Application No. 15/473,057
`Reply to the Office Action dated 05/31/2019
`
`REMARKS
`
`Applicant respectfully requests favorable reconsideration of the above-identified
`
`application.
`
`Claims 1, 9, and 13 are amended. Support for the amendments to claims 1 and 13 can be
`
`found, for example, in Figure 2 (along with its corresponding description) in the Specification.
`
`Claim 9 is supported by, for example, Figures 12 and 13 (along with their corresponding
`
`description) in the Specification. Claim 14 is new. Support for the new claim can be found, for
`
`example, in Figure 2 (along with its corresponding description) in the Specification. No new
`
`matter has been added. Claims 10 and 11 are canceled without prejudice or disclaimer.
`
`Claims 1 — 9, and 12 — 14 are pending.
`
`Objection to the Specification
`
`The specification is objected to for not providing proper antecedent basis for the claimed
`
`subject matter in claim 9. Applicant respectfully traverses the objection.
`
`Claim 9 is amended to recite the “light source, the wavelength converter, and the
`
`substrate are stacked in this order.” Figures 12 and 13 clearly show an arrangement in which the
`
`light source 32, wavelength converter 37, and substrate 31 are stacked in the indicated order.
`
`Thus the Specification provides proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. Applicant
`
`respectfully requests withdrawal of the objection.
`
`Claim Rejections — 35 U.S.C. § 102
`
`Claims 1, 2, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by
`
`Hatanaka et al. (US. Patent No. 7,344,291) (“Hatanaka”). Applicant respectfully traverses the
`
`rej ection.
`
`Claim 1
`
`Claim 1 recites a liquid crystal display device that includes, among other features, first
`
`and second band-pass filters. No lens is disposed between the first and second band-pass filters.
`
`Hatanaka does not disclose or suggest at least this feature from claim 1. Hatanaka is
`
`directed to a backlight device for an LCD. (col. 1, lines 13, 14). Figure 3 of Hatanaka is
`
`

`

`Application No. 15/473,057
`Reply to the Office Action dated 05/31/2019
`
`representative of the illuminating device 21 and is reproduced below for purposes of this
`
`discussion.
`
`.211
`5.5.5
`35
`Mr 292 38 Mr
`.24
`
`_ 3‘ I,
`.
`. V"
`
`
`
`Halcmaka, Fig. 3
`
`Figure 1 of Hatanaka shows that the illuminating device 21 of Hatanaka is repeated in the
`
`backlight unit 30. The illuminating device 21 includes three lenses 23R, 23G, and 23B. A
`
`dichroic prism 26 is disposed across from the lens 23G. When considering multiple illuminating
`
`devices 21 (e.g., illuminating device 21A1 and 21A2), the dichroic prism 26 of the illuminating
`
`device 21A1 includes lens 23B and the illuminating device 21A2 includes lens 23R that would be
`
`disposed between the dichroic prisms 26. Accordingly, Hatanaka includes at least two lenses
`
`disposed between the first and second illuminating devices 21A1 and 21A2. Conversely, claim 1
`
`requires that no lens be disposed between the first and second band-pass filters. Thus Hatanaka
`
`does not disclose or suggest at least this feature from claim 1.
`
`

`

`Application No. 15/473,057
`Reply to the Office Action dated 05/31/2019
`
`For at least the above reasons, claim 1 is not anticipated by Hatanaka. Claims 2 and 12
`
`depend from claim 1 and are patentable at least by virtue of their dependency from claim 1.
`
`Applicant does not concede the correctness of the rejection for claim features not discussed.
`
`Applicant respectfully requests favorable reconsideration of the claims and withdrawal of the
`
`rej ection.
`
`Claim [3
`
`Claim 13 recites a liquid crystal display device that includes, among other features, a
`
`light source that includes first second and third light sources. A lens includes first, second, and
`
`third lenses. A band-pass filter includes a first band-pass filter and a second band-pass filter
`
`facing the first, second, and third lenses. The first band-pass filter is overlapped with both of the
`
`first lens and the second lens in a thickness direction of the band-pass filter and the second band-
`
`pass filter is overlapped with the third lens in the thickness direction of the band-pass filter.
`
`Hatanaka does not disclose or suggest at least these features from claim 13. As shown in
`
`Figure 3 of Hatanaka (reproduced above), the illuminating device 21 of Hatanaka includes three
`
`lenses 23R, 23G, and 23B and a dichroic prism 26. The dichroic prism is overlapped with the
`
`lens 23G. The dichroic prism 26 is not overlapped with other lenses. Accordingly, Hatanaka
`
`includes a single dichroic prism 26 for a single lens. Conversely, claim 13 requires that the first
`
`band-pass filter is overlapped with the first and second lenses. Thus Hatanaka does not disclose
`
`or suggest at least this feature from claim 13.
`
`For at least the above reasons, claim 13 is not anticipated by Hatanaka. Applicant does
`
`not concede the correctness of the rejection for claim features not discussed. Applicant
`
`respectfully requests favorable reconsideration of the claim and withdrawal of the rejection.
`
`Claim Rejections — 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hatanaka.
`
`Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection.
`
`Claim 3 depends from claim 1. As discussed above, claim 1 is not anticipated by
`
`Hatanaka. Claim 3 is also patentable based on its dependency from claim 1. Applicant does not
`
`concede the correctness of the rejection for claim features not discussed. Applicant respectfully
`
`requests favorable reconsideration of the claim and withdrawal of the rejection.
`
`

`

`Application No. 15/473,057
`Reply to the Office Action dated 05/31/2019
`
`Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hatanaka
`
`in view of Nishitani et al. (US. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0340931) (“Nishitani”).
`
`Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection.
`
`Claims 4 and 5 depend from claim 1. As discussed above, Hatanaka does not teach or
`
`suggest claim 1. Nishitani does not remedy the deficiencies of Hatanaka. Thus claim 1 is
`
`patentable over Hatanaka and Nishitani, alone or in combination. Claims 4 and 5 are also
`
`patentable based on their dependency from claim 1. Applicant does not concede the correctness
`
`of the rejection for claim features not discussed. Applicant respectfully requests favorable
`
`reconsideration of the claims and withdrawal of the rejection.
`
`Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hatanaka
`
`in view of Kawata (US. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/02095 82) (“Kawata”).
`
`Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection.
`
`Claims 6 and 7 depend from claim 1. As discussed above, Hatanaka does not teach or
`
`suggest claim 1. Kawata does not remedy the deficiencies of Hatanaka. Thus claim 1 is
`
`patentable over Hatanaka and Kawata, alone or in combination. Claims 6 and 7 are also
`
`patentable based on their dependency from claim 1. Applicant does not concede the correctness
`
`of the rejection for claim features not discussed. Applicant respectfully requests favorable
`
`reconsideration of the claims and withdrawal of the rejection.
`
`Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hatanaka
`
`in view of Kao et al. (US. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/012623 8) (“Kao”) and
`
`Kawata. Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection.
`
`Claims 6 and 8 depend from claim 1. As discussed above, Hatanaka does not teach or
`
`suggest claim 1. Kao does not remedy the deficiencies of Hatanaka. Thus claim 1 is patentable
`
`over Hatanaka and Kao, alone or in combination. Claims 6 and 8 are also patentable based on
`
`their dependency from claim 1. Applicant does not concede the correctness of the rejection for
`
`claim features not discussed. Applicant respectfully requests favorable reconsideration of the
`
`claims and withdrawal of the rejection.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Application No. 15/473,057
`Reply to the Office Action dated 05/31/2019
`
`Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wyatt (US. Patent
`
`Application Publication No. 2017/0269279) (“Wyatt”) in view of David et al. (US. Patent
`
`Application Publication No. 2013/0313516) (“David”). Claim 9 is alternatively been rejected
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over David in view of Wyatt. Applicant
`
`respectfully traverses the rejection.
`
`Claim 9 recites a liquid crystal display device that includes, among other features, a
`
`substrate, a light source, and a wavelength converter. The light source, the wavelength converter,
`
`and the substrate are stacked in that order.
`
`Wyatt and David, alone or in combination, do not teach or suggest at least these features
`
`from claim 9.
`
`Claim 9 requires an arrangement in which the light source, the wavelength converter, and
`
`the substrate are arranged in this order. Wyatt is directed to enhancing the purity of the spectral
`
`components. (Wyatt, 11 [0001]). Wyatt discloses a light source 50 and band-pass filter 54, 56, 60.
`
`Disposed between the light source 50 and the band-pass filter 54, 56, 60 is a “particle 52 within a
`
`housing of the light source 50, the particle 52 for converting blue photons from the blue photon
`
`pump into other wavelengths when excited...” (Wyatt, 11 [0052]). That is, Wyatt discloses an
`
`arrangement of the light source 50, the particle 52, and the band-pass filter 54, 56, 60, in that
`
`order. Wyatt does not teach or suggest an arrangement that includes a substrate, wavelength
`
`converter, and light source in that order. Thus Wyatt does not teach or suggest claim 9.
`
`David similarly does not teach or suggest a substrate, wavelength converter, and light
`
`source, in that order, as required by claim 9. The “wavelength conversion material” is not shown
`
`or suggested as being disposed between the light source and the substrate, and thus does not
`
`remedy the deficiencies of Wyatt.
`
`For at least the above reasons, claim 9 is patentable over Wyatt and David or David and
`
`Wyatt, alone or in combination. Applicant does not concede the correctness of the rejection
`
`regarding claim features not discussed. Applicant respectfully requests favorable reconsideration
`
`of the claim and withdrawal of the rejection.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Application No. 15/473,057
`Reply to the Office Action dated 05/31/2019
`
`In view of the above, Applicant respectfully requests favorable reconsideration in the
`
`form of a Notice of Allowance. If any questions arise regarding this communication, the
`
`Examiner is invited to contact Applicant’s representative listed below.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`HAMRE, SCHUMANN, MUELLER &
`LARSON, PC.
`45 s. 7th St, Suite 2700
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`(612) 455-3800
`
`Dated: September 3, 2019
`
`By:
`
`/dp_mueller/
`Douglas P. Mueller
`Reg. No.: 30,300
`DPM/RDS/an
`
`12
`
`