Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 17, 2026
Application No. 18/923,720

BACKLIGHT MODULE

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Oct 23, 2024
Priority
Nov 24, 2023 — TW 112145609
Examiner
FAROKHROOZ, FATIMA N
Art Unit
2875
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Darwin Precisions Corporation
OA Round
4 (Final)
49%
Grant Probability
Moderate
5-6
OA Rounds
1y 1m
Est. Remaining
82%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 49% of resolved cases
49%
Career Allowance Rate
419 granted / 857 resolved
-19.1% vs TC avg
Strong +33% interview lift
Without
With
+32.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
38 currently pending
Career history
903
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
73.3%
+33.3% vs TC avg
§102
19.1%
-20.9% vs TC avg
§112
6.8%
-33.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 857 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 Amendment The amendment filed by the Applicant on 4/10/26 is acknowledged. Claim Objection Claims 1-2,5-6 and 9-10 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 1, the backlight module comprises a light guide assembly and that the first light guide assembly (initial part of claim) further comprises a plurality of overlapped first light guide plates. However, further in the claim, regarding the light guide assembly: a second light guide plate, arranged above the light guide assembly, and a turning film is arranged between the light guide assembly (meaning the turning film is arranged between the plurality of overlapped first light guide plates); which is unclear language and does not have proper antecedent basis to the definition of light guide assembly that is recited initially in the claim. Appropriate correction is needed. 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 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 20240295686 A1) in view of Shao (US 20240045130 A1) and further in view of KR (KR 100924027 B1, cited previously) Regarding claim 1, Chen teaches a backlight module (at least Fig.3A,5,7,9 ,11,15,17), comprising: a light guide assembly (122,120;[0035]), comprising a plurality of overlapped first light guide plates, where each of the first light guide plates has a first bottom surface, a first light-emitting surface (each top surface), and a first light-incident surface (facing light sources 110,112), the first bottom surface (lower light guide’s bottom surface) and the first light-emitting surface (lower emitting surface) are opposite to each other, the first light-incident surface (lower first light-incident surface) is connected between the first bottom surface and the first light-emitting surface,a first light source 112, arranged next to the first light-incident surfaces of the first light guide plates; a second light guide plate 120, arranged above the light guide assembly (see claim Objection above), wherein the second light guide plate has a second bottom surface (bottom surface of 120), a second light-emitting surface (top surface of 120), and a second light-incident surface (facing 110), the second bottom surface and the second light-emitting surface are opposite to each other, the second light-incident surface is connected between the second bottom surface and the second light-emitting surface, a second light source 110, arranged next to the second light-incident surface of the second light guide plate; a turning film (160 in [0039]: the first prism sheet 160 is located on the side of the first light guide plate 120 away from the light control film 130 AND The first prism sheet 160 has a first prism structure (not shown) on the side away from the first light guide plate 120), arranged between the light guide assembly (see claim Objection above), and the second light guide plate; and a reflective sheet 140, arranged on a side of the light guide assembly away from the second light guide plate; wherein the backlight module is in an anti-peeping mode when the first light source is turned on ([0037]), and the backlight module is in a sharing mode when the first light source and the second light source are turned on ([0037]). Chen does not teach the first bottom surface is provided with a plurality of first microstructures; and the second bottom surface faces the light guide assembly and is provided with a plurality of second microstructures; wherein the first microstructures are prisms and are arranged in a plurality rows, a row direction of the rows is perpendicular to the first light-incident surface, an extension direction of each of the first microstructures is perpendicular to the row direction, and a quantity of the first microstructures in each of the rows is plural; wherein the plurality of second microstructures are micro-dot structures protruding from or sunken into the second bottom surface. Shao teaches two light guides for privacy arrangement (Fig.7, Fig.3A and 3B) wherein the first bottom surface is provided with a plurality of first microstructures; and the second bottom surface faces the light guide assembly and is provided with a plurality of second microstructures; wherein the first microstructures are prisms (116/115 and [0030]) and are arranged in a plurality rows, a row direction of the rows is perpendicular to the first light-incident surface, an extension direction of each of the first microstructures is perpendicular to the row direction, and a quantity of the first microstructures in each of the rows is plural; wherein the plurality of second microstructures are micro-dot structures (125 and [0033]) protruding from or sunken into the second bottom surface and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the microstructure arrangement as disclosed in Shao, in the device of Chen in order control the light emitting angle in the desired orientation ([0032] of Shao). Chen in view of Shao does not teach a thickness of each of the first light guide plates is less than a thickness of the second light guide plate. KR teaches a thickness of the first light guide plate (first light guide is 50) is less than a thickness of the second light guide plate (second light guide is 54, see in claim 4 of KR: 4. The LED backlight system of claim 3, wherein the thickness of the first light guide is smaller than the thickness of the second light guide and the thickness of the second light guide is smaller than the thickness of the light guide plate) and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the thickness, from the teachings of KR in the device of Chen in view of Shao in order to optimize the device thickness. Regarding claim 5, Chen in view of Shao and KR teaches a backlight module, wherein there is an included angle between the first light-incident surface and the second light-incident surface (because of positioning of top and bottom light sources in Figures Fig.3A,5,7,9 ,11,15,17 of Chen). Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 20240295686 A1) in view of Shao (US 20240045130 A1) and KR (KR 100924027 B1, cited previously) and further in view Li (CN 112882286 A) Regarding claim 2, Chen in view of Shen and KR teaches an anti-peeping sheet, arranged over the display device but does not teach arranged between the second light guide plate and the turning film. However, rearranging the position of the anti-peeping film is well known in the art. Li teaches the anti-peeping film 92 arranged between the second light guide plate and the turning film 925. PNG media_image1.png 248 586 media_image1.png Greyscale and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the positioning of the anti-peep film as disclosed in Li, in the device of Chen in view of Shen and KR in order to improve privacy of viewing. Claims 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Shao and KR and further in view of Chang (WO 2023279224, cited previously) Regarding claim 6, Chen in view of Shao and KR teaches the invention set forth in claim 1 above, but is silent regarding the first light-emitting surface and the second light-emitting surface of each of the first light guide plates are rectangular, the first light source faces a long edge of the first light-emitting surface of each of the first light guide plates, and the second light source faces a short edge of the second light-emitting surface. Chang teaches a panel having a peep-proof mood wherein the first light-emitting surface and the second light-emitting surface of each of the first light guide plates are rectangular, the first light source faces a long edge of the first light-emitting surface of each of the first light guide plates, and the second light source faces a short edge of the second light-emitting surface (Fig.3) and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the arrangement, as disclosed in Chang, in the device of Chen in view of Shao and KR in order to reduce overall thickness and make it cost effective (see in Chang for Fig.3 and 4 PNG media_image2.png 192 913 media_image2.png Greyscale ) Regarding claim 9, Chen in view of Shao and KR teaches the invention set forth in claim 1 above, but is silent regarding the first light source comprises a plurality of first light-emitting elements, the second light source comprises a plurality of second light-emitting elements, each of the first light-emitting elements has a first length in a predetermined direction perpendicular to the first light-emitting surface, the light guide assembly has a second length in the predetermined direction, and the second length is greater than the first length. Chang teaches a panel having a peep-proof mood wherein the first light source comprises a plurality of first light-emitting elements, the second light source comprises a plurality of second light-emitting elements, each of the first light-emitting elements has a first length in a predetermined direction perpendicular to the first light-emitting surface, the light guide assembly has a second length in the predetermined direction, and the second length is greater than the first length (see Fig.3 and 4 in Chang, the same reason to combine art as in claim 6 applies) and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the arrangement, as disclosed in Chang, in the device of Chen in view of Shao in order to reduce overall thickness and make it cost effective Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Shao and KR and further in view of Liu (TW M579298 U, cited previously) Regarding claim 10, Chen in view of Shao and KR teaches the invention set forth in claim 1 above, but is silent regarding the first bottom surface of each of the first light guide plates has a central area and a peripheral banded area, the peripheral banded area at least partially encircles the central area, the central area has the plurality of first microstructures, the peripheral banded area has a plurality of third microstructures, and the third microstructures are different from the first microstructures. Liu teaches such a feature (Fig.2 and 3) and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the arrangement for the microstructures, from the teachings of Liu in the device of Chen in view of Shao and KR in order to optimize the light extraction efficiency. Other art WO 2017065745 A1 discloses different microstructures for the two light guides. CN 115981052 A discloses the limitations of claim 1 US 20130286678 A1 CN 107179627 A CN 116300209 A US 20230349226 A1 US 20210390914 A1 WO 2022222083 A1 US 20210191027 A1 US 20170153383 A1 CN 104238185 B TW I573123 B US 20140375707 A1 JP 4748684 B2 US 20080112187 A1 US 20240012192 A1 US 11835750 B1 US 20220342134 A1 WO 2023279224 A1 US 18274077 US 20240057395 A1 US 20240008314 A1 US 20230263016 A1 US 20090128020 A1 JP 2008123925 A JP H1097199 A Response to Arguments The arguments filed by the Applicant on 4/10/26 is acknowledged. However, they are moot in light of new grounds of rejection, for the amended claims. 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. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fatima Farokhrooz whose telephone number is (571)-272-6043. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday, 9 am - 5 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s Supervisor, James Greece can be reached on (571) 272-3711. 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. /Fatima N Farokhrooz/ Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Show 1 earlier event
Mar 21, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103
Jun 23, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 11, 2025
Final Rejection mailed — §103
Dec 10, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Dec 23, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 14, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103
Apr 10, 2026
Response Filed
Jun 23, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12704773
LIGHT SOURCE MODULE
2y 5m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12690330
DISPLAY DEVICE
4y 0m to grant Granted Jul 21, 2026
Patent 12681230
LIGHT GUIDE MEMBER FOR LIGHT EMISSION DEVICE AND LIGHT EMISSION DEVICE
2y 8m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12681225
DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 7m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12677710
ALL-INORGANIC UP-CONVERSION DISPLAY
2y 10m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
49%
Grant Probability
82%
With Interview (+32.9%)
2y 11m (~1y 1m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 857 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month