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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 06/12/2026 has been entered.
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 4 and 5 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 claims 4 and 5. 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) 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 and forming the surface of the first substrate to be exposed between any two adjacent first prism structures in order to effectively guide a light beam 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; 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; wherein a portion of the substrate surface of the first substrate is exposed between any two adjacent ones of the plurality of first prism structures, the spacing width is less than or equal to the first structure width, and the second structure width is less than the spacing width; wherein a ratio of the second structure width to the spacing width is less than or equal to 0.5, as recited in claim 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 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); 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).
Liu further teaches a portion of a first light guide plate (LGP) (123) includes a plurality of third optical microstructures (prism structures 128, see Fig. Para. 0026) wherein the surface of the (LGP) (123) is exposed between any two adjacent ones of a plurality of prism structures.
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 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 2, 6, and 8-13 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the claims are allowable based on Applicant’s amendments to independent claims 1 and 12 which incorporate the allowable subject matter from the original claims 3 and 7, specifically, the claimed limitation namely: the first prism sheet further comprises a plurality of second prism structures.., each of the first prism structures has a first height and each of the second prism structures has a second height and 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, 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 and 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. These claimed structural and functional features are not taught nor suggested by the prior art. Accordingly, as amended, independent claims 1 and 12 are allowable.
Response to Arguments
The Examiner notes that claim 4 has been rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of claim 1 and potions of the intervening claim 3. However, claim 1, 3, and 4 were previously rejected, and the newly amended claim 4 does not incorporate the allowable subject matter identified in the previous Office Action. Accordingly, the amendments does not overcome the outstanding rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
Prosecution Insights