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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's preliminary amendment filed on 05 September 2024 has been entered. Claims 2-4, 6-7, 9, 11-14, 16, 22-23, 25, 27-28, 31, and 33 have been amended. Claims 5, 8, 10, 15, 17-21, 24, 29-30, and 32 have been cancelled. No claims have been added. Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9, 11-14, 16, 22-23, 25-28, 31, and 33 are still pending in this application, with claim 1 being independent.
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.
Claims 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 11, the limitation recites: “...an orthographic projection of an edge portion, corresponding to the second non-light incident surface, of the anti-peeping film...and an orthographic projection of an edge portion, corresponding to the second non-light incident surface, of the light adjustment layer...,” which renders the claim indefinite, as no non-light incident surface has been previously introduced for either of the anti-peeping film or the light adjustment layer. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the limitation as follows: --...an orthographic projection of an edge portion, corresponding to a second non-light incident surface, of the anti-peeping film...and an orthographic projection of an edge portion, corresponding to a second non-light incident surface, of the light adjustment layer...--. Clarification from the Applicant is requested and appropriate correction is required.
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 § 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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 9, 11-13, 16, 22, 31, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (CN 206057756 U), in view of Lee (US 2004/0135936 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Chen teaches or suggests a backlight module (Figs. 1-11), comprising: a first light guide plate (102) having a first light exit surface (a first light exit surface on the side of 103) and a first light incident surface (a first light incident surface formed by either of 102a and/or 102b) intersecting the first light exit surface (said surfaces intersect at a right angle, as shown in Figs. 1-9); an anti-peeping film (103) located on a side of the first light exit surface of the first light guide plate (as shown in Figs. 1-9); a second light guide plate (101) located on a side of the anti-peeping film away from the first light guide plate (as shown in Figs. 1-9), the second light guide plate (101) having a second light exit surface (a second light exit surface of 101, on a side of 200) away from the anti-peeping film (as shown in Figs. 1-9) and a second light incident surface (a second light incident surface formed by 101a and/or 101b) intersecting the second light exit surface (said surfaces intersect at a right angle, as shown in Figs. 1-9), wherein the second light incident surface and the first light incident surface are located at a same side of the first light guide plate (as shown in Figs. 1-9); and a first light source (120 and/or 140) and a second light source (110 and/or 130) that are arranged along a direction perpendicular to a reference plane (e.g., perpendicular to a reference plane along the first light exit surface), the first light source (120 and/or 140) being opposite the first light incident surface (as shown in Figs. 1-9); wherein the second light source (110 and/or 130) includes a first portion (the second light source 110 and/or 130 includes several portions, e.g., an emission surface), the first portion extending along the direction perpendicular to the reference plane (as shown in Figs. 1-9) and being opposite the second light incident surface (as shown in Figs. 1-9); and the reference plane is a plane where the first light exit surface is located (as shown in Figs. 1-9).
Chen does not explicitly teach that a side of the first light source proximate to the first light guide plate is staggered from a side of the second light source proximate to the second light guide plate, and the side of the first light source proximate to the first light guide plate is closer to a center of the first light guide plate than the second light source.
Lee teaches or suggests (Figs. 4-13) a side of the first light source proximate to the first light guide plate is staggered from a side of the second light source proximate to the second light guide plate (as shown in Figs. 4-6), and the side of the first light source proximate to the first light guide plate is closer to a center of the first light guide plate than the second light source (as shown in Figs. 4-6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Chen and incorporated the teachings of a side of the first light source proximate to the first light guide plate is staggered from a side of the second light source proximate to the second light guide plate, and the side of the first light source proximate to the first light guide plate is closer to a center of the first light guide plate than the second light source, such as taught or suggested by Lee, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of improving, or otherwise increasing, the marketability and/or utility of the device (e.g., by providing an embodiment which can be utilized in arrangements of stacked displays having varying light guide sizes), and/or reduce a size or thickness of the device, and/or simplify assembly of the device (e.g., by providing a display arrangement with components sized to reduce human error during assembly), and/or reduce the cost of manufacturing the device (e.g., by reducing the size of component parts of the device, i.e., the first light guide plate).
Regarding claim 2, Chen teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-11) the second light source further includes a second portion (a portion of 121 on which 1201 is disposed at 120, Fig. 10) connected to the first portion (as shown in Fig. 10, i.e., the claim does not recite any particulars of the portions, thus, 121 reasonably forms a portion of both light sources baring any such distinguishing features being recited in the claims), the second portion of the second light source being opposite the first light incident surface (as shown in Fig. 10); and the first light source is located between the first light incident surface and the second portion of the second light source (as shown in Figs. 1-10).
Regarding claim 3, Chen teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-11) a light-shielding component (103), wherein in the direction perpendicular to the reference plane, the light-shielding component is located between the first light source and the second light guide plate (as shown in Figs. 1-11, e.g., a line can be drawn through said components such that the light-shielding component is located between the first light source and the second light guide plate in a direction perpendicular to said reference plane, as shown in Figs. 1-9).
Chen does not explicitly teach an orthographic projection of the light-shielding component on the reference plane covers an orthographic projection of at least a portion of the first light source on the reference plane.
Lee teaches or suggests (Figs. 4-13) an orthographic projection of the second light guide on the reference plane covers an orthographic projection of at least a portion of the first light source on the reference plane (as shown in Figs. 4-13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Chen and incorporated the teachings of an orthographic projection of the light-shielding component on the reference plane covers an orthographic projection of at least a portion of the first light source on the reference plane (e.g., by forming the arrangement of components as shown in Lee, with the light shielding plate below said second light guide, as shown in Chen), such as taught or suggested by Lee, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of improving, or otherwise increasing, the marketability and/or utility of the device (e.g., by providing an embodiment which can be utilized in arrangements of stacked displays having varying light guide sizes), and/or reduce a size or thickness of the device, and/or simplify assembly of the device (e.g., by providing a display arrangement with components sized to reduce human error during assembly), and/or reduce the cost of manufacturing the device (e.g., by reducing the size of component parts of the device, i.e., the first light guide plate).
Regarding claim 4, Chen teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-11) in a direction parallel to the reference plane, the light-shielding component (103) extends to a space between the first light guide plate and the second light guide plate (as shown in Figs. 1-9).
Chen does not explicitly teach that the second light incident surface extends beyond the first light incident surface.
Lee teaches or suggests (Figs. 4-13) the second light incident surface extends beyond the first light incident surface in a direction parallel to the reference plane (as shown in Figs. 4-6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Chen and incorporated the teachings of the second light incident surface extends beyond the first light incident surface, such as taught or suggested by Lee, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of improving, or otherwise increasing, the marketability and/or utility of the device (e.g., by providing an embodiment which can be utilized in arrangements of stacked displays having varying light guide sizes), and/or reduce a size or thickness of the device, and/or simplify assembly of the device (e.g., by providing a display arrangement with components sized to reduce human error during assembly), and/or reduce the cost of manufacturing the device (e.g., by reducing the size of component parts of the device, i.e., the first light guide plate).
The Examiner notes the remained of the claim is not interpreted as being a required feature or limitation due to the presence of “and/or,” however, will address said limitation as follows:
The combined teachings of Chen and Lee teach or suggest all of the elements of the claimed invention, except for a partial boundary, away from the second light source, of a boundary of the orthographic projection of the light shielding component on the reference plane, and a partial boundary, away from the second light source, of a boundary of an orthographic projection of the first light source on the reference plane have a distance therebetween, and the distance is greater than or equal to 3.5 mm.
However, one skilled in the art would recognize the claimed range as a result effective variable, which can be tailored through routine experimentation in order to optimize the efficiency, performance, and/or quality of the device (e.g., with a reduced value of the claimed range resulting in more uncontrolled light being allowed to pass from the first light guide plate to the second light guide plate, and vice versa).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Chen and formed the device such that a partial boundary, away from the second light source, of a boundary of the orthographic projection of the light shielding component on the reference plane, and a partial boundary, away from the second light source, of a boundary of an orthographic projection of the first light source on the reference plane have a distance therebetween, and the distance is greater than or equal to 3.5 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In the instant case, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to optimize the light utilization efficiency of the device (e.g., by providing the device with a light shield sized to prevent leakage of uncontrolled light from the first light guide plate).
Regarding claim 6, Chen does not explicitly teach a light adjustment layer located between the anti-peeping film and the first light guide plate, the light adjustment layer including a third portion extending to a top of the first light source; and a first light-shielding layer located on a surface, facing the first light guide plate, of the third portion of the light adjustment layer, wherein the first light-shielding layer and the third portion of the light adjustment layer form the light-shielding component.
Lee teaches or suggests (Figs. 4-13) a light adjustment layer (25a, adjacent 22, and/or 25’ and 25a, adjacent 22, and/or 22a, 25a, and 25’, adjacent 22) located between the second light guide plate (21) and the first light guide plate (22), the light adjustment layer including a third portion (a portion extending from 24) extending to a top of the first light source (e.g., as shown in Fig. 5); and a first light-shielding layer (the surface of 25a, the portion extending over 22 from 24) located on a surface, facing the first light guide plate (22), of the third portion of the light adjustment layer (on a surface of said 25a opposite to said surface coupled to 25’), wherein the first light-shielding layer and the third portion of the light adjustment layer form the light-shielding component (as shown in Figs. 4-13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Chen and incorporated the teachings of a light adjustment layer located between the anti-peeping film and the first light guide plate, the light adjustment layer including a third portion extending to a top of the first light source; and a first light-shielding layer located on a surface, facing the first light guide plate, of the third portion of the light adjustment layer, wherein the first light-shielding layer and the third portion of the light adjustment layer form the light-shielding component (i.e. by incarnating said features below the second light guide plate of Chen, and thus, below said anti-peeping film of Chen), such as taught or suggested by Lee, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of simplifying assembly of the device (e.g., by providing a display arrangement with components sized fit a frame and back plate to reduce human error during assembly), and/or increasing, or otherwise improving the longevity of the device (e.g., by providing a feature to secure and protect the components within the lighting device), and/or improving the efficiency of the device (e.g., by providing a layer to improve light extraction from the first light source).
Regarding claim 9, Chen teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-11) the first light source (120 and/or 140) includes: a first light-emitting device (1201) and a first substrate (121) arranged sequentially along a direction away from the first light incident surface (as shown in Figs. 1-10), an extension direction of the first substrate being perpendicular or substantially perpendicular to the reference plane (as shown in Figs. 1-10).
Chen does not explicitly teach that the orthographic projection of the light-shielding component on the reference plane covers an orthographic projection of the first light-emitting device on the reference plane, and an orthographic projection of a portion of the first substrate on the reference plane.
Lee teaches or suggests (Figs. 4-13) the orthographic projection of the light-shielding component (said light shielding component formed by said 25a) on the reference plane covers an orthographic projection of the first light-emitting device (24a) on the reference plane, and an orthographic projection of a portion of the first substrate (24b) on the reference plane (as shown in Fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Chen and incorporated the teachings of the orthographic projection of the light-shielding component on the reference plane covers an orthographic projection of the first light-emitting device on the reference plane, and an orthographic projection of a portion of the first substrate on the reference plane, such as taught or suggested by Lee, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of simplifying assembly of the device (e.g., by providing a display arrangement with components sized fit a frame and back plate to reduce human error during assembly), and/or increasing, or otherwise improving, the longevity of the device (e.g., by providing a feature to secure and protect the components within the lighting device), and/or improving the efficiency of the device (e.g., by providing a layer to improve light extraction from the first light source).
Regarding claim 11, Chen teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-11) the second light guide plate (101) further has a second non-light incident surface (a second lateral side surface of 101, adjacent said light incident surface) intersecting the second light exit surface (as shown in Figs. 1-11), and the second non-light incident surface and the second light incident surface surround the second light exit surface (as shown in Figs. 1-11).
Chen does not explicitly teach a light adjustment layer located between the anti-peeping film and the first light guide plate: a back plate having an installation depression, wherein the first light guide plate, the anti-peeping film, the light adjustment layer, the second light guide plate, the first light source, and the second light source are located within the installation depression; and a plastic frame fastened to the back plate and including a first bending edge, wherein the first bending edge is located at a top of the back plate; wherein an orthographic projection of the first bending edge on the reference plane, covers an orthographic projection of an edge portion, corresponding to the second non-light incident surface, of the second light guide plate, an orthographic projection of an edge portion, corresponding to the second non-light incident surface, of the anti-peeping film, and an orthographic projection of an edge portion, corresponding to the second non-light incident surface, of the light adjustment layer.
Lee teaches or suggests (Figs. 4-13) a light adjustment layer (22a, and/or 27) located between the second light guide plate (21) and the first light guide plate (22): a back plate (28 and/or 30) having an installation depression (as shown in Figs. 4-13), wherein the first light guide plate (22), the light adjustment layer (22a, and/or 27), the second light guide plate (21), the first light source (24), and the second light source (23) are located within the installation depression (as shown in Figs. 4-13); and a frame (60 and/or 29) fastened to the back plate (as shown in Figs. 4-13) and including a first bending edge (as shown in Figs. 4-13), wherein the first bending edge is located at a top of the back plate (as shown in Figs. 4-13); wherein an orthographic projection of the first bending edge on the reference plane (an orthographic projection of said first bending edge on a reference plane parallel to the light exit surface of 22), covers an orthographic projection of an edge portion, corresponding to the second non-light incident surface, of the second light guide plate (as shown in Figs. 4-13), an orthographic projection of an edge portion, corresponding to a second non-light incident surface, of the light adjustment layer (the orthographic projection of said first bending edge covers projections of all of the above-recited elements contained therein, as shown by the arrangement of elements in Figs. 4-13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Chen and incorporated the teachings of a light adjustment layer located between the anti-peeping film and the first light guide plate: a back plate having an installation depression, wherein the first light guide plate, the anti-peeping film, the light adjustment layer, the second light guide plate, the first light source, and the second light source are located within the installation depression; and a frame fastened to the back plate and including a first bending edge, wherein the first bending edge is located at a top of the back plate; wherein an orthographic projection of the first bending edge on the reference plane, covers an orthographic projection of an edge portion, corresponding to the second non-light incident surface, of the second light guide plate, an orthographic projection of an edge portion, corresponding to the second non-light incident surface, of the anti-peeping film, and an orthographic projection of an edge portion, corresponding to the second non-light incident surface, of the light adjustment layer (i.e., by incorporating the above-recited features to the device of Chen, having 101 and 103 contained in a depression above said first light guide 102), such as taught or suggested by Lee, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of simplify assembly of the device (e.g., by providing a display arrangement with components sized fit a frame and back plate to reduce human error during assembly), and/or increase, or otherwise improve the longevity of the device (e.g., by providing a feature to secure and protect the components within the lighting device), and/or improve the efficiency of the device (e.g., by providing a layer to improve light extraction from the first light source).
The combined teachings of Chen and Lee teach or suggest all of the elements of the claimed invention, except for said frame is a plastic frame.
However, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Chen and formed the frame of plastic, since it has been held by the courts that selection of a prior art material on the basis of its suitability for its intended purpose is within the level of ordinary skill. In re Leshing, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 65 USPQ 297 (1945). In the instant case, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to reduce the cost and/or complexity of manufacturing the device, and/or reduce the weight of the device.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Chen does not explicitly teach a fixing component connected to the light-shielding component, wherein the fixing component is located between the first light source and the second portion of the second light source (as recited in claim 12); and wherein the orthographic projection of the light-shielding component on the reference plane covers an orthographic projection of the first light source on the reference plane; and the fixing component is connected to a side surface of the light-shielding component proximate to the second light source to form a structure, and along a direction perpendicular to an extension direction of the structure, a cross-section pattern of the structure of the light-shielding component and the fixing component is L-shaped (as recited in claim 13).
Lee teaches or suggests (Figs. 4-13) a fixing component (28) connected to the light-shielding component (as shown in Figs. 5-6), wherein the fixing component is located between the first light source and the second portion of the second light source (as shown in Figs. 5-6); and wherein the orthographic projection of the light-shielding component on the reference plane covers an orthographic projection of the first light source on the reference plane (as shown in Figs. 5-6); and the fixing component is connected to a side surface of the light-shielding component proximate to the second light source to form a structure (as shown in Figs. 5-6), and along a direction perpendicular to an extension direction of the structure, a cross-section pattern of the structure of the light-shielding component and the fixing component is L-shaped (as shown in Figs. 5-6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Chen and incorporated the teachings of a fixing component connected to the light-shielding component, wherein the fixing component is located between the first light source and the second portion of the second light source (as recited in claim 12); and wherein the orthographic projection of the light-shielding component on the reference plane covers an orthographic projection of the first light source on the reference plane; and the fixing component is connected to a side surface of the light-shielding component proximate to the second light source to form a structure, and along a direction perpendicular to an extension direction of the structure, a cross-section pattern of the structure of the light-shielding component and the fixing component is L-shaped (as recited in claim 13), such as taught or suggested by Lee, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of simplifying assembly of the device (e.g., by providing a display arrangement with components sized fit a frame and back plate to reduce human error during assembly), and/or increasing, or otherwise improving the longevity of the device (e.g., by providing a feature to secure and protect the components within the lighting device), and/or improving the efficiency of the device (e.g., by providing a layer to improve light extraction from the first light source).
Regarding claim 14, Chen teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-11) the second light guide plate (101) further has a second non-light incident surface (another lateral side surface of 101, adjacent said light incident surface of 101) and a bottom surface (a surface opposite to said exit surface of 101), the bottom surface facing away from the second light exit surface (as shown in Figs. 1-9); wherein the second non-light incident surface intersects and is perpendicular to the second light exit surface (as shown in Figs. 1-9).
Chen does not explicitly teach that the backlight module further comprises: a second light-shielding layer covering the second non-light incident surface, and a third light-shielding layer covering a portion of the bottom surface proximate to the second non-light incident surface, the third light-shielding layer being connected to the second light-shielding layer.
Lee teaches or suggests (Figs. 4-13) the backlight module further comprises: a second light-shielding layer (a lateral portion of 28 behind the light sources, or on opposite edges of the chassis transverse to the edges shown in Figs. 4-6) covering the second non-light incident surface (the mold frame 28 is understood to enclose the components of the lighting device, and thus, covers the second on-light incident surface), and a third light-shielding layer (another 25a beneath 21) covering a portion of the bottom surface proximate to the second non-light incident surface (as shown in Figs. 5-6), the third light-shielding layer being connected to the second light-shielding layer (via 28, as shown in Figs. 5-6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Chen and incorporated the teachings of the backlight module further comprises: a second light-shielding layer covering the second non-light incident surface, and a third light-shielding layer covering a portion of the bottom surface proximate to the second non-light incident surface, the third light-shielding layer being connected to the second light-shielding layer, since such as taught or suggested by Lee, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of simplifying assembly of the device (e.g., by providing a display arrangement with components sized fit a frame and back plate to reduce human error during assembly), and/or increasing, or otherwise improving the longevity of the device (e.g., by providing a feature to secure and protect the components within the lighting device), and/or improving the efficiency of the device (e.g., by providing a layer to improve light extraction from the light sources, or mitigate light loss or light leakage).
Regarding claim 16, Chen does not explicitly teach a mid-frame, the mid-frame including a bottom frame, wherein the bottom frame is located between the anti-peeping film and the second light guide plate, and is configured to carry the second light guide plate; and the bottom frame includes a first bottom plate at a same side as the first light source, wherein the first bottom plate extends to a top of the first light source; and an orthographic projection of the first bottom plate on the reference plane covers the orthographic projection of the at least a portion of the first light source on the reference plane, and the first bottom plate forms the light-shielding component.
Lee teaches or suggests (Figs. 4-13) a mid-frame (28), the mid-frame including a bottom frame (the L shaped portion of 28 surrounding said first light sources, and shown in Figs. 5-6), wherein the bottom frame is located between the first light guide plate and the second light guide plate (as shown in Figs. 5-6), and is configured to carry the second light guide plate (as shown in Figs. 5-6); and the bottom frame includes a first bottom plate (the portion of said bottom frame above said first light source, as shown in Figs. 5-6) at a same side as the first light source (as shown in Figs. 5-6), wherein the first bottom plate extends to a top of the first light source (as shown in Figs. 5-6); and an orthographic projection of the first bottom plate on the reference plane covers the orthographic projection of the at least a portion of the first light source on the reference plane (as shown in Figs. 5-6), and the first bottom plate forms the light-shielding component (as shown in Figs. 5-6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Chen and incorporated the teachings of a mid-frame, the mid-frame including a bottom frame, wherein the bottom frame is located between the first light guide plate and the second light guide plate, and is configured to carry the second light guide plate; and the bottom frame includes a first bottom plate at a same side as the first light source, wherein the first bottom plate extends to a top of the first light source; and an orthographic projection of the first bottom plate on the reference plane covers the orthographic projection of the at least a portion of the first light source on the reference plane, and the first bottom plate forms the light-shielding component, such as taught or suggested by Lee, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of simplifying assembly of the device (e.g., by providing a display arrangement with components sized fit a frame and back plate to reduce human error during assembly), and/or increasing, or otherwise improving the longevity of the device (e.g., by providing a feature to secure and protect the components within the lighting device), and/or improving the efficiency of the device (e.g., by providing a layer to improve light extraction from the light sources, or mitigate light loss or light leakage).
Regarding the bottom frame is located between the anti-peeping film and the second light guide plate, one skilled in the art would recognize that such a feature merely requires re-arranging the anti-peeping film on one side of the bottom frame above the first light guide plate, as opposed to directly beneath the second light guide plate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Chen and incorporated the teachings of the bottom frame is located between the anti-peeping film and the second light guide plate, since it has been held that rearranging parts of a prior art structure involves only routing skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In the instant case, the anti-peeping film appears to operate as intended in either position above or below the bottom frame, as both said positions are located between the first and second light guide plates.
Regarding claim 22, Chen teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-11) the second light guide plate (101) further has a second non-light incident surface (another lateral side surface of 101, adjacent to said second non-light incident surface) intersecting the second light exit surface (e.g., as shown in Fig. 11), the second non-light incident surface and the second light incident surface surrounding the second light exit surface (as shown in Fig. 11).
Chen does not explicitly teach that the backlight module further comprises: a back plate having an installation depression, the first light guide plate, the anti-peeping film, the first light source, and the second light source being located within the installation depression; and a plastic frame fastened to the back plate, the plastic frame including a first bending edge and a second bending edge; wherein the first bending edge is located at a top of the back plate; an orthographic projection of the first bending edge on the reference plane covers an orthographic projection of a portion, proximate to the second non-light incident surface, of the second light guide plate on the reference plane; a width of the first bending edge is W1; and the second bending edge is located at the top of the back plate; an orthographic projection of the second bending edge on the reference plane covers an orthographic projection of a portion, proximate to the second light incident surface, of the second light guide plate on the reference plane; and a width of the second bending edge is W2.
Lee teaches or suggests (Figs. 4-13) the backlight module further comprises: a back plate (28) having an installation depression (as shown in Figs. 5-6), the first light guide plate (22), the first light source (24), and the second light source (23) being located within the installation depression (as shown in Figs. 5-6); and a frame (29 and/or 60) fastened to the back plate (as shown in Figs. 5-6), the frame including a first bending edge and a second bending edge (a first and second bending edge formed by a bending edge of either of 29 or 60); wherein the first bending edge is located at a top of the back plate (as shown in Figs. 5-6); an orthographic projection of the first bending edge on the reference plane covers an orthographic projection of a portion, proximate to the second non-light incident surface, of the second light guide plate on the reference plane (orthographic projections of said bending edges of said frame cover the above-recited components, as shown in Figs. 5-6); a width of the first bending edge is W1 (as shown in Figs. 5-6); and the second bending edge is located at the top of the back plate (as shown in Figs. 5-6); an orthographic projection of the second bending edge on the reference plane covers an orthographic projection of a portion, proximate to the second light incident surface, of the second light guide plate on the reference plane (orthographic projections of said bending edges of said frame cover the above-recited components, as shown in Figs. 5-6); and a width of the second bending edge is W2 (as shown in Figs. 5-6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Chen and incorporated the teachings of the backlight module further comprises: a back plate having an installation depression, the first light guide plate, the anti-peeping film, the first light source, and the second light source being located within the installation depression; and a plastic frame fastened to the back plate, the plastic frame including a first bending edge and a second bending edge; wherein the first bending edge is located at a top of the back plate; an orthographic projection of the first bending edge on the reference plane covers an orthographic projection of a portion, proximate to the second non-light incident surface, of the second light guide plate on the reference plane; a width of the first bending edge is W1; and the second bending edge is located at the top of the back plate; an orthographic projection of the second bending edge on the reference plane covers an orthographic projection of a portion, proximate to the second light incident surface, of the second light guide plate on the reference plane; and a width of the second bending edge is W2, such as taught or suggested by Lee, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of simplifying assembly of the device (e.g., by providing a display arrangement with components sized fit a frame and back plate to reduce human error during assembly), and/or increasing, or otherwise improving the longevity of the device (e.g., by providing a feature to secure and protect the components within the lighting device), and/or improving the efficiency of the device (e.g., by providing features to improve light extraction from the light sources, or mitigate light loss or light leakage).
The combined teachings of Chen and Lee teach or suggest all of the elements of the claimed invention, except for said frame is a plastic frame.
However, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Chen and formed the frame of plastic, since it has been held by the courts that selection of a prior art material on the basis of its suitability for its intended purpose is within the level of ordinary skill. In re Leshing, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 65 USPQ 297 (1945). In the instant case, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to reduce the cost and/or complexity of manufacturing the device, and/or reduce the weight of the device.
The combined teachings of Chen and Lee teach or suggest all of the elements of the claimed invention, except for 3 mm ≤ W₁ ≤ 8 mm and 10 mm ≤ W₂ ≤ 17 mm.
However, one skilled in the art would recognize the recited ranges to be result effective variables, which can be tailored through routine experimentation in order to optimize the effective area of the display and image quality at the boarder of the display, or the appearance and structural integrity of the device (e.g., a smaller width resulting in too much light emission around the frame, and not enough coverage of the board of the display, while a larger width results in poor utilization of pixels of the display, covering too much of the second light guide plate, or a heavier frame, unnecessarily covering too much of the boarder of the display).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Chen and formed the widths such that 3 mm ≤ W₁ ≤ 8 mm and 10 mm ≤ W₂ ≤ 17 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In the instant case, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to optimize the effective area of the display and image quality at the boarder of the display, or the appearance and structural integrity of the device.
Regarding claim 31, Chen teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-11) a thickness of the first light guide plate is h2 (as shown in Figs. 1-11), a thickness of the second light guide plate is h3 (as shown in Figs. 1-11),
Chen does not explicitly teach that h2 and h3 satisfy: 0.5 < h3/h2 <1.
However, one skilled in the art would recognize the above-cited range to be a result effective variable, which can be tailored through routine experimentation in order to optimize the brightness or overall light efficiency of the display (e.g., light guide plate thickness is tailored to minimize light losses via total internal reflection, optimize total radiant flux, control brightness and uniformity, and optimize coupling efficiency).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Chen and formed the heights such that h2 and h3 satisfy: 0.5 < h3/h2 <1, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In the instant case, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to optimize the brightness or overall light efficiency of the display.
Regarding claim 33, the combined teachings of Chen and Lee teach or suggest, as modified in claim 1 above, a display device (both Chen and Lee, and the resulting device formed by modifying Chen in view of the teachings of Lee, are display devices), comprising: the backlight module according to any one of claims to claim 1 (as modified in claim 1 above); and a display panel (200 of Chen) located on a side, away from the first light guide (102 of Chen), of the second light guide (101 of Chen) in the backlight module (as shown in Figs. 1-11 of Chen).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, in view of Lee, as applied to claim 6 above, and in further view of Lin et al. (US 2024/0085614 A1, herein referred to as: Lin).
Regarding claim 7, as is best understood, the combined teachings of Chen and Lee teach or suggest (as modified in claim 6) a diffusion sheet (22a, of Lee) located between the anti-peeping film and the first light guide plate (as incorporated to the device of Chen in claim 6 above); the first light-shielding layer is located on a side of the diffusion sheet (22a, of Lee) proximate to the first light guide plate (as shown in Figs. 4-6 of Lee, and as incorporated to the device of Chen in claim 6 above); and/or the third portion of the light adjustment layer (25a, adjacent 22, and/or 25’ and 25a, adjacent 22, and/or 22a, 25a, and 25’, adjacent 22, of Lee) and the second portion of the second light source have a gap therebetween (as shown in Figs. 4-6 of Lee and as modified in claim 6 above, e.g., a gap formed by 25’ of Lee).
Neither Chen nor Lee explicitly teach that the light adjustment layer includes; and a prism layer located between the anti-peeping film and the diffusion sheet; wherein a portion of the diffusion sheet extending to the top of the first light source forms the third portion.
Lin teaches or suggests (Fig. 6) the light adjustment layer includes; and a prism layer (531) located between the anti-peeping film (120) and the diffusion sheet (640); wherein a portion of the diffusion sheet (an edge of 640 adjacent light source 110) extending to the top of the first light source forms the third portion (as shown in Fig. 6, all of the elements above light guide 112 extend to the top of the first light source).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Chen and incorporated the teachings of the light adjustment layer includes; and a prism layer located between the anti-peeping film and the diffusion sheet; wherein a portion of the diffusion sheet extending to the top of the first light source forms the third portion, such as taught or suggested by Lin, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of improve the image quality of the device (e.g., by providing optical features to improve the control and utilization of light emitted from the first light source), and/or improve the performance of the device (e.g., by overlapping optical elements with the first light source so as to reduce leak light therearound).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, in view of Lee, as applied to claim 12 above, and in further view of Han et al. (CN 206531989 U, herein referred to as: Han).
Note, this rejection is provided for the alternative limitation recited in claim 14, which is recited as an alternative “or” limitation, and thus, is not considered required by the scope of the claimed invention. This rejection is provided in the interest of compact prosecution.
Regarding the alternative limitation of claim 14, the combined teachings of Chen and Lee teach or suggest all of the elements of the claimed invention, except for the second non-light incident surface intersects the bottom surface, and the second non-light incident surface and the bottom surface have an included angle being an obtuse angle: and the backlight module further comprises a fourth light-shielding laver covering the second non-light incident surface.
Han teaches or suggests (Fig. 1) the second non-light incident surface intersects the bottom surface (as shown in Fig. 2), and the second non-light incident surface and the bottom surface have an included angle being an obtuse angle (as shown in Fig. 2); and the backlight module further comprises a fourth light-shielding laver (20) covering the second non-light incident surface (as shown in Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Chen and incorporated the teachings of the second non-light incident surface intersects the bottom surface, and the second non-light incident surface and the bottom surface have an included angle being an obtuse angle: and the backlight module further comprises a fourth light-shielding laver covering the second non-light incident surface, such as taught or suggested by Han, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of improve the image quality of the device (e.g., by providing optical features to improve the control and utilization of light emitted from the device), and/or improve the performance of the device (e.g., by providing optical elements to reduce leak light within the device).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, in view of Lee, as applied to claim 6 above, and in further view of Chiu et al. (US 6,398,370 B1, herein referred to as: Chiu).
Regarding claim 23, neither Chen nor Lee explicitly teach that the anti-peeping film includes: a first protective layer, a connection layer and a second protective layer that are sequentially stacked along the direction perpendicular to the reference plane; a plurality of first light-shielding strips, located between the first protective layer and the connection layer and extending along a first direction; and a plurality of second light-shielding strips, located between the connection layer and the second protective layer and extending along a second direction; wherein the first direction and the second direction are both parallel to the reference plane; and the first direction is same as the second direction, or the first direction intersects the second direction.
Chiu teaches or suggests (Fig. 3) the anti-peeping film includes: a first protective layer (302A), a connection layer (304) and a second protective layer (302B) that are sequentially stacked along the direction perpendicular to the reference plane (as shown in Fig. 3); a plurality of first light-shielding strips (306A), located between the first protective layer and the connection layer and extending along a first direction (as shown in Fig. 3, i.e., the strips are located between the top of the first protective layer 302A, and the connection layer 304); and a plurality of second light-shielding strips (306B), located between the connection layer (304) and the second protective layer (302B) and extending along a second direction (as shown in Fig. 3, i.e., the strips are located between the bottom of the second protective layer 302B, and the connection layer 304); wherein the first direction and the second direction are both parallel to the reference plane (as shown in Fig. 3); and the first direction is same as the second direction (as shown in Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Chen and incorporated the teachings of the anti-peeping film includes: a first protective layer, a connection layer and a second protective layer that are sequentially stacked along the direction perpendicular to the reference plane; a plurality of first light-shielding strips, located between the first protective layer and the connection layer and extending along a first direction; and a plurality of second light-shielding strips, located between the connection layer and the second protective layer and extending along a second direction; wherein the first direction and the second direction are both parallel to the reference plane; and the first direction is same as the second direction, such as taught or suggested by Chiu, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of improve the performance or efficiency of the device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 25-28 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 25, the prior art of record does not teach, or merely suggest, the collective claim limitations of claim 25, as recited in combination with all of the limitations of claims 1 and 23, up which claim 25 depends.
Claims 26-28 are allowable as they depend upon and further limit allowable claim 25.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: please see US 2022/0291564 A1 to Han, US 2023/0288753 A1 to Shiau, US 2018/0113289 A1 to Wu, US 2014/0016335 A1 to Cho, and US 2018/0074249 A1 to Hirasawa, pertinent to various features, such as the arrangement of the first and second light sources and the structure of the anti-peeping layer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Colin J Cattanach whose telephone number is (571)270-5203. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30 AM - 6:30 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, Jong-Suk (James) Lee can be reached at (571) 272-7044. 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.
/COLIN J CATTANACH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875