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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida et al. (US 2016/0299341) in view of Du et al. (US 2017/0241622).
Regarding claim 1, Yoshida discloses a back-lighting device (see figure 2, for instance) comprising: a light source (41) configured to emit a source beam; a reflector (42) configured to reflect at least a part of the source beam into a reflected beam; and an integrally formed component (11) comprising, on a first side (facing 41), a reflective polarizer (33) and, on a second side opposite the first side (opposite side of 33 from 41), an optical diffuser (32), said component being configured to receive and transmit at least a part of the reflected beam (see figure 2), wherein the first side of the component is placed facing the light source (41). However, Yoshida does not expressly disclose wherein the reflector comprises walls defining a tapered reflecting cavity, a narrowest portion of the tapered reflecting cavity being positioned closer to the light source, and the walls being configured to reflect the source beam toward the integrally formed component.
Du discloses a back-lighting device (see figure 3, for instance), comprising: a light source (325) configured to emit a source beam; a reflector (310; [0061]) configured to reflect at least a part of the source beam into a reflected beam, wherein the reflector comprises walls (310) defining a tapered reflecting cavity (see figure 3) a narrowest portion (lowest portion of 310 in figure 3) of the tapered reflecting cavity being positioned closer to the light source (325), and the walls (310) being configured to reflect the source beam toward the integrally formed component (represented by 320).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the reflector structure shape of Du in the device of Yoshida. The motivation for doing so would have been to more directly converge light from the light injection region to the distal surface, while also forming the shape of the reflector as a matter of design choice, as taught by Du ([0007]), see also MPEP § 2144.04 IV. B.
Regarding claim 2, Yoshida in view of Du discloses the back-lighting device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the component comprises a substrate with a first side bearing the reflective polarizer (33) and a second side opposite the first side and in which the diffuser (32) is formed by engraving (product-by-process, MPEP § 2113).
Regarding claim 3, Yoshida in view of Du discloses the back-lighting device as claimed in claim 2, wherein the engraving is laser engraving (product-by-process limitation, see MPEP § 2113).
Regarding claim 4, Yoshida in view of Du discloses the back-lighting device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the reflective polarizer (33) is laminated ([0063]) onto the optical diffuser (32).
Regarding claim 5, Yoshida in view of Du discloses the back-lighting device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the optical diffuser (32) produces diffusion of light of elliptical-Gaussian type ([0063]).
Regarding claim 6, Yoshida in view of Du discloses an image-generating device comprising: a back-lighting device as claimed in claim 1; and a liquid-crystal display (20, 22, 21) placed downstream of the reflector on the propagation path of the light, the liquid-crystal display comprising a liquid-crystal matrix (22) interposed between an upstream polarizer (30) and a downstream polarizer (31), said upstream polarizer (30) being capable of selectively transmitting a light component having a given upstream polarization.
Regarding claim 7, Yoshida in view of Du discloses the image-generating device as claimed in claim 6, wherein the reflective polarizer (33) is configured to reflect a light component having a polarization orthogonal to said upstream polarization.
Regarding claim 8, Yoshida in view of Du discloses the image-generating device as claimed in claim 6, wherein the reflector (42) has a principal axis parallel to a principal direction of the source beam (of 41) and in that the component is orthogonal to the principal axis of the reflector (42).
Regarding claim 9, Yoshida in view of Du discloses the image-generating device as claimed in claim 6, wherein, the liquid-crystal display (20, 22, 21) is inclined with respect to the principal direction of the source beam (of 41), the component is positioned parallel to the liquid crystal display.
Regarding claim 10, Yoshida in view of Du discloses a head-up display (see Abstract) comprising an image-generating device as claimed in claim 6, and further comprising a projecting optical system (see figure 1, 13, 14) capable of steering a light beam generated by the image-generating device in the direction of a partially transparent plate (14).
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoshida in view of Du, and in further view of Griffin (US 2016/0011342).
Regarding claim 11, Yoshida discloses a process for manufacturing a component for a back-lighting device (see figure 2, for instance), the back-lighting device comprising a light source a reflector (42), the component being manufactured from a substrate provided with a reflective polarizer (33) on a first side and having a second side opposite the first side. However, Yoshida does not expressly disclose the reflector having walls defining a tapered reflecting cavity, a narrowest portion of the tapered reflecting cavity being positioned closer to the light source, the process comprising a step of forming an optical diffuser by engraving in the second side of the substrate.
Du discloses a process for manufacturing a component for a back-lighting device (see figure 3, for instance), wherein the reflector (310) having walls defining a tapered reflecting cavity (see figure 3, for instance), a narrowest portion of the tapered reflecting cavity being positioned closer to the light source (325).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the reflector structure shape of Du in the device of Yoshida. The motivation for doing so would have been to more directly converge light from the light injection region to the distal surface, while also forming the shape of the reflector as a matter of design choice, as taught by Du ([0007]), see also MPEP § 2144.04 IV. B.
Griffin discloses a process for manufacturing a component for a back-lighting device (see figure 1, for instance) from a substrate (30) provided with a reflective polarizer ([0009]; “The partially reflective optical coating at the interface of the two media determines the optical properties of the optical device, for example, the degree of reflectivity, polarisation or spectral content of the optical device.”) on a first side (36) and having a second side (37) opposite the first side, comprising a step of forming an optical diffuser (35, “surface relief diffuser”; [0045]) by engraving in the second side of the substrate (at interface 35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the engraved diffuser process as Griffin in the device of Yoshida. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow the reflected light to be diffused into a selected range of angles, thus increasing the luminance of the observed image when a smaller range of diffusing angles is used, as taught by Griffin ([0008]).
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffin in view of Li et al. (CN21685880U; translation previously attached).
Regarding claim 12, Yoshida in view of Du, and in further view of Griffin discloses the manufacturing process as claimed in claim 11. However, Yoshida in view of Du, and in further view of Griffin does not expressly disclose wherein the step of forming the optical diffuser is a step of laser engraving.
Li discloses a process for manufacturing a component for a back-lighting device (see figures 1-2, for instance), wherein the step of forming the optical diffuser is a step of laser engraving (see second paragraph of Page 5 of attached translation, “the acrylic level of the plate bottom surface by laser engraving”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the step of laser engraving as Li in the manufacturing process of Yoshida. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the use efficiency of the light , as taught by Lie (see page 5).
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 NATHANAEL R BRIGGS whose telephone number is (571)272-8992. 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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at (571)-272-9791. 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.
/NATHANAEL R BRIGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871 8/24/2026
Prosecution Insights