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 .
Attorney Docket Number: 133130-US-PA
Filling Date: 05/17/24
Priority Date: 06/30/23
Inventor: Chang et al
Examiner: Bilkis Jahan
DETAILED ACTION
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cao et al (US 2012/0057102 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Cao discloses a display device (Figs. 1, 3), comprising: a display module 12 (Para. 22) having a display region 12; and a backlight module 10, 20 (Para. 22) overlapped with the display module 12 and comprising a plurality of light emitting diodes 40, 50, 60 (Para. 22); wherein the plurality of light emitting diodes 40, 50, 60 form a light emitting region 30 (Paras. 22, 24), the light emitting region 30 is overlapped with the display region 12, and an area of the light emitting region 30 is larger than an area of the display region 12.
Regarding claim 2, Cao discloses the display device according to claim 1, wherein a difference between a length of the light emitting region 30 and a length of the display region 12 is greater than 0 (Figs. 1, 3) and smaller than or equal to 10 mm.
Regarding claim 3, Cao discloses the display device according to claim 1, wherein the light emitting region 30 comprises a plurality of first unit regions 60 and a plurality of second unit regions 50, and an area of one of the plurality of first unit regions 30-1 is equal to an area of one of the plurality of second unit regions 30-2, and a density of the light emitting diodes of one of the plurality of second unit regions 50 is greater (brighter, light density, Fig. 3) than a density of the light emitting diodes of one of the plurality of first unit regions 60.
Regarding claim 4, Cao discloses the display device according to claim 3, wherein the plurality of second unit regions 50 surround the plurality of first unit regions 60 (surround one side).
Regarding claim 16, Cao further discloses the display device according to claim 1, wherein pitches of the plurality of light emitting diodes 40, 50, 60 are the same.
Regarding claim 17, Cao further discloses the display device according to claim 1, wherein all of the display region 12 falls within the light emitting region 10, 20, 40, 50, 60.
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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao et al (US 2012/0057102 A1) in view of Shao et al (US 2020/0117050 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Cao does not explicitly disclose the display device according to claim 3, wherein the light emitting diodes in the plurality of first unit regions and the light emitting diodes in the plurality of second unit regions are controlled by different chips respectively.
However, Shao discloses the light emitting diodes in the plurality of first unit regions 104 (Fig. 1, Para. 42) and the light emitting diodes 105 (Para. 43) in the plurality of second unit regions 104 are controlled by different chips 103 respectively. Shao teaches the above modification is used to supply drive current separately to the LEDs of the device (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Cao structure with Shao driver chips as suggested above to supply drive current separately to the LEDs of the device (Abstract).
Claim(s) 18-19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao et al (US 2012/0057102 A1) in view of Liu et al (US 2022/0413340 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Cao discloses the display device according to claim 1, wherein the backlight module further comprises: a back plate 10, 20 comprising a bottom portion, a side wall portion, and a carrying portion 30, wherein the plurality of light emitting diodes 40, 50, 60 are disposed on the bottom portion 30, and the display module 12 is disposed on the carrying portion 30.
Cao does not explicitly disclose a reflection sheet disposed on the side wall portion. However, Liu discloses a reflection sheet 192 (Fig. 3, Para. 46) disposed on the side wall portion 170 (Para. 46). Liu teaches the above modification is used to save power of the device (Para. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combined Cao structure with Liu reflection sheet as suggested above to save power of the device (Para. 3).
Regarding claim 19, Cao does not explicitly disclose the display device according to claim 18, wherein a maximum lateral distance between the reflection sheet and the display region of the display module is from 1mm to 10mm.
However, Liu discloses a particular distance between the reflection sheet 192 and the display region of the display module 200 (Para. 36). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to obtain a maximum lateral distance between the reflection sheet and the display region of the display module is from 1mm to 10mm for intended purposes.
the applicants have not established the criticality (see next paragraph below) of the distance.
CRITICALITY
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed distance or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 20, Cao discloses the display device according to claim 18, wherein the backlight module further comprises: an optical film sheet 20 disposed on the carrying portion 30 and positioned between the display module 12 and the plurality of light emitting diodes 40, 50, 60, wherein the optical film sheet 20 maintains a light mixing distance with the plurality of light emitting diodes through the carrying portion 30.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-10, 12-15 are 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BILKIS JAHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5022. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 am-5 Pm.
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, Marlon T Fletcher can be reached at (571)272-2063. 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.
BILKIS . JAHAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2817
/BILKIS JAHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights