Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/674,912

BACKLIGHT MODULE AND DISPLAY DEVICE

Final Rejection §103
Filed
May 26, 2024
Examiner
APENTENG, JESSICA MCMILLAN
Art Unit
2875
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Coretronic Corporation
OA Round
3 (Final)
66%
Grant Probability
Favorable
4-5
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
84%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 66% — above average
66%
Career Allow Rate
636 granted / 969 resolved
-2.4% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+18.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
68 currently pending
Career history
1037
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
59.1%
+19.1% vs TC avg
§102
29.1%
-10.9% vs TC avg
§112
7.0%
-33.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 969 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Priority Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216. 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, 4-7, 9, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2020/0379159 A1) in view of Tsuji (US 2018/0275463 A1). Regarding claim 1, Li et al. teaches a backlight module, comprising: a light guide plate (100, figure 1) having a light incident surface (100b; see figure 1 where light source 110 is positioned next to the light guide 100) and a light exit surface connected to each other (see figure 1, light exit surface 100a); a light source (110; see at least figure 1) disposed at a side of the light incident surface (100b) of the light guide plate (100; see at least figure 1); an optical film (120; see at least figure 1 and 4; paragraph [0040]) overlapped with the light exit surface (100a) of the light guide plate (100; see at least figure 1 and 4), and the optical film (120; figure 1 and 4) comprises: a substrate (121) having a surface; and a plurality of optical microstructures (122) disposed on the surface of the substrate (121), and an extending direction of the plurality of optical microstructures (122; see figure 1 and 4) is substantially parallel to the light incident surface (100a, see figure 1), wherein any one of the plurality of optical microstructures (122) comprises a first inclined surface and a second inclined surface (see at least figure 1 and 4), there is a first base angle between the first inclined surface and the surface, and there is a second base angle between the second inclined surface and the surface (see at least figure 1 and 3), wherein an angle range of each of the first base angle and the second base angle is 50 degrees to 70 degrees (see paragraph [0039] where base angles where angle range of 45 degrees to 90 degrees is disclosed); and a first prism sheet (140; see at least figure 1) and a second prism sheet (see 130 in at least figure 1) overlapped with the optical film (120) and each of the first prism sheet and the second prism sheet having a plurality of prism structures (see prisms in 140 and 130 in at least figure 1), the plurality of prism structures (142) of the first prism sheet have a first extending direction (see 140 in at least figure 1), the plurality of prism structures (132) of the second prism sheet have a second extending direction (see 130 in at least figure 1), an angle range of an included angle between an extending direction of the plurality of optical microstructures and the first extending direction is 85 degrees to 95 degrees (see paragraph [0044]), and an angle range of an included angle between the extending direction of the plurality of optical microstructures and the second extending direction is 85 degrees to 95 degrees (see paragraph [0044]). Li et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the first prism sheet is located between the optical film and the light guide plate, the plurality of prism structures of the first prism sheet face the light exit surface of the light guide plate, and a refractive index of the plurality of prism structures of the first prism sheet is in a range of 1.56 to 1.59. PNG media_image1.png 493 541 media_image1.png Greyscale Tsuji (US 2018/0275463 A1) teaches wherein the first prism sheet (42; figure 1) is located between the optical film (diffusion layer 43 and substrate layer 41 combined; figure 1) and the light guide plate (3; figure 1), the plurality of prism structures of the first prism sheet face the light exit surface of the light guide plate (3; figure 1), and a refractive index of the plurality of prism structures (42) of the first prism sheet is in a range of 1.56 to 1.59 (see paragraph [0037] where the refractive index of the prism array 42 is in a range of no less than 1.35 and no greater than 1.70 which includes the claimed range). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the prism sheet of Li et al. to be located between the optical film and the light guide plate and a refractive index of the prism structures in a range of 1.56 to 1.59 as taught by Tsuji so that the display device is capable of appropriately controlling the characteristics of rays of light incident on the optical film (see paragraph [0011] of Tsuji]. Regarding claim 4, Li et al. the backlight module of claim 1, wherein the first base angle and the second base angle are substantially equal (see paragraph ) . Regarding claim 5, Li et al. teaches the backlight module of claim 1, further comprising: a diffusion structure layer (123; see at least figure 1; see paragraph [0041]) disposed at at least one of the substrate (121), the first prism sheet (140), and the second prism sheet (130), wherein a haze of the diffusion structure layer is less than or equal to 50% (see at least paragraph [0041] where haze is between 20% and 90%). Regarding claim 6, Li et al. teaches the backlight module of claim 5, wherein the diffusion structure layer (123; see at least figure 1) is disposed at at least one of a side of the substrate facing away from the plurality of optical microstructures (122), a side of the first prism sheet (140) facing away from the plurality of prism structures (130), and a side of the second prism sheet (130) facing away from the plurality of prism structures (see at least figures 1). Regarding claim 7, Li et al. teaches the backlight module of claim 1, wherein a material of the plurality of optical microstructures (122A) comprises a plurality of diffusion particles (see paragraph [0048] where optical microstructures 122A include diffusion particles 1222). Regarding claim 9, Li et al. teaches the backlight module of claim 1, wherein the optical film (150) is disposed between the first prism sheet and the second prism sheet (140 and 130). Regarding claim 11, Li et al. teaches the backlight module of claim 1, wherein the first base angle is disposed at aside in the any one of the plurality of optical microstructures (122; see at least figure 1) close to the light source (110; see at least figure 1), and the first base angle is greater than the second base angle (see paragraph [0044]). Regarding claim 12, Li et al. teaches the backlight module of claim 1, wherein a vertical projection of an extending path of the plurality of optical microstructures (122; see at least figure 1) at the substrate (121) has a wavy shape or a jagged shape (see shape of 122 in at least figure 1). Regarding claim 13, Li et al. teaches a display device, comprising: a display panel (see at paragraph [0046] where display panel is disclosed); and a backlight module (50; see at least figure 1 and paragraph [0036] ), wherein the display panel (paragraph [0046]) is disposed on the backlight module (50), and the backlight module (50) comprises: a light guide plate (100; figure 1) having a light incident surface (100b; see at least figure 1) and a light exit surface (100a; see at least figure 1) connected to each other; a light source (110; see at least figure 1) disposed at a side of the light incident surface of the light guide plate (100); an optical film (120) overlapped with the light exit surface (100a) of the light guide plate (100), and the optical film comprises: a substrate (121) having a surface (see at least figure 1); and a plurality of optical microstructures (122) disposed on the surface of the substrate (121), and an extending direction of the plurality of optical microstructures (122) is substantially parallel to the light incident surface (100a; see at least figure 1), wherein any one of the plurality of optical microstructures (122) comprises a first inclined surface and a second inclined surface (see left and right sides of 122 in at least figure 1), there is a first base angle between the first inclined surface and the surface (see paragraph [0038]), and there is a second base angle between the second inclined surface and the surface (see paragraph [0038]), wherein an angle range of each of the first base angle and the second base angle is 50 degrees to 70 degrees (see at least paragraph [0038] where range of 50 degrees to 70 degrees is disclosed); and a first prism sheet (140) and a second prism sheet (130) overlapped with the optical film (120) and each of the first prism sheet (140) and the second prism sheet (130) having a plurality of prism structures (see figure 1), the plurality of prism structures of the first prism sheet (140) have a first extending direction, the plurality of prism structures of the second prism sheet (130; see figure 1) have a second extending direction, an angle range of an included angle between the extending direction of the plurality of optical microstructures and the first extending direction is 85 degrees to 95 degrees (see paragraph [0044]), and an included angle between the extending direction of the plurality of optical microstructures and the second extending direction is 85 degrees to 95 degrees (see at least paragraph [0044]). Li et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the first prism sheet is located between the optical film and the light guide plate, the plurality of prism structures of the first prism sheet face the light exit surface of the light guide plate, and a refractive index of the plurality of prism structures of the first prism sheet is in a range of 1.56 to 1.59. Tsuji (US 2018/0275463 A1) teaches wherein the first prism sheet (42; figure 1) is located between the optical film (diffusion layer 43 and substrate layer 41 combined; figure 1) and the light guide plate (3; figure 1), the plurality of prism structures of the first prism sheet face the light exit surface of the light guide plate (3; figure 1), and a refractive index of the plurality of prism structures (42) of the first prism sheet is in a range of 1.56 to 1.59 (see paragraph [0037] where the refractive index of the prism array 42 is in a range of no less than 1.35 and no greater than 1.70 which includes the claimed range). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the prism sheet of Li et al. to be located between the optical film and the light guide plate and a refractive index of the prism structures in a range of 1.56 to 1.59 as taught by Tsuji so that the display device is capable of appropriately controlling the characteristics of rays of light incident on the optical film (see paragraph [0011] of Tsuji]. Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2020/0379159 A1) in view of Tsuji (US 2018/0275463 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Epstein et al. (US 2019/0339438 A1). Regarding claim 2, Li et al. modified by Tsuji teaches the backlight module of claim 1 and Li et al. further teaches wherein the plurality of optical microstructures (122; figure 1) further comprise a vertex angle away from the substrate (121; figure 1) but Li et al. does not explicitly teach a radius of curvature of the vertex angle is less than or equal to 5 microns. Epstein et al. teaches a plurality of microstructures (224; figure 11) comprising a radius of curvature of the vertex angle is less than 1 micron (see paragraph [0092]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the microstructures of Li et al. to have a radius of curvature of the vertex angle that is less than or equal to 5 microns as taught by Epstein et al. to achieve a desired luminance profile (see paragraph [0092] of Epstein et al.) Regarding claim 3, Li et al. modified by Tsuji and Epstein et al. teaches the backlight module of claim 2, and Li et al. further teaches wherein the vertex angle is protruded toward the light guide plate (100; see at least figure 1 where microstructures 122 have a vertex angle that protrudes toward the light guide plate 100). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7, 9 and 11-13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection necessitated by applicant’s amendment of dependent claims 1 and 13. Applicant amendment claims 1 and 13 to recite, “wherein the first prism sheet is located between the optical film and the light guide plate, the plurality of prism structures of the first prism sheet face the light exit surface of the light guide plate, and a refractive index of the plurality of prism structures of the first prism sheet is in a range of 1.56 to 1.59.”. A new reference, Tsuji, has been found to teach the newly recited limitation in claims 1 and 13. See rejection above. Claims 2-7, 9 and 11-12 are rejected based on dependency on a rejected base claim. 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. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA MCMILLAN APENTENG whose telephone number is (571)272-5510. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am-5:00 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, ABDULMAJEED AZIZ can be reached at 571-270-5046. 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. /JESSICA M APENTENG/Examiner, Art Unit 2875 /ABDULMAJEED AZIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 26, 2024
Application Filed
Sep 19, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Dec 30, 2024
Response Filed
Apr 15, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jul 17, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 16, 2025
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12585155
BACKLIGHT PANEL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12584605
LAMP FOR VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12578576
FRONT LIGHTING OF A DISPLAY FOR A WEARABLE E-READER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12570206
AUTOMOBILE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12557703
ILLUMINATOR, ILLUMINATOR REPAIRING DEVICE, AND ILLUMINATOR REPAIRING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

4-5
Expected OA Rounds
66%
Grant Probability
84%
With Interview (+18.3%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 969 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month