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
Applicant's amendment filed on 26 May 2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 4-5 have been amended. Claim 10 has been cancelled. Claims 11-12 have been added. Claim 1-9 and 11-12 are still pending in this application, with claim 1 being independent. The drawing objections set forth in the previous non-final office action mailed 06 March 2026 are overcome by Applicant’s amendments.
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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Luo et al. (US 2017/0241615 A1, herein referred to as: Luo).
Regarding claim 1, Luo discloses a display device (Figs. 1-5) comprising plural light sources (e.g., 91, 92), plural sub light guides (e.g., 20, 30, 40, 50) and a main light guide (10), wherein each sub light guide is of an elongated shape (as shown in Figs. 1-5) and one of the plural light sources is provided at an end of each sub light guide (as shown in Figs. 4-5), the main light guide (10) is provided with a display surface (11), a first reflecting surface (60 or 70) and a second reflecting surface (12), the display surface (11) and the first reflecting surface (60 or 70) are adjacent to each other (as shown in Figs. 1-5), the display surface (11) and the second reflecting surface (12) face each other (as shown in Figs. 1-5), and each sub light guide is connected via a connecting member or directly to the main light guide in an area between the first reflecting surface and the second reflecting surface (as shown in Figs. 1-5), wherein each sub light guide (e.g., 20, 30, 40, 50) is configured so as to transmit rays of light emitted by a light source at an end of each sub light guide through internal reflection (as shown in Fig. 4) and the main light guide (10) is configured such that rays of light received from each sub light guide (e.g., 20, 30, 40, 50) are reflected on the first reflecting surface (60 or 70) then directly or after having been reflected on the second reflecting surface (12) reach the display surface (11; as shown in Figs. 1-5), and wherein an interface between the connecting member of each sub light guide or each sub light guide and the main light guide extends along a side of the first reflecting surface and a side of the second reflecting surface (as shown in Figs. 1-5, the interface between each sub light guide and the main light guide is between and thus extends along a side of the first reflecting surface and a side of the second reflecting surface) and each sub light guide is configured such that light is transmitted therethrough from the left to the right or from the right to the left when the sides are set horizontal (as shown in Fig. 4, i.e. turning the light guide such that the sides are horizontal, as shown in Fig. 1, or by rotating Fig. 3, results in the light rays shown expanding in Fig. 4 moving from left to right. The claim does not state that the direction of light movement must be linear in a left right direction or right left direction relative to any axis, thus, as shown in Fig. 4, the rays expand from each light source and move in a direction from left to right toward the reflective sidewalls of the sub-light guide. Thus, each sub light guide is configured such that light is transmitted therethrough from the left to the right or from the right to the left when the sides are set horizontal).
Regarding claim 2, Luo discloses (Figs. 1-5) when the display surface (11) is placed parallel to a y-axis (perpendicular to the length of 10) and a z-axis (parallel to the length of, or longitudinal axis of, 10) of an xyz coordinate system, each sub light guide (e.g., 20, 30, 40, 50) is connected to the main light guide (10) in a z-coordinate range that is different from a z- coordinate range in which another sub light guide is connected to the main light guide (e.g., as shown in Figs. 1-2, each sub light guide is connected to 10 at different positions along the longitudinal axis or the z axis direction).
Regarding claim 3, Luo discloses (Figs. 1-5) a supplementary angle of an angle between the display surface (11) and the first reflecting surface (60 or 70) is in a range from 30 degrees to 50 degrees (as described in paragraph [0045], e.g., such as 45 degrees, or between 40 to 50 degrees for the recited angle range).
Regarding claim 4, Luo discloses (Figs. 1-5) a z-coordinate range in which a sub light guide is connected to the main light guide and an adjacent z-coordinate range in which another sub light guide is connected to the main light guide overlap each other (as shown in Figs. 1-2, the upper end portions of each sub light guide are blended with one another, thus, barring any particular structure for the sub light guides in the rejected claims, a z-coordinate range in which a sub light guide is connected to the main light guide and an adjacent z-coordinate range in which another sub light guide is connected to the main light guide overlap each other in said blended regions at the upper end portions of adjacent sub light guides).
Regarding claim 7, Luo discloses (Figs. 1-5) the second reflecting surface (12) is a diffusion reflection surface (paragraph [0047]).
Regarding claim 8, Luo discloses (Figs. 1-5) the display surface (11) and the second reflecting surface (12) are parallel to each other or on a xy cross section of the main light guide (as shown in Fig. 3, e.g., 11 and the plane of surface 12 upon which said prisms are formed on, are parallel to each other in the xy cross section of the main light guide shown in Fig. 3, with x being perpendicular to 11), an angle formed by a straight line corresponding to the display surface (11) and a straight line corresponding to the second reflecting surface (12, or the plane forming 12 upon which said prisms are disposed or from which said prims bases are placed upon) is 20 degrees or smaller (as the surfaces are parallel or substantially parallel to one another, said angle is 20 degrees or smaller).
Regarding claim 9, Luo discloses (Figs. 1-5) each light source is configured such that a half-value angle of divergence is in a range from 10 degrees to 30 degrees (paragraph [0061], Fig. 4).
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 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo, in view of Gloss et al. (US 2019/0285791 A1, herein referred to as: Gloss).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Luo does not explicitly teach plural linear grooves are formed on the first reflecting surface (as recited in claim 5); and wherein on a cross section that is perpendicular to the direction of the plural linear grooves an acute angle y formed by a straight line corresponding to a hillside on the opposite side of a ridge from the second reflecting surface and the depth direction of the grooves and an acute angle S formed by a straight line corresponding to a hillside on the side of the second reflecting surface of a ridge and the depth direction of the grooves (as recited in claim 6).
Gloss teaches or suggests (Fig. 4) plural linear grooves (4) are formed on the first reflecting surface (the surface upon which 4 are formed); and wherein on a cross section that is perpendicular to the direction of the plural linear grooves an acute angle y formed by a straight line corresponding to a hillside on the opposite side of a ridge from the second reflecting surface and the depth direction of the grooves (as shown in Fig. 4) and an acute angle S formed by a straight line corresponding to a hillside on the side of the second reflecting surface of a ridge and the depth direction of the grooves (as shown in Fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Luo and incorporated the teachings of plural linear grooves are formed on the first reflecting surface (as recited in claim 5); and wherein on a cross section that is perpendicular to the direction of the plural linear grooves an acute angle y formed by a straight line corresponding to a hillside on the opposite side of a ridge from the second reflecting surface and the depth direction of the grooves and an acute angle S formed by a straight line corresponding to a hillside on the side of the second reflecting surface of a ridge and the depth direction of the grooves (as recited in claim 6), such as taught or suggested by Gloss, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or 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, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of improving the efficiency, performance, uniformity, and/or appearance of the device (e.g., by providing a feature to spread and direct light toward the main light guide).
The combined teachings of Luo and Gloss teach or suggest all of the elements of the claimed invention, except for an angle of the plural linear grooves measured counterclockwise with respect to a projection of the y-axis on the first reflecting surface is in a range from 20 degrees and 50 degrees, and an angle of the plural linear grooves measured clockwise with respect to a projection of the y-axis on the first reflecting surface is in a range from 20 degrees and 50 degrees.
However, one skilled in the art would recognize the above-cited ranges to form mere result effective variables, which can be tailored through routine experimentation in order to optimize the efficiency, performance, uniformity, and/or appearance of the device by controlling directionality and/or divergence of the light reflected and distributed across the main light guide.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Luo and incorporated the teachings of an angle of the plural linear grooves measured counterclockwise with respect to a projection of the y-axis on the first reflecting surface is in a range from 20 degrees and 50 degrees, and an angle of the plural linear grooves measured clockwise with respect to a projection of the y-axis on the first reflecting surface is in a range from 20 degrees and 50 degrees, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In the instant case, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to optimize the directionality, divergence, and/or overall spread of light across the main light guide.
Regarding the limitation: “when the light is transmitted from the left to the right in each sub light guide” as it relates to the recited angles, The Examiner notes that this limitation is already taught by the Luo reference as noted above, and as presently recited, does not have any apparent connection to the plural linear grooves on the first reflecting surface. In other words, the light will move left to right or right to left in each sub light guide of the device of Luo as it traverses the sub light guide regardless of the presence of plural linear grooves on the first reflecting surface. The claim does not explicitly require the plural linear grooves to move or otherwise direct the light into the recited left to right or right to left directions.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo, in view of Tabei (JP 2019129135 A).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Luo teaches or suggests all of the elements of the claimed invention, except for a width of the interface is made to vary according to a distance from the light source of each sub light guide (as recited in claim 11); wherein at least one sub light guide is provided with a connection member and the connection member is configured to vary a width of the interface according to a distance from the light source of each sub light guide (as recited in claim 12).
Tabei teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-2) a width of the interface is made to vary according to a distance from the light source of each sub light guide (as shown in Fig. 1); wherein at least one sub light guide is provided with a connection member (as shown in Fig. 2) and the connection member is configured to vary a width of the interface according to a distance from the light source of each sub light guide (as shown in Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Luo and incorporated the teachings of a width of the interface is made to vary according to a distance from the light source of each sub light guide (as recited in claim 11); wherein at least one sub light guide is provided with a connection member and the connection member is configured to vary a width of the interface according to a distance from the light source of each sub light guide (as recited in claim 12), such as taught or suggested by Tabei, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or 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, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to reduce the cost of manufacturing the device, and/or reduce the weight of the device, and/or improve the utility and/or marketability of the device (i.e., by providing an arrangement which produces effects such that light flows smoothly).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 26 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Luo fails to disclose: “...wherein an interface between the connecting member of each sub light guide or each sub light guide and the main light guide extends along a side of the first reflecting surface and a side of the second reflecting surface and each sub light guide is configured such that light is transmitted therethrough from the left to the right or from the right to the left when the sides are set horizontal...,” pages 5-8 of the above-cited remarks, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In the instant case, Luo discloses an interface between the connecting member of each sub light guide or each sub light guide and the main light guide extends along a side of the first reflecting surface and a side of the second reflecting surface (as shown in Figs. 1-5, the interface between each sub light guide and the main light guide is between and thus extends along a side of the first reflecting surface and a side of the second reflecting surface) and each sub light guide is configured such that light is transmitted therethrough from the left to the right or from the right to the left when the sides are set horizontal (as shown in Fig. 4, i.e. turning the light guide such that the sides are horizontal, as shown in Fig. 1, or by rotating Fig. 3, results in the light rays shown expanding in Fig. 4 moving from left to right. The claim does not state that the direction of light movement must be linear in a left right direction or right left direction relative to any axis, thus, as shown in Fig. 4, the rays expand from each light source and move in a direction from left to right toward the reflective sidewalls of the sub-light guide. Thus, each sub light guide is configured such that light is transmitted therethrough from the left to the right or from the right to the left when the sides are set horizontal). The claim merely requires light to spread in either of said directions, thus, positioning the sides horizontally in a reference plane results in the light dispersing in the sub light guides as shown in Fig. 4 of Luo. Therefore, Luo discloses the recited features of claim 1.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: please see US 8,206,020 B2 to Nagata et al., pertinent to the features of Claim 11, and Tabei (JP 2019129135 A), which discloses various features recited in claims 1-9 and 11-12.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Colin J Cattanach whose telephone number is (571)270-5203. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30 AM - 6:30 PM.
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 (James) 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.
/COLIN J CATTANACH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights