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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-10) in the reply filed on 06/02/2026 is acknowledged.
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, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bae et al. (US 8220981 B2).
Re claim 1, Bae et al. discloses a method of splicing optical elements, comprising: making a first optical element (100E1) comprising a first substrate having a first splicing surface and at least one protrusion (158) protruding from the first splicing surface toward a side away from the first substrate (fig. 26); making a second optical element (100E2) comprising a second substrate having a second splicing surface and at least one recess (154c) recessed from the second splicing surface toward the second substrate; correspondingly placing the at least one protrusion (158) of the first optical element into the at least one recess (154c) of the second optical element; and splicing the first optical element (100E1) and the second optical element (100E2), and joining the first splicing surface to the second splicing surface such that each of the at least one recess is interference-fitted with a corresponding one of the at least one protrusion (fig. 26).
Re claim 4, Bae et al. discloses the method of claim 1, wherein making the first optical element further comprising: connecting a first surface of the first substrate to the first splicing surface (fig. 26); forming a first microstructure (250b) layer on the first surface (fig. 27; col. 22, lines 54-57); and wherein making the first optical element further comprising connecting the second substrate to the second splicing surface (fig. 26); forming a second microstructure (250b) layer on the second surface, wherein a size and a shape of the second microstructure layer are same as a size and a shape of the first microstructure layer, respectively (col. 14, lines 4-10); and wherein splicing the first optical element and the second optical element, and joining the first splicing surface to the second splicing surface further comprising placing the second surface and the first surface on a same plane such that the second surface is coplanar with the first surface, and aligning the second microstructure layer with the first microstructure layer (fig. 26).
Re claim 8, Bae et al. discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a shape of each of the at least one protrusion is a cube, a cuboid, a triangular prism, a cone, a cylinder, or a plunger (col. 22, lines 49-53).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae et al. (US 8220981 B2) in view of NISHIGAKI (JP 2002303734 A).
Re claim 2, Bae et al. discloses the method of claim 1, but fails to teach the first and second optical elements are formed by injection molding.
Nishigaki discloses light guide plate (33) are made by injection molding using molding apparatus shown in figs. 2-3 (see corresponding English Translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the optical elements using injection molding method for its durability and efficiency. The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Re claim 3, Bae et al./Nishigaki discloses the method of claim 2, Nishigaki discloses forming the first optical element by injection molding comprises: heating a raw material of the first optical element to obtain a first molten raw material (English Translation, p. 5, 2nd to last paragraph); injecting the first molten raw material into a first mold (English Translation, p. 5, middle paragraph); cooling the first molten raw material in the first mold to obtain a cooled first optical element (English Translation, p. 5, last 4 lines of middle paragraph); and demolding the cooled first optical element from the first mold (fig. 3; English Translation, p. 12, last paragraph); and wherein forming the second optical element by injection molding comprises: heating a raw material of the second optical element to obtain a second molten raw material; injecting the second molten raw material into a second mold; cooling the second molten raw material in the second mold to obtain a cooled second optical element (English Translation, p. 5); and demolding the cooled second optical element from the second mold (fig. 3; English Translation, p. 12, last paragraph).
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae et al. (US 8220981 B2) in view of Nakai et al. (US 20140049986 A1).
Re claim 5, Bae et al. discloses the method of claim 4, but fails to teach wherein: the first substrate further comprises a third surface connected to the first splicing surface and opposite to the first surface; the second substrate further comprises a fourth surface connected to the second splicing surface and opposite to the second surface; the first optical element further comprises a third microstructure layer on the third surface; the second optical element further comprises a fourth microstructure layer on the fourth surface; the third microstructure layer has a same size and shape as the first microstructure layer and is aligned with the first microstructure layer; the fourth microstructure layer has a same size and shape as the first microstructure layer and is aligned with the second microstructure layer; and after the first splicing surface and the second splicing surface are joined, the third surface is coplanar with the fourth surface, and the fourth microstructure layer is aligned with the third microstructure layer.
Nakai et al. discloses forming microstructure (prism arrays 20, 30) on both surfaces of a light guide plate 10; both prism arrays (20, 30) having the same shape, size, and are aligned (figs. 1A-B; [0040]).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form microstructure on both surfaces of the first and second light guide plates as taught by Nakai et al. since it has been held that the mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to a person having ordinary skill in the art to form a microstructure layer on the other surface of the light guide plate to boost optical efficiency and luminance significantly. St Regis Paper Co v Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Re claims 6 and 7, Bae et al./ Nakai et al. discloses the method of claim 4, but fails to teach a minimum distance between a boundary of the first microstructure layer and the first splicing surface ranges from 3mm to 6 mm, and a minimum distance between a boundary of the second microstructure layer and the second splicing surface ranges from 3mm to 6 mm; wherein after the first splicing surface and the second splicing surface are joined, a gap distance between each of the at least one protrusion and the second microstructure layer is greater than 0.2mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have such claimed range since such modification would have been an obvious design variation, well within the ordinary skill in the art, 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 routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae et al. (US 8220981 B2) in view of Nakai et al. (US 20140049986 A1).
Re claims 9 and 10, Bae et al. discloses the method of claim 1, but fails to teach a shape of each of the at least one protrusion is a plunger, and each of the at least one protrusion comprises a cylindrical connecting portion connected to the first splicing surface and a truncated cone-shaped holding portion connected to the cylindrical connecting portion; wherein a diameter of the cylindrical connecting portion is half a thickness of the first substrate.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the protrusion to have the shape and size as claimed since such modification would have been an obvious design variation, well within the ordinary skill in the art, since a change in shape without modifying the operation of a device has been held to be obvious. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Further, such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component, and it has been held that a 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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Liu (CN 1182428 C) discloses protrusion and recess for splicing two light guide plates (figs. 36-38).
Chen et al. (US 20240045251 A1) discloses protrusion and recess for splicing two light guide plates (figs. 6-7).
Liu (US 10195800 B2) discloses forming the light guide plate by heating raw material.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Uyen-Chau N. Le whose telephone number is (571)272-2397. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:30pm.
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, Kiesha R. Bryant can be reached at (571) 272-3606. 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.
/UYEN CHAU N LE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights