising a light receiving element, the light receiving element is connected between the light source and the light guide plate, and the light receiving element is configured to converge light emitted by the light source and enable an emission angle of incident light that enters the light guide plate to be within a preset angle range ([0080]) and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the lens, as disclosed in Friederich in the device of Kimura in view of Lin and Shinkai , in order to direct the light towards the surface of the light guide plate that form the trapezoidal structures.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura in view of Lin, Shinkai and Friederich and further in view of Liu (TW I378297 B,cited previously)
Regarding claim 22, Kimura in view of Lin, Shinkai and Friederich teaches the invention set forth in claim 21 above, but is silent regarding the light receiving element includes a microstructural film bonded to the side surface of the light guide plate using an optical adhesive.
Liu teaches a light source wherein light receiving element includes a microstructural film (214 in Fig.3) and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a microstructure and to bond it to the light guide using optical adhesives which are one of the many known techniques in the art, in order to control the convergence the light (The plurality of column microstructures are disposed between the plurality of point sources and the plurality of columns of microstructures converge light).
Claims 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura in view of Lin, Shinkai, Friederich and Liu and further in view of Hineno (CN 102959460 B, cited previously)
Regarding claims 23 and 24, Kimura in view of Lin, Shinkai, Friederich, and Liu teaches the invention set forth in claim 22 above but is silent regarding: the microstructural film includes a plurality of light blocking grids, an extension direction of the plurality of light blocking grids is perpendicular to a thickness direction of the light guide plate, the plurality of light blocking grids are arranged at intervals in a thickness direction of the light guide plate, and a light transmission region is between two adjacent light blocking grids of the plurality of light blocking grids (for claim 23) and a cross section of each light blocking grid, of the plurality of light blocking grids, in the thickness direction of the light guide plate is a triangle, and a sharp angle of the triangle faces a side proximate to the light guide plate (for claim 24).
Hineno teaches the claimed limitations in Fig.11(a) (of Hineno), and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the light absorbing bars, as disclosed in Hineno, in the device of Kimura in view of Lin, Shinkai, Friederich, and Liu in order to control the characteristic of directivity.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura in view of Shinkai and further in view of Taraschi (CN 104884992 A)
Regarding claim 30, Kimura in view of Shinkai teaches the invention set forth in claim 1 above, but is silent regarding: a distance between two adjacent rows of light guide dots, from the plurality of light guide dots, gradually decreases from a side near the light source to a side away from the light source so that the light guide dots on the side near the light source are distributed sparsely, and the light guide dots on the side away from the light source are distributed densely.
Taraschi discloses:
Light guide 516 includes a set of geometric light redirectors or prisms 517, the light from the light source 518 towards the aperture 508 and thus directed toward the display device 500 of the front. the light redirector 517 may alternatively be molded into the plastic body of light guide 516 is in the shape of triangle, trapezoid or curved in cross section. of the prism 517 density generally increases with the distance of the light source 518;
and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the spacing arrangement, as disclosed in Taraschi, in the device of Kimura in view of Shinkai, in order to achieve substantially uniform brightness
Other art
Cited previously
US 5396350 A,
US 11002901 B2
PNG
media_image6.png
610
542
media_image6.png
Greyscale
JP 2001051272 A
PNG
media_image7.png
820
612
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
The arguments filed by the Applicant on 12/12/25 is acknowledged, however they are moot in light of new grounds of rejection.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fatima Farokhrooz whose telephone number is (571)-272-6043. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday, 9 am - 5 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s Supervisor, James Greece can be reached on (571) 272-3711.
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.
/Fatima N Farokhrooz/
Examiner, Art Unit 2875