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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 6, 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satake et al. (US 2018/0072949 A1) in view of Tseng et al. (US 2018/0120638 A1), Ohmuro et al. (US 2016/0349573 A1), Ji et al. (CN 223927046 U) and Yoon et al. (KR 20180126292 A).
Regarding claim 1, Satake et al. teaches a front light module comprising:
a light guide plate (1B; see at least figures 1-10) having a light incident surface and a first light exiting surface adjacent to the light entering surface (see figure 1), and a second light exiting surface, wherein the second light exiting surface and the first light exiting surface are located on two opposite sides of the light guide plate;
a light-emitting component (1A; see at least figure 1) emitting a light toward the light incident surface (side surface of 1B adjacent to 1A; see figure 1); and
a first barrier layer (10; see at least figure 2) on the first light exiting surface of the light guide plate (1B; see at least figures 1 and 2), wherein the first barrier layer comprises a silicon chain material (see paragraph [0022]), and a water vapor transmission rate (WVTR) of the first barrier layer is less than 0.1 g/m2/day (see paragraph [0200]).
Satake et al. does not explicitly teach a [first barrier layer] directly coated on the first light exiting surface of the light guide plate.
Tseng et al. teaches a layer 106 that is directly coated on the light exit surface of the light guide plate (102; see figure 4; paragraph [0067] where the layer 106 is disposed on the light exiting surface 102a of the light guide plate 102).
PNG
media_image1.png
275
487
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the first barrier layer of Satake et al. to be directly coated on the first light exiting surface of the light guide plate as taught by Tseng et al. to enhance luminous efficacy (Tseng – [0069]).
Satake et al. modified by Tseng et al. does not explicitly teach wherein a main chain of the silicon chain material is selected from a group consisting of silicon nitrogen bonds and silicon oxygen bonds.
Ohmuro et al. teaches an inorganic layer wherein a main chain of the silicon chain material is selected from a group consisting of silicon nitrogen bonds and silicon oxygen bonds (see paragraphs [0148] and [0149] where inorganic layer is disclosed. Paragraph [0154] teaches an organic layer and paragraph [0157] teaches the organic and inorganic layer may be bonded to each together).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the first barrier layer of Satake et al. to have a main chain of he silicon chain material is selected from a group consisting of silicon nitrogen bonds and silicon oxygen bonds as taught by Ohmuro et al. to further increase barrier properties (see paragraph [0149] Ohmuro et al.).
Satake et al. modified by Tseng et al. and Ohmuro et al. does not explicitly teach a second barrier layer directly coated on the second light exiting surface of the light guide plate, wherein a refractive index of the second barrier layer is less than a refractive index of the light guide plate.
Ji et al. teaches a second barrier layer (36) directly coated on the second light exiting surface of the light guide (32), wherein a refractive index of the second barrier layer (36) is less than a refractive index of the light guide plate (see translation of Ji et al.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify Satake et al. to have the refractive index of refraction of the second barrier layer to be less than the refractive index of the light guide plate as taught by Ji et al. so that the light can be reduced to be emitted for improved utilization rate of the light (see point 4 on page of the translation of Ji et al.).
Satake et al. modified by Tseng et al. and Ohmuro et al. and Ji et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the second light exiting surface and a surface of the second barrier layer which is directly coated on the second light exiting surface are flat surfaces, and the surface of the second barrier layer is aligned with the second light exiting surface.
PNG
media_image2.png
436
505
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Yoon teaches wherein the second light exiting surface (see figure 3 whre second barrier 152 is on a ligt exit side) and a surface of the second barrier layer (151) which is directly coated on the second light exiting surface (see where layer 152 is positioned on exit surface) are flat surfaces, and the surface of the second barrier layer (152) is aligned with the second light exiting surface (see figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify Satake et al. to coat the second barrier on the second light exiting surface as taught by Yoon to prevent moisture from penetrating other components/layers within the lighting module (see lines 28-32, page 4 of the translation of Yoon et al.).
Regarding claim 3, Satake et al. teaches the front light module of claim 1, wherein a thickness of the first barrier layer ranges from 200 nm to 1000 nm (see paragraph [0222]).
Regarding claim 4, Satake et al. teaches the front light module of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein a refractive index of the first barrier layer (10; see at least figure 1 and paragraph [0061]) is less than a refractive index of the guide light plate (1B).
Regarding claim 6, Satake et al. modified by Tseng et al., Ohmuro et al. and Ji et al. and Yoon et al. teaches the front light module of claim 1, and Satake et al. teaches wherein the second barrier layer comprises the silicon chain material, and a WVTR of the second barrier layer is less than 0.1 g/m2/day (see paragraph [0200] where barrier layers 10 and 20 are disclosed).
Satake et al. does not explicitly teach [the second barrier layer] directly coated on the second light exiting surface of the [light guide plate].
Woodgate et al. (US 10,185,076 B2) teaches a first and second barrier layer (430 and 432, respectively) wherein the second barrier layer (432) is directly coated on the second light exiting surface (8) of light guide plate (1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the second light exiting surface of Satake et al. to include a second barrier layer as taught by Woodgate et al. to receive light leaks from the second guide surface (see column 34, lines 5-27 of Woodgate et al.).
Regarding claim 12, Satake et al. teaches the front light module of claim 1, further comprising:
a protective layer (see paragraph [0257]) located on the first light exiting surface of the light guide plate (1B).
Regarding claim 13, Satake et al. teaches the front light module of claim 1, wherein the first barrier layer is formed on the light guide plate by wet coating (see at least paragraph [0224]).
Regarding claim 14, Satake et al. teaches a reflective display device, comprising:
the front light module (see at least figures 1-10) of claim 1; and a reflective display panel (4) disposed opposite to the front light module (see at least figure 13).
Regarding claim 15, Satake et al. teaches the reflective display device of claim 14, wherein the first barrier layer (10; see at least figures 1-13) of the front light module backs on to a display surface of the reflective display panel (4; see at least figures 1-13).
Claim(s) 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satake et al. (US 2018/0072949 A1) in view of Tseng et al. (US 2018/0120638 A1), Ohmuro et al. (US 2016/0349573 A1), Ji et al. (CN 223927046 U) and Yoon et al. (KR 20180126292 A) as applied to claim 4 above and further in view of Yamada et al. (US 2016/0161657 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Satake et al. modified by Tseng et al., Ohmuro et al., Ji et al. and Yoon et al. teaches the front light module of claim 4, but Satake et al. modified by Tseng et al., Ohmuro et al., Ji et al. and Yoon et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the refractive index of the first barrier layer ranges from 1.40 to 1.55.
Yamada et al. teaches a barrier film (1; paragraph [0309]) having a refractive index of 1.47 which is within the cited range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the first barrier layer of Satake et al. modified by Tseng et al. to have a refractive index ranging from 1.40 to 1.55 as taught by Yamada et al. to increase light transmittance (see paragraph [0309] of Yamada et al.), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223.
Claim(s) 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satake et al. (US 2018/0072949 A1) in view of Tseng et al. (US 2018/0120638 A1), Ohmuro et al. (US 2016/0349573 A1), Ji et al. (CN 223927046 U) and Yoon et al. (KR 20180126292 A) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Woodgate et al. (US 10,185,076 B2).
Regarding claim 10, Satake et al. modified by Tseng et al., Ohmuro et al., Ji et al. and Yoon et al. teaches the front light module of claim 1, and Satake et al. teaches further comprising:
two third barrier layers (22a, 22b; paragraph [0212]) on two opposite side surfaces of the light guide plate (1B), wherein the side surfaces are adjacent to the light incident surface separately and are adjacent to the first light exiting surface separately, wherein the third barrier layers (22a, 22b)comprise the silicon chain material, and the WVTR of the third barrier layers is less than 0.1 g/m/day (see paragraph [0200]).
Satake et al. does not explicitly teach [two third barrier layers] directly coated on two opposite side surfaces of the [light guide plate].
Woodgate et al. (US 10,185,076 B2) teaches a barrier layer (440 and 438, respectively; figure 47) on a left and right side surface of the light guide plate (1) directed coated on the surface of the light guide plate (1; see figure 46).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the second light exiting surface of Satake et al. to include a second barrier layer as taught by Woodgate et al. reduce light loss from the edge of the waveguide (see column 34, lines 31-41 of Woodgate et al.).
Regarding claim 11, Satake et al. teaches the front light module of claim 10, wherein thicknesses of the third barrier layers range from 200 nm to 1000 nm (see range in paragraph [0222]).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satake et al. (US 2018/0072949 A1) in view of Tseng et al. (US 2018/0120638 A1), Ohmuro et al. (US 2016/0349573 A1), Ji et al. (CN 223927046 U), Yoon et al. (KR 20180126292 A) and Woodgate et al. (US 10,185,076 B2) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Won et al. (US 2014/0034903 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Satake et al. modified by Tseng et al., Ohmuro et al., Ji et al., Yoon et al. and Woodgate et al. teaches the front light module of claim 1, but Satake et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the refractive index of the second barrier layer is greater than a refractive index of the first barrier layer.
Won et al. teaches wherein the refractive index of the second barrier layer (21b; see paragraph [0118]) is greater than a refractive index of the first barrier layer (paragraph [0118], first barrier layer 21a).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the refractive index of the second barrier layer that is greater than a refractive index of the first barrier layer in Satake et al. as taught by Won et al. so that the light emission may increase, thereby increasing light power (see paragraph [0118] of Won et al.).
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satake et al. (US 2018/0072949 A1) in view of Tseng et al. (US 2018/0120638 A1), Ohmuro et al. (US 2016/0349573 A1), and Ji et al. (CN 223927046 U), Yoon et al., Woodgate et al. (US 10,185,076 B2) and Won et al. (US 2014/0034903 A1) as applied to claim 8 above and further in view of Onishi et al. (US 2001/0053074 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Satake et al. modified by Tseng et al., Ohmuro et al., Ji et al., Yoon et al., Woodgate et al. and Won et al. teaches the front light module of claim 8, but does not explicitly teach wherein the refractive index of the light guide plate ranges from 1.49 to 1.59. Onishi et al. teaches a light guide member comprising a refractive index of 1.49 which is in the recited range (see paragraph [0083]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the light guide plate of Satake et al. modified by Tseng et al. and Woodgate et al. to have a refractive index ranging from 1.49 to 1.59 as taught by Onishi et al. to provide a planar light source device exhibiting a high efficiency of utilization of light (see paragraph [0083] of Onishi et al.), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223.
Claim(s) 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satake et al. (US 2018/0072949 A1) in view of Tseng et al. (US 2018/0120638 A1), Won et al. (US 2014/0034903 A1), Ji et al. (CN 223927046 U) and Yoon et al. (KR 20180126292 A).
Regarding claim 16, Satake et al. teaches a front light module comprising:
a light guide plate having a light incident surface (1B; see at least figures 1-10) and a first light exiting surface adjacent to the light entering surface (see figure 1);
a light-emitting component (1A; see at least figure 1) emitting a light toward the light incident surface (side surface of 1B adjacent to 1A; see figure 1); and
a first barrier layer (10; see at least figure 2) directly coated on the first light exiting surface of the light guide plate (1B; see at least figures 1 and 2),
wherein the first barrier layer comprises a silicon chain material (see paragraph [0022] “barrier layer includes silicon oxide, silicon nitride, silicon carbide, or aluminum oxide”), and a water vapor transmission rate (WVTR) of the first barrier layer is less than 0.1 g/m2/day (see paragraph [0200] “the moisture permeability (water vapor transmission rate) of the barrier film 10 and 20 is 0.10 g2/(m2·day·atm) or lower”).
Satake et al. does not explicitly teach a second barrier layer directly coated on the second light exiting surface of the light guide plate.
Tseng et al. teaches a layer 106 that is directly coated on the light exit surface of the light guide plate (102; see figure 4; paragraph [0067] where the layer 106 is disposed on the light exiting surface 102a of the light guide plate 102).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the first barrier layer of Satake et al. to be directly coated on the second light exiting surface of the light guide plate as taught by Tseng et al. to enhance luminous efficacy (Tseng – [0069]).
Satake et al. modified by Tseng et al. does not explicitly teach wherein a refractive index of the second barrier layer is greater than a refractive index of the first barrier layer.
Won et al. teaches wherein the refractive index of the second barrier layer (second barrier layer 21b; see paragraph [0118]) is greater than a refractive index of the first barrier layer ( see paragraph [0118], first barrier layer 21a).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the refractive index of the second barrier layer that is greater than a refractive index of the first barrier layer in Satake et al. as taught by Won et al. so that the light emission may increase, thereby increasing light power (see paragraph [0118] of Won et al.).
Satake et al. modified by Tseng et al. and Won et al. does not explicilty teach a second barrier layer directly coated on the second light exiting surface of the light guide plate, wherein a refractive index of the second barrier layer is less than a refractive index of the light guide plate.
Ji et al. teaches a second barrier layer (36) directly coated on the second light exiting surface of the light guide (32), wherein a refractive index of the second barrier layer (36) is less than a refractive index of the light guide plate (see translation of Ji et al.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify Satake et al. to have the refractive index of refraction of the second barrier layer to be less than the refractive index of the light guide plate as taught by Ji et al. so that the light can be reduced to be emitted for improved utilization rate of the light (see point 4 on page of the translation of Ji et al.).
Satake et al. modified by Tseng et al. and Won et al. and Ji et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the second light exiting surface and a surface of the second barrier layer which is directly coated on the second light exiting surface are flat surfaces, and the surface of the second barrier layer is aligned with the second light exiting surface.
PNG
media_image2.png
436
505
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Yoon teaches wherein the second light exiting surface (see figure 3 whre second barrier 152 is on a light exit side) and a surface of the second barrier layer (151) which is directly coated on the second light exiting surface (see where layer 152 is positioned on exit surface) are flat surfaces, and the surface of the second barrier layer (152) is aligned with the second light exiting surface (see figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify Satake et al. to coat the second barrier on the second light exiting surface as taught by Yoon to prevent moisture from penetrating other components/layers within the lighting module (see lines 28-32, page 4 of the translation of Yoon et al.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-6, and 8-16 have been considered but are moot because of new ground of rejection necessitated by applicant’s amendment arguments of claims 1 and 16. Applicant amended independent claim 1 and 16 to include the limitations, “wherein the second light exiting surface and a surface of the second barrier layer which is directly coated on the second light exiting surface are flat surfaces, and the surface of the second barrier layer is aligned with the second light exiting surface”. A new reference, Yoon et al., teaches the newly recited limitations. See rejection above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA MCMILLAN APENTENG whose telephone number is (571)272-5510. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am-5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ABDULMAJEED AZIZ can be reached at 571-270-5046. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JESSICA M APENTENG/Examiner, Art Unit 2875
/EVAN P DZIERZYNSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights