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 .
Detailed Action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art documents submitted by Applicant(s) in the information Disclosure Statement(s) have all been considered and made of record (note the attached copy of form(s) PTO-1449).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
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 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.
Claim 1-3, 6 and 8-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Candono” et. al. US 20190227309 A1.
Regarding claims 1, Candono teaches a light guide plate laminate (see figs. 1-29 and parag. 0114) comprising
at least a pair of light guide plates (see at least parag. 0114), the two light guide plates being stacked (see at least parag. 0114), wherein the light guide plate laminate is produced under in a state of reduced pressure (see parag. 0168).
However, Candono does not explicitly state “wherein a space/gap between the two light guide plates is in a state of reduced pressure”. Nonetheless it is obvious/well-known to an ordinary artisan skilled in the art that the light guide plate laminate produced under a state of reduced pressure would include the gap between the light plates that is essential part of the light guide plate laminate for producing a uniform brightness (parag. 0118).
With regard to claims 2, Candone does not explicitly teach wherein the space has a pressure of 90 kPa or less. Nonetheless, Condone states that the light guide laminate device which is formed under reduced pressure (pa. 0168) will have a uniform brightness which suggests that such low pressure would have been obvious to a person or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the low pressure to such number the gap between the guide plates for enhancing the brightness (parag. 0118).
The statements advanced in rejection of claim 1, above, as to the applicability and disclosure of Candone and the motivation are incorporated herein in rejection of the following claims as follows:
3 The light guide plate laminate according to claim 1, wherein the space is enclosed (see at least figures 3-4).
6 The light guide plate laminate according to claim 1, wherein the light guide plate laminate includes one or more gas barrier layers stacked on each of the light guide plates (see at least parag. 0084; wherein there is at least one gas barrier therebetween) .
8 The light guide plate laminate according to claim 1, wherein the light guide plate laminate includes an entrance portion that passes light into each of the light guide plates and an exit portion that emits light from each of the light guide plates (see at least fig. 9, in which the light guide plates would have the same input and output configuration) .
9 The light guide plate laminate according to claim 8, wherein the space in the state of reduced pressure covers one or both of the entrance portion and the exit portion (see parag. 0168 and analogous obviousness stated in claim 1).
10 The light guide plate laminate according to claim 8, wherein the entrance portion, the exit portion, or both of the entrance portion and the exit portion include diffraction gratings provided on each of the light guide plates (see at least parag. 0112-0116).
11 The light guide plate laminate according to claim 1, wherein the light guide plate laminate includes a pressure-reducing port sealed with a sealer (see at least parag. 0079 and page 26).
12 The light guide plate laminate according to claim 1, wherein the light guide plate laminate includes three or more stacked light guide plates, and a space between two of the three or more light guide plates is placed in a state of reduced pressure (see at least parag. 0114).
13 The light guide plate laminate according to claim 1, wherein the light guide plate laminate includes a pressure-reducing region between the two light guide plates (see at least figs 3-4 and parag. 0168)..
14 The light guide plate laminate according to claim 1, wherein the light guide plate laminate includes two or more pressure-reducing regions between the two light guide plates (see at least figs 3-4 and parag. 0168).
.
15 The light guide plate laminate according to claim 1, wherein each of the light guide plates included in the light guide plate laminate is provided with two diffraction gratings (see at least parag. 0112-0116).
16 The light guide plate laminate according to claim 1, wherein each of the light guide plates included in the light guide plate laminate is provided with three or more diffraction gratings (see at least parag. 0112-0116).
Regarding claims 17, Candono teaches a display device (see abstract) a light guide plate laminate (see figs. 1-29 and parag. 0114) comprising
at least a pair of light guide plates (see at least parag. 0114), the two light guide plates being stacked (see at least parag. 0114), wherein the light guide plate laminate is produced under in a state of reduced pressure (see parag. 0168).
However, Candono does not explicitly state “wherein a space/gap between the two light guide plates is in a state of reduced pressure”. Nonetheless it is obvious/well-known to an ordinary artisan skilled in the art that the light guide plate laminate produced under a state of reduced pressure would include the gap between the light plates that is essential part of the light guide plate laminate for producing a uniform brightness (parag. 0118).
Regarding claims 18, Candono teaches a module for a display device (see at least fig. 12) comprising a display device (see abstract) a light guide plate laminate (see figs. 1-29 and parag. 0114) comprising
at least a pair of light guide plates (see at least parag. 0114), the two light guide plates being stacked (see at least parag. 0114), wherein the light guide plate laminate is produced under in a state of reduced pressure (see parag. 0168).
However, Candono does not explicitly state “wherein a space/gap between the two light guide plates is in a state of reduced pressure”. Nonetheless it is obvious/well-known to an ordinary artisan skilled in the art that the light guide plate laminate produced under a state of reduced pressure would include the gap between the light plates that is essential part of the light
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 and 7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 4-7 is allowable because the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious its respective limitations in combination with the rest of the limitations of the base claim. Claim 13 is allowable because of dependency.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
Prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. In accordance with MPEP 707.05 the following references are pertinent in rejection of this application since they provide substantially the same information disclosure as this patent does. These references are:
US 20180143440 A1
US 20210341877 A1
US 20200355976 A1
US 20200264486 A1
US 20190227309 A1
US 20230258857 A1
US 20210199870 A1
US 20210032515 A1
US 10216061 B2
US 20220099872 A1
US 20200348545 A1
US 20210033764 A1
US 20200326579 A1
US 20210311259 A1
US 20220326531 A1
US 10156725 B2
US 10254536 B2
US 10338391 B2
US 10587848 B2
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAVEH C KIANNI whose telephone number is (571)272-2417. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-19.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Hollweg can be reached on571-270-1739. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KAVEH C KIANNI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights