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 6/24/2026 has been entered. Claim(s) 1-14 and 16-17 is/are pending. Claim(s) 15 has/have been cancelled.
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.
Claim(s) 1-13 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. (US 2020/0089051) (hereinafter Watanabe) in view of Kyoukane et al. (US 2019/0310516) (hereinafter Kyoukane).
Claim 1: Watanabe teaches a planar light source comprising: a substrate (41, fig. 1); a reflective member (42, fig. 1) defining at least one slit (452, fig. 14) penetrating from an upper surface of the reflective member (upper surface of 43, fig. 1) to a lower surface of the reflective member (lower surface of 43 in fig. 1), wherein the lower surface (lower surface of 43) of the reflective member is fixed to the substrate (41), the at least one slit (452) of the reflective member (402) includes at least one first slit (S1 see annotated fig. 14) arranged in a first region (R1, see annotated fig. 14), the first region (R1) extending in a first direction (R1 extends in X direction, see annotated fig. 14), and the at least one first slit (S1) intersecting a first virtual straight line (VL1, see annotated fig. 14) at a prescribed position (position of S1, see annotated fig. 14) in the first region (R1), and the first virtual straight line (VL1) is parallel to the first direction (X-direction, see annotated fig. 14).
PNG
media_image1.png
878
1313
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Watanabe fails to teach an adhesive member, the lower surface of the reflective member being in contact with the adhesive member, the lower surface of the reflective member is fixed to the substrate via the adhesive member.
Kyoukane teaches an adhesive member (42, fig. 13) (adhesive member, see para [0079]), a lower surface of a reflective member (lower surface of 41, fig. 13) being in contact with the adhesive member (42), the lower surface of the reflective member (41) is fixed to a substrate (20, fig. 13) via the adhesive member (42).
Therefore, in view of Kyoukane, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add an adhesive member where the lower surface of the reflective member being in contact with the adhesive member, the lower surface of the reflective member is fixed to the substrate via the adhesive member., in order to further fasten and secure the components together.
Claim 2: Watanabe teaches the at least one slit (45, fig. 14) further includes at least one second slit (S2, see annotated fig. 14) arranged in the first region (R1), and the at least one first slit (S1) extends (each slit S1 extending vertically in Y-direction like in S1A and S1B) in a second direction (Y-direction, fig. 14) different from the first direction (X-direction), and the at least one second slit (S2) extends in the first direction (X-direction, fig. 4) and is spaced apart from the at least one first slit (S1).
Claim 3: Watanabe teaches the at least one first slit (S1) includes a plurality of first slits (S1A, S1B, see annotated fig. 14) and the at least one second slit (S2) includes a plurality of second slits (S2A, S2B, see annotated fig. 14), and the plurality of first slits (S1) and the plurality of second slits (S2)are alternately disposed in the first direction (X-direction) in the first region (R1, see annotated fig. 14).
Claim 4: Watanabe teaches at least one of the plurality of second slits (S2) reaches an outer edge of the reflective member (right outer edge of 402, fig. 14) in the first region in the plan view.
Claim 5: Watanabe teaches the at least one slit further (452) includes at least one second slit (S2, see annotated fig. 14), and the at least one first slit (S1) extends in a second direction (each slit S1 extending vertically in Y-direction like in S1A and S1) different from the first direction (X-direction), and the at least one second slit (S2) extends in the first direction (X-direction) and is connected (connected by SC, see annotated fig. 14) to the at least one first slit (S1).
Claim 6: Watanabe teaches the at least one slit (452) includes at least one second slit (S22) arranged in a second region (R2, see annotated fig. 14) the second region (R2) extending in a second direction (extending vertically in Y-direction like in S22A and S22B , fig. 14) different from the first direction (X-direction), and the at least one second slit (S22) intersecting a second virtual straight line (VL2, see annotated fig. 2) at a prescribed position (position of S22) in the second region (R2), and the second virtual straight line (VL2) is parallel to the second direction (Y-direction).
Claim 7: Watanabe teaches the at least one first slit (S1) extends in the second direction (Y-direction), the at least one second slit (S22) extends in the first direction (X-direction), and the at least one second slit (S22) is spaced apart from the at least one first slit (S1).
Claim 8: Watanabe teaches the at least one first slit (S1) includes a plurality of first slits (S1A, S1B, see annotated fig. 14) and the at least one second slit (S2) includes a plurality of second slits (S22A, S22B, see annotated fig. 14), and the plurality of first slits (S1A, S1B) and the plurality of second slits (S22A, S22B) are alternately arranged in the second direction (Y-direction) in the second region (R2).
Claim 9: Watanabe teaches at least one of the plurality of first slits (S1A, S1B) reaches an outer edge of the reflective member in the second region (see fig. 14).
Claim 10: A first embodiment of Watanabe is silent about the at least one first slit includes at least one third slit and at least one fourth slit, and the at least one third slit extends in a third direction intersecting both the first direction and a second direction different from the first direction, and the at least one fourth slit intersects the third slit and extends in a fourth direction intersecting both the first direction and the second direction.
A second embodiment of Watanabe teaches the at least one first slit (454, fig. 16) includes at least one third slit (left-right diagonal slits of 454, fig. 16) and at least one fourth slit (right-left diagonal slits of 454, fig. 16), and the at least one third slit extends in a third direction intersecting both the first direction and the second direction (see fig. 16) different from the first direction, and the at least one fourth slit intersects the third slit and extends in a fourth direction intersecting both the first direction and the second direction (see fig. 16).
Therefore, in view of Watanabe, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the pattern of the slits to include at least one third slit and at least one fourth slit, and the at least one third slit extends in a third direction intersecting both the first direction and a second direction, and the at least one fourth slit intersects the third slit and extends in a fourth direction intersecting both the first direction and the second direction, in order to adjust the reflectance of light to produce a desired light output.
Claim 11: A first embodiment of Watanabe is silent about the at least one third slit includes a plurality of third slits and the at least one fourth slit includes a plurality of fourth slits, the plurality of third slits and the plurality of fourth slits are arranged in the first region, at least one of the plurality of third slits reaches one of outer edges of the reflective member in the plan view, and at least one of the plurality of fourth slits reaches the one of the outer edges of the reflective member in the plan view.
A second embodiment of Watanabe the at least one third slit includes a plurality of third slits (left-right diagonal slits of 454, fig. 16) and the at least one fourth slit includes a plurality of fourth slits (right-left diagonal slits of 454, fig. 16), the plurality of third slits and the plurality of fourth slits are arranged in the first region (see fig. 16 and refer back to annotated fig. 4 for first region), at least one of the plurality of third slits reaches one of outer edges of the reflective member (left outer edge of 404, fig. 16) in the plan view, and at least one of the plurality of fourth slits reaches the one of the outer edges of the reflective member in the plan view (right outer edge of 404, fig. 16).
Therefore, in view of Watanabe, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the pattern of the slits to include the at least one third slit includes a plurality of third slits and the at least one fourth slit includes a plurality of fourth slits, the plurality of third slits and the plurality of fourth slits are arranged in the first region, at least one of the plurality of third slits reaches one of outer edges of the reflective member in the plan view, and at least one of the plurality of fourth slits reaches the one of the outer edges of the reflective member in the plan view, in order to adjust the reflectance of light to produce a desired light output.
Claim 12: Watanabe teaches e at least one slit (452, fig. 14) further includes a second slit (S2, see annotated fig. 14) and a third slit (S3, see annotated fig. 14), and the third slit (S3) extends in a third direction (Y-direction) intersecting both the first direction (X-direction) and a second direction (X-direction), and the second slit (S2) is spaced apart from the third slit (S3) and extends in the first direction (X-direction).
However, Watanabe is silent about the third slit extends in the third direction intersecting both the first direction and the second direction different from the first direction.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to change the shape of the slits to be where the third slit extends in a third direction intersecting both the first direction and a second direction different from the first direction to adjust the amount of reflection, since it has been held that the configuration of the slits was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim 13: Watanabe is silent about the at least one slit is inclined with respect to the upper surface of the reflective member in a cross-sectional view.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to change the shape of the slits to be inclined with respect to an upper surface of the reflective member in a cross-sectional view to adjust the amount of reflection, since it has been held that the configuration of the slits was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim 16: Watanabe teaches the reflective member (402, fig. 14) is an integrated structure in a top view (see fig. 14).
Claim 17: Watanabe teaches a backlight light source (see fig. 14 and para [0035]) using the reflective member of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. (US 2020/0089051) in view of Kyoukane et al. (US 2019/0310516) as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of Nakamura (JP 2013118117).
Claim 14: Watanabe in view of Kyoukane fails to teach the at least one slit has a curved shape in the plan view.
Nakamura teaches at least one slit (29h, fig. 7) has a curved shape in the plan view (see fig. 7).
Therefore, in view of Nakamura, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the shape of the slits to have a curved shape in the plan view, in order to adjust the amount of reflection, since it has been held that the configuration of the slits was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 has/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.
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 ZHENG B SONG whose telephone number is (571)272-9402. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9AM - 5PM.
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, Jong-Suk (James) Lee can be reached at 571-272-7044. 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.
/ZHENG SONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights