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 .
Claims 1-17 are presented for examination.
This application is a CIP of 19057950 filed on 02/19/2025.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 6-8 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hamada et al. (WO 2005114045 A).
Re Claim 1: Hamada teaches backlight unit and liquid crystal display device provided with the same, which includes a frame body, having an opening (see ¶ 103+); a back plate 108 disposed within the frame body via the opening (see ¶ 85-94+, 100-102+), wherein the back plate has a light exit {herein light exit surface 106c} (see fig.# 43; ¶ 103+); a plurality of light sources {herein light source 51 is composed of a plurality of LEDs} disposed within the back plate via the light exit 21 (see page 5, 1st paragraph+); and a light cover {herein a cover 82 that covers a frame area} disposed on the frame body and covering the light sources, wherein the light cover has a light entrance connected to the light exit (see fig.# 19; page 9; ¶ 81-85+, 176+); wherein an area of the light entrance is greater {herein The area of the light exit surface 106c of the light plate 106 can be made smaller than the area of the display area} than an area of the light exit (¶ 103-104+).
Re Claim 2: Hamada teaches a device, wherein an outer edge of the frame body has a fixing channel and a fixing post disposed within the fixing channel, whereby a cross-section of the fixing channel is U-shaped (see ¶ 164-168+, 176+).
Re Claim 3: Hamada teaches a device, wherein an inner wall of the light cover has a plurality of protruding portions inserted into the fixing channel and engaged with the fixing post (¶ 92-95+).
Re Claim 4: Hamada teaches a device, wherein the fixing channel has an adhesive, an outer edge of the light cover is inserted into the fixing channel and fixed in the fixing channel by the adhesive (¶ 151+, 177+).
Re Claim 6: Hamada teaches a device, wherein the back plate is fixed in the frame body by a plurality of fixation elements (¶ 86+).
Re Claim 7: Hamada teaches a device, wherein a bottom surface of the light cover forms a first light-emitting surface, while a side wall of the light cover forms a second light-emitting surface {herein the LED modules 201a and 201b are arranged near the longitudinal side wall of the front cover 101} (see fig.# 60; page 27 last paragraph).
Re Claim 8: Hamada teaches a device, further comprising a power supply module {herein the monitor liquid crystal display device has a power input unit (not shown)} disposed within the frame body (¶ 100+).
Re Claim 17: Hamada teaches a device, further comprising a lamp body disposed within the frame body (see ¶ 4+).
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamada et al. (WO 2005114045 A) in view of Kawato et al. (US 2009/0303411).
The teachings of Hamada have been discussed above. Hamada also teaches method of fusing with an adhesive or silver paste material may be used (see ¶ 151), the protective cover 216 and each of the fixing portions 222 and 225 may be bonded with an adhesive, adhered with an adhesive, or fused with a silver paste material (¶ 177+).
Hamada fails to specifically teach an outer edge of the light cover is fixed in the fixing channel by ultrasonic welding.
Kawato et al. teaches multilayerered sheet for light reflection, which includes an outer edge of the light cover is fixed in the fixing channel by ultrasonic welding (¶ 126).
In view of Kawato et al.’s teachings, it would been obvious to one skill in the in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ into the teachings of Hamada an outer edge of the light cover is fixed in the fixing channel by ultrasonic welding so as to provide a much faster than conventional adhesive and additional waterproof seals.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-16 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 art of record fails to specifically teach a carrier plate and two safety ropes, wherein the carrier plate has two fixing portions disposed at two ends thereof, wherein the frame body has two first frame strips and two second frame strips spliced with each other, and the first frame strips are arranged opposite to each other and corresponding to the fixing portions respectively, and the second frame strips are arranged opposite to each other, wherein the safety ropes are corresponding to the first frame strips respectively and corresponding to the fixing portions respectively, and two ends of each of the safety ropes are fixed to the first frame strip and the fixing portion corresponding thereto. These limitations in conjunction with other limitations in the claimed invention were not shown by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yamanaka (US 2019/0383997) teaches lighting device and display device.
Cheng et al. (US 2019/0004372) teaches backlight module and module for manufacturing the same.
Hao et al. (US 2022/0342139) teaches backlight and display device.
Miyata (US 2020/0278490) teaches lighting device and display device.
Yagi et al. (US 2020/0233145) teaches lighting device and display device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWYN LABAZE whose telephone number is (571)272-2395. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Mr. STEVE PAIK can be reached at 571-272-2404. 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.
/EDWYN LABAZE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876