throbber
www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 2231371450
`
`15/473,057
`
`03/29/2017
`
`NaOki SATO
`
`20326.0099U301
`
`6180
`
`53148
`
`759°
`
`01/25/20”
`
`HAMRE, SCHUMANN, MUELLER & LARSON RC.
`45 South Seventh Street
`Suite 2700
`
`MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-1683
`
`CATTANACH‘ COLIN J
`
`ART UNIT
`2875
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`01/25/2019
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above—indicated "Notification Date" to the
`
`following e—mail address(es):
`PTOMai1@hsml.eom
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`Off/09 A0170” Summary
`
`Application No.
`15/473,057
`Examiner
`Colin J Cattanach
`
`Applicant(s)
`SATO et al.
`Art Unit
`2875
`
`AIA Status
`Yes
`
`- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet wit/7 the correspondence address -
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE g MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing
`date of this communication.
`|f NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1). Responsive to communication(s) filed on 05 October 2018.
`[:1 A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2a). This action is FINAL.
`
`2b) C] This action is non-final.
`
`3)[:] An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4)[:] Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Expat/7e Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`5)
`Claim(s)
`
`1—12 is/are pending in the application.
`
`5a) Of the above claim(s)
`
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`E] Claim(s)
`
`is/are allowed.
`
`Claim(s) fl is/are rejected.
`
`[:1 Claim(s) _ is/are objected to.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`6 7
`
`8
`
`
`
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement
`[j Claim(s)
`9
`* If any claims have been determined aflowabie. you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`
`http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPeredback@uspto.gov.
`
`Application Papers
`10)[:] The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`
`11). The drawing(s) filed on 29 March 2017 is/are: a). accepted or b)C] objected to by the Examiner.
`
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12). Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`a). All
`
`b)D Some**
`
`C)D None of the:
`
`1.. Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`
`2.[:] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`
`3:] Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`
`** See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1)
`
`Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`2) E] Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date_
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3) C] Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`4) CI Other-
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20190116
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/473,057
`Art Unit: 2875
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Notice ofPre-AIA 0r AIA Status
`
`1.
`
`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
`
`2.
`
`Applicant's amendment filed on 05 October 2018 has been entered. Claims 1, 6, and 9
`
`have been amended. No claims have been cancelled. Claims 10—12 have been added. Claims 1—
`
`12 are still pending in this application, with claims 1 and 9 being independent. The 112(b)
`
`rejections set forth in the previous office action mailed 05 July 2018 are overcome by
`
`Applicant’s amendments.
`
`3.
`
`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 US C § 102
`
`4.
`
`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)(l) 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.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/473,057
`Art Unit: 2875
`
`Page 3
`
`5.
`
`Claims 1—2, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by
`
`Hatanaka et al. (US 7,344,291 B2, herein referred to as: Hatanaka).
`
`6.
`
`Regarding claim 1, Hatanaka discloses (Figs. 1—6) a light source (22) that emits light
`
`haVing a predetermined color; a lens (23) that concentrates the light emitted from the light
`
`source and causes the light to exit (i.e. the light passing through 23 exits towards 24—26); a band—
`
`pass filter (26) that transmits specific—band light haVing a specific—band wavelength in the light
`
`exiting from the lens (col. 4, lines 37—56); and a light guide plate (10) disposed on a rear surface
`
`side of a display panel (an LCD, col. 12., lines 1—4), wherein the light source (22) includes a first
`
`light source (22R) and a second light source (22B), the first light source being adjacent to the
`
`second light source (as shown in Fig. 4, 22R is adjacent, i.e. not distant [Merriam—Webster], to
`
`the second light source 22B), the lens (23) includes a first lens (23R) and a second lens (23B),
`
`the first lens concentrating the light emitted from the first light source (as suggested by the
`
`arrangement in Fig. 4, light from 22R will be concentrated by 23R), and the second lens
`
`concentrating the light emitted from the second light source (as suggested by the arrangement in
`
`Fig. 4, light from 22B will be concentrated by 23B), the band—pass filter is disposed in a position
`
`facing the first lens and the second lens (as shown in Fig. 4, the band—pass filter 26 faces each of
`
`the first and second lens, which can be demonstrated by drawing a line connecting the filter 26 to
`
`each respective lens), and the specific—band light transmitted through the band—pass filter is
`
`incident on a lateral surface of the light guide plate (as shown in Fig. 6).
`
`7.
`
`Regarding claim 2, Hatanaka discloses (Figs. 1—6) the light source (22), the lens (23), and
`
`the band—pass filter (6) are disposed on a lateral surface side of the light guide plate (as shown in
`
`Figs. 1—6), the liquid crystal display deVice further comprises a sub—light guide plate (31)
`
`disposed between the band—pass filter (26) and the light guide plate (10; as shown in Figs. 5A—6),
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/473,057
`Art Unit: 2875
`
`Page 4
`
`and in the sub—light guide plate (31), a height in a first direction, which is a thickness direction of
`
`the light guide plate (i.e. a direction from top to bottom, with respect to Figs. 5B and 6), at a light
`
`exiting port through which the light exits to the light guide plate (i.e. 3 lb) is smaller than a
`
`height in the first direction at a light incident port (31a) through which the light is incident from
`
`the band—pass filter (as show in Figs. 5B and 6).
`
`8.
`
`Regarding claim 10, Hatanaka discloses (Figs. 1—6) the band—pass filter (26) is disposed
`
`for the first lens and the second lens (as shown in Figs. 1—6).
`
`9.
`
`Regarding claim 12, Hatanaka discloses (Figs. 1—6) wherein a first light (a light from
`
`22R) concentrated in the first lens (23R) is incident on a first surface of the band—pass filter (i.e. a
`
`first surface of 26, via 24), the first surface faces the first lens (as shown in Fig. 4, a line can be
`
`drawn between each of said first face of 26 and the lens 23R, and thus the first surface faces said
`
`lens), a second light (a light from 22B) concentrated in the second lens (23B) is incident on a
`
`second surface of the band—pass filter (i.e. a second surface of 26, via 25), the second surface
`
`faces the second lens (as shown in Fig. 4, a line can be drawn between each of said second face
`
`of 26 and the lens 23B, and thus the second surface faces said lens).
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 US C § 103
`
`10.
`
`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.
`
`11.
`
`Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatanaka.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/473,057
`Art Unit: 2875
`
`Page 5
`
`12.
`
`Regarding claim 3, Hatanaka does not explicitly teach or suggest that the light source,
`
`the lens, and the band—pass filter are disposed on a rear surface side of the light guide plate, the
`
`liquid crystal display device further comprises a sub—light guide plate that guides the specific—
`
`band light transmitted through the band—pass filter to the light guide plate, and the sub—light guide
`
`plate includes a first portion located on a lateral surface side of the light guide plate and a second
`
`portion that is connected to the first portion and located on the rear surface side of the light guide
`
`plate.
`
`13.
`
`Hatanaka teaches (Figs. 19—20) a lighting device (i.e. lll) disposed on a rear surface side
`
`of the light guide plate (as shown in Figs. 19—20), the liquid crystal display device further
`
`comprises a sub—light guide plate (1 16, 117) that guides the light transmitted by the lighting
`
`device (1 l l) to the light guide plate (as shown in Fig. 20), and the sub—light guide plate includes
`
`a first portion (1 17) located on a lateral surface side of the light guide plate (as shown in Figs.
`
`19—20) and a second portion (1 16) that is connected to the first portion and located on the rear
`
`surface side of the light guide plate (as shown in Figs. 19—20).
`
`14.
`
`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 Hatanaka and
`
`incorporated the teachings of the light source, the lens, and the band—pass filter (i.e. collectively
`
`the lighting device) are disposed on a rear surface side of the light guide plate, the liquid crystal
`
`display device further comprises a sub—light guide plate that guides the specific—band light
`
`transmitted through the band—pass filter to the light guide plate, and the sub—light guide plate
`
`includes a first portion located on a lateral surface side of the light guide plate and a second
`
`portion that is connected to the first portion and located on the rear surface side of the light
`
`guide plate, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/473,057
`Art Unit: 2875
`
`Page 6
`
`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 reducing the width of the display device (i.e. in a
`
`direction parallel to the emitting plane of 120, by configuring the optical elements behind the
`
`light guide plate, as desired for the suited application).
`
`15.
`
`Claims 4—5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatanaka, in
`
`view of Nishitani et al. (US 2014/0340931 A1, herein referred to as: Nishitani).
`
`16.
`
`Regarding claim 4, Hatanaka does not teach or suggest in the sub—light guide plate, a
`
`height in a first direction, which is a thickness direction of the light guide plate, at a light exiting
`
`port through which the light exits to the light guide plate is smaller than a height in the first
`
`direction at a light incident port through which the light is incident from the band—pass filter.
`
`17.
`
`Nishitani teaches or suggests (Fig. 12) in the sub—light guide plate (9), a height in a first
`
`direction, which is a thickness direction of the light guide plate (4, i.e. in a thickness direction
`
`extending orthogonal to the emission surface of 4 in Fig. 12), at a light exiting port (70) through
`
`which the light exits to the light guide plate (as shown in Fig. 12) is smaller than a height in the
`
`first direction at a light incident port (9a) through which the light is incident (as shown in Fig.
`
`12).
`
`18.
`
`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 Hatanaka and
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/473,057
`Art Unit: 2875
`
`Page 7
`
`incorporated the teachings of in the sub—light guide plate, a height in a first direction, which is a
`
`thickness direction of the light guide plate, at a light exiting port through which the light exits to
`
`the light guide plate is smaller than a height in the first direction at a light incident port through
`
`which the light is incident from the band—pass filter, such as taught or suggested by Nishitani,
`
`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 further
`
`homogenize the light entering the light guide plate.
`
`19.
`
`Regarding claim 5, Hatanaka teaches or suggests (Figs. 1—6 and 19—20, as modified in
`
`claim 3 above) a bent portion (i.e. the bent outer wall of 117) is formed in the first portion (117)
`
`of the sub—light guide plate to guide the specific—band light transmitted through the band—pass
`
`filter from the second portion to the lateral surface of the light guide plate (i.e. incorporating the
`
`sub—light guide plate 116, 117, in lieu of, or in addition to, the sub—light guide plate of Figs. 1—6
`
`results in the light the sub—light guide plate guiding the specific—band light transmitted through
`
`the band—pass filter from the second portion to the lateral surface of the light guide plate).
`
`20.
`
`Hatanaka does not explicitly teach or suggest that a reflecting tape is provided in the bent
`
`portion, the reflecting tape configured to reflect the light radiated to an outside of the sub—light
`
`guide plate in the bent portion so as to guide the light to the lateral surface of the light guide
`
`plate.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/473,057
`Art Unit: 2875
`
`Page 8
`
`21.
`
`Nishitani teaches or suggests (Fig. 12, paragraph [0117]) a reflecting member (i.e. a
`
`mirror formed by deposited metal, as recited in paragraph [0117]) is provided in the bent portion
`
`(9e), the reflecting member configured to reflect the light radiated to an outside of the sub—light
`
`guide plate in the bent portion so as to guide the light to the lateral surface of the light guide plate
`
`(i.e. the mirror will increase light reflection out of the sub—light guide plate 9 at surface 9b and
`
`elements 70 so as to guide the light to the lateral surface 4a of the light guide plate 4).
`
`22.
`
`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 Hatanaka and
`
`incorporated the teachings of a reflecting member is provided in the bent portion, the reflecting
`
`member configured to reflect the light radiated to an outside of the sub—light guide plate in the
`
`bent portion so as to guide the light to the lateral surface of the light guide plate, such as taught
`
`or suggested by Nishitani, in order to increase the efficiency of the device.
`
`23.
`
`The combined teachings of Hatanaka and Nishitani teach or suggest all of the elements of
`
`the claimed invention, except for said reflecting member is a reflecting tape.
`
`24.
`
`However, 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 Hatanaka and
`
`incorporated the teachings of a reflective tape for the bent portion, 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 increasing
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/473,057
`Art Unit: 2875
`
`Page 9
`
`the light reflection at the bent portion of the sub—light guide plate, and/or reduce the complexity
`
`and time of manufacturing the device.
`
`25.
`
`Claims 6—7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatanaka, in
`
`view of Kawata (US 2016/0209582 A1).
`
`26.
`
`Regarding claims 6—7, Hatanaka does not teach or suggest in the second portion, the
`
`height in a first direction, which is a thickness direction of the light guide plate, of a connection
`
`portion between the second portion and the first portion is smaller than the height in the first
`
`direction at the light incident port through which the light is incident from the band—pass filter (as
`
`recited in claim 6), and a circuit board on which a driving circuit that drives the display panel is
`
`mounted, wherein the second portion of the sub—light guide plate includes a higher portion
`
`which is high in the first direction and a lower portion in which a height in the first direction is
`
`smaller than that of the higher portion, and the circuit board is disposed on a rear surface side of
`
`the lower portion of the sub—light guide plate (as recited in claim 7).
`
`27.
`
`Kawata teaches or suggests (Figs. l—9, and annotated Fig. 9 provided below for clarity) in
`
`the second portion (A), the height in the first direction, which is the thickness direction of the
`
`light guide plate (i.e. a direction normal to the light emission surface of BL), of a connection
`
`portion (C) between the second portion (A) and the first portion (B) is smaller than the height in
`
`the first direction at the light incident port through which the light is incident (as shown in Fig. 9,
`
`and in annotated Fig. 9 provided below), and a circuit board (30, L, 3 l, 32) on which a driving
`
`circuit (3 l)that drives the display panel is mounted (as shown in Fig. 9, and in annotated Fig. 9
`
`provided below), wherein the second portion of the sub—light guide plate includes a higher
`
`portion (D) which is high in the first direction (as shown in Fig. 9, and in annotated Fig. 9
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/473,057
`Art Unit: 2875
`
`Page 10
`
`provided below) and a lower portion (E) in which a height in the first direction is smaller than
`
`that of the higher portion (as shown in annotated Fig. 9), and the circuit board (30, L, 3 l, 32) is
`
`disposed on a rear surface side of the lower portion of the sub—light guide plate (as shown in Fig.
`
`9, and in annotated Fig. 9 provided below).
`
`
`
`
`\
`
`
`
`AR “If?”
`
`BL“
`
`32%
`
`V:
`
`EVK\\\\\\\\\§\K V
`
`
`
`
`.
`\.
`
`
`31
`\
`ML AP
`s
`
`\
`~
`,—-
`.
`\.
`\E
`‘
`:
`GP
`LG
`i§}}\~,\~,\~,\~,\~,\~,\~,§§
`:~x\\\\\\\\\§i
`\mxmwmw
`
`28.
`
`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 Hatanaka and
`
`incorporated the teachings of in the second portion, the height in the first direction, which is the
`
`thickness direction of the light guide plate, of a connection portion between the second portion
`
`and the first portion is smaller than the height in the first direction at the light incident port
`
`through which the light is incident from the band—pass filter (as recited in claim 6), and a circuit
`
`board on which a driving circuit that drives the display panel is mounted, wherein the second
`
`portion of the sub—light guide plate includes a higher portion which is high in the first direction
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/473,057
`Art Unit: 2875
`
`Page 11
`
`and a lower portion in which a height in the first direction is smaller than that of the higher
`
`portion, and the circuit board is disposed on a rear surface side of the lower portion of the sub—
`
`light guide plate (as recited in claim 7), such as taught or suggested by Kawata, 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 optical coupling between the first and second portions of the sub—light
`
`guide plate (i.e. by shaping a portion thereof to direct, or otherwise reflect, light in the desired
`
`manner toward the light guide plate).
`
`29.
`
`Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatanaka, in
`
`view of Kao et al. (US 2014/0126238 A1, herein referred to as: Kao) and Kawata,
`
`30.
`
`Regarding claims 6 and 8, Hatanaka teaches or suggests (Figs. 1—6, and 19—20, as
`
`modified in claim 3 above, and in reference to the annotated Fig. 20 provided below for clarity),
`
`in the second portion (C), a height in a first direction (i.e. as shown in annotated Fig. 20 provided
`
`below), which is the thickness direction of the light guide plate (as defined in annotated Fig. 20
`
`provided below), of a connection portion (B) between the second portion (C) and the first portion
`
`(A), wherein the height in the first direction at the light incident port (116) is a first height (said
`
`port has a first height), the second portion (B) of the sub—light guide plate includes a flat plate
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/473,057
`Art Unit: 2875
`
`Page 12
`
`(the outer surface of B) having the constant second height (as shown in Figs. 19—20, and in
`
`annotated Fig. 20 provided below).
`
`4/r/r/rfl/r/r/r/r/fl/x-
`
` .1g.1.1
`
`“““““““E;
`
`l
`l
`1
`l
`
`l
`
`l 5
`l 4
`l 3
`3 2 c
`
`l 2
`
`l
`
`1 2 b
`
`F’I G . 2 O
`
`3 l.
`
`Hatanaka does not teach or suggest that the height in the first direction said connection
`
`portion is smaller than the height in the first direction at the light incident port through which the
`
`light is incident, the second portion of the sub—light guide plate includes a slope in which the
`
`height in the first direction is inclined from the first height to a second height smaller than the
`
`first height.
`
`32.
`
`Kao teaches or suggests (Fig. l, and annotated Fig. 1 provided below for clarity) a light
`
`guide plate (120) comprising a first portion (A), a second portion (B), and a connecting portion
`
`(C), wherein said connection portion (C) is smaller than the height at the light incident port (13 l,
`
`as shown in Fig. l and in annotated Fig. 1 provided below) through which the light is incident,
`
`the second portion (B) includes a slope in which the height is inclined from the first height (i.e.
`
`the height of 13 l) to a second height smaller than the first height (as shown in Fig. l).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/473,057
`Art Unit: 2875
`
`Page 13
`
`i—II
`
`n—L
`
`'
`
`/
`
`xxx/xxx/x/x/
`
` I/I/I/IM/
`’a.7vvvv;/u’t
`
`
`
`33.
`
`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 Hatanaka and
`
`incorporated the teachings of the height in the first direction said connection portion is smaller
`
`than the height in the first direction at the light incident port through which the light is incident,
`
`the second portion of the sub—light guide plate includes a slope in which the height in the first
`
`direction is inclined from the first height to a second height smaller than the first height (i.e. by
`
`simply forming the second portion of Hatanaka with a tapered surface extending from the inlet
`
`portion), such as taught or suggested by Kao, since it has been held by the courts that combining
`
`prior art elements according to known methods to yield 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 providing an enlarged
`
`inlet face to support larger, or more, light sources (i.e. and thus provide an interface by which
`
`one can increase the light input into the device).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: l5/473,057
`Art Unit: 2875
`
`Page 14
`
`34.
`
`The combined teachings of Hatanaka and Kao teach or suggest all of the features of the
`
`claimed invention, except for a circuit board on which a driving circuit that drives the display
`
`panel is mounted, and the circuit board is disposed so as to overlap the flat plate of the sub—light
`
`guide plate in planar view.
`
`35.
`
`Kawata teaches or suggests (Figs. 1—9) a circuit board (30, L, 32) on which a driving
`
`circuit (3 1) that drives the display panel is mounted, and the circuit board (30, L, 32) is disposed
`
`so as to overlap a flat plate of the sub—light guide plate (i.e. a flat plate of surface F4) in planar
`
`view (i.e. circuit board 30, L, 32 wraps all of said surface F4, and thus overlaps said surface in
`
`plain view).
`
`36.
`
`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 Hatanaka and
`
`incorporated the teachings of a circuit board on which a driving circuit that drives the display
`
`panel is mounted, and the circuit board is disposed so as to overlap the flat plate of the sub—light
`
`guide plate in planar view, such as taught or suggested by Kawata, since it has been held by the
`
`courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield 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 providing a feature to drive and control the display device, and reduce the size of the
`
`display (i.e. by arranging driving circuit board in close proximity with the backlighting unit).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/473,057
`Art Unit: 2875
`
`Page 15
`
`37.
`
`Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wyatt (US
`
`2017/0269279 A1), in view of David et al. (US 2013/0313516 A1, herein referred to as: David).
`
`38.
`
`Regarding claim 9, Wyatt teaches or suggests (Fig. 4, paragraphs [0014], [0023], and
`
`[0074]) a light source (50) that emits light having a predetermined color (i.e. as indicated by the
`
`plot in Fig. 4 adjacent to 50); a band—pass filter (54, 56, 60) that transmits specific—band light
`
`having a specific—band wavelength in the light emitted from the light source (as indicated by the
`
`bandwidth plots adjacent to 56 in Fig. 4); a light guide plate (see paragraphs [0023] and [0074])
`
`disposed on a rear surface side of a display panel (i.e. paragraph [0014], the light source can be
`
`placed at the edge of a light guide plate, and used to provide backlight for an LCD), and a
`
`wavelength converter (52) that receives the light reflected by the band—pass filter in the light
`
`emitted from the light source and converts a wavelength of the received reflected light into the
`
`specific—band wavelength (i.e. i.e. as recited in paragraph [0055]).
`
`39. Wyatt does not teach or suggest that the wavelength converter is disposed on an opposite
`
`side of the band—pass filter with respect to the light source.
`
`40.
`
`David teaches or suggests (Fig. 27) a package, comprising a wavelength converter
`
`(“wavelength conversion material) is disposed on an opposite side of a band—pass filter
`
`(“wavelength selective surface”) with respect to a light source (“LED Device”).
`
`41.
`
`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 Wyatt and
`
`incorporated the teachings of the wavelength converter is disposed on an opposite side of the
`
`band—pass filter with respect to the light source, such as taught or suggested by David, since it
`
`has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to
`
`yield predictable results or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions,
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/473,057
`Art Unit: 2875
`
`Page 16
`
`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 providing an alternative feature to produce a mixed light output as desired
`
`for the suited application.
`
`42.
`
`Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over David, in view of
`
`Wyatt (US 2017/0269279 A1).
`
`43.
`
`Regarding claim 9, David teaches or suggests (Figs. 27 and 31) a light source (“LED
`
`Device) that emits light having a predetermined color; a band—pass filter (“Wavelength selective
`
`surface”) that transmits specific—band light having a specific—band wavelength in the light
`
`emitted from the light source (the wavelength selective surface transmits at least a portion of
`
`light from the light source for produ

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket