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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 19 August, 2026 is acknowledged.
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 1-13 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 1: Claim 1 recites the limitation “a maximum incidence angle with respect to the first surface corresponding to the number of reflections equal to or less than a maximum number of reflections defined from a condition in which light incident on the light guide plate is totally reflected is denoted by theta_imax” and further that “the light guide is disposed at a position at which a distance from the emission surface to the illumination target area is equal to or shorter than Lt, which is calculated by Lt={(1/2)x(n1/n2)xW}/tan(theta_imax)”. As claimed, it is unclear how the equation limits the distance from the emission surface to the illumination target area, since theta_imax appears to not be limited to a particular value. Theta_imax corresponds to “the number of reflections equal to or less than a maximum number of reflections”, wherein the maximum is understood to be a well-defined value, but this still allows for multiple values of “the number of reflections equal to or less than” this maximum. If the maximum number of reflections is greater than two, for example, the number of reflections could be equal to zero, one, or two. If the number of reflections is equal to one, theta_imax is different than a case where the number of reflections is equal to two. Since theta_imax can take on multiple values, the range of distances is not clearly defined.
Regarding claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, and 11: The phrase “in a case in which” makes it unclear whether the limitations that follow are optional or required. In claims 1, 3, 4, and 5, the phrase appears to be used to define variables that are inherently present in a light guide plate, so they are interpreted as being required. On the other hand, claims 8-11 appears to use the phrase to set up a conditional statement relating to the number of reflections. Since the number of reflections is claimed as a number less than or equal to a maximum possible number, it appears that the claim allows for a choice of “number of reflections” by which to evaluate the claim limitations that rely on it. Therefore, the limitations following “in a case in which” in claims 8-11 are not considered to be required, since the number of reflections could be any value less than a maximum value and is not limited to the number of reflections mentioned in the respective claim.
Regarding claims 7-11: “during fixation of the light guide plate” is unclear. Is this a step in the manufacturing process? If so, how does it limit the structure of the finished device?
Regarding claims 7-11: “reflection position” and “non-reflection position” are unclear. Are these referring to positions of the light guide plate that have reflective and non-reflective properties, respectively? Are they referring to a reflection position on a surface/at a refractive index boundary and a non-reflection position not located at a refractive index boundary? Or are these reflection positions referring to points where the specific light rays drawn in Fig. 9 are reflecting and the non-reflecting positions located at points in between them? If so, much more detail is needed in the claim to define the light rays that define these respective positions, since it is clear that a conventional light source would emit light at additional angles apart from the few drawn in this figure, and it is not clear why the light guide should have non-reflection positions between the reflection positions. It is understood by the examiner that the only non-reflection positions that are structural features of the light guide plate surface given the light source/light guide plate arrangement would be positions on the light guide plate surface that are located near the first surface of the light guide plate where the incident angle on the surface is greater than the critical angle, at which locations the light would not be guided into the light guide plate. If applicant is referring to some other specific “reflection position” and “non-reflection position”, the claim needs to define what that is.
Regarding claims 7-11: The phrase “is supported” is unclear. Does it mean that the non-reflection positions are somehow enabled/facilitated? Alternatively, does it mean that physical supports are provided at these positions? The claim is missing any structure for providing physical support at these locations, so it raises a question of whether the functional language should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as “means for support”. However, the specification is also unclear about what the means for support are.
Regarding claims 2-13: Dependent claims 2-13 inherently contain all of the deficiencies of any base and/or intervening claims from which they depend.
Regarding claims 7-11: The scope of claims 7-11 are unclear as discussed above. As a result, a meaningful formulation of art rejections cannot be done at this time. See MPEP 2173.06 II, 2nd paragraph:
… where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. … a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
Therefore, claims 7-11 have not been further considered with respect to prior art. This is not an indication of allowable subject matter.
Note: The following rejections are based upon the claims as best understood by Examiner.
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.
Claims 1 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamana et al. (US Patent No. 5,696,607; hereinafter Yamana).
Regarding claim 1: Yamana disclosesAn illumination device comprising: a light source (Fig. 2A, LED 4) that emits light for illuminating an illumination target area (Fig. 2A, document 11); and a light guide plate (Fig. 2A, light-guiding transparent board 1) including a first surface (Fig. 2A, light input surface 1b) on which the light emitted from the light source is incident, a reflecting surface (Fig. 2A, first or second side surfaces 1c or 1d) that reflects the light incident from the first surface one or more times and has an orientation intersecting the first surface, and an emission surface (Fig. 2A, output surface 1A) that faces the first surface and has an orientation intersecting the reflecting surface (Fig. 2A shows this), wherein, in the light guide plate, a direction from the first surface toward the emission surface is defined as a length direction (vertical direction in Fig. 2A), and a direction of a relatively short side among two directions orthogonal to the length direction is defined as a thickness direction (horizontal direction in Fig. 2A), andin a case in which a total length of the light guide plate in the thickness direction is denoted by W (the light guide transparent board 1 inherently has this property), a refractive index of a periphery of the light guide plate is denoted by n1 (the periphery of the light guide transparent board 1 inherently has this property), a refractive index of the light guide plate is denoted by n2 (the light guide transparent board 1 inherently has this property), and a maximum incidence angle with respect to the first surface corresponding to the number of reflections equal to or less than a maximum number of reflections defined from a condition in which the light incident on the light guide plate is totally reflected is denoted by theta_imax (the light guide transparent board 1 inherently has this property), the light guide is disposed at a position at which a distance from the emission surface to the illumination target area is equal to or shorter than Lt, which is calculated by Lt={(1/2)x(n1/n2)xW}/tan(theta_imax) (the light guide board is in contact with the illumination target area, as described in the abstract and col. 7, lines 60-63; therefore, the distance is zero and is inherently a distance equal to or shorter than the claimed Lt).
Regarding claim 12: Yamana disclosesThe illumination device according to claim 1 (as applied above), wherein the emission surface of the light guide plate has a diffusivity of the light emitted from the emission surface of the light guide plate (see col. 9, lines 7-50).
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 1-2 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okamoto et al. (US Patent No. 7,995,252; hereinafter Okamoto).
Regarding claim 1: Okamoto teachesAn illumination device comprising: a light source (Fig. 2, light source 4) that emits light for illuminating an illumination target area (Fig. 2, document reading position 12); and a light guide plate (Fig. 2, light guide 5) including a first surface (the surface on which the light emitted from the light source is incident on the light guide plate in Fig. 2) on which the light emitted from the light source is incident, a reflecting surface (Fig. 2) that re, either of the side surfaces of light guide 5 shown in Fig. 2) reflects the light incident from the first surface one or more times and has an orientation intersecting the first surface, and an emission surface (the surface from which light is emitted from the light guide plate 5 in Fig. 2) that faces the first surface and has an orientation intersecting the reflecting surface (Fig. 2 shows this), wherein, in the light guide plate, a direction from the first surface toward the emission surface is defined as a length direction (vertical direction in Fig. 2), and a direction of a relatively short side among two directions orthogonal to the length direction is defined as a thickness direction (horizontal direction in Fig. 2, comparing dimensions shown in Fig. 1), andin a case in which a total length of the light guide plate in the thickness direction is denoted by W (the light guide plate 5 inherently has this property), a refractive index of a periphery of the light guide plate is denoted by n1 (the periphery of the light guide plate 5 inherently has this property), a refractive index of the light guide plate is denoted by n2 (the light guide plate 5 inherently has this property), and a maximum incidence angle with respect to the first surface corresponding to the number of reflections equal to or less than a maximum number of reflections defined from a condition in which the light incident on the light guide plate is totally reflected is denoted by theta_imax (the light guide plate inherently has this property).
Regarding the limitation “the light guide is disposed at a position at which a distance from the emission surface to the illumination target area is equal to or shorter than Lt, which is calculated by Lt={(1/2)x(n1/n2)xW}/tan(theta_imax)”: While Okamoto fails to teach this limitation, in order to illuminate the center line with good efficiency, one of ordinary skill in the art would want to limit the distance between the emission surface of the light guide plate and the target illumination area, since it is a result effective variable. This is suggested by Figs. 14 and 15, which show that the intensity decreases with increasing distance from the cover glass (see col. 9, lines 4-21). Before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to dispose the light guide at a position at which a distance from the emission surface to the illumination target area is equal to or shorter than Lt, which is calculated by Lt={(1/2)x(n1/n2)xW}/tan(theta_imax) in order to efficiently illuminate the illumination target area, 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), since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), and since 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 in as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)) and that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device (In re Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Regarding claim 2: Modified Okamoto teachesThe illumination device according to claim 1 (as applied above), wherein the light guide plate is disposed at a position at which the distance from the emission surface to the illumination target area is equal to or longer than a maximum size of a member entering the illumination target area or is equal to or longer than a maximum size of a member disposed in the illumination target area (Fig. 2 shows that the distance is equal to or longer than a maximum size of a member entering the illumination target area, i.e. the thickness of the document 1, and is equal to or longer than a maximum size of a member disposed in the illumination target area, i.e. the glass plate 3).
Regarding claim 12: Modified Okamoto teachesThe illumination device according to claim 1 (as applied above), wherein the emission surface of the light guide plate has a diffusivity of the light emitted from the emission surface of the light guide plate (the emission surface of the light guide plate inherently has a diffusivity of the light emitted from the emission surface of the light guide plate).
Regarding claim 13: Modified Okamoto teachesThe illumination device according to claim 1 (as applied above), wherein the emission surface of the light guide plate is a smooth surface (see light emission surface of the light guide plate in Okamoto Fig. 2; it is considered to be a smooth surface), and a diffusion member that diffuses the light emitted from the emission surface of the light guide plate is disposed between the emission surface of the light guide plate and the illumination target area (see col. 6, lines 20-35; a lenticular lens sheet, considered to be a diffusion member that diffuses the light emitted from the emission surface of the light guide plate, is disclosed to be arranged in close contact with the light emitting surface of the light guide member 5).
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okamoto et al. (US Patent No. 7,995,252; hereinafter Okamoto) in view of Yamana et al. (US Patent No. 5,696,607; hereinafter Yamana).
Regarding claim 3: Modified Okamoto teaches the illumination device according to claim 1, as applied above. Since Okamoto teaches a cover glass between the illumination target area and the emission surface, Okamoto fails to teach, in a case in which a total length of the light guide plate in the length direction is denoted by B, the distance from the emission surface of the light source to the illumination target area is denoted by L, and the number of reflections is denoted by C, the maximum incidence angle theta_imax is represented by theta_imax=arctan[{B+(L-B)x(n2/n1)}/(CxW)]. However, Examiner notes that a total length of the light guide plate in the length direction being denoted by B, the distance from the emission surface of the light source to the illumination target area being denoted by L, and the number of reflections being denoted by C, are all variables that are inherently present in the Okamoto device and can be denoted as claimed. Further, Yamana, also related to light guides for illuminating a line on a document, teaches removing the cover glass and using the emission surface of the light guide plate for the same purpose in order to prevent light dissipation (see Yamana col. 3, lines 10-26). In order to prevent light dissipation, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to remove the cover glass from the Okamoto device based on the Yamana teaching such that only the light guide is interposed between the light source and the document. Given such a configuration, the maximum incidence angle theta_imax would be represented by theta_imax=arctan[{B+(L-B)x(n2/n1)}/(CxW)] based on geometric optics.
Regarding claim 4: Modified Okamoto teachesThe illumination device according to claim 3 (as applied above), wherein, in a case in which a critical angle of the reflecting surface is denoted by theta_t, the maximum number of reflections C_m is represented by C_m=INT[{B+(L-B)x(n2/n1)}/(Wxtan(theta_t))], and an integer that is equal to or greater than 1 and equal to or less than the maximum number of reflections C_m is defined for the number of reflections C (the Okamoto device inherently has critical angle theta_t and the maximum number of reflections can be defined by the claimed expression based on geometric optics; further, Okamoto Fig. 2 shows at least a single reflection in the light guide plate, so the device provides for a C of at least 1, which is inherently equal to or less than the maximum number of reflections C_m).
Regarding claim 5: Modified Okamoto teachesThe illumination device according to claim 4 (as applied above), wherein, in a case in which an incidence angle with respect to the first surface of the light guide plate is denoted by theta_i, an incidence angle theta^o on the reflecting surface is represented by theta^o =90^o-arcsin{(n1/n2)xsin(theta_i)} (by Snell’s law and the geometry of Okamoto Fig. 2, the incidence angles on the first surface and the reflecting surface, respectively, have the claimed relationship).
Regarding claim 6: Modified Okamoto teachesThe illumination device according to claim 4 (as applied above), wherein the critical angle theta_t of the reflecting surface is defined as theta_t=arcsin(n1/n2) (this is true by Snell’s Law).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kirsten D Endresen whose telephone number is (703)756-1533. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday.
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, Thomas Hollweg can be reached at (571)270-1739. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/KIRSTEN D. ENDRESEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights