DETAILED ACTION
Amendment
Acknowledgment is made of Amendment filed November 5, 2025. Claims 2, 4 and 11-15 are canceled. Claims 1, 3 and 5 are amended. Claims 1, 3 and 5-10 are pending.
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, 3, 5-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim (US 2021/0033926) in view of Kurokawa et al (US 2007/0171671).
Regarding claim 1, Lim discloses a display device comprising: a display panel 110; an optical assembly (at least 230) which provides blue light to the display panel; and a diffusion plate (300,400,500) which comprises an absorption layer 500 that is located between the display panel and the optical assembly, and absorbs light having a wavelength of a certain range, wherein in a light provided to the display panel through the absorption layer 500, an intensity of green-based light is a percentage of an intensity of the blue-based light, and an intensity of red-based light is a percentage of the intensity of the blue-based light, wherein the diffusion plate comprises a core plate 400 having light-transmitting properties; and a skin layer 300 located on a lower surface of the core plate 400, wherein the absorption layer 500 is adhered to an upper surface of the core plate, wherein the absorption layer 500 is opposite to the skin layer 300 with respect to the core plate 400, wherein the a thickness of the light absorption layer 500 is greater than a thickness of the skin layer 300, and a thickness of the core plate 400 is greater than the thickness of the light absorption layer 500 (see at least para [0146]) (see Figures 1-10 and paras [0034]-[0215]).
Lim teaches a core plate 400 but does not specifically teach that the core plate comprise a diffusion particle and a cavity. However, core diffuser plates having a diffusion particle and cavity are common in the art and taught in Kurokawa (see Kurokawa, at least Figure 1-6 and paras [0053]-[0065]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the core plate 400 in Lim with a diffusion particle and cavity as taught by Kurokawa in order to enhance light diffusion and improve dot-hiding properties for a brighter and more efficient and uniform light distribution pattern.
Lim generally teaches that green and blue light be emitted to the display panel as a percentage of the blue light from light sources 230 (see at least Figures 6-10 and paras [0143]-[0215]), but does not specifically teach that percentages be between 20% to 70%. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to specify that the intensity percentage of red and green light fall in the claimed range in order to achieve the stated objective of providing red, green and blue light to the display panel for achieving illumination of various colored pixels for producing the desired colored image on the display 110, and 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 (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 3, Lim and Kurokawa disclose the limitations of claim 1, and the light absorption layer 500 in Lim comprises a green phosphor and a red phosphor (see para [0147]) and Lim generally teaches that green and blue light be emitted to the display panel as a percentage of the blue light from light sources 230 (see at least Figures 6-10 and paras [0143]-[0215]), but does not specifically teach that percentages be between 35-40% for green and 21-28% for red. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to specify that the intensity percentage of red and green light fall in the claimed range in order to achieve the stated objective of providing red, green and blue light to the display panel for achieving illumination of various colored pixels for producing the desired colored image on the display 110, and 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 (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 5, Lim and Kurokawa disclose the limitations of claim 1, and as modified above, a size of the cavity is greater than a size of the diffusion particle (see Kurokawa, at least Figure 5 and paras [0085]-[0090]).
Regarding claim 6, Lim and Kurokawa disclose the limitations of claim 1, and the light absorption layer 500 in Lim is adhered to an upper surface of the core plate 400 in Lim and the skin layer 300 is adhered to a lower surface of the core plate (see Lim, at least Figure 2).
Regarding claim 7, Lim and Kurokawa disclose the limitations of claim 1, and the skin layer 300 of the diffusion plate in Lim includes a pattern 310 that is formed on an outer surface of the skin layer, wherein the pattern is engraved or embossed on the outer surface of the skin layer (see Lim, at least Figure 2).
Regarding claim 10, Lim and Kurokawa disclose the limitations of claim 1, but Lim does not specifically teach that a color temperature of an image provided from a front surface of the display panel 110 be in the claimed range of 10,000 to 12,000K. However, color temperatures for display images in the claimed ranges are well-known in the art (Official Notice), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to specify that a color temperature of an image from display 110 fall in the claimed range in order to provide a cool and bright image, and 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 (MPEP 2144.05).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 5, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s submission that Lim in view of Kurokawa does not render obvious the collective limitations of claim 1. As set forth in the rejection above, Examiner respectfully submits that providing a diffusion particle and cavity in the core plate of a diffusion plate if common in the art and taught in Kurokawa. Examiner respectfully submits it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the core plate 400 in Lim with a diffusion particle and cavity as taught by Kurokawa in order to enhance light diffusion and improve dot-hiding properties for a brighter and more efficient and uniform light distribution pattern. Accordingly, the rejection of at least claim 1 under 35 USC. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim in view of Kurokawa is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SEAN P GRAMLING whose telephone number is (571)272-9082. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5pm EST.
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.
/SEAN P GRAMLING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875