DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 3/26/2026 is acknowledged. Accordingly, claims 2-9 have been cancelled, claims 1, 10, 12-14, 16, 19-23 and 25 have been amended, claims 26-30 have been newly added. Currently, claims 1, 10-30 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 30 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 30 has been written as erroneously depending from itself.
It is noted claim 30 further specifies limitations in claim 29, (the openings), therefore for purpose of examination, claim 30 has been interpreted to depend from claim 29 and not from itself.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 26-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Katsumata et al. (US 20210373385 A1, hereinafter, “Katsumata”, cited by the Applicant in IDS filed on 2/7/2025).
Regarding claim 26, Katsumata teaches direct-type planar illumination device (planar light source, see figures 16-17, and figures 1-15 ad 18-20 to show common elements and features common to all embodiments) comprising:
a plurality of light sources (light sources 12, see fig 17); and
a reflector (reflector 23) having a plurality of reflective surfaces (see portions 23a-23c) which form respective segments and surround (see segments surrounding each 12) a corresponding one of the plurality of light sources (12),
wherein at an area (see area a1, as annotated above) not enabling arrangement of the light sources (any additional light source) because a planar shape (as seen in fig 17) of a light emitting area (area surrounded by 23) of the planar illumination device is irregular and non-rectangular (as seen in fig above),
a segment (S1) of the reflector adjacent to the area (a1) is extended toward an outer edge side (see right edge of fig 16) of the planar illumination device, a plurality of valley lines (see valley lines annotated as v, at the root of outer segments 23, and extending along double ended arrows) on the outer edge side (right edge, see fig above) of the irregular shape area (a1) of a plurality of the segments (see segments on a1) are formed in a single straight line (as clearly seen in fig 16 above).
Annotated figure 16 of Katsumata has been reproduced below:
PNG
media_image1.png
614
685
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 27, Katsumata teaches wherein a plurality of valley lines (v in a1) on the outer edge side (right edge of fig 16) of the irregular shape area (a1) of each of a plurality of segments (see outer segments) are formed on a single straight line (as seen in fig 16) along an entire length (see length of a1) of the irregular shape area (a1).
Regarding claim 28, Katsumata teaches wherein a direction (see direction of arrows) of the valley line (v in a1) on the outer edge side (right edge of 16) of the irregular shape area (a1) is the same as a direction (see arrows outside a1 in annotated fig above ) of the valley line (v outside a1) in an area other than the irregular shape area (a1).
Regarding claim 29, Katsumata teaches wherein a plurality of openings (see openings of 23 for light sources 12) exposing the light sources (12) is formed into a rectangle (as seen in fig 16) by the valley lines (at least for valleys v outside a1).
Regarding claim 30, Katsumata teaches wherein an opening (opening for 12 in a1) in a segment adjacent to the irregular shape area (a1) is the same size and shape (as seen in fig 16) as an opening (opening for 12 outside a1) in a segment not adjacent to the irregular shape area (area outside a1).
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.
The factual inquiries 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 16, 22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsumata et al. (US 20210373385 A1, hereinafter, “Katsumata”, cited by the Applicant in IDS filed on 2/7/2025) in view of Lamb et al. (US 20050135117 A1, hereinafter, “Lamb”).
Regarding claim 16, Katsumata teaches a direct-type planar illumination device (planar light source, see figures 16-17, and figures 1-15 ad 18-20 to show common elements and features common to all embodiments) in which a plurality of light sources (light sources 12, see fig 17) are arranged in a grid pattern (as seen in fig 1) at a substrate (substrate 11, see fig 17), the planar illumination device comprising:
a lens (prism sheets 73 and 74, see fig 11) arranged for the plurality of light sources (12),
wherein
at an area (see area a1 in annotated fig below) not enabling arrangement of the light sources (12) because a planar shape (as seen in fig 17) of a light emitting area (area surrounded by 23) of the planar illumination device (planar light source) is irregular and non-rectangular (as seen in annotated fig below), the lens (73-74) is extended (see lens extending beyond the corresponding light source and along the axis X, better seen in fig 11).
Annotated figure 16 of Katsumata has been reproduced below:
PNG
media_image2.png
614
685
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Katsumata does not explicitly teach the lens is a condenser lens.
Lamb teaches a direct-type planar illumination device (backlighting system 100, see figure 2) including: a plurality of light sources (Light sources 185a and 185b), a reflector (extractor 143) and a lens (collimating structures 144a and 144b is BEF film arranged so that prism apexes point generally into the interior of the reflective cavity, see fig 2);
the lens (144a and 144b) is a condenser lens (as the prism sheets are condensing structures, see ¶ 28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filled date of the claimed invention to incorporate lens as taught by Lamb into the teachings of Katsumata in order to enhance light emission out of the device. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification to avoid light losses and maximize light output.
Regarding claim 22, Katsumata teaches further comprising a reflector (reflector 23) having a plurality of reflective surfaces (wall portions 23b and bottom potions 23c, see fig 16) which form respective segments (see horizontal, vertical and inclined segments formed by at least four 23b, and surrounding light sources 12 in fig 16), and surround a corresponding one (as clearly seen in fig 16) of the plurality of light sources (12).
Regarding claim 24, Katsumata teaches wherein the plurality of light sources (12) can be driven by local dimming (see local dimming disclosed in ¶ 52).
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsumata et al. (US 20210373385 A1, hereinafter, “Katsumata”, cited by the Applicant in IDS filed on 2/7/2025) in view of Lamb et al. (US 20050135117 A1, hereinafter, “Lamb”) as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (KR 20100075758 A, hereinafter, “Lee”).
Regarding claim 17-19, Katsumata does not teach wherein the condenser lens is a linear Fresnel lens; and
wherein the extending of the linear Fresnel lens is performed corresponding to a curved surface of a cylindrical lens corresponding to the linear Fresnel lens; and
wherein the direction of extension of the linear Fresnel lens is orthogonal to a direction in which uneven grooves of the linear Fresnel lens extend.
Lee teaches a direct-type planar illumination device (illumination apparatus, see figures 10-12) including a plurality of light sources (Linear light sources 30, see fig 10) and a condensing lens (optical path changing unit 60, see fig 10);
wherein the condenser lens (60) is a linear Fresnel lens (linear Fresnel lens 66); and
wherein the extending of the linear Fresnel lens (see portions of 66 extending along a cylindrical area around each light source, no labeled but evident from figure 10, and known in the art as the basis for a Fresnel lens construction) is performed corresponding to a curved surface of a cylindrical lens (as is known in the art of Fresnel lens construction) corresponding to the linear Fresnel lens (66); and
wherein the direction of extension (from left to right, as seen in fig 10) of the linear Fresnel lens (66) is orthogonal (along the light emission direction, as seen in fig 10) to a direction in which (see grooves extending into the page, as prism portion 61 extends in parallel in the longitudinal direction of the linear light source 30, which is a CCFL, a tubular) uneven grooves (see grooves formed by 66) of the linear Fresnel lens (66) extend.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filled date of the claimed invention to incorporate lens as taught by Lee into the teachings of Katsumata in order to eliminate luminance unevenness due to light leakage. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification to reduce unwanted light diffusion.
Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsumata et al. (US 20210373385 A1, hereinafter, “Katsumata”, cited by the Applicant in IDS filed on 2/7/2025) in view of Lamb et al. (US 20050135117 A1, hereinafter, “Lamb”) and Lee et al. (KR 20100075758 A, hereinafter, “Lee”) as applied to claims 16 and 17 above, and further in view of Yuan et al. (US 20150204491 A1, hereinafter, “Yuan”).
Regarding claims 20-21, Katsumata as modified by Lee disclose the planar illumination device having a linear Fresnel lens, but Katsumata as modified by Lee does not explicitly teach comprising:
Further comprising:
another linear Fresnel lens having uneven grooves extending in a direction orthogonal to a direction of extension of the uneven grooves of the linear Fresnel lens; and
wherein the another linear Fresnel lens is formed at a surface of the linear Fresnel lens, the surface being at an opposite side of the linear Fresnel lens, or is formed separately from the linear Fresnel lens.
Yuan teaches a direct-type planar illumination device (lighting device, see figures 1-4) including a plurality of light sources (LEDs 67, see fig 4) illuminating a linear Fresnel lens (Fresnel features 58 on a second surface 60, see fig 1);
further comprising:
another linear Fresnel lens (Fresnel features 54 on a first surface 56, see fig 1) having uneven grooves (see grooves formed by 54) extending in a direction (note, the plurality of grooves extending along the Z axis, as seen in fig 1) orthogonal to a direction of extension (see grooves of 58, extending along the X axis, as seen in fig 1) of the uneven grooves (grooves of 58) of the linear Fresnel lens (58); and
wherein the another linear Fresnel lens (54 on 56) is formed at a surface (56) of the linear Fresnel lens (58 on 60), the surface (56) being at an opposite side (as 56 is opposite to 60, see fig 1) of the linear Fresnel lens (58), or is formed separately from the linear Fresnel lens.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filled date of the claimed invention to incorporate the Fresnel lenses as taught by Yuan into the teachings of Katsumata as modified by Lee so that light is condensed with respect to the two orthogonal axes. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification to improve light collimation and light mixing.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23 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.
Regarding claim 23, although Katsumata teaches the direct-type planar illumination device, as described in claim 16 above, the prior art the prior art of the record fails to teach wherein the condenser lens is a linear Fresnel lens, and a focal position of the linear Fresnel lens in a segment adjacent to the irregular shape area is arranged parallel to an arrangement direction of a plurality of light sources arranged in a straight line and on an optical axis of the light sources.
Claims 1, 10-15 and 25 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
With regard to claim 1, while direct-type planar illumination devices having: a plurality of light sources; and a reflector having a plurality of reflective surfaces which form respective segments, and surround a corresponding one of the plurality of light sources, wherein a shape of the plurality of reflective surfaces at an area where a planar shape of a light emitting area of the planar illumination device is irregular and non-rectangular is the same despite a position of an end part of the light emitting area, and an inclination angle of a reflective surface of the irregular shape area is different from an inclination angle of a reflective surface of an area that is not the irregular shape area in a sectional view perpendicular to a ridge line of the reflective surface, are old and well known in the illumination art (as evidenced by the Prior Art already made of record), no prior art was found teaching:
The direct-type planar illumination device, as disclosed in claim 1 above, wherein the shape of the plurality of reflective surfaces at the area where a planar shape of a light emitting area of the planar illumination device is irregular and non-rectangular is adjusted according the position of the end part of the light emitting area.
Claims 10-15 are allowed for being dependent on the allowed claim 1.
With regard to claim 25, while direct-type planar illumination devices including: a plurality of light sources; and a reflector having a plurality of reflective surfaces which form respective segments, and surround a corresponding one of the plurality of light sources, wherein a shape of the reflective surfaces of an area where the planar shape of a light emitting area of the planar illumination device is irregular and non-rectangular is the same despite a position of the end part of the light emitting area, a reflective surface on an outer edge side of an irregular shape area includes two or more continuing surfaces, and the two or more continuing surfaces include a surface that extends substantially parallel to a thickness direction along a shape of the outer edge of the irregular shape area, are old and well known in the illumination art (as evidenced by the Prior Art already made of record), no prior art was found teaching:
The direct-type planar illumination device, as disclosed in claim 25 above, wherein the shape of the reflective surfaces of the area where the planar shape of the light emitting area of the planar illumination device is irregular and non-rectangular is adjusted according to the position of the end part of the light emitting area.
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 3/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to claim 16, Applicant argues Katsumata as modified by Lamb does not explicitly teach that the lens is a condenser lens, stating that: the backlighting system of Lamb is an edge-lit type, not a direct-type, and that both of the arrangement position and the arrangement direction of the collimating structures 144a, 144b differ from those of the condenser lens of the instant application.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claim requires a lens that condenses light. Katsumata discloses a lens; however, it does not explicitly teach the lens condenses light. Lamb is another type of backlight that includes a lens at the output of the light sources. Katsumata would certainly benefit from the teachings of a similar device that aims to provide backlight. Among the benefits, a condenser lens would gather most light emitted by the light source and direct them in one direction, and thus maximize light output into an LCD screen or any other type of display. These benefits are well known in the art of backlighting.
And the Applicant’s arguments in this regard are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the dependent claims should be allowed as they depend from claim 16.
The examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons stated 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 OMAR ROJAS CADIMA whose telephone number is (571)272-8007. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9am-6pm.
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, Abdulmajeed Aziz can be reached at 571-270-5046. 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.
/OMAR ROJAS CADIMA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights