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 .
Detailed Action.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-11) in response/amendment is acknowledged. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art documents submitted by Applicant(s) in the information Disclosure Statement(s) have all been considered and made of record (note the attached copy of form(s) PTO-1449).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant(s) regard as their invention.
Claim 9 is indefinite for respectively reciting ‘wherein an orthogonal projection of the light guide entrance of the first resin layer on the cover is located in the non- display area’ since it is contrary to claim 8 limitation in which the light guide entrance of the first resin layer is the same portion of the orthogonal projection of the leveled region as shown in the figures and thus the claim 9 is not limitation claim 8, thus making the scope of the claims indefinite.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim 1-5 and 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Kong” et. al. and further in view of “Wang” et. al. US 20210365133 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Kong teaches display device (see figs. 1-10 and summary), comprising:
a reflective display panel 200; a light guide plate 110 comprising a top surface and a bottom surface (see item 110); a first resin layer 130 comprising a light guide entrance (see layer portion 130 adjacent to the light source 120—as “light guide entrance” similar to that of the applicant 132 which is really 134 layer portion), wherein the first resin layer 130 is located on the bottom surface (see figs. 6 when the display is rotated upside-down); a second resin layer 140 located on the top surface (see figs. 6 when the display is rotated upside-down) and comprising a microstructure/protrusions (see at figs. 3-5, and at least parag. 0086); and a first optical adhesive layer located between the reflective display panel and the first resin layer 130 (see parag. 0062; wherein the adhesive containing nano wires is used to adhere the display panel to the components such as the reason layer 130).
However, Kong does not teach that a) the above resin layer 130 has a “leveled region”, and b) wherein a refractive index of the leveled region of the first resin layer and a refractive index of the first optical adhesive layer are the same. Nonetheless, per applicant’s drawings and specification the “light guide entrance” having a leveled region is merely the same portion of the resin layer 130 which is adjacent to the light entering the light guide from its light source and has no real purpose and thus not critical or germane to the invention and that the optical resin of Kong would equally perform optical function as claimed. With regard to limitation b) though it is arguable that it would make sense to and 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 to match these refractive indexes for efficient optical coupling without optical losses, as for clarity reason in the same field of invention Wang teaches that optical reason layer comprises acrylic adhesive (see parag. 0040) with refractive index that facilitate desired optical coupling between the display layers. And thus it 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 to match/make the same indexes of reason layer with that of the epoxy layer for efficient optical coupling between the display layers .
The statements advanced in rejection of claim 1, above, as to the applicability and disclosure of the combined references and the motivation are incorporated herein in rejection of the following claims as follows:
With regard to claim 2, wherein the thickness of the light guide plate is less than 250 micrometers, such limitation is extremely conventional and it is in level of an ordinary skill in the art for small size packaging, as change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)
With regard to claim 3, Wang further teaches “wherein the refractive index of the first resin layer is in a range from 1.45 to 1.51, (see at least parag. 0023 and see motivation above).
4. (Original) The display device of claim 1, wherein a refractive index of the light guide entrance of the first resin layer is the same as the refractive index of the first optical adhesive layer (see analogous motivation for refractive index matching as stated for claim 1).
5. (Original) The display device of claim 1, wherein a refractive index of the first resin layer is different from a refractive index of the second resin layer (see at least par. 0055).
7. (Original) The display device of claim 1, wherein the refractive index of the first resin layer is smaller than the refractive index of the light guide plate (se parag. 0044).
8. (Original) The display device of claim 1, further comprising: a cover having a display area and a non-display area, wherein an orthogonal projection of the leveled region of the first resin layer on the cover is in the display area (see at least fig. 9 and parag. 0088).
9. (Original) The display device of claim 8, wherein an orthogonal projection of the light guide entrance of the first resin layer on the cover is located in the non- display area (see at least fig. 9 and parag. 0088).
10. (Original) The display device of claim 1, wherein the thickness of the “leveled region”/resin-layer is smaller than the thickness of the light guide entrance (see figs. 2-5).
11. (Original) The display device of claim 1, further comprising: a light source disposed at a light incident surface of the light guide plate, and the light guide entrance is located at a side of the first resin layer adjacent to the light incident surface (see figs. 2 and 9).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 6 is allowable because the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious its respective limitations in combination with the rest of the limitations of the base claim.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
Prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. In accordance with MPEP 707.05 the following references are pertinent in rejection of this application since they provide substantially the same information disclosure as this patent does. These references are:
US 20220057566 A1
US 20200387042 A1
US 20150205033 A1
US 20180031925 A1
US 20120250350 A1
US 10175416 B2
US 20220129093 A1
US 11143912 B2
US 20170102497 A1
US 20180252862 A1
US 20210365133 A1
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAVEH KIANNI whose telephone number is (571)272-2417. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-19.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Hollweg can be reached on571-270-1739. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KAVEH C KIANNI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights