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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Numata et al. (US 2021/0223465) in view of Lee et al. (US 2019/0154901).
Regarding claim 1, Numata et al. (figure 4) discloses a display device comprising:
an illumination device comprising:
a transparent substrate (30) having a first main surface, a second main surface, and a first side surface connecting the first main surface with the second main surface;
a lens (light guide LG1) opposed to the first side surface; and
a light source (LD1) irradiating light to the lens,
a display panel comprising:
an array substrate (10);
a counter substrate (20) having a third main surface and a second side surface connected to the third main surface; and
a liquid crystal layer (LC) sandwiched between the array substrate and the counter substrate, and
a transparent adhesive layer (AD), wherein the first main surface and the third main surface are fixed by the transparent adhesive layer.
Numata et al. (figure 4) further discloses a transparent substrate (30) overlaps with the counter substrate in a plan view. However, Numata et al. is silent regarding the first side surface includes a first intersection surface intersecting a thickness direction and a second intersection surface intersecting the thickness direction at a different angle from the first intersection surface, and the first intersection surface and the second intersection surface overlap with the counter substrate in a plan view. Lee et al. (figure 14) teaches the first side surface includes a first intersection surface intersecting a thickness direction and a second intersection surface intersecting the thickness direction at a different angle from the first intersection surface (10 and 10s1-10s3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the transparent substrate as taught by Lee et al. in order to achieve an optical member having an excellent light guide function. Therefore, Numata et al. as modified by Lee et al. teaches the second intersection surface overlap with the counter substrate in a plan view.
Regarding claim 2, Numata et al. (figure 4) discloses wherein the liquid crystal layer is a polymer dispersed liquid crystal layer (see at least paragraph 0025).
Regarding claim 3, Numata et al. (figure 4) as modified by Lee et al. teaches wherein the light source emits light toward both the first side surface and the second side surface (figure 4).
Regarding claim 4, Numata et al. disclose the claimed invention but is silent regarding wherein a first acute angle formed between the thickness direction and the first intersection surface is 30 degrees or more and 70 degrees or less, and a second acute angle formed between the thickness direction and the second intersection surface is 30 degrees or more and 70 degrees or less. Numata et al. (figure 4) teaches wherein a first acute angle formed between the thickness direction and the first intersection surface is 30 degrees or more and 70 degrees or less, and a second acute angle formed between the thickness direction and the second intersection surface is 30 degrees or more and 70 degrees or less (An inclination angle θ1 of the edge surface 10r with respect to the upper/lower surface 10a/10b may be about 6 degrees (°) to about 20°, therefore the acute angles are between 70° and 84°; see at least paragraph 0038)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1428. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 8:00 AM -6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Carruth, can be reached at 571-272-9791. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LAUREN NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights