DETAILED ACTION
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1-3, Applicant recites “a surface luminance of the lens”. This recitation is considered vague and indefinite since the Specification nor the claims provide a definition of details as to what the luminance distribution of the lens or where on the lens the luminance occurs. Claim 2 discloses a surface luminance being a specific value of 150-170%of the surface of luminance of the lens and claim 3 discloses a luminance of light of each of the first and second boundaries being a specific value of 50-70% of the surface luminance of the lens, which are also considered vague and indefinite in light of claim 1. Claims 4-15 are necessarily rejected because of their dependence on claim 1.
As best understood the following rejection applies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claim(s) 1,4,5,8,9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al (KR 20190060519A, Kim).
Regarding claim 1, Kim disclose a display device comprising: a display panel (see for example Fig. 10, (110), and passages referenced in the search report), a frame located behind the display panel (see for example Fig. 10, (150), and passages referenced in the search report) and a substrate located between the display panel and the frame (see for example Fig. 10, (129b, 122), and passages referenced in the search report). An optical unit (see for example Fig. 10, (124, 126), and passages referenced in the search report) is located between the display panel and the substrate. A plurality of light sources (see for example Fig. 9a to 10, (129a), and Para. 0142
to Para.0171) arranged in a matrix form on the substrate, the plurality of light sources including first light sources located in columns of a first row and second light sources located in columns of a second row (see for example Fig. 9b and Para. 0142 to 0171). A plurality of lenses cover the plurality of light sources (see for example Fig. 9b, (300) and [0142] to [0171]). A supporter is located on the substrate (see for example Fig. 9a to 10, (330, 340), and [0142] to [0171]) and supporting the optical unit. The supporter is located between the columns and extends in direction intersecting with the first and second rows. (as seen in Figs.9a-10).
Although Kim does not specifically recite "based on a surface luminance of the lens, an area between the columns (CL1, CL2) is covered with light of a specific luminance, an area between the first row (R1, RI') and the second row (R2, R2') is covered with light with a luminance lower than the specific luminance", as broadly interpreted the above features simply define that the area between the rows of lights source has a lower luminance than the area between the columns which are illuminated by the lens covering the light source. As shown above, the support elements in Kim (330, 340) are "bar shaped elements" (see Fig. 9b, (330), and Para. 0152) formed integrally with the diffusion lens above the LED light sources (see Para. 0160). The areas between the rows of light sources have the bar shaped elements.
Kim’s reflector (122) is not covered by the bar shaped elements between the columns of light sources, subsequently, as best understood the luminance in the areas between the rows of light sources will be consequently be lower than between the columns of light sources.
Regarding claim 4, support (330 and 340) does not overlap with first and second light sources in a length direction of the supporter.
Regarding claim 5, a length of the supporter is larger than a gap between the first row and the second row (Figs. 9a-10).
Regarding claim 8, a gap between the first row and the second row is greater than a gap between the columns (Figs. 9a -10).
Regarding claim 9, the supporter comprises a plurality of supporters which are spaced apart from each other, and extend in a same direction.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim further in view of Kyoukane et al (2019/0285945).
Regarding claim 6, Kim discloses the limitations of claim 1, above. Kim does not disclose the light source has a cuboidal shape, wherein a lateral side of the light source comprises: long sides which are opposite to each other; and short sides which are opposite to each other, wherein a light distribution area of the long sides is greater than a light distribution area of the short sides. Kyoukane discloses a display device having a light source has a cuboidal shape(17), wherein a lateral side of the light source comprises: long sides which are opposite to each other; and short sides which are opposite to each other, wherein a light distribution area of the long sides is greater than a light distribution area of the short sides (Figs. 14 and 15).
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 light source of Kim with the light source (17) of Kyoukane, since Kyoukane teaches that “each LED 17 is provided in a transparent resin package so as to emit light also from a side surface 17b and to ensure wide directional characteristics in light emission. With this configuration, the LEDs 17 can emit light not only from the light emitting surfaces 17a but also from the side surfaces 17b around the light emitting surfaces 17a” (Para 0054).
Claim(s) 10,12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as and further in view of Kim et al (EP 4050407).
Regarding claim 10, Kim discloses the limitations of claim 1. Kim does not disclose
the substrate comprising a slot through which a portion of the supporter penetrates ,wherein the portion of the supporter is detachably coupled to the frame. Kim et al discloses a display with a substrate (132) comprising a slot(Fig. 14,opening closest to 2171P) through which a portion of the supporter (216)penetrates(2172) ,wherein the portion of the supporter is detachably coupled to the frame (Para.0103). Accordingly, 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 device of Kim with the supporter of Kim et al, for the purpose of providing a support that is replaceable.
Regarding claim 12, Kim discloses the limitations of claim 1. Kim does not disclose a reflective sheet located on the substrate, and including holes in which the plurality of lenses are located, wherein the supporter comprises a base extending in a length direction of the supporter, and located on the reflective sheet; and an engaging portion protruding from a rear surface of the base, penetrating the reflective sheet, and coupled to the frame. Kim et al discloses a reflective sheet(126) located on the substrate (132), and including holes in which the plurality of lenses (124) are located (Fig. 12), wherein the supporter (216) comprises a base (211) extending in a length direction of the supporter, and located on the reflective sheet; and an engaging portion(217, Fig. 13) protruding from a rear surface of the base, penetrating the reflective sheet, and coupled to the frame(fig. 14). Accordingly, 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 device of Kim with the supporter of Kim et al, for the purpose of providing a support that is replaceable.
Regarding claim 13, Kim discloses the limitations of claim 1, Kim does not disclose wherein the supporter (216) further comprises: an elastic portion which is elastic(2133), which has one end and the other end fixed to a front surface of the base(fig. 7), the elastic portion spaced in a forward direction from the front surface of the base between the one end and the other end(figs. 7 and 14); and a head (215) protruding toward the optical unit (125,129,110) on the elastic portion. Accordingly, 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 device of Kim with the supporter of Kim et al, for the purpose of providing a support that is replaceable.
Regarding claim 14, Kim discloses the limitations of claim 1. Kim does not disclose wherein a length of the base is longer than a distance between the one end and the other end of the elastic portion. Kim et al discloses wherein a length of the base is longer than a distance between the one end and the other end of the elastic portion (figs. 7 and 14). . Accordingly, 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 device of Kim with the supporter of Kim et al, for the purpose of providing a support that is replaceable.
Regarding claim 15, Kim discloses the limitations of claim 1. Kim does not disclose, wherein a maximum width of the supporter is defined at a central portion of the base. Kim et al discloses , wherein a maximum width of the supporter is defined at a central portion of the base (211 and 134,Fig. 12).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7,8,11 are 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior cited art of record do not anticipate individually or teach in combination the limiations of claims 7,8 and 11.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Li (CN114137761A), discloses a backlight display with a particular configuration of lights and lenses(Figs. 3-5).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANABEL TON whose telephone number is (571)272-2382. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 9:00pm -6:00pm (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, 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.
/ANABEL TON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights