DETAILED ACTION
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, 3-8, 13-17, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (U.S. 2011/0050558) in view of Holman (U.S. 8,721,149).
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches a lighting device (see fig. 7) comprising:
a substrate (substrate 210);
a plurality of light sources (leds 225) disposed on the substrate;
a resin layer (resin layer 230) covering the light sources and disposed on the substrate.
Park does not teach a lens plate disposed on the resin layer, wherein the lens plate includes a plurality of convex portions arranged in a first direction,
wherein the plurality of convex portions has a long length in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction, and wherein the convex portions comprise a lenticular lens.
Holman teaches a lens plate (see fig. 1d, lens plates 52, 54) disposed on the resin layer, wherein the lens plate includes a plurality of convex portions arranged in a first direction,
wherein the plurality of convex portions has a long length in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction, and wherein the convex portions comprise a lenticular lens (lenticular lens).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used the lenticular lens sheets as taught by Holman to further diffuse and spread the angle of the backlight of Park, see col. 38, lines 30-62 of Holman.
The combination of Park and Holman teaches that at least one of the plurality of convex portions (lenticules of Holman) overlaps the substrate, the resin layer, and at least one of the plurality of light sources in a direction perpendicular to an upper surface of the substrate (lenticular lens overlaps entire light emitting face, and overlaps substrate, resin, and convex portions).
PNG
media_image1.png
428
616
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Park teaches comprising: a first air layer disposed between the resin layer and the lens plate (see p. 0138, air layers between the plates, enhances diffusion between layers see p. 0139).
Regarding claim 4, Park teaches comprising: a first light transmitting layer (diffusion plate 1800) disposed between the resin layer and the lens plate and including a diffusion agent.
Regarding claim 5, Park teaches comprising: a first air layer (see p. 0138) disposed between the first light transmitting layer and the lens plate.
Regarding claim 6, Park teaches comprising: a first light transmitting layer (1800) between the resin layer and the lens plate; and a second light transmitting layer (optical sheets 250) disposed between the first light transmitting layer and the lens plate, wherein at least one of the first and second light transmitting layers includes a diffusion agent (diffusion layer 1800, beads see p. 0136).
Regarding claim 7, Park teaches a first air layer between the first light transmitting layer and the lens plate; and a second air layer disposed between the second light transmitting layer and the lens plate (air gaps, see p. 0138-0139).
Regarding claim 8, Park and Holman do not specifically teach that a first interval between the resin layer and the lens plate is in a range of 5 mm to 50 mm.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was made to have optimized the interval between the resin layer and the lens plate to maximize diffusion and minimize size. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456.
Regarding claim 13, Holman teaches that the plurality of convex portions is disposed on a lower surface or an upper surface of the lens plate (lenticules).
Regarding claim 14, Park teaches comprising: a reflective layer (reflective portion 240) disposed between the substrate and the resin layer and having a plurality of open regions, wherein each of the plurality of light sources is disposed through each of the open regions (see fig. 21).
Regarding claim 15, Holman teaches that each of the plurality of convex portions has one of a hemispherical shape (lenticular), a semi-elliptical shape, or a polygonal shape.
Regarding claim 16, Park teaches that each of the plurality of light sources is a side view type package having an LED chip (see fig. 7).
Regarding claim 17, Park teaches comprising: a first light transmitting layer (1800) disposed on at least one of an upper surface and side surfaces of the resin layer; and a second light transmitting layer (251, 252) disposed on at least one of an upper surface and side surfaces of the first light transmitting layer.
Regarding claim 19, Park teaches comprising:
a first light transmitting layer (235) including a diffusion agent (beads see p. 0136) and disposed between the resin layer and the lens plate; and
a light blocking layer (265) disposed on the first light transmitting layer wherein the light blocking layer includes a plurality of opening portions (see fig. 7).
Claim(s) 2, 20, 21, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Holman, further in view of Jang (U.S. 9,813,696).
Regarding claim 2, Park and Holman teaches a light blocking layer (light blocking portions 265) having a plurality of opening portions between the lens plate and the resin layer (see fig. 7).
Park does not teach wherein light passing through the lens plate is illuminated as a stereoscopic image.
Jang teaches wherein light passing through the lens plate and the opening portions is illuminated as a stereoscopic image (stereoscopic image display, formed by arrangement of lenticular sheet 500 over masking layer 300).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used the arrangement of Park in a manner that creates a stereoscopic image display as taught by Jang to enable 3dimensional display and provide additional aesthetic effects, as is known in the art.
Regarding claim 20, Park does not teach wherein the light blocking layer includes a plurality of opening portions, wherein each of the plurality of convex portions has a length substantially equal to a length of the lens plate in the second direction perpendicular to the first direction, wherein light emitted from the light sources is exited as a plurality of images through the plurality of opening portions and the lens plate.
Jang teaches wherein the light blocking layer includes a plurality of opening portions (see fig. 1), wherein each of the plurality of convex portions has a length substantially equal to a length of the lens plate in the second direction perpendicular to the first direction (lenticular), wherein light emitted from the light sources is exited as a plurality of images through the plurality of opening portions and the lens plate (stereoscopic).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used the arrangement of Park in a manner that creates a stereoscopic image display as taught by Jang to enable 3dimensional display and provide additional aesthetic effects, as is known in the art.
Regarding claim 21, Park does not specifically teach that an interval between adjacent opening portions is greater than a length of at least one of the opening portions.
Jang teaches that an interval between adjacent opening portions is greater than a length of at least one of the opening portions (see fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used smaller opening portions to increase the brightness of the images emitted as the light is additionally collected, as taught by Jang. The Examiner further notes that the ratio of opening portions to the interval is an obvious design choice depending on the desired use of the lighting device.
Regarding claim 23, Park does not teach wherein light passing through the lens plate is illuminated as a stereoscopic image, wherein the stereoscopic image provides as a long image in a direction perpendicular to a length direction of each of the convex portions based on a center of each of the opening portions.
Jang teaches wherein light passing through the lens plate is illuminated as a stereoscopic image (see abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used the arrangement of Park in a manner that creates a stereoscopic image display as taught by Jang to enable 3dimensional display and provide additional aesthetic effects, as is known in the art.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have formed the stereoscopic image provides as a long image in a direction perpendicular to a length direction of each of the convex portions based on a center of each of the opening portions. The recitation of the image is a recitation of the shape of the openings of the lighting device.
Change in shape of a claimed invention does not render it nonobvious over the prior art if the design 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 was significant. In reDailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Holman, further in view of Yang (U.S. 8,960,977).
Regarding claim 18, Park does not teach that the first light transmitting layer includes at least one of a phosphor and ink particles.
Yang teaches wherein the light transmitting layer includes at least one of a phosphor and ink particles (ink, see col. 7 lines 38-52)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used ink particles for the diffusion layer as such are well known diffusing structures, commonly used in the art for uniformity, see col. 7-8 of Yang.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Holman, further in view of Mulder (U.S. 2013/0335994).
Regarding claim 22, Park and Jang do not specifically teach that the plurality of opening portions does not overlap with the plurality of light sources in a vertical direction orthogonal to the first and second directions.
Mulder teaches that the plurality of opening portions does not overlap with the plurality of light sources in a vertical direction orthogonal to the first and second directions (see fig. 1, light source 15).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have arranged the light sources not overlapping with the opening portions as taught by Mulder to further enable the diffusion of light in Park and prevent the appearance of glare or hot spots in the light guides as is known in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 24 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claim 24 recites “wherein a brightness of the stereoscopic image gradually decreases as a region gets father from the center of each of the opening portions”. The prior art does not teach specific stereoscopic images with brightness shifts within the image. The Examiner finds that it would not be obvious to modify the prior art in a manner to teach the limitation.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument on page 12-13 of the response that assert “Park does not define a structural relationship requiring vertical alignment of individual convex portions with respective light sources and resin layers…” the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The lenticular sheet of Holman covers the entirety of the light output surface, see fig. 1d, as is common practice in use of a lenticular sheet. The lenticules of Holman form convex portions with no gap between them, i.e. the convex lenses of Holman overlap every spot of the light guide, see figure 1D. The use of the lenticular sheet of Holman would be on the light emitting surface of Park, the convex lenses would therefore overlap the entirety of the structure, including areas with a light source, resin, and substrate, as indicated in the annotated figure above.
Regarding Applicant’s argument on page 15 of the response, that one of ordinary skill would not combine Park and Holman as they are directed towards incompatible lighting technologies, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
The Examiner finds that Applicant’s argument is directed towards the bodily incorporation of the entirety of the references, not the combination as presented. The Examiner has used the lenticular sheet of Holman, not the entirety of optical structure. The lenticular sheet of Holman is a well known optical structure applicable to both edgelit (i.e. Holman) and backlit (i.e. Park) structures for creating a more uniform light emission and reducing bright spots in the light distribution. The lenticular sheet of Holman furthers the directive of Park in providing widened output light, see col. 3 lines 56-63.
Applicant’s further argument on page 16 of the response asserts that “the core operating principle of Holman requires maintaining internal reflection along a controlled propagation path, while the lenticular structure of Park is specifically designed to refract and redistribute light outward, this is an incorrect reading of the references.
Park does not teach a lenticular structure.
Holman teaches a lenticular structure after maintaining TIR along the propagation path, which is specifically designed to refract and redistribute light outward, “It is still another object of this disclosure to apply geometrically shaped portions of lenticular filmstrips to the input edge of light guiding plates for the purpose of widening the angle extent only in a local region of an illumination system as a means of improving near field brightness uniformity” (see Holman col. 4 lines 17-21). I.e. the lenticular sheet is not used to maintain TIR, but is used after reflection for wider angle and uniform light emission.
The Examiner notes that additional arguments on page 16, 17 appear to argue against using a lenticular sheet from Park in the structure of Holman, which is not the prior art combination recited above.
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 MATTHEW J PEERCE whose telephone number is (571)272-6570. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4pm 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, James Greece can be reached on (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.
/Matthew J. Peerce/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875