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 § 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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a2 as being anticipated by Masuda et al. (US 20250076562).
Re claim 1, Masuda et al. teaches
A light guide plate (15/ FIG. 1+) that is plate-shaped and has a quadrilateral shape in plan view, the light guide plate comprising:
a light incident a side surface through which light emitted from a light source is incident (15A/ side facing LED 13);
a light exit a main surface including a light exit region configured to allow the light to exit (15B/20/ top of plate), and
peripheral regions adjoining the light exit region (shorter sides of 15 for example);
and at least one protrusion in each of one of more of the peripheral regions other than a peripheral region on a side where the side surface through which the light is incident is provided (15c shows a plurality of protrusions on the edge and FIG. 4 shows protrusions).
Re claims 2-3, FIG. 1+ and 3 and 4+ shows plan views with protrusions along an edge.
Re claim 4, the limitations have been discussed above. Optical sheets are taught at 18/19 as disposed on the plate 15, interpreted as mounted/ bonded as implicit. Re the limitation of thermally expanding, the Examiner notes that as a device claim, the structural limitations are taught by the prior art. If the Applicant wants to recite applying heat to illicit a thermal expansion, such limitations appear appropriate for a method claim. The prior art is interpreted to read on the structural limitations.
Re claim 5, the plan view visibility has been discussed above (see FIG. 3+)
Re claim 6, plural protrusions have been discussed above.
Re claim 9, the sheets are discussed above as disposed over the backlight, which is interpreted to including operating range temperatures.
Re claim 10, FIG. 1 shows panel 11, interpreted as mounted on the backlight unit as part of the assembled structure.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuda, as discussed above, in view of Zhou et al. (US 20240295686).
Re claim 8, protrusions are on the short side as discussed above and while bonded is routine and conventional in the art, it has not been explicitly recited.
Nonetheless, Zhou et al. generally teaches using tape to bond a waveguide to optical layers (tape 17 bonded 12 to 14).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings to use known techniques to bond elements together for expected results. Bonding along the edges is routine in the art to secure, as opposed to passing through the middle of the optical guide.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuda, as discussed above, in view of Takahashi et al., as cited in the previous Office Action.
Re claim 7, the limitations have been discussed above but are silent to the chassis covering the main surface and defining a gap as recited.
Takahashi et al. teaches such limitations at light blocking frame 116 which is above the protrusions and has a gap from the guide plate.
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings to block light.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuda, as discussed above, in view of Takada et al., as cited in the previous Office Action.
Re claim 7, the limitations have been discussed above but are silent to the chassis covering the main surface and defining a gap as recited.
Takada et al. teaches such limitations at gap 181 at and to the left of 181a until chassis 20.
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings to block light.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-12 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 teach the limitations including the protrusion details and adherence to the formula relating width as recited.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive in light of the new art above.
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 DANIEL I WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2409. The examiner can normally be reached 8am - 5pm.
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, Steven 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.
/DANIEL I. WALSH/
Examiner
Art Unit 2887
Prosecution Insights