DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment &Arguments
The amendment filed on 04/16/2026 has overcome the rejections raised in the Office Action filed on 01/20/2026. However, the amendment has necessitated an updated search resulting in a new ground of rejection and claim objections.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 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. The Examiner is relying on Lee et al. (US 20250028109 A1) to teach the amended limitations and provided an obviousness rationale to combine with the primary reference. A more detailed description is provided, below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the informalities, below.
Re Claim 1 and 11:
On or about line 9 of both claims, “first layer contacted the second layer” should be changed to – first layer contact[[ed]]ing the second layer – in order to put the claims in proper form.
Re Claims 2-10 and 12-20:
The claims are objected to due to their respective dependence on base claims 1 and 11.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-6, 8-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho et al. (US 20250147219 A1; Ho; previously relied upon) in view Lee (US 20250028109 A1; newly relied upon; “Lee”).
Re Claim 1:
Ho discloses an electronic device (display device 100, shown in at least Fig 1 and described below), comprising:
a reflective panel (display panel 110);
a light guide plate (light guide plate 220) disposed on the reflective panel (110), wherein the light guide plate has a first surface (second surface 224), a second surface (first surface 222) opposite to the first surface (224), and a side surface (light incident surface 226) connecting between the first surface and the second surface (connecting 224 and 222), wherein the first surface is adjacent to the reflective panel (224 adjacent to 110);
a light source (light source 210) adjacent to the side surface (adjacent to 226); and
an adhesion unit (optically transparent adhesives 240 and 250) disposed on the light guide plate (on 220) and comprising:
a first layer (250) contacted the second surface of the light guide plate (contacted 222 of 220); and
a second layer (240) disposed on the first layer (at least indirectly disposed on 250 via 220),
wherein the second surface (222) comprises a plurality of recessed structures (optical micro-structures 300), one of the plurality of recessed structures (one of the 300) has a depth in a normal direction of the reflective panel (shown in Fig 1), the side surface has a thickness (evident due to the configuration shown in Fig 1), and a ratio of the depth to the thickness is less than 1 (necessarily occurring due to the configuration shown in Fig 1);
wherein after light emitted by the light source passes through the light guide plate (shown with arrows in Fig 1).
With further regard to the thickness and depth, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device (In re Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (PHOSITA) to have recognized Ho as at least suggesting an equivalent thickness and depth to the claimed ratio of either 0.0001, 0.125, or between 0.0001 and 0.125 for the purpose of refracting light.
With regard to view angle, the examiner has carefully reviewed Applicant’s disclosure and best understands the recessed structures to enable the view angles (see at least ¶ 0033, Figs 1 and 2A-2B). Because Ho discloses recessed structures, it would have been obvious of a PHOSITA to have recognized Ho as at least suggesting the necessary structure to enable the claimed limitations of wherein after light emitted by the light source passes through the light guide plate, a maximum ratio of brightness of a first light pattern from the first surface to brightness of a second light pattern from the second surface is at a view angle of either 0°, 40°, or between 0° and 40°.
Ho does not disclose a predetermined modulus at predetermined temperatures, specifically including wherein a loss tangent of the first layer at a predetermined temperature is less than a loss tangent of the second layer at a predetermined temperature.
Lee teaches (in at least ¶ 0034) an adhesion unit (optical adhesives layers 130 and 140 respectively) disposed on a light guide plate (on foldable light guide plate 110) and comprising:
a first layer (upper insulating layer 130) contacted a second surface (contacting top surface 114) of the light guide plate (of 110); and
a second layer (140) disposed on the first layer (disposed on and on the same side of the light guide plate (110)), wherein a loss tangent of the first layer at a predetermined temperature (room temperature) is less than a loss tangent of the second layer at the predetermined temperature (described as the upper insulating layer 130 and the storage modulus of the lower insulating layer 150 are greater than 60 kPa at room temperature. Furthermore, the storage modulus of the upper optical adhesive layer 140 and the storage modulus of the lower optical adhesive layer 160 are less than 60 kPa at room temperature, and thus the upper optical adhesive layer 140 and the lower optical adhesive layer 160 have bendable characteristic; stated differently, because the storage modulus and loss tangent are inversely related, the loss tangent of 130 is less than 140).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to configure the adhesion unit of Ho to have a predetermined modulus at a predetermined temperature as taught (in at least principle) by Lee, specifically including the inclusion of a second layer on the same side of the light guide plate, for the benefit of preventing light leakage even under stress and strain (Lee: ¶ 0034).
With further regard to modulus and temperature, it is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions. In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929). Further, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2nd 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Due to the combination, in the specific instance, Ho discloses an optimum valuable of a results effective variable (less than 60 kPa storage modulus at room temperature, Lee: ¶ 0034). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to have recognized Ho as at least suggesting an equivalent predetermined temperature to the claimed 30°C for the purpose of preventing light leakage.
Re Claim 2:
With further regard to view angle, similar to the reasons in claim 1 above, it would have been obvious of a PHOSITA to have recognized Ho as at least suggesting the necessary structure to enable the claimed limitations of wherein a ratio of the brightness of the first light pattern to the brightness of the second light pattern is greater than or equal to 5 at the view angle between 10° to 30°.
Re Claim 3:
Ho further discloses wherein the plurality of recessed structures (300) respectively have a concave surface connecting to a planar surface of the second surface (shown in Fig 1), wherein in a cross-section of the light guide plate, the concave surface comprises a first side (first inclined surface 302) and a second side (second inclined surface 304), an angle included between the first side and a virtual surface perpendicular to the planar surface is a first angle (shown in Fig 1 of Ho with the examiner’s annotations, below), an angle included between the second side and the virtual surface is a second angle (shown in Fig 1 of Ho, below), and the first angle is greater than the second angle (Fig 1, below).
Figure 1 of with the examiner's annotations
PNG
media_image1.png
342
438
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re Claims 4-5:
Ho further discloses predetermined angles (in at least ¶ 0023 and Fig 1).
With further regard to the first angle and the second angle, drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979); see also MPEP § 2125. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to have recognized Ho as at least suggested wherein the first angle is either 45°, 70°, or between 45° and 70°, and the second angle is either 0°, 45°, or between 0° and 45° and wherein a sum of the first angle and the second angle is either 50°, 115°, or between 50° and 115°.
Furthermore ,with regard to the first angle and second angle, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); see also MPEP $ 2144.05 I. Therefore, even if a PHOSITA were to not recognize Ho as at least suggesting the claimed limitations, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to recognized Ho as at least suggesting an equivalent first angle and second angle to the claimed wherein the first angle is the first angle is either 45°, 70°, or between 45° and 70°, and the second angle is either 0°, 45°, or between 0° and 45°, and wherein a sum of the first angle and the second angle is either 50°, 115°, or between 50° and 115° for the purpose of refracting light.
Further still, with regard the first angle and second angle, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2nd 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980), and 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 ordinary skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Therefore, even if a PHOSITA were to not recognize Ho as at least suggested equivalent ranges to the claimed ranges, because Ho discloses finding optimum value of ranges, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to have recognized Ho as capable to find the optimal value of the claimed ranges the first angle is either 45°, 70°, or between 45° and 70°, and the second angle is either 0°, 45°, or between 0° and 45°, and wherein a sum of the first angle and the second angle is either 50°, 115°, or between 50° and 115°.
Re Claim 6:
Ho further discloses wherein the plurality of recessed structures (300) respectively a concave surface connecting a planar surface of the second surface (shown in Fig 1), wherein in a cross-section of the light guide plate, the concave surface comprise a first side (first inclined surface 302) and a second side (second inclined surface 304), an angle included between the first side and an extension surface of the planar surface is a third angle (inclination angle φ1, Fig 1, ¶ 0023), an angle included between the second side and the extension surface is a fourth angle (inclination angle φ2), and the third angle is less than the fourth angle (shown in Fig 1 and described in at least ¶ 0023).
Re Claims 8-10:
With further regard to the structures of the plurality of recessed structures, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device (In re Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (PHOSITA) to have recognized Ho as at least suggesting equivalent structures to the claimed structures of the depth of the one of the plurality of recessed structures is between 0.5 μm and 30 μm, a width of the one of the plurality of recessed structures is between 5 μm and 150 μm, and a ratio of the depth of the one of the plurality of recessed structures to a width of the one of the plurality of recessed structures is between 0.003 and 6 for the purpose of reflecting light.
Re Claim 11:
Ho discloses an electronic device (display device 100, shown in at least Fig 1 and described below), comprising:
a reflective panel (display panel 110);
a light guide plate (light guide plate 220) disposed on the reflective panel (light guide plate 220),
wherein the light guide plate has a first surface (second surface 224), a second surface (first surface 222) opposite to the first surface (224), and a side surface (light incident surface 226) connecting between the first surface and the second surface (connecting 224 and 222), wherein the first surface is adjacent to the reflective panel (224 adjacent to 110);
a light source (light source 210) adjacent to the side surface (adjacent to 126); and
an adhesion unit (optically transparent adhesives 240 and 250) disposed on the light guide plate (on 220) and comprising:
a first layer (250) contacted the second surface of the light guide plate (contacted 222 of 220); and
a second layer (240) disposed on the first layer (at least indirectly disposed on 250 via 220),
wherein the second surface (222) comprises a plurality of recessed structures (optical micro-structures 300), one of the plurality of recessed structures (one of the 300) has a depth in a normal direction of the reflective panel (shown in Fig 1), the side surface has a thickness (evident due to the configuration shown in Fig 1), and a ratio of the depth to the thickness is less than 1 (necessarily occurring due to the configuration shown in Fig 1);
wherein after light emitted by the light source passes through the light guide plate (shown with arrows in Fig 1), a first light pattern is measured from the first surface, a ratio of brightness of the first light pattern at a view angle of 0° to a maximum brightness of the first light pattern ranges from 0.05 to 0.4.
With further regard to the thickness and depth, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device (In re Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (PHOSITA) to have recognized Ho as at least suggesting an equivalent thickness and depth to the claimed ratio of either 0.0001, 0.125, or between 0.0001 and 0.125 for the purpose of refracting light.
With regard to view angle, the examiner has carefully reviewed Applicant’s disclosure and best understands the recessed structures to enable the view angles (see at least ¶ 0033, Figs 1 and 2A-2B). Because Ho discloses recessed structures, it would have been obvious of a PHOSITA to have recognized Ho as at least suggesting the necessary structure to enable the claimed limitations of wherein after light emitted by the light source passes through the light guide plate, a ratio of brightness of the first light pattern from the first surface at a view angle of 0° to a maximum brightness of the first light pattern ranges from 0.05 to 0.4.
Ho does not disclose a predetermined modulus at predetermined temperatures, specifically including wherein a loss tangent of the first layer at a predetermined temperature is less than a loss tangent of the second layer at a predetermined temperature.
Lee teaches (in at least ¶ 0034) an adhesion unit (optical adhesives layers 130 and 140 respectively) disposed on a light guide plate (on foldable light guide plate 110) and comprising:
a first layer (upper insulating layer 130) contacted a second surface (contacting top surface 114) of the light guide plate (of 110); and
a second layer (140) disposed on the first layer (disposed on and on the same side of the light guide plate (110)), wherein a loss tangent of the first layer at a predetermined temperature (room temperature) is less than a loss tangent of the second layer at the predetermined temperature (described as the upper insulating layer 130 and the storage modulus of the lower insulating layer 150 are greater than 60 kPa at room temperature. Furthermore, the storage modulus of the upper optical adhesive layer 140 and the storage modulus of the lower optical adhesive layer 160 are less than 60 kPa at room temperature, and thus the upper optical adhesive layer 140 and the lower optical adhesive layer 160 have bendable characteristic; stated differently, because the storage modulus and loss tangent are inversely related, the loss tangent of 130 is less than 140).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to configure the adhesion unit of Ho to have a predetermined modulus at a predetermined temperature as taught (in at least principle) by Lee, specifically including the inclusion of a second layer on the same side of the light guide plate, for the benefit of preventing light leakage even under stress and strain (Lee: ¶ 0034).
With further regard to modulus and temperature, it is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions. In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929). Further, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2nd 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Due to the combination, in the specific instance, Ho discloses an optimum valuable of a results effective variable (less than 60 kPa storage modulus at room temperature, Lee: ¶ 0034). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to have recognized Ho as at least suggesting an equivalent predetermined temperature to the claimed 30°C for the purpose of preventing light leakage.
Re Claim 12:
With further regard to view angle, similar to the reasons in claim 1 above, it would have been obvious of a PHOSITA to have recognized Ho as at least suggesting the necessary structure to enable the claimed limitations of wherein after light emitted by the light source passes through the light guide plate, a second light pattern is measured from the second surface, wherein a ratio of brightness of the first light pattern to brightness of the second light pattern at a view angle between 10° and 30° is greater than or equal to 5.
Re Claim 13:
Ho further discloses wherein the plurality of recessed structures (300) respectively have a concave surface connecting to a planar surface of the second surface (shown in Fig 1), wherein in a cross-section of the light guide plate, the concave surface comprises a first side (first inclined surface 302) and a second side (second inclined surface 304), an angle included between the first side and a virtual surface perpendicular to the planar surface is a first angle (shown in Fig 1 of Ho with the examiner’s annotations, above), an angle included between the second side and the virtual surface is a second angle (shown in Fig 1 of Ho, above), and the first angle is greater than the second angle (Fig 1, above).
Re Claims 14-15:
Ho further discloses predetermined angles (in at least ¶ 0023 and Fig 1).
With further regard to the first angle and the second angle, drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979); see also MPEP § 2125. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to have recognized Ho as at least suggested wherein the first angle is either 45°, 70°, or between 45° and 70°, and the second angle is either 0°, 45°, or between 0° and 45° and wherein a sum of the first angle and the second angle is either 50°, 115°, or between 50° and 115°.
Furthermore ,with regard to the first angle and second angle, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); see also MPEP $ 2144.05 I. Therefore, even if a PHOSITA were to not recognize Ho as at least suggesting the claimed limitations, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to recognized Ho as at least suggesting an equivalent first angle and second angle to the claimed wherein the first angle is either 45°, 70°, or between 45° and 70°, and the second angle is either 0°, 45°, or between 0° and 45° and wherein a sum of the first angle and the second angle is either 50°, 115°, or between 50° and 115° for the purpose of refracting light.
Further still, with regard the first angle and second angle, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2nd 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980), and 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 ordinary skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Therefore, even if a PHOSITA were to not recognize Ho as at least suggested equivalent ranges to the claimed ranges, because Ho discloses finding optimum value of ranges, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to have recognized Ho as capable to find the optimal value of the claimed ranges the first angle is either 45°, 70°, or between 45° and 70°, and the second angle is either 0°, 45°, or between 0° and 45° and wherein a sum of the first angle and the second angle is either 50°, 115°, or between 50° and 115°.
Re Claim 16:
Ho further discloses wherein the plurality of recessed structures (300) respectively a concave surface connecting a planar surface of the second surface (shown in Fig 1), wherein in a cross-section of the light guide plate, the concave surface comprise a first side (first inclined surface 302) and a second side (second inclined surface 304), an angle included between the first side and an extension surface of the planar surface is a third angle (inclination angle φ1, Fig 1, ¶ 0023), an angle included between the second side and the extension surface is a fourth angle (inclination angle φ2), and the third angle is less than the fourth angle (shown in Fig 1 and described in at least ¶ 0023).
Re Claims 18-20:
With further regard to the structures of the plurality of recessed structures, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device (In re Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (PHOSITA) to have recognized Ho as at least suggesting equivalent structures to the claimed structures of the depth of the one of the plurality of recessed structures is between 0.5 μm and 30 μm, a width of the one of the plurality of recessed structures is between 5 μm and 150 μm, and a ratio of the depth of the one of the plurality of recessed structures to a width of the one of the plurality of recessed structures is between 0.003 and 6 for the purpose of reflecting light.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho in view of Lee as applied to claims 1 and 11 respectively above, and further in view of Nirmal et al. (US 20110170037 A1; “Nirmal”; previously relied upon).
Re Claims 7 and 17:
Ho does not explicitly disclose wherein the reflective panel comprises a first panel, a second panel and a third panel, the second panel is disposed between the first panel and the third panel, and the first panel, the second panel and the third panel reflect light with different colors respectively.
Nirmal teaches (in at least Fig 4 and ¶¶ 0043-0049) a reflective panel (pixel 410) comprises a first panel (blue-reflecting ChLC layer 414), a second panel (green-reflecting ChLC layer 418) and a third panel (red-reflecting ChLC layer 420), the second panel (418) is disposed between the first panel and the third panel (between 414 and 420), and the first panel (414), the second panel (418) and the third panel (418) reflect light with different colors respectively (described in at least ¶¶ 0043-0049).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to modify the reflective panel of Ho (as modified in view of Lee) according to the teachings (in at least principle) of Nirmal for the benefit of a simpler device construction at a potentially lower cost (Nirmal: ¶ 0043).
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 KEITH G DELAHOUSSAYE whose telephone number is (469)295-9088. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9:00 am-5:00 pm CST.
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 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.
KEITH G. DELAHOUSSAYE JR.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2875
/KEITH G. DELAHOUSSAYE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights