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 .
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 8-11,17 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.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the plurality of second protrusions". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the reflective sheet". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1-6, 12-14, 16, 18, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (USPN 2019/0324328).
With regard to claim 1,
Chen et al. disclose a backlight module comprising: a back plate (440); a first optical film (10) disposed on the back plate; and a second optical film (OP) disposed on the first optical film, wherein the first optical film includes a plurality of first protrusions (20) that protrude toward the second optical film, and at least one of the plurality of first protrusions has a first height, where the first height is greater than or equal to 4 μm and smaller than or equal to 10 μm (see paragraph 34). While Chen et al. do not explicitly disclose the claimed range, the disclosure of an overlapping range establishes obviousness.
With regard to claim 2,
Chen et al. disclose the backlight module as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first protrusion has a diameter of 40 μm to 60 μm (See paragraph 35). While Chen et al. do not explicitly disclose the claimed range, the disclosure of an overlapping range establishes obviousness.
With regard to claim 3,
Chen et al. disclose the backlight module as claimed in claim 1, wherein a density of the plurality of first protrusions is 0.1% to 0.5% (paragraph 49). While Chen et al. do not explicitly disclose the claimed range, the disclosure of an overlapping range establishes obviousness.
With regard to claim 4,
Chen et al. disclose the backlight module as claimed in claim 1, wherein a distance between adjacent first protrusions is 2 mm to 10 mm (see paragraph 33). While Chen et al. do not explicitly disclose the claimed range, the disclosure of an overlapping range establishes obviousness.
With regard to claim 5,
Chen et al. disclose the backlight module as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first optical film includes a plurality of second protrusions that protrude toward the back plate (see fig. 11A). While Chen et al. do not explicitly disclose the combination of both first and second protrusions, such a combination was trivial to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and would have been obvious to the same to incorporate into the backlight of Chen et al. in order to try to improve diffusion.
With regard to claim 6,
Chen et al. disclose the backlight module as claimed in claim 5, wherein at least one of the plurality of second protrusions has a second height, and the second height is greater than or equal to 4 μm, and smaller than or equal to 10 μm (see paragraph 34). While Chen et al. do not explicitly disclose the claimed range, the disclosure of an overlapping range establishes obviousness.
With regard to claim 12,
Chen et al. disclose the backlight module as claimed in claim 1, wherein the plurality of first protrusions are arranged in a rectangular pattern in which four adjacent first protrusions are connected to form a rectangle (see fig. 8).
With regard to claim 13,
Chen et al. disclose the backlight module as claimed in claim 1, wherein the plurality of first protrusions are arranged in a rhombus pattern in which four adjacent first protrusions are connected to form a rhombus (See fig. 8).
With regard to claim 14,
Chen et al. disclose the backlight module as claimed in claim 1, wherein the plurality of first protrusions are arranged in a honeycomb pattern in which six adjacent first protrusions are connected to form a hexagon (see fig. 8).
With regard to claim 16,
Chen et al. disclose the backlight module as claimed in claim 1, wherein the plurality of first protrusions are in direct contact with the second optical film (See fig. 12B).
With regard to claim 18,
Chen et al. disclose the backlight module as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first optical film and the plurality of first protrusions are integrally formed (See figures).
With regard to claim 19,
Chen et al. disclose the backlight module as claimed in claim 5, wherein the first optical film and the plurality of second protrusions are integrally formed (See figures).
Claims 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (as above), in view of Shiau et al. (USPN 2019/0113673).
With regard to claim 7,
Chen et al. disclose the backlight module as claimed in claim 5. While Chen et al. do not disclose the claimed density relationship, Shiau et al. do disclose an analogous backlight wherein a density of the first plurality of protrusions (130) is smaller than a density of the second plurality of protrusions (121, see fig. 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate this concept of Shiau et al. into the backlight of Chen et al. in order to provide even light distribution in alternative lighting configurations.
With regard to claims 8-10,
Chen et al. disclose the backlight module as claimed in claim 1. While Chen et al. do not disclose the claimed configuration, Shiau et al. do disclose a backlight comprising a plurality of light emitting units (210) disposed on one side (102) of the first optical film, wherein a density of the plurality of second protrusions adjacent to the side is smaller than a density of the plurality of second protrusions away from the side (see fig. 6) (though not explicitly disclose the claimed densities, proximal ranges of 1-3% and distal ranges of 30-50% were well within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and, using e.g., fig 6 as a guide, would have been obvious to the same to achieve the distribution depicted in fig. 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate this concept of Shiau et al. into the backlight of Chen et al. in order to provide even light distribution in alternative lighting configurations.
With regard to claim 11,
Chen et al. disclose the backlight module as claimed in claim 8. While Chen et al. do not disclose a reflective sheet, Shiau et al. do disclose such a sheet (230). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate this concept of Shiau et al. into the backlight of Chen et al. in order to increase light emitting efficiency.
Claims 15,17,20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (as above), in view of Park et al. (USPN 2021/0165277).
With regard to claims 15,17,
Chen et al. disclose the backlight module as claimed in claims 1,5. While Chen et al. do not disclose a reflective sheet, Park et al. do disclose an analogous backlight comprising: a reflective sheet (260) disposed on the back plate (230); and a plurality of light emitting units (240) disposed on the reflective sheet, wherein the plurality of light emitting units are disposed between the first optical film and the reflective sheet and the plurality of second protrusions (between 720) are in direct contact with the reflective sheet (see fig. 10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate this concept of Park et al. into the backlight of Chen et al. in order to increase light emitting efficiency.
With regard to claim 20,
Chen et al. disclose the backlight module as claimed in claim 1. While Chen et al. do not disclose the third and fourth optical films, Park et al. do disclose such a configuration wherein the backlight module further includes a third optical film (400) and a fourth optical film (500) that are disposed on the second optical film, wherein the third optical film is disposed between the second optical film and the fourth optical film (see, e.g., fig 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate this concept of Park et al. into the backlight of Chen et al. in order to improve light distribution and hue.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USPN 2019/0324192, 2019/0025646, 2016/0238774, 2013/0286679, 2024/0027830.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christopher Raabe whose telephone number is (571)272-8434. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0530-1430.
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, James R Greece can be reached at (571)272-3711. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER M RAABE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875