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 § 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 1-8, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHIU et al. (US 2024/0126001 hereinafter refer as “CHIU”) in view of Liu et al. (US 2017/0212297 hereinafter refer as “Liu”).
Regarding claim 1. CHIU discloses a backlight module (800, see Fig. 1, Para. 0028), comprising a first light guide plate (300″, see Fig. 1, Para. 0028), a first light source (400’’, see Fig. 1, Para. 0032), a second light guide plate (300’, see Fig. 1, Para. 0028), a second light source (400’, see Fig. 1, Para. 0028) and a first prism sheet (first turning film 200′, see Fig. 1, Para. 0028), wherein the first light guide plate(300”) has a first light incident surface (301”, see Fig. 1, Para. 0028) and a first light-emitting surface (320”, see Fig. 1, Para. 0028) connected to each other, the first light source is disposed on a side of the first light incident surface of the first light guide plate, the second light guide plate (300’, see Fig. 1, Para. 0028) is disposed on a side of the first light-emitting surface of the first light guide plate and overlaps the first light-emitting surface, and the second light guide plate has a second light incident surface (301’, see Fig. 1, Para. 0028) and a second light-emitting surface (320’ see Fig. 1, Para. 0028) connected to each other, wherein the first light incident surface (301”) is not parallel to the second light incident surface (301’), the second light source (400’, see Fig. 1, Para. 0028) is disposed on a side of the second light incident surface of the second light guide plate, and the first prism sheet (first turning film 200′, see Fig. 1, Para. 0028) is disposed on a side of the second light-emitting surface (320’ see Fig. 1, Para. 0028) of the second light guide plate, and the first prism sheet comprises a plurality of first prism structures (211’, see Fig. 1A, Para. 0031), wherein the first prism structures are arranged at intervals in a normal direction of the second light incident surface (see Fig. 1).
Regarding the claim limitation that the first prism sheet includes a first substrate having a substrate surface facing the second light-emitting surface and a prism structures, CHIU discloses that the first prism sheet includes a flat body portion and a prism structures portion (see Figs. 1A and 1B). further, as shown in Figs. 1A and 1B, the normal direction of the second light incident surface, each of the first prism structures has a first structure width.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify CHIU such that the prism sheet includes a substrate having a surface facing the second light-emitting surface with a plurality of first prism structure disposed on that surface as such modification represent noting more than the selection of a well-known and predictable design choice for prism sheets, since it has been held by the courts making an integral structure separable (e.g. in a plurality of pieces), if so is desired, would require only ordinary skill. In re Dulberg, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). In this case, selecting a prism sheet configured that explicitly includes a substrate and a prism structures disposed thereon would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application.
However, CHIU is silent with respect to a spacing width is provided between any two adjacent first prism structures and a ratio of the spacing width to the first structure width is less than 2.
Liu teaches a prism sheet (125, see Figs. 1 and 3A, Para. 0026) that includes a plurality of prism structures (optical microstructures 126A, see Figs. 1-3A, Para. 0026), wherein each of the first prism structures has a first structure width (W1) and a spacing width (w2, see Fig. 3A, Para. 0036) is provided between any two adjacent first prism structures and a ratio of the spacing width to the first structure width is less than 2 (as shown in Fig. 3A); wherein structure parameters are complied with the predetermined conditions, so that the light turning film may improve the optical luminance of the light source module to decrease the power consumption thereof (see Para. 0041).
Therefore, in view of Liu, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify CHIU by forming the prism sheet to include a spacing width between any two adjacent first prism structures and a ratio of the spacing width to the first structure width to be less than 2 in order to improve the optical luminance as suggested by Liu, since it has been held by the courts that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, configuring the spacing width of the prism structures such that a ratio of the spacing width to the prism structure width is less than 2, would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application.
Regarding claim 2. The teachings of CHIU have been discussed above.
However, CHIU is silent with respect to each of the first prism structures has a vertex angle away from the first substrate, and an angle of the vertex angle is 60 degrees.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify CHIU by forming the first prism structures with a vertex angle of 60 degrees. The vertex angle is a result effective variable that directly impacts light redirection efficiency in prism sheets, and selecting an appropriate vertex angle would have been a matter of routine optimization, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2nd 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In this case, selecting a 60 degrees vertex angle represent the predictable optimization of a known parameter to achieve desired optical performance, therefore would have been an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claims 3-5. The teachings of CHIU have been discussed above.
However, CHIU is silent with respect to the first prism sheet further comprises a plurality of second prism structures, the first prism structures and the second prism structures are alternately arranged in the normal direction of the second light incident surface, in a normal direction of the substrate surface, each of the first prism structures has a first height and each of the second prism structures has a second height, and in the normal direction of the second light incident surface, each of the second prism structures has a second structure width, wherein the second height is less than the first height, and the second structure width is less than or equal to the first structure width, as recited in claim 3; wherein the spacing width is less than or equal to the first structure width, and the second structure width is less than the spacing width, as recited in claim 4; wherein a ratio of the second structure width to the spacing width is less than or equal to 0.5.
Liu teaches a prism sheet (125, see Figs. 1 and 3A, Para. 0026) that includes a plurality of prism structures (optical microstructures 126A, see Figs. 1-3A, Para. 0026); wherein the first prism sheet further comprises a plurality of second prism structures (126B, see Fig. 3A, Para. 0026, Abstract), the first prism structures and the second prism structures are alternately arranged, each of the first prism structures has a first height (H1, see Fig. 3A, Para. 0011) and each of the second prism structures has a second height (H2, see Fig. 3A, Para. 0011), each of the second prism structures has a second structure width (W2, see Fig. 3A, Para. 0036), wherein the second height is less than the first height, and the second structure width is less than or equal to the first structure width (see Fig. 3A); wherein the spacing width is less than or equal to the first structure width, and the second structure width is less than the spacing width (see Fig. 3A).
Therefore, in view of Liu, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify CHIU by forming the prism sheet to include a second prism structures arranged between the first prism structures in order to effectively guide a light beam as suggested by Liu. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination to improve an optical luminance of the backlight.
Regarding claim 6. The backlight module according to claim 3, wherein each of the first prism structures has a vertex angle away from the first substrate, an angle of the vertex angle is 60 degrees, each of the second prism structures has an optical surface facing the second light guide plate, and an included angle between the optical surface and the substrate surface is greater than or equal to 10 degrees and less than or equal to 45 degrees.
Regarding claims 7 and 8. The teachings of CHIU have been discussed above.
However, CHIU is silent with respect to the first prism sheet further comprises a plurality of third prism structures, and the third prism structures and the first prism structures are alternately arranged in the normal direction of the second light incident surface, in the normal direction of the substrate surface, each of the third prism structures has a third height, and the third height is less than the second height; wherein the spacing width is less than or equal to the first structure width.
Liu further teaches the prism sheet (125, see Figs. 3A and 9, Para. 0026) further comprises a plurality of third prism structures (two second optical microstructures 426B, see Fig. 9, Para. 0040), and the third prism structures and the first prism structures are alternately arranged (see Fig. 26A), each of the third prism structures has a third height (H22), and the third height is less than the second height (H21, see Fig. 9, Para. 0040).
Therefore, in view of Liu, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify CHIU by forming the prism sheet to include a third prism structures arranged between the first prism structures in order to effectively guide a light beam as suggested by Liu. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination to improve an optical luminance of the backlight.
Regarding claim 10. CHIU further discloses the backlight module further comprises a diffusion sheet (520, see Fig. 5, Para. 0037) and a second prism sheet (200”), wherein the diffusion sheet (520) is disposed between the first light guide plate and the second light guide plate, and the second prism sheet is disposed between the first light guide plate and the second light guide plate
Regarding the claim limitation that the second prism sheet includes a second substrate and a plurality of prism structures that are disposed on a side of the second substrate facing the second light guide plate, CHIU discloses that the first prism sheet includes a flat body portion and a prism structures portion (see Figs. 1A and 1B). further, as shown in Figs. 1A and 1B, the normal direction of the second light incident surface, each of the first prism structures has a first structure width.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify CHIU such that the prism sheet includes a substrate having a surface facing the second light guide plate with a plurality of first prism structure disposed on that surface as such modification represent noting more than the selection of a well-known and predictable design choice for prism sheets, since it has been held by the courts making an integral structure separable (e.g. in a plurality of pieces), if so is desired, would require only ordinary skill. In re Dulberg, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). In this case, selecting a prism sheet configured that explicitly includes a substrate and a prism structures disposed thereon would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application.
Regarding claim 12. CHIU discloses a backlight module (800, see Fig. 1, Para. 0028), comprising a first light guide plate (300″, see Fig. 1, Para. 0028), a first light source (400’’, see Fig. 1, Para. 0032), a second light guide plate (300’, see Fig. 1, Para. 0028), a second light source (400’, see Fig. 1, Para. 0028) and a first prism sheet (first turning film 200′, see Fig. 1, Para. 0028), wherein the first light guide plate(300”) has a first light incident surface (301”, see Fig. 1, Para. 0028) and a first light-emitting surface (320”, see Fig. 1, Para. 0028) connected to each other, the first light source is disposed on a side of the first light incident surface of the first light guide plate, the second light guide plate (300’, see Fig. 1, Para. 0028) is disposed on a side of the first light-emitting surface of the first light guide plate and overlaps the first light-emitting surface, and the second light guide plate has a second light incident surface (301’, see Fig. 1, Para. 0028) and a second light-emitting surface (320’ see Fig. 1, Para. 0028) connected to each other, wherein the first light incident surface (301”) is not parallel to the second light incident surface (301’), the second light source (400’, see Fig. 1, Para. 0028) is disposed on a side of the second light incident surface of the second light guide plate, and the first prism sheet (first turning film 200′, see Fig. 1, Para. 0028) is disposed on a side of the second light-emitting surface (320’ see Fig. 1, Para. 0028) of the second light guide plate, and the first prism sheet comprises a plurality of first prism structures (211’, see Fig. 1A, Para. 0031), wherein the first prism structures are arranged at intervals in a normal direction of the second light incident surface (see Fig. 1).
Regarding the claim limitation that the first prism sheet includes a first substrate having a substrate surface facing the second light-emitting surface and a prism structures, CHIU discloses that the first prism sheet includes a flat body portion and a prism structures portion (see Figs. 1A and 1B). Further, as shown in Figs. 1A and 1B, the normal direction of the second light incident surface, each of the first prism structures has a first structure width.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify CHIU such that the prism sheet includes a substrate having a surface facing the second light-emitting surface with a plurality of first prism structure disposed on that surface as such modification represent noting more than the selection of a well-known and predictable design choice for prism sheets, since it has been held by the courts making an integral structure separable (e.g. in a plurality of pieces), if so is desired, would require only ordinary skill. In re Dulberg, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). In this case, selecting a prism sheet configured that explicitly includes a substrate and a prism structures disposed thereon would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application.
However, CHIU is silent with respect to a display device comprising a backlight module and a display panel; a spacing width is provided between any two adjacent first prism structures and a ratio of the spacing width to the first structure width is less than 2 and the display panel is disposed on a side of the second light-emitting surface of the second light guide plate and overlaps the second light-emitting surface.
Liu teaches a display apparatus (100, see Fig. 1, Para. 0025) of the embodiment includes a display panel (110, see Fig. 1, Para. 0025) adapted to display an image; a back light (120) that includes a prism sheet (125, see Figs. 1 and 3A, Para. 0026) that includes a plurality of prism structures (optical microstructures 126A, see Figs. 1-3A, Para. 0026), wherein each of the first prism structures has a first structure width (W1) and a spacing width (w2, see Fig. 3A, Para. 0036) is provided between any two adjacent first prism structures and a ratio of the spacing width to the first structure width is less than 2 (as shown in Fig. 3A); wherein structure parameters are complied with the predetermined conditions, so that the light turning film may improve the optical luminance of the light source module to decrease the power consumption thereof (see Para. 0041).
Therefore, in view of Liu, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify CHIU by incorporating a display panel to be arranged on a side of the second light-emitting surface of the second light guide plate and overlaps the second light-emitting surface in order to display an image. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination to provide a display device capable of displaying image.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify CHIU by forming the prism sheet to include a spacing width between any two adjacent first prism structures and a ratio of the spacing width to the first structure width to be less than 2 in order to improve the optical luminance as suggested by Liu, since it has been held by the courts that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, configuring the spacing width of the prism structures such that a ratio of the spacing width to the prism structure width is less than 2, would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHIU in view of Liu and further in view of Miyamoto et al. (US 2010/0245717 hereinafter refer as “Miyamoto”).
Regarding claim 11. The teachings of CHIU have been discussed above.
However, CHIU is silent with respect to a diffusion layer is provided on a side of the first substrate facing away from the first prism structures.
Miyamoto teaches a prism sheet (30, see Fig. 4, Para. 0157-0177) comprising diffusion layer (33) provided on a side of the first substrate (31) facing away from a first prism structures (32, see Fig. 4, Para. 0066) so that it can suppress occurrence of Moire fringes and also maintain high luminance of the liquid crystal display surface (see Para. 0039).
Therefore, in view of Miyamoto, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify CHIU’s prism sheet to include a diffusion layer on a side of the first substrate facing away from the first prism structures, as suggested by Miyamoto so that it can suppress occurrence of Moire fringes and also maintain high luminance of the backlight. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination to provide an improved luminance.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHIU in view of Liu and further in view of Chen et al. (US 2021/0286214 hereinafter refer as “Chen”)
Regarding claim 13. CHIU further discloses backlight module is switchable in an anti-peeping mode having a narrow viewing angle when only an upper one of the light source modules emits light (see Abstract).
However, CHIU is silent with respect the display device further comprises an electronically-controlled viewing angle switching device, and the first prism sheet is disposed between the second light guide plate and the electronically-controlled viewing angle switching device.
Chen teaches a display apparatus (, see Fig. 10, Para. 0050, 0052) that includes an electronically-controlled viewing angle switching device (300, see Fig. 9, Para. 0050), a first prism sheet (120) is disposed between a light guide plate (100) and the electronically-controlled viewing angle switching device (300, see Figs. 9 and 10, Para. 0052).
Therefore, in view of Chen, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify CHIU by including an electronically-controlled viewing angle switching device in order to provide a better anti-peep effect for the display apparatus, as suggested by Chen. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination to provide an improved display device that has a better light collecting efficiency, so as to increase the total amount of light emitted by the display apparatus at a viewing angle close to the normal viewing angle.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art, CHIU fails to disclose or suggest “each of the first prism structures has a vertex angle away from the first substrate, an angle of the vertex angle is 60 degrees, each of the second prism structures has a first optical surface facing the second light guide plate, a first included angle is provided between the first optical surface and the substrate surface, each of the third prism structures has a second optical surface facing the second light guide plate, a second included angle is provided between the second optical surface and the substrate surface, each of the first included angle and the second included angle is greater than or equal to 10 degrees and less than or equal to 45 degrees, and the second included angle is less than or equal to the first included angle” as required by the claim. Furthermore, there is no teachings, suggestion or motivation, absent the applicant’s own disclosure, that would have led on of ordinary skill in the art to modify CHIU in the manner required by the claims. Accordingly, the claimed configuration distinguishes over the prior art and deemed to be allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. ADACHI et al. (US 2012/0320310) teaches a lighting device that includes a prism sheet (50) comprising a substrate (52, see Fig. 5 and 6, Para. 0107) and a prism structures (51, see Fig. 5) has a first structure width (2*W2, see Fig. 6), a spacing width (e.g., the size of small prism or 2*w3, see Fig. 6) is provided between any two adjacent first prism structures, and a ratio of the spacing width to the first structure width is less than 2; ASANO et al. (US 2017/0131455) discloses a light guide plate having light-emitting-side unit optical shapes arranged on a light emitting surface in a direction perpendicular to a light guide direction and a thickness direction of the light guide plate; and Jones et al. (US 2008/0119583 A1) discloses an illumination devices that comprise a lighting device having a light-emitting surface; and a microstructured articles (e.g. brightness enhancing and/or turning film) placed substantially parallel to a light-emitting surface.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tsion Tumebo whose telephone number is 571-270-1668. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 am to 4:00 pm, Monday thru Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jong-Suk (James) Lee can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/TSION TUMEBO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875