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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/7/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as presented in the Office Action mailed 7/14/2026 have been withdrawn based on the amendment filed 9/7/2026. However, new rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 based on the amendment filed 9/7/2026 are presented below.
Applications filed after March 15th 2013
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 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 § 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, 3, 7, 8, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashiwagi (US 2021/0397041) in view of Ogawa (US 2023/0258977).
With regards to Claim 1, Kashiwagi discloses a backlight module, comprising: a surface light source [21,25] (see paragraph 74 and Figure 2); an optical film [32] (see paragraph 94 and Figure 4), disposed on an emitting side of the surface light source [21,25] (see Figure 2), wherein the optical film [32] is a louver film with multiple blocking sections [34] (see paragraph 94 and Figure 7) spaced along a first direction (see Figure 7) and multiple light-transmitting sections [33] (see paragraph 95 and Figure 7) located between adjacent blocking sections [34] (see paragraph 96 and Figure 7); and a light control film [35], comprising a first reference surface (comprising a surface of layer [35a] facing the first optical structures [35c], see paragraph 112 and Figure 4) and multiple first optical structures [35c] positioned on the first reference surface (see paragraph 114 and Figure 4), wherein the first reference surface is located on one side of the light control film [35] facing away from the optical film [32] (see Figure 4), each of said first optical structures [35c] comprises a first optical surface [35d] and a second optical surface [35e] (see paragraph 119 and Figure 5), wherein the first optical surface [35d] and the second optical surface [35e] are arranged along the first direction (see Figure 5), the first optical surface [35d] and the first reference surface form a first included angle θ1 (comprising the angle 90°- θ21, see paragraph 121 and Figure 5), the second optical surface [35e] and the first reference surface form a second included angle θ2 (comprising the angle θ22, see paragraph 124 and Figure 5), the first included angle θ1 is an acute angle (see paragraph 121 and Figure 5), and the first included angle θ1 is smaller than the second included angle θ2 (see paragraphs 121 and 124 and Figure 5); wherein the light emitted by the surface light source [21,25] has an output angle δ relative to the normal direction of the backlight module when passing through the optical film [32] (see paragraph 164 and Figure 7; such an angle will substantially exist as light passes through the light-transmitting sections [33] of the optical film [32]), transmittance of the light of the optical film [32] (see paragraph 96 and Figure 7), and the light emitted by the surface light source [21,25] enters the light control film [35] and deflects in the direction away from the first optical surface [35d] of at least one of said first optical structures [35c] after passing through the light control film [35] (see paragraphs 164-166 and Figure 7); wherein each of the first optical structures [35c] extends along a second direction, the first direction is not parallel to the second direction (see Figures 1 and 7; the first direction along which the light-transmitting sections [33] and light blocking sections [34] are arranged is substantially not parallel to the second direction along which the first optical structures [35c] extends), and the blocking sections [34] and the light-transmitting sections [33] extend along the second direction (see paragraph 117 and Figures 1 and 7).
Kashiwagi does not explicitly disclose the transmittance of the light of the optical film is at least 50%. However, Kashiwagi does disclose the optical film [32] includes alternating light-transmitting sections [33] and light blocking sections [34] (see Kashiwagi paragraph 94 and Figure 7), a pitch [Pa] of the light-transmitting sections [33] and the light blocking sections [34] is 39 μm (see Kashiwagi paragraph 332), and a width [Wa] of the light-incident side of the light blocking sections [34] is 10μm (see Kashiwagi paragraph 334), which is less than half of the light incident surface of the optical film [32], the shape of the light-transmitting sections [33] is trapezoidal with a wider end at a light emitting side of the optical film [32] (see Kashiwagi paragraph 95 and Figure 7), and light incident on a face [34a] of the light blocking sections [34] is totally reflected (see Kashiwagi paragraph 164). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to form the optical film of Kashiwagi to have a light transmittance of at least 50%. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical sheet of Kashiwagi to have a light transmittance of at least 50%. One would have been motivated to do so in order to guide more light in a desired direction (see Kashiwagi paragraph 165).
Kashiwagi does not explicitly disclose the output angle δ of the optical film, the first included angle θ1 of at least one of said first optical structures, and the critical angle θc of the light control film satisfy the following relationship: δ + θ1 < θc. However, Kashiwagi does disclose forming the optical film [32] to have light-transmitting sections [33] and light blocking sections [34] with surfaces [34a] inclined at angles set to direct light through the light transmission portions (see Kashiwagi paragraphs 103 and 106), and the light control film [35] includes the first optical surface [35d] for changing the direction of the light transmitted therethrough for increasing a brightness (see Kashiwagi paragraphs 120 and 121), selecting the angle [θ1] to reduce total internal reflection at surface [35a] (see Kashiwagi paragraph 121-122) and reducing stray light (see Kashiwagi paragraphs 122-124). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the light emission angle δ of the optical film, the first included angle θ1 of at least one of said first optical structures, and the critical angle θc of the light control film of Kashiwagi to satisfy the following relationship: δ + θ1 < θc. One would have been motivated to do so in order to direct light through the optical film and light control film so as to improve brightness (see Kashiwagi paragraph 121) and reduce stray light (see Kashiwagi paragraph 122).
Kasiwagi does not disclose the first direction corresponds to a horizontal viewing direction of the backlight module.
Ogawa teaches the first direction (comprising the direction along which the multiple blocking sections [72] are spaced along, see paragraph 38 and Figures 3 and 4) corresponds to a horizontal viewing direction [Y] of the backlight module (see paragraph 27 and Figures 1 and 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the orientation of the first direction of Kashiwagi to correspond to a horizontal viewing direction as taught by Ogawa. One would have been motivated to do so in order to direct the light from the backlight module towards a passenger and away from a driver (see Ogawa paragraph 28).
With regards to Claim 3, Kashiwagi and Ogawa teach the backlight module as discussed above with regards to Claim 1.
Kashiwagi further discloses the light deflects at an angle μ away from the first optical surface [35d] of at least one of said first optical structures [35c] when it exits the light control film [35] (see Kashiwagi paragraph 120 and Figure 7).
Kashiwagi does not explicitly disclose the angle μ is determined by the following relationship: μ = 0.52*θ1 + 29.7. However, Kashiwagi does disclose utilizing the angles θ1 and θ2 to control light emitting from the first optical surface to improve brightness in a desired direction (see Kashiwagi paragraph 121). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the angle μ of Kashiwagi to be determined by the following relationship: μ = 0.52*θ1 + 29.7. One would have been motivated to do so in order to direct light exiting from the first optical surface in a direction to improve brightness (see Kashiwagi paragraph 121).
With regards to Claim 7, Kashiwagi and Ogawa teach the backlight module as discussed above with regards to Claim 1.
Kashiwagi further discloses the backlight module further includes a prism [27] (see paragraph 74 and Figure 1) positioned between the surface light source [21,25] and the optical film [32] (see Figure 1), each of the first optical structures [35c] extends along a second direction (see paragraph 117 and Figure 1), where the first direction is not parallel to the second direction (see Figures 1 and 7; the first direction along which the light-transmitting sections [33] and light blocking sections [34] are arranged is substantially not parallel to the second direction along which the first optical structures [35c] extends), and the prism [27] has multiple linear microstructures [27a] extending along the second direction (see paragraph 272 and Figure 1).
With regards to Claim 8, Kashiwagi and Ogawa teach the backlight module as discussed above with regards to Claim 1.
Kashiwagi further discloses the surface light source [25,21] comprises a light guide plate [21] and a light bar [25] (see paragraph 74 and Figure 1), the light guide plate [21] has a light incident side and an light exit side connected to the light incident side (see Figure 2), the light bar [25] is positioned on the light incident side of the light guide plate [21] (see Figure 2), and the light exit side faces the optical film [32] (see Figure 2).
With regards to Claim 10, Kashiwagi and Ogawa teach the backlight module as discussed above with regards to Claim 1.
Kashiwagi further discloses the surface light source [25,21] comprises multiple light-emitting elements [25] (see paragraph 82 and Figures 1 and 2).
Kashiwagi does not disclose the surface light source comprises a circuit board parallel to the optical film and the multiple light-emitting elements are positioned on the circuit board.
Ogawa teaches the surface light source comprises a circuit board [2] (see paragraph 31 and Figures 2 and 3) parallel to the optical film [7] (see paragraph 29 and Figures 3 and 4) and multiple light-emitting elements [1] (see paragraph 30 and Figures 2 and 3) positioned on the circuit board [2] (see Figures 2 and 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the surface light source of Kashiwagi to comprise a circuit board parallel to the optical film and multiple light- emitting elements positioned on the circuit board, as taught by Ogawa. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide power to a direct backlight light source (see Ogawa paragraph 31).
With regards to Claim 11, Kashiwagi and Ogawa teach the backlight module as discussed above with regards to Claim 10.
Kashiwagi does not explicitly disclose the surface light source further comprises a diffuser plate, which has a bottom surface and a top surface opposite to the bottom surface, the bottom surface faces the circuit board, and the top surface faces the optical film.
Ogawa teaches the surface light source further comprises a diffuser plate [5] (see paragraph 29 and Figures 2 and 3), which has a bottom surface and a top surface opposite to the bottom surface (see Figures 2 and 3), the bottom surface faces the circuit board [3] (see Figures 2 and 3), and the top surface faces the optical film [7] (see Figures 2 and 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the surface light source of Kashiwagi to include a diffuser plate, which has a bottom surface and a top surface opposite to the bottom surface, the bottom surface faces the circuit board, and the top surface faces the optical film as taught by Ogawa. One would have been motivated to do so in order to diffuse the light that will be incident on the optical film (see Ogawa paragraphs 34 and 35).
With regards to Claim 12, Kashiwagi and Ogawa teach a display device, comprising the backlight module as discussed above with regards to Claim 1 (see the above discussion of the disclosure and teachings of the Kashiwagi and Ogawa references as pertain to the limitations of Claim 1).
Kashiwagi further discloses a display panel [15] arranged on the backlight module (see paragraphs 69 and 71 and Figure 2).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashiwagi (US 2021/0397041) as modified by Ogawa (US 2023/0258977), further in view of Ding (CN 112666752; please see attached translation for reference to pages).
With regards to Claim 6, Kashiwagi and Ogawa teach the backlight module as discussed above with regards to Claim 1.
Kashiwagi further discloses the backlight module further includes a prism [27] (see paragraph 74 and Figure 1) positioned between the surface light source [21,25] and the optical film [32] (see Figure 1), and the prism has multiple linear microstructures [27a] (see paragraph 272 an Figure 2).
Kashiwagi does not explicitly disclose the embodiment with the multiple linear microstructures extending along the first direction.
Ding teaches the prism [30] (see bottom of page 4 and Figure 1) has multiple linear microstructures extending along the first direction (comprising the direction along which the structures of portion [20] are disposed, see bottom of page 4 and Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prism of Kashiwagi such that the multiple linear microstructures extend along the first direction as taught by Ding. One would have been motivated to do so in order to increase a brightness according to an alternate arrangement of the microstructures (see Ding bottom of page 4).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashiwagi (US 2021/0397041) as modified by Ogawa (US 2023/0258977), further in view of Park (KR 20130113785; please see attached translation for reference to pages).
With regards to Claim 9, Kashiwagi and Ogawa teach the backlight module as discussed above with regards to Claim 8.
Kashiwagi further discloses the light bar [25] comprises of multiple light-emitting elements (se paragraph 82 and Figures 1 and 2).
Kashiwagi does not explicitly disclose the light bar comprises of a circuit board, the circuit board extends along the first direction, and the light-emitting elements are arranged along the same direction.
Park teaches the light bar [129] comprises of a circuit board [129a] and multiple light-emitting elements [129b] (see bottom of page 7 and Figure 7), the circuit board [129b] extends along the first direction (comprising the direction along which the structures [169] are arranged along, see Figure 7), and the light-emitting elements [129b] are arranged along the same direction (see Figure 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the light bar of Kashiwagi to comprise a circuit board, the circuit board extends along the first direction, and the light-emitting elements are arranged along the same direction, as taught by Park. One would have been motivated to do so in order provide a circuit board for the light-emitting elements with heat dissipation from the light-emitting elements (see Park bottom of page 7) in forming a high quality surface light source (see Park top of page 8).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/7/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The examiner responds below.
With regards to the applicant’s argument (I) that the claimed configurations of amended Claim 1 establish a specific spatial relationship among the horizontal viewing direction, the extending direction of the first optical structures, and the extending direction of the blocking and light-transmitting sections, and the claim now establishes what the first direction represents, and Kashiwagi and other references fail to disclose or teach the claimed arrangement in which the claimed first direction corresponds to the horizontal viewing direction, the examiner directs the applicant to the above rejection of Claim 1 over Kashiwagi in view of Ogawa. Particularly, Kashiwagi discloses a backlight module including optical sheets and light controlling members for controlling the directionality of light exiting the backlight module directing light offset in at least one of an up, down, left, and right direction (see Kashiwagi paragraphs 3 and 8), and the intention to control light exiting angles as desired, usable in a display device (see Kashiwagi paragraph 12). Kashiwagi further discloses an embodiment including orientations of the first optical structures, blocking sections, and light-transmitting sections for directing light in the first direction (see Kashiwagi paragraph 165 and Figure 7). While Kashiwagi does not explicitly disclose the first direction corresponds to a horizontal viewing direction, Ogawa teaches an arrangement of a backlight module preferentially directing light in a horizontal viewing direction along a first direction corresponding to a direction along which the blocking sections are spaced (see Ogawa paragraph 38 and Figures 1, 3, and 4). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to modify the orientation of the backlight module of Kashiwagi such that the light is directed in a horizontal viewing direction as taught by Ogawa.
With regards to the applicant’s argument (II) that the mapping of the vertical alignment direction of the louver structures as the first direction and their horizontal extending direction as the second direction, while amended claim 1 requires the first direction to be the horizontal viewing direction, the examiner directs the applicant to the above rejection of Claim 1 over Kashiwagi in view of Ogawa and to the discussion of the combination of these references as pertains to the applicant’s argument (I). Kashiwagi substantially discloses the arrangement of the blocking sections, light transmitting sections, first optical surface, and second optical surface relative the first and second directions as recited by the claim, and preferentially offsetting light from a backlight module in the first direction. Ogawa is utilized to teach that the first direction can be a horizontal viewing direction. Therefore, the combination of Kashiwagi and Ogawa substantially teaches limitations of amended Claim 1.
With regards to the applicant’s argument (III) that the invention of Kashiwagi is specifically configured to shift the viewing angle upward in the vertical direction, and that rotating the optical sheet of Kashiwagi by 90 degrees would direct light in the horizontal direction, and that a proposed rotation changes the optical function and operating direction of the structure disclosed by Kashiwagi, the examiner directs the applicant to the above rejection of Claim 1 over Kashiwagi in view of Ogawa and the above discussions of the combination of the Kashiwagi and Ogawa references. Particularly, Kashiwagi discloses an arrangement of the blocking sections, light transmitting sections, first optical surface, and second optical surface relative the first and second directions as recited by the claim, and a backlight module capable of preferentially offsetting light in a preferred direction, the preferred direction aligning with the first direction. Ogawa suggests the preferred direction is a shift in a horizontal direction such that light is offset along a horizontal viewing direction. Therefore, the combination of Kashiwagi and Ogawa substantially teaches limitations of amended Claim 1.
With regards to the applicant’s argument (IV) that optical elements [235c] of Kashiwagi direct light towards a horizontal center rather than being asymmetrically deflected toward one side, the examiner notes that the applicant is relying on an embodiment of Kashiwagi not utilized in the rejections. Furthermore, the applicant’s argument that the optical elements asymmetrically deflect the light toward one side is not a limitation recited in the claim, nor is a preclusion for inclusion of additional optical structures or the light to be directed horizontally toward a center of the backlight module. The applicant is further directed to the above rejection of Claim 1 over Kashiwagi in view of Ogawa and the above discussions of the combination of Kashiwagi and Ogawa to teach the required limitations of at least Claim 1.
With regards to the applicant’s argument (V) that Kashiwagi does not disclose or suggest the relationship δ + θ1 < θc which defines a coordinated optical boundary condition for the claimed horizontal viewing direction, the examiner notes that the relationship among the angles of the present invention, as discussed in the Specification as originally filed 10/3/2025, indicates a desire to eliminate large-angel stray light caused by total reflection and reduce the light energy or luminance in the viewing angle area between ±60° and ±90° by forming the relationship δ + θ1 < θc (see Specification page 15 lines 16-22). Kashiwagi discloses the angle [θ1] to preferably be between 1° and 10° (see Kashiwagi paragraph 122 and Figure 5; [θ1] corresponds to 90° - θ21), and light exiting the optical film [32] is a substantially acute angle δ, which is minimally refracted until it reaches the surface [35d] (see Kashiwagi Figure 7; the depiction of the light paths L71 and L72 in Figure 7 substantially suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art minimal light redirection between the angle reflected at portion [34a] until reaching the surfaces [35d]). The light then passes through the surface [35d] (see Kashiwagi Figure 7). If the angles of the structure of Kashiwagi do not fall within the range δ + θ1 < θc, large angle stray light would be a concern, and light would not be redirected sufficiently. However, Kashiwagi does disclose both elimination of large angle stray light (see Kashiwagi paragraphs 122-124) and redirecting light emitted from the backlight module in a preferential direction (see Kashiwagi paragraphs 169 and 170 and Figures 7 and 8). Therefore, the applicant has not shown that the Kashiwagi reference teaches away, that the claimed relationship was not recognized as result-effective, or that the recited relationship is substantially different from that taught by Kashiwagi, and that such relationship is critical.
With regards to the applicant’s argument (VI) that there is not a teaching in Kashiwagi that would lead a person of ordinary skill in the art to select the particular claimed relationship, the invention of Kashiwagi is directed to achieving vertical light deflection, and Kashiwagi neither discloses the problem of vehicle-window reflections nor addresses total-internal-reflection stray light in the horizontal direction, the applicant is directed to the above rejection of Claim 1 over Kashiwagi in view of Ogawa and the above discussions of the combination of the Kashiwagi and Ogawa references. Furthermore, the examiner notes that in paragraphs 122-124 of Kashiwagi, the issue of reducing stray light in an undesired direction aligned with the first direction due to internal reflections is addressed. With regards to the applicant’s argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have no reason to optimize a parameter for a structure that Kashiwagi explicitly teaches away from using in that specific orientation, the examiner notes that Kashiwagi does not teach away from selecting a structure reducing stray light due to total internal reflection along the first direction. Whie Kashiwagi does not disclose the first direction is the horizontal viewing direction, the combination of Kashiwagi and Ogawa as discussed above substantially teaches this combination.
With regards to the applicant’s argument (VII) that Kashiwagi does not disclose the claimed combinations of amended Claim 1, the examiner directs the applicant to the above rejection of Claim 1 over Kashiwagi in view of Ogawa, and to the above discussions of the combination of the Kashiwagi and Ogawa references, and that the embodiment of Kashiwagi in which light is directed toward a horizontal center is not utilized in the rejection of Claim 1.
With regards to the applicant’s argument (VIII) that the proposed modifications to the Kashiwagi reference are not properly motivated, because it changes the direction, the symmetry, and optical purpose of the relevant structures and requires selection of a particular optical relationship for the modified configuration, the examiner directs the applicant to the above rejection of Claim 1 over Kashiwagi in view of Ogawa, to the above discussions of the combination of the Kashiwagi and Ogawa references, and to the discussions of the teachings of Kashiwagi as pertain to the recited relationship δ + θ1 < θc. Kashiwagi substantially provides motivation for providing a structure of a backlight module preferentially offsetting light in a viewing direction to (see Kashiwagi paragraphs 3, 8, 9, and 12).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN KRYUKOVA whose telephone number is (571)272-3761. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a.m. - 4p.m.
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 5712727044. 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.
/ERIN KRYUKOVA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights