DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to Election/restriction filed on 06/12/2026. The applicant has elected Claims 1-7. Hence Claims 1-7 are considered in this office action pending examination.
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 .
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pope et al. (US8912480B2) in view of Fukuda et al. (US10209565B2) and herein after will be referred as Pope and Fukuda.
Regarding Claim 1, Pope teaches a display device comprising: a display panel (Fig.6 Col.6 line 58-59: “As shown in FIG. 6, display 14 may include display cover layer 56.”);
a transmission reflection member provided in front of the display panel (Col.11 Line 20-26: “As shown in FIG. 23, light guide structure 34 may have a transparent core structure Such as core structure 136 (e.g., a transparent plastic or glass member). Reflective layer 134 may be used to coat the exterior of core structure 136. As light travels within core structure 136, the reflective material of layer 134 may reflect the light and may help contain the light within core structure 136.”);
a sensor configured to detect an amount of light corresponding to incident light incident onto the transmission reflection member (#28 Col.5 Line 33-43: “During operation of ambient light sensor 28, light may pass through ambient light sensor window 24 to be detected by ambient light sensor 28. To help route ambient light to ambient light sensor 28 in a configuration of the type shown in FIG. 2 in which ambient light sensor 28 is laterally offset from ambient light sensor window 24, light guide structures Such as light guide 34 may be provided. Light guide 34 may have a first end Such as end 36 (i.e., a light entrance) that overlaps and is aligned with ambient light sensor window 24 and may have a second end Such as end 38 (i.e., a light exit) that overlaps and is aligned with ambient light sensor 28.”);
and an optical member provided near the transmission reflection member, the optical member including reflective surfaces continuing to each other, the optical member being configured to receive light, reflect the light by the reflective surfaces, and guide the reflected light to the sensor (Fig.23 Col.11 Line 16-31: “FIG. 23 is a cross-sectional side view of a portion of electronic device 10 showing how a light guide structure Such as light guide structure 34 of FIG. 22 may be used in routing light from ambient light sensor window 24 to ambient light sensor 28. As shown in FIG. 23, light guide structure 34 may have a transparent core structure Such as core structure 136 (e.g., a transparent plastic or glass member). Reflective layer 134 may be used to coat the exterior of core structure 136. As light travels within core structure 136, the reflective material of layer 134 may reflect the light and may help contain the light within core structure 136. Angled surface 134A at end 36 may help reflect light 146 along the interior of core structure 136 parallel to longitudinal axis 150. Angled surface 134B at end 38 may help reflect light 148 that is traveling parallel to axis 150 downwards toward ambient light sensor 28.”),
Pope does not expressly teach the reflective surfaces constituting a polygonal surface bulging out toward an opposite side of an incident side with respect to a virtual plane defined by outer contours of the reflective surfaces.
Fukuda teaches the reflective surfaces constituting a polygonal surface bulging out toward an opposite side of an incident side with respect to a virtual plane defined by outer contours of the reflective surfaces (Col.6 Line 11-37: “It is preferable that the reflection member 4 be a thin sheet and be flat as a whole. The reflection member of the present invention may have a configuration in which a plurality of polygonal cells 40 is arrayed (see FIG. 1), or may be configured with one polygonal cell 40 (see FIG. 2). The polygonal cell 40 has a polygonal shape (typically a rectangular shape) in plan view, and its outer rim is high and the center bottom portion is low in cross-sectional view by the center bottom portion 42 and the inclined portion 44 provided around the center bottom portion 42, so that the polygonal cell 40 has a overall shape recessed at the center. The outer rim of the polygonal cell 40 is composed of each vertex A of the polygonal shape and each side M connecting two of the vertices A. The outer rim (side M) of the polygonal cell 40 is a portion corresponding to the outline composing the polygonal shape in plan view, and is formed by a straight line. However, in cross-sectional view, it is not limited to a straight line between the vertices A, and may be a broken line, a curve, or a combination thereof in which its height in Z axis direction varies along the way. It is preferable that center point O of the polygonal cell 40 and the center point of the center bottom portion match in plan view, and it is preferable that the optical axis of the light source 2 (or the light emitting device 1) be arranged at the center point O. The plane defined by XY at the center bottom portion shall be a reference surface (e.g., reference symbol S of FIG. 6B).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pope to incorporate the teachings of Fukuda to include the reflective surfaces constituting a polygonal surface bulging out toward an opposite side of an incident side with respect to a virtual plane defined by outer contours of the reflective surfaces. Doing so would optimize the light collection efficiency as disclosed in Fukuda.
Regarding Claim 2, Pope in view Fukuda teaches the display device according to claim 1.
Pope also teaches wherein an area of each of the reflective surfaces is equal to or larger than an area of a light reception region of the sensor (Fig.23).
Regarding Claim 3, Pope in view Fukuda teaches the display device according to claim 1.
Fukuda also teaches each of the reflective surfaces extends along the virtual plane (Col.6 Line 11-37).
Regarding Claim 4, Pope in view Fukuda teaches the display device according to claim 1.
Pope also teaches the reflective surfaces include a first reflective surface extending along the virtual plane, and a second reflective surface extending obliquely to the virtual plane (Col. 11 Line 26-31).
Regarding Claim 5, Pope in view Fukuda teaches the display device according to claim 4.
Pope also teaches the optical member further includes an incident surface on which light is incident, and an angle between the second reflective surface and the virtual plane corresponds to an incident angle of the light to the incident surface (Col. 11 Line 36-51).
Regarding Claim 6, Pope in view Fukuda teaches the display device according to claim 4.
Fukuda also teaches wherein the optical member further includes an incident surface on which light is incident, and an angle between the first reflective surface and the second reflective surface corresponds to an incident angle of the light to the incident surface (Col.1 Line 24-40).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Danno et al. (US12038595B2) discloses parallel light traveling in a direction perpendicular to an outgoing surface having a curved surface is emitted. A light guide member according to one or more embodiments may include: an incident surface where light from a light source enters; at least one reflective surface that reflects the light having entered from the incident surface; and an outgoing surface that is formed of a curved surface and emits the light reflected by the reflective surface. The reflective surface reflects the light having entered from the light source in a direction in which the incident angle of the light incident on the outgoing surface is constant.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDHESH K JHA whose telephone number is (571)272-6218. The examiner can normally be reached M-F:0800-1700.
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 J Lee can be reached at 571-270-5965. 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.
/ABDHESH K JHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights