DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, 5, 11, 14, 15 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 11 recite “at least one the light emitting units”, which has a typographical error and should read “at least one of the light emitting units”.
Claims 1 and 11 recite “at least one the light emitting units is arranged on the first side of at least one of the plurality of luminance auxiliary regions”, however the claim previously sets forth that the light emitting units are arranged at each vertex of the plurality of luminance partitions. It is unclear if “on the first side” requires the light source to be along the side or if at the vertex reads on the limitation. The Examiner has interpreted that a light source at the vertex reads as being located on both of the sides that connect to the vertex.
Claims 1 and 11 recite “at least one of the luminance auxiliary regions comprises a first side and a second side shared an edge with one of the luminance partitions”, it is unclear if both sides share an edge or if only one side shares an edge. The Examiner has interpreted the limitation requiring only one side sharing an edge.
Claim 4 and 14 recites “minimum distances between centers of the luminance partitions corresponding to a same one of the light emitting units and an edge of the same one of the light emitting units are equal”. It is unclear what “an edge of the same one of the light emitting units” is referring to. The light emitting units do not set forth an edge, only an edge of the lamp plate or an edge of the luminance partitions, which also is unclear if it is the same as a side of the luminance partition.
Furthermore, the minimum distance between each center of the luminance partitions and the light source must be identical as the light source units are arranged at the vertices of the luminance partitions and the luminance partitions are defined as being regular polygons. It is unclear how claim 4 further limits claim 1 from which it depends.
Claim 5 and 15 recite “wherein overlapping areas of the luminance partitions corresponding to the same one of the light emitting units and the same one of the light emitting units are equal”. The claim appears to have a typographical error. It is unclear what overlapping area is being referred to. Furthermore, the claim sets forth two of the same light emitting units having an overlapping area being equal. Reworded, the claim sets forth “wherein overlapping areas of the partitions corresponding to the first light emitting unit and the first light emitting unit are equal”. A partition cannot correspond to the multiple instances of the same light emitting unit.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (Cn101684904A, included on IDS).
Regarding claim 1, 904 teaches a lamp plate (light guide plate 350), wherein the lamp plate comprises a plurality of luminance partitions (hexagonal light emitting areas, see fig. 1), a shape of the luminance partitions is a regular polygon (hexagon), and
a light-emitting unit is arranged at each vertex of the luminance partitions (shown in figure 6), wherein the lamp plate comprises at least one luminance combination region with a fixed shape, comprising a first luminance partition (central hexagon) among the plurality of luminance partitions and a plurality of second luminance partitions (surrounding hexagons) among the plurality of luminance partitions surrounding and sharing edges with the first luminance partition, a center of the first luminance partition is defined as a first center, and centers of the second luminance partitions are defined as second centers, wherein in one said luminance combination region, distances between each one of the second centers and the first center are equal (equally arranged);
wherein the lamp plate further comprises a plurality of luminance auxiliary regions disposed at an edge of the lamp plate, at least one of the luminance auxiliary regions comprises a first side and a second side sharing an edge with one of the luminance partitions, and at least one of the light emitting units is arranged on the first side of at least one of the plurality of luminance auxiliary regions (see annotated figure).
PNG
media_image1.png
787
1024
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Examiner notes that figure 4 is referred to throughout the rejection as figure 4 shows the hexagonal structures clearly. The Examiner is relying on the embodiment disclosed in figure 6, wherein the light sources of figure 4 are located at the vertexes of the hexagonal structures.
904 does not specifically teach that a shape of each of the light emitting units is circular (auxiliary region light sources are semicircular).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used formed the light emitting units of 904 to all be circular.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have formed the auxiliary region light sources to be circular as doing so would result in cheaper manufacture, only a single shape is required to be formed in the light guide plate.
The Examiner further finds that the shapes as recited are equivalents in the art. Applicant discloses in p. 0063 that the noncircular regions at the perimeter are the preferred embodiment, but sets up the different shapes as substitutions, but that these shapes require precutting. Evidence that these are equivalents known in the art presents strong evidence of obviousness in substituting one for the other. Smith v. Hayashi, 209 USPQ at 750.
Regarding claim 2, 904 teaches that wherein lines connecting all the second centers to the first center are located on three different straight lines.
Regarding claim 3, 904 teaches that the center of any one of the luminance partitions is co-circular with the centers of other five of the luminance partitions (regular hexagonal pattern).
Regarding claim 4, 904 teaches that minimum distances between the centers of the luminance partitions corresponding to one same said light- emitting unit and an edge of the same said light-emitting unit are equal (regular hexagons, light units at each vertex see fig. 6).
Regarding claim 5, 904 teaches that overlapping areas of the luminance partitions corresponding to the same said light-emitting unit and the said light-emitting unit are equal (regular hexagon).
Regarding claim 6, 904 teaches that the plurality of luminance auxiliary regions and the plurality of luminance partitions form a rectangular light-emitting region (overall backlight is rectangular), wherein a shape of the luminance auxiliary regions is different from the shape of the luminance partitions (see fig. 4), a light-emitting unit is arranged on at least one vertex of the luminance auxiliary regions (shown in figure 6), and the luminance auxiliary regions share an edge with at least one of the luminance partitions (shares edge with luminance partitions).
PNG
media_image2.png
401
520
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, 904 teaches that all the light-emitting units are arranged within the rectangular light-emitting region (all within backlight).
Regarding claim 8, 904 teaches a length of the first side is greater than a length of the second side (see fig. 4).
Regarding claim 9, 904 teaches that all the light-emitting units are disposed within the rectangular light-emitting region.
Regarding claim 10, 904 teaches that the shape of the luminance partitions is either a regular triangle or a regular hexagon (hexagon), wherein, under a condition the shape of the luminance partitions is a regular triangle, the luminance combination region comprises one said first luminance partition and three said second luminance partitions, under the condition the shape of the luminance partitions is a regular hexagon, the luminance combination region includes one said first luminance partition and six second said luminance partitions (see fig. 4).
Regarding claim 11, 904 teaches a display panel comprising a lamp plate (light guide plate 350), wherein the lamp plate comprises a plurality of luminance partitions (light emitting regions), a shape of the luminance partitions is a regular polygon (hexagon), and a light-emitting unit is arranged at each vertex of the luminance partitions (see fig. 6), wherein the lamp plate comprises at least one luminance combination region with a fixed shape, comprising a first luminance partition among the plurality of luminance partitions and a plurality of second luminance partitions among the plurality of luminance partitions surrounding and sharing edges with the first luminance partition, a center of the first luminance partition is defined as a first center, and centers of the second luminance partitions are defined as second centers, wherein in one said luminance combination region, distance between each one of the second centers and the first center are equal (see fig. 4)
Wherein the lamp plate further comprises a plurality of luminance auxiliary regions disposed at an edge of the lamp plate, at least one of the luminance auxiliary regions comprises a first side and a second side sharing an edge with one of the luminance partitions, and at least one of the light emitting units is arranged on the first side of at least one of the plurality of luminance auxiliary regions.
904 does not specifically teach that a shape of each of the light emitting units is circular (auxiliary region light sources are semicircular).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used formed the light emitting units of 904 to all be circular.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have formed the auxiliary region light sources to be circular as doing so would result in cheaper manufacture, only a single shape is required to be formed in the light guide plate.
The Examiner further finds that the shapes as recited are equivalents in the art. Applicant discloses in p. 0063 that the noncircular regions at the perimeter are the preferred embodiment, but sets up the different shapes as substitutions, but that these shapes require precutting. Evidence that these are equivalents known in the art presents strong evidence of obviousness in substituting one for the other. Smith v. Hayashi, 209 USPQ at 750.
Regarding claim 12, 904 teaches that lines connecting all the second centers to the first center are located on three different straight lines.
Regarding claim 13, 904 teaches that the center of any one of the luminance partitions is co-circular with the centers of the other five of the luminance partitions.
Regarding claim 14, 904 teaches that minimum distances between the centers of the luminance partitions corresponding to one same said light- emitting unit and an edge of the said light-emitting unit are equal.
Regarding claim 15, 904 teaches that overlapping areas of the luminance partitions corresponding to the same said light-emitting unit and the said light-emitting unit are equal.
Regarding claim 16, 904 teaches that the plurality of luminance auxiliary regions and the plurality of luminance partitions form a rectangular light-emitting region (entire rectangular backlight), wherein a shape of the luminance auxiliary regions is different from the shape of the luminance partitions (triangular), a light-emitting unit is arranged on at least one vertex of the luminance auxiliary regions (see fig. 6), and the luminance auxiliary regions share an edge with at least one of the luminance partitions.
Regarding claim 17, 904 teaches that all the light-emitting units are arranged within the rectangular light-emitting region.
Regarding claim 18, 904 teaches that a length of the first side is greater than a length of the second side.
Regarding claim 19, 904 teaches that all the light-emitting units are arranged within the rectangular light-emitting region.
Regarding claim 20, 904 teaches that the shape of the luminance partitions is either a regular triangle or a regular hexagon (see fig. 4, 6), wherein, under a condition the shape of the luminance partitions is a regular triangle, the luminance combination region comprises one said first luminance partition and three said second luminance partitions, under the condition the shape of the luminance partitions is a regular hexagon, the luminance combination region comprises one said first luminance partition and six said second luminance partitions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that 904 does not teach that the shape of the edge light emitting units is circular, the Examiner finds that such a modification would be an obvious modification of 904 and is disclosed in Applicant’s disclosure as being substantially equivalent, specifically nonpreferred, aspect of the invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN101435947A (included on IDS) appears to teach a triangular arrangement of the luminous clusters, resulting in a similarly partitioned light guide plate.
CN114783383A and CN114566128A (included on IDS) teaches variation and optimization of LED placement resulting in a partitioned light guide plate.
The Examiner notes in the interest of compact prosecution that the claims and disclosure are directed towards the specific arrangement and shape of the partitions of the light guide plate and the layout of the lighting units in the backlight. Regarding the arrangement of the such lighting units and partitions, claims regarding the positioning of the structures are unpatentable if such rearrangement would not have modified the operation of the device (In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)) or if the rearrangement of parts would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was made. (Ex parte Chicago Rawhide Mfg. Co., 223 USPQ 351, 353 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1984)).
The Examiner finds in the current application that such a rearrangement of parts is an obvious optimization for light uniformity and control.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was made to have optimized the partition layout and light source location to optimize the light uniformity and control as taught by both 904 and CN114566128A. “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.” In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456.
It is well settled that a prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted "where the results of optimizing a variable, which was known to be result effective, [are] unexpectedly good." In re Antonie, 559 F.2d at 620, 195 USPQ at 8-9 “However, even though applicant's modification results in great improvement and utility over the prior art, it may still not be patentable if the modification was within the capabilities of one skilled in the art.” Aller 456.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J PEERCE whose telephone number is (571)272-6570. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4pm EST.
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, James Greece can be reached on (571) 272-3711. 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.
/Matthew J. Peerce/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875