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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 11 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 recites “the reflection layer directly covers the optical surface”. It is unclear if “directly covers” requires a direct contact and/or if it requires a complete overlap of the orthographic projection.
Claim 11 recites “the reflection layer and the absorption layer fill up the plurality of optical microstructures”. It is unclear if “fill up” requires that there is no gap or if it only requires that the reflection layer and absorption layer are disposed within the microstructures. The Examiner has interpreted the claim to require the latter interpretation.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by ‘158 (CN 217932158U, included on IDS).
Regarding claim 1, ‘158 teaches a light guide plate, the light guide plate comprising a plurality of optical microstructures (grooves 21, can be less than 10 micrometers), wherein:
the plurality of optical microstructures are disposed on a first surface of the light guide plate (top surface of light guide plate 1),
an absorption layer (light absorption layer 25) and a reflection layer (reflecting layer 23) are also provided on the light guide plate, the reflection layer comprises a plurality of reflection units, the plurality of reflection units respectively overlap the plurality of optical microstructures, the absorption layer comprises a plurality of first absorption units, the plurality of first absorption units respectively overlap at least a part of the plurality of reflection units (see fig. 4), and the at least a part of the plurality of reflection units are located between the corresponding plurality of first absorption units and the plurality of optical microstructures (see fig. 4).
Regarding claim 2, ‘158 teaches that the absorption layer further comprises a plurality of second absorption units (every other unit), and the plurality of second absorption units do not overlap the plurality of optical microstructures and the plurality of reflection units (every other unit does not overlap with first units).
Regarding claim 3, ‘158 teaches that the reflection layer further comprises a plurality of auxiliary reflection units, and the plurality of auxiliary reflection units (every other unit) respectively overlap the plurality of second absorption units.
Regarding claim 4, ‘158 teaches that the reflection layer further comprises a plurality of auxiliary reflection units, and the plurality of auxiliary reflection units do not overlap the plurality of optical microstructures and the plurality of first absorption units (every other unit does not overlap with first units).
Regarding claim 5, ‘158 teaches that there is a first spacing between adjacently arranged first and second ones of the plurality of first absorption units and the plurality of second absorption units along any direction parallel to the first surface, there is a second spacing between adjacently arranged second and third ones of the plurality of first absorption units and the plurality of second absorption units along any of the direction, and a difference between the first spacing and the second spacing is less than one-half of an average value of the first spacing and the second spacing (difference in spacing is 0 as spacing is uniform as it corresponds to pixels of LCD).
Regarding claim 6, ‘158 teaches that each of the plurality of optical microstructures is recessed from the first surface toward an inside of the light guide plate and has a microstructure vertex (vertex of groove), and there is a gap (buffer layer 22) between each of the plurality of reflection units and the microstructure vertex of a corresponding one of the plurality of optical microstructures.
Regarding claim 11, ‘158 teaches that each of the plurality of optical microstructures is recessed from the first surface toward an inside of the light guide plate, and the reflection layer and the absorption layer fill up the plurality of optical microstructures (filled up microstructure, see fig. 5).
Regarding claim 12, ‘158 teaches a light source module (10), the light source module comprising a light guide plate (1), an absorption layer (25), a reflection layer (23), and a light source (4), wherein:
the light guide plate comprises a plurality of optical microstructures (grooves 21), wherein: the plurality of optical microstructures are disposed on a first surface of the light guide plate,
the reflection layer comprises a plurality of reflection units (see fig. 5), and the plurality of reflection units respectively overlap the plurality of optical microstructures,
the absorption layer comprises a plurality of first absorption units, the plurality of first absorption units respectively overlap at least a part of the plurality of reflection units, and the at least a part of the plurality of reflection units are located between the corresponding plurality of first absorption units and the plurality of optical microstructures (see fig. 5); and the light source is disposed on a side of a light incident surface of the light guide plate, and the light incident surface is connected to the first surface (see fig. 5, edgelit).
Regarding claim 13, ‘158 teaches that the light source module is configured to be disposed on a side of a display surface of a reflective display panel (see title, description, used in a display), the light guide plate also has a second surface facing the display surface (emission surface), the second surface is opposite to the first surface and connected to the light incident surface (see fig. 5), and an absorption rate of the absorption layer for light from a side of the first surface of the light guide plate is greater than 50% (black or black ink, i.e. substantially near 100% absorption, specifically taught to absorb all ambient light to increase contrast).
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 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘158 in view of Lee (U.S. 7,133,092).
Regarding claim 7, ‘158 teaches that each of the plurality of optical microstructures has an optical surface protruding from or recessed from the first surface (recessed), the reflection layer directly covers the optical surface (see fig. 5, directly overlays).
‘158 does not specifically teach that a surface roughness of the reflection layer is greater than a surface roughness of the optical surface.
Lee teaches that a surface roughness of the reflection layer (reflector has predetermined roughness see col. 3 lines 1-10) is greater than a surface roughness of the optical surface.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have increased the roughness of the reflector as taught by Lee to create a diffusive reflection instead of a specular reflection, thereby providing a more uniform light emission and preventing hot spots in the light guide of ‘158, as taught by Lee (see col. 3).
Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘158.
Regarding claim 8, ‘158 does not teach that a percentage value of an orthographic projection area of the absorption layer on the first surface to a surface area of the first surface is less than or equal to 10%.
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 ratio of orthographic projection area of the absorption layer to the surface area to be less than or equal to 10%. “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. Reducing the ratio of the dots to the projection area increases the overall brightness of the display as it enables more ambient light to be introduced. The Examiner notes that ‘158 contemplates the optimization of allowing ambient light in as compared to blocking ambient light, see background of ‘158. I.e. one would find it obvious to optimize the size of the dots as compared to the pixels to maximize contrast while maximizing brightness.
Claim 9, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘158 in view of Chang (U.S. 7,927,003).
Regarding claim 9, ‘158 does not teach that each of the plurality of optical microstructures has an optical plane facing a light incident surface of the light guide plate, and an angle between the optical plane and a virtual extension surface of the first surface is greater than or equal to 35 degrees and less than or equal to 40 degrees.
Chang teaches that each of the plurality of optical microstructures (microstructures 222) has an optical plane facing a light incident surface of the light guide plate, and an angle between the optical plane and a virtual extension surface of the first surface is greater than or equal to 35 degrees and less than or equal to 40 degrees (see col. 7 lines 48-67, microstructures may be a variety of shapes, and may have an angle between 25 and 40 degrees).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used a planar optical microstructure in place of the dot microstructure of ‘158 as Chang teaches that the shapes are substantially equivalent in the art. Evidence that these are equivalents known in the art presents strong evidence of obviousness in substituting one for the other. Smith v. Hayashi, 209 USPQ at 750.
Regarding claim 10, ‘158 teaches that each of the plurality of optical microstructures has an optical curved surface (see fig. 5) recessed from the first surface and a structural edge connected to the first surface, the optical curved surface has a microstructure vertex (vertex of circle).
‘158 does not specifically teach that an angle between a virtual connection line between the microstructure vertex and any point on the structural edge and a virtual extension surface of the first surface is greater than or equal to 35 degrees and less than or equal to 40 degrees.
Chang teaches that an angle between a virtual connection line between the microstructure vertex and any point on the structural edge and a virtual extension surface of the first surface is greater than or equal to 35 degrees and less than or equal to 40 degrees (between 25 and 40 degrees).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used a planar optical microstructure in place of the dot microstructure of ‘158 as Chang teaches that the shapes are substantially equivalent in the art. Evidence that these are equivalents known in the art presents strong evidence of obviousness in substituting one for the other. Smith v. Hayashi, 209 USPQ at 750.
Furthermore, Chang teaches that the angle is a result effective variable and would be obvious to optimize. “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.
Claim 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘158 in view of Wang (U.S. 11,940,645)
Regarding claim 14, ‘158 does not teach that a side of the first surface of the light guide plate is configured to dispose an adhesive layer, and the adhesive layer directly covers the absorption layer and the reflection layer.
Wang teaches that a side of the first surface of the light guide plate is configured to dispose an adhesive layer, and the adhesive layer directly covers the absorption layer and the reflection layer (adhesive layer 160, see fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used an optical adhesive as taught by Wang (see col. 6 lines 56-67) to provide a connection with additional optical layers in ‘158, enabling additional features and structures or stability for ‘158.
Conclusion
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