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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 6, 9, and 12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12366702. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite slightly different reflectivity characteristics at the end of the claim language.
Similarly, claims 7 and 10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12366702. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite slightly different reflectivity characteristics.
Similarly, claims 8 and 11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12366702. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite slightly different reflectivity characteristics.
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An [US 2014/0104877] in view of Meis [US 2010/0067257].
As to claim 1, An discloses a light-emitting assembly [see figures 2, 3] having a display area [to the left of 144’ in figure 4] and a non-display area connected to the display area [portion under 144’], and comprising: a plurality of reflection-reducing components [156a, see paragraph 89, note in figure 2 there are at least two reflection reducing components 156a] disposed in the non-display area [see figures 3, 4], wherein in a top view, two of the plurality of reflection-reducing components are separated by a gap at a corner of the light-emitting assembly [the top and bottom corners of the unit have a gap along the lengthwise direction in figure 3]; a reflective component disposed in the display area [152b]; and a light source [154./155, figure 2], wherein the reflective component is disposed between at least one of the plurality of reflection-reducing components and the light source in the top-view [see figure 2, note opposing reflection reducing components have the reflector between the light source and the reflection reducing component], and wherein a ratio of a reflectivity of the at least one of the plurality of reflection-reducing components to a reflectivity of the reflective component is greater than or equal to 3% and less than or equal to 85 % [see paragraph 101, having a 95% absorbance or 5% reflectivity].
An teaches that the reflection reducing components are a substrate layer [see 156a shape, figures 3, 4] and is attached to the light emitting assembly but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the at least one of the plurality of reflection-reducing components comprises a first glue layer and a substrate layer disposed on the first glue layer.
Meis teaches the use of glue layers [250] and substrate layers [240] which mounted on the glue layers [see figure 2] are used to connect optical bodies was well known.
It would have been obvious to use a glue layer to attach the reflection reducing components as taught by Meis with the lighting unit as taught by An, as glue is well known for its affixing properties and ease of application in manufacture [see An, paragraph 130].
As to claim 2, An fails to explicitly disclose wherein at least a part of the first glue layer contacts the reflective component. Meis teaches using the adhesive layer across the entire light emitting assembly [see 250, figure 2]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to implement the glue layer across 155 in figure 3, in order to affix all the components together and form an integral unit [see An, paragraph 130].
As to claim 3, An discloses the light-emitting assembly as claimed in claim 1, further comprising a light guide plate, wherein the at least one of the plurality of reflection-reducing components partially overlaps the light guide plate [152, figure 3].
As to claim 4, An discloses the light-emitting assembly as claimed in claim 1, wherein the reflectivity of the at least one of the plurality of reflection-reducing components is less than 85% [see paragraph 101].
As to claim 5, An discloses the light-emitting assembly as claimed in claim 4, wherein the ratio of the reflectivity of the at least one of the plurality of reflection-reducing components to the reflectivity of the reflective component is greater than or equal to 3% and less than or equal to 80% [see paragraphs 101-102, for example].
As to claim 6, An discloses a light-emitting assembly [see figure 3] having a display area [to the left of 144’, figure 4] and a non-display area connected to the display area [under and to the right of 144’, figure 4], and comprising: a reflection-reducing component [156a] disposed in the non-display area [see figure 3]; a reflective component disposed in the display area [153] and adjacent to the reflection-reducing component [see figure 3, for example]; and a light source [154], wherein the reflective component is disposed between the reflection-reducing component and the light source in a top-view [see figure 2, note opposing reflection reducing components have the reflector between the light source and the reflection reducing component], and wherein a reflectivity of the reflection-reducing component is less than or equal to 85 % [see paragraph 101, having 95% absorbance or 5% reflectivity].
An teaches that the reflection reducing components are a substrate layer [see 156a shape, figures 3, 4] and is attached to the light emitting assembly but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the at least one of the plurality of reflection-reducing components comprises a first glue layer and a substrate layer disposed on the first glue layer.
Meis teaches the use of glue layers [250] and substrate layers [240] which mounted on the glue layers [see figure 2] are used to connect optical bodies was well known.
It would have been obvious to use a glue layer to attach the reflection reducing components as taught by Meis with the lighting unit as taught by An, as glue is well known for its affixing properties and ease of application in manufacture [see An, paragraph 130].
As to claim 7, An fails to explicitly disclose wherein at least a part of the first glue layer contacts the reflective component. Meis teaches using the adhesive layer across the entire light emitting assembly [see 250, figure 2]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to implement the glue layer across 155 in figure 3, in order to affix all the components together and form an integral unit [see An, paragraph 130].
As to claim 8, An discloses the light-emitting assembly as claimed in claim 6, further comprising a light guide plate [152], wherein the reflection-reducing component partially overlaps the light guide plate [see figure 3].
As to claim 9, An discloses a light-emitting assembly [see figure 3, 4] having a display area [to the left of 144’, figure 4] and a non-display area [portion under and to the right of 144’] connected to the display area [see figure 3], and comprising: a reflection-reducing component [156a] disposed in the non-display area [see figure 3]; a reflective component [153] disposed in the display area and adjacent to the reflection-reducing component [see figure 3]; and a light source [154], wherein the reflective component is disposed between the reflection-reducing component and the light source in a top-view [see figure 2, note opposing reflection reducing components have the reflector between the light source and the reflection reducing component], and wherein a ratio of a reflectivity of the reflection-reducing component to a reflectivity of the reflective component is greater than or equal to 3% and less than or equal to 85 % [see paragraphs 101-102, having 95% absorbance or 5% reflectivity].
An teaches that the reflection reducing components are a substrate layer [see 156a shape, figures 3, 4] and is attached to the light emitting assembly but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the at least one of the plurality of reflection-reducing components comprises a first glue layer and a substrate layer disposed on the first glue layer.
Meis teaches the use of glue layers [250] and substrate layers [240] which mounted on the glue layers [see figure 2] are used to connect optical bodies was well known.
It would have been obvious to use a glue layer to attach the reflection reducing components as taught by Meis with the lighting unit as taught by An, as glue is well known for its affixing properties and ease of application in manufacture [see An, paragraph 130].
As to claim 10, An fails to explicitly disclose wherein at least a part of the first glue layer contacts the reflective component. Meis teaches using the adhesive layer across the entire light emitting assembly [see 250, figure 2]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to implement the glue layer across 155 in figure 3, in order to affix all the components together and form an integral unit [see An, paragraph 130].
As to claim 11, An discloses the light-emitting assembly as claimed in claim 9, further comprising a light guide plate [152], wherein the reflection-reducing component partially overlaps the light guide plate [see figure 3].
As to claim 12, An discloses the light-emitting assembly as claimed in claim 9, wherein the reflectivity of the reflection-reducing component is less than or equal to 85% [see paragraph 101].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Nichol [see PTO-892], Yamashita, Iwauchi, Vasylyev (x2), You (x2), and Mulder all teach alternative backlight units which include a reflection reducing component in varying configurations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYON GYLLSTROM whose telephone number is (571)270-1498. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Jong-Suk Lee can be reached at 571-272-7044. 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.
/BRYON T GYLLSTROM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875