Patent Application 18851417 - A LIGHT COUPLING DEVICE FOR COUPLING LIGHT INTO - Rejection

Patent Application 18851417 - A LIGHT COUPLING DEVICE FOR COUPLING LIGHT INTO

Title: A LIGHT COUPLING DEVICE FOR COUPLING LIGHT INTO A DISPLAY PANEL

Application Information

• Invention Title: A LIGHT COUPLING DEVICE FOR COUPLING LIGHT INTO A DISPLAY PANEL
• Application Number: 18851417
• Submission Date: 2025-05-20T00:00:00.000Z
• Effective Filing Date: 2024-09-26T00:00:00.000Z
• Filing Date: 2024-09-26T00:00:00.000Z
• Examiner Employee Number: 92950
• Art Unit: 2875
• Tech Center: 2800

Rejection Summary

• 102 Rejections: 1
• 103 Rejections: 7

Cited Patents

The following patents were cited in the rejection:

• US 9121978🔗

Office Action Text

    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 .

Benefit
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for domestic benefit under 35 U.S.C. 365 (c) with PCT/US2023/019078, which in turn claims the domestic benefit 35 U.S.C. 119 (e) with 63/336,580. Accordingly, the earliest effective filing date was recognized as 04/09/2022.

Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/06/2024 was considered by the examiner.

Drawings
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated.  See MPEP § 608.02(g).  Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.

The drawings are objected to because reference character “112” is being used in Fig 2 to indicate the surrounding material. The surrounding material is designated with reference character “120” in at least drawings Figs 3, 6, and 8. Further, the specification describes material with reference character “120”, throughout. Further, reference character “112” is used to indicate the adhesive in the remainder of the drawings and throughout the specification. A correction in Fig 1 to change “112” to – 120 – would not be considered new matter.  Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities.  
Re Claim 1:
On line 6, the claim includes reference characters “L” which is not enclosed within parentheses. 
Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims.  See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Re Claims 2-20:
The claims are objected to due to their dependence on base claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.

Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b)  CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.


Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.


Re Claim 14:
The claim recites “the reference surface is a surface of the transparent plate recessed from the second major surface”; however, it is unclear how, simultaneously, the reference surface may be a surface from which the bridge structures extend (as recited in the second clause of claim 1), the second major surface also being a structure from which the bridge structures extend (also recited in the second clause of claim 1), and the reference surface be recessed from the second major surface. Therefore, the claim is indefinite. The examiner has interpreted – the reference surface is a surface of the transparent plate recessed between distal ends of the bridge structures – in order to execute compact prosecution.
 Re Claim 15:
The claim recites “the reference surface comprises a recessed surface of the coating layer”; however, it is unclear how, simultaneously, the reference surface may be a surface from which the bridge structures extend (as recited in the second clause of claim 1), the second major surface also being a structure from which the bridge structures extend (also recited in the second clause of claim 1), and the reference surface comprising a recessed surface of the coating layer. Therefore, the claim is indefinite. The examiner has interpreted – the reference surface is recessed between distal ends of the bridge structures – in order to execute compact prosecution.



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)(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.


Claims 1, 7-8, 13-14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Funamoto et al. (US 20030206408 A1; listed as Cite No. 1 under U.S. Patent Publications in the IDS filed on 11/06/2024; “Funamoto”).
Re Claim 1:
Funamoto discloses light coupling device (light-guide plate 11, Figs 30A-30B, with the modification of in Fig 31, described in at least ¶¶ 0171-0175) for coupling light (ray 19) from a light source to a display panel (from light source 2 to illuminated body 6), comprising:
a transparent plate (11, ¶ 0172) comprising a first major surface (face 17) and a second major surface (optical output plane 13) opposite the first major surface (shown in Figs 30A-30B), the transparent plate further (11) comprising a plurality of edge surfaces (shown in Fig 30B) connecting the first major surface and the second major surface (connecting 17 and 13, Fig 30A transposed with Fig 30B); and 
a plurality of bridge structures (rib-shaped projections 12) extending from the second major surface (Figs 30A-30B), each bridge structure (each 12) comprising a length L in a range from about 2 micrometers to about 200 micrometers defined between a reference surface from which the plurality of bridge structures extend and a distal end of the bridge structure farthest from the reference surface (described in ¶¶ 0175-0176 wherein the reference surface is 13 and the length is the height described; the examiner notes that ¶ 0175 describes it is desirable that the ratio of the width and height of projections 12 should be just about one-to-one, and ¶ 0176 describes the size of projections 12 should be above about 10 µm and less than 50 µm; the examiner further notes that a specific example in the prior art which is within claimed range anticipates the range. MPEP § 2131.03 I).
Re Claim 7:
Funamoto further discloses wherein a cross-sectional shape of a bridge structure of the plurality of bridge structures (12) in a plane parallel with the first major surface comprises a polygon (rectangle, Fig 30A transposed with Fig 30B).
Re Claim 8:
Funamoto further discloses wherein a maximum width of each bridge structure in a plane parallel with the first major surface is in a range from about 10 micrometers to about 50 millimeters (¶ 0176).
Re Claim 13:
Funamoto further discloses wherein the reference surface is the second major surface (13) of the transparent plate (11).
Re Claim 14 (as interpreted under the 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) section, above):
Funamoto further discloses wherein the reference surface is a surface of the transparent plate recessed from the second major surface (shown in Figs 30A-30B).

Re Claim 17:
Funamoto further discloses wherein a refractive index of the transparent plate is in a range from about 1.35 to about 1.65 (due to the materials described in ¶ 0172).
Re Claim 20:
Funamoto further discloses wherein a refractive index of the bridge structures is no more than about 10% different than a refractive index of the transparent plate (because the light-guide plate 11 and projections (12) are of the same material, specifically the materials described in ¶ 0172).

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 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Funamoto.
Re Claim 16:
With regard to thickness, it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.  In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to have recognized Funamoto as at least suggested an equivalent thickness to the claimed thickness of a maximum thickness of the transparent plate is in a range from about 0.1 mm to about 5 mm for the purpose propagating light to the display panel.
Re Claim 18:
Funamoto further discloses wherein the transparent plate (11) is (at least optically) connected to a substrate (11 is at least optically connected to the necessarily occurring substrate of 6 in Fig 30A ; ¶ 0124 describes illuminated body 6 as a liquid crystal display) facing the plurality of bridge structures (facing 12).
Funamoto does not explicitly disclose that the substrate is a glass substrate; however, the Examiner takes Official Notice that liquid crystal displays comprising glass substrates were well-known within the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to have configured the substrate of Funamoto as a well-known glass substrate for the benefit of having a definitive structure.
Funamoto does not explicitly disclose that the substrate is attached to the plurality of bridge structures; however, there are only two options for the configuration of the substrate relative to the plurality of bridges: connected or not connected. Further, in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), the Supreme Court held that "obvious to try" was a valid rationale for an obviousness finding, for example, when there is a "design need" or "market demand" and there are a "finite number" of solutions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to try the configuration of the substrate attached to the plurality of bridge structures for the benefit of durability.

Claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Funamoto as applied in claim 1 above, and further in view of Sugiura (US 20140375897 A1).
Funamoto does not disclose:
wherein the plurality of edge surfaces comprises a first edge surface and a second edge surface opposite the first edge surface, the plurality of bridge structures comprises a first set of bridge structures positioned along a first axis extending between the first edge surface and the second edge surface, and a distance separating adjacent bridge structures, 
wherein the plurality of bridge structures comprises a second set of bridge structures positioned along the first axis, and a distance separating adjacent bridge structures of the second set of bridge structures decreases in a direction from the second edge surface toward the first edge surface of the first set of bridge structures along the first axis decreases in a direction from the first edge surface toward the second edge surface,
wherein the plurality of edge surfaces comprises a third edge surface and a fourth edge surface opposite the third edge surface and the plurality of bridge structures comprises a third set of bridge structures positioned along a second axis extending between the third edge surface and the fourth edge surface, and a distance separating adjacent bridge structures of the third set of bridge structures decreases in a direction from the third edge surface toward the fourth edge surface,
wherein the plurality of bridge structures comprises a fourth set of bridge structures positioned along the second axis, and a distance separating adjacent bridge structures of the fourth set of bridge structures decreases in a direction from the fourth edge surface toward the third edge surface,
 wherein the first edge surface is orthogonal to the third edge surface.
Sugiura (in at least Fig 18 and ¶¶ 0105-0107) teaches:
a plurality of reflection structures (plurality of light reflection portions 328; analogous in at least position to the claimed bridge structures); and
a plurality of edge surfaces (a plurality of light entrance surfaces 319b) comprising a first edge surface (surface of light guide plate 319 facing short-side LED board 318S on the bottom of Fig 18) and a second edge surface (surface of light guide plate 319 facing short-side LED board 318S on the top of Fig 18) opposite the first edge surface (configuration and orientation shown in Fig 18), the plurality of reflection structures (328) comprises a first set of reflection structures positioned along a first axis extending between the first edge surface and the second edge surface (set of 318 extending from first edge to the area with the highest density of 328), and a distance separating adjacent reflection structures of the first set of reflection structures along the first axis (along the X axis) decreases in a direction from the first edge surface toward the second edge surface (shown in Fig 18 and described in ¶ 0107), 
wherein the plurality of reflection structures comprises a second set of reflection structures positioned along the first axis (set of 318 extending from second edge to the area with the highest density of 328, along the X axis), and a distance separating adjacent reflection structures of the second set of reflection structures decreases in a direction from the second edge surface toward the first edge surface (shown in Fig 18 and described in ¶ 0107),
wherein the plurality of edge surfaces comprises a third edge surface (surface of light guide plate 319 facing long-side LED board 318L on the left side of Fig 18) and a fourth edge surface (surface of light guide plate 319 facing long-side LED board 318L on the right side of Fig 18) opposite the third edge surface (configuration and orientation shown in Fig 18) and the plurality of reflection structures comprises a third set of reflection structures positioned along a second axis (along the Y axis) extending between the third edge surface and the fourth edge surface (set of 318 extending from third edge to the area with the highest density of 328), and a distance separating adjacent reflection structures of the third set of reflection structures decreases in a direction from the third edge surface toward the fourth edge surface (shown in Fig 18 and described in ¶¶ 0070 and 0107),
wherein the plurality of reflection structures comprises a fourth set of reflection structures positioned along the second axis (set of 318 extending from fourth edge to the area with the highest density of 328, along the Y axis), and a distance separating adjacent reflection structures of the fourth set of reflection structures decreases in a direction from the fourth edge surface toward the third edge surface (shown in Fig 18 and described in ¶¶ 0070 and 0107),
 wherein the first edge surface is orthogonal to the third edge surface (shown in Fig 18, see mapping above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to modify the density of the plurality of bridge structures of Funamoto according to the density of the plurality of reflection structures as taught (in at least principle) by Sugiura for the benefit of reducing uneven brightness (Sugiura: ¶¶ 0070 and 0105).

Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Funamoto as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Wang (US 20200073044 A1).
Funamoto does not explicitly disclose wherein the maximum width varies along the length of each bridge structure, 
wherein the maximum width is greater at the distal end than at the reference surface.
Wang teaches a maximum width varies along a length of bridge structures (maximum width varies along a length of microstructured strips 40, shown in Fig 1 transposed with Fig 3, described in ¶ 0054), 
wherein the maximum width is greater at a distal end than at a reference surface (greater at end closer to lower substrate 50 than the first adhesive layer 30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to modify the maximum width of the plurality of bridges according to the maximum width of the plurality of bridges as taught (in at least principle) by Wang for the benefit of improving brightness (Wang: ¶ 0057).

Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Funamoto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Huang et al. (US 9121978 B2; “Huang”).
Funamoto does not explicitly disclose that the plurality of bridge structures are disposed in a matrix material and a refractive index of the matrix material is at least about 10% less than a refractive index of the bridge structures.  
Huang teaches a plurality of bridge structures (plurality of pillar structures 330, Figs 3a-3c) are disposed in a matrix material and a refractive index (nA) of the matrix material is at least about 10% less than a refractive index (n3) of the bridge structures (n3 ≥ n1 > is larger nA, as described in Col 3, ~lines 46-62).
With further regard to the refractive index, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2nd 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Further, 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. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to have recognized Huang as at least suggesting an equivalent refractive index for the plurality of bridge structures and matrix material to the claimed refractive index of the matrix material is at least about 10% less than a refractive index of the bridge structures for the purpose of directing light downward (Huang: Col 3, ~lines 46-62). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA configure the refractive index of the plurality of bridge structures of Funamoto and include a matrix material as taught (in at least principle) by Huang for the benefit of optimizing the light downward (Col 3: ~lines 46-62).

Claims 1, 7-12, 15-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Funamoto.
Re Claim 1:
Wang discloses a light coupling device (light guide film 20, a first adhesive layer 30, microstructured strips 40, lower substrate 50 and second substrate layer 50, second adhesive layer 60; shown in at least Figs 1-3; described in at least ¶¶ 0034 and 0054 as well as below) for coupling light from a light source (light emitting member 10) to a display panel (liquid crystal display panel 70), comprising: 
a plate (20) comprising a first major surface (surface of 20 facing away from 30) and a second major surface (surface of 20 toward 30) opposite the first major surface (configuration shown in Fig 1), the plate further comprising a plurality of edge surfaces (surfaces between the first and second major surfaces in Fig 1 comprising: two surfaces shown in Fig 1; a surface facing out of the page in Fig 1; and a surface facing into the page of Fig 1) connecting the first major surface and the second major surface (explicitly shown and implied due to the configuration of Fig 1); and 
a plurality of bridge structures (30, 40) extending from the second major surface (shown in Fig 1), each bridge structure comprising a length L (shown in Figs 1, 3, and 6; described as a height t in at least ¶¶ 0062-0067) defined between a reference surface (surface of 40 abutting surface of 30) from which the plurality of bridge structures extend (Figs 1 and 3) and a distal end of the bridge structure farthest from the reference surface (end of 40 abutting 50).
With further regard to length L, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2nd 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Further, 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. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to have recognized Wang as at least suggesting an equivalent optimized length to the claimed range from about 2 micrometers to about 200 micrometers for the purpose of optimizing the path of light propagation (Wang: ¶ 0065).
Although light permeable, Wang does not explicitly disclose the plate is a transparent plate.
Funamoto teaches a transparent plate (light-guide plate 11, Figs 30A-30B, ¶ 0172).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the plate of Wang to be transparent as taught (in at least principle) by Wang for the benefit of light efficiency.
Re Claim 7:
Wang further discloses wherein a cross-sectional shape of a bridge structure (30) of the plurality of bridge structures in a plane parallel with the first major surface comprises a polygon (necessarily occurring due to the configuration shown in Fig 1, description of trapezoid-shaped in ¶ 0053).
Re Claim 8:
Wang further discloses optimization for the dimensions for plurality of bridges  (¶¶ 0062-0068).
With further regard to dimensions, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2nd 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Further, 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. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to have recognized Wang as at least suggesting an equivalent dimensional optimization to the claimed maximum width of each bridge structure in a plane parallel with the first major surface is in a range from about 10 micrometers to about 50 millimeters for the purpose of optimizing the light path (¶ 0065).
Re Claims 9-10:
Wang further discloses wherein a maximum width varies along the length of bridge structures (shown in Fig 1 transposed with Fig 3, described in ¶ 0054), 
wherein the maximum width is greater at the distal end than at the reference surface (greater at end closer to 50 than to the first adhesive layer 30).
 Re Claim 11-12:
Wang further discloses wherein the plurality of bridge structures comprise an optical adhesive (30),
wherein the optical adhesive comprises a coating layer disposed on the second major surface of the transparent plate (shown in Fig 1).
Wang does not explicitly disclose the optical adhesive is a optically clear adhesive; however, the Examiner take Official Notice that optically clear adhesives were well-known within the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to have configured the optical adhesive as a well-known optically clear adhesive for the benefit of light efficiency.
Re Claim 15 (as interpreted under the 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) section, above):
Wang further discloses wherein the reference surface comprises a recessed surface of the coating layer (shown in Fig 1).

Re Claim 16:
With regard to thickness, it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.  In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to have recognized Wang as at least suggested an equivalent thickness to the claimed thickness of a maximum thickness of the transparent plate is in a range from about 0.1 mm to about 5 mm for the purpose propagating light to the display panel.
Re Claim 17:
Wang further discloses an optimized refractive index (described in at least ¶ 0050 as a difference between the maximum refractive index and the minimum refractive index of the three refractive indexes is less than or equal to 0.02).
With further regard to an optimized refractive index, , it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2nd 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Further, 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. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to have recognized Wang as at least suggesting an equivalent optimized refractive index to the claimed refractive index of the transparent plate is in a range from about 1.35 to about 1.65 for the purpose of influencing light propagation.
Re Claim 18:
Wang further discloses wherein the transparent plate (20) is connected to a substrate (necessarily occurring substrate in 70) attached to the plurality of bridge structures (attached to 30, 40, at least indirectly via 50, 60).
Wang does not explicitly disclose that the substrate is a glass substrate; however, the Examiner takes Official Notice that liquid crystal displays comprising glass substrates were well-known within the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to have configured the substrate of Wang as a well-known glass substrate for the benefit of having a definitive structure.
Re Claim 20:
Wang further disclose wherein a refractive index of the bridge structures (30, 40) is no more than about 10% different than a refractive index of the transparent plate (than 20; in at least ¶ 0050 as a difference between the maximum refractive index and the minimum refractive index of the three refractive indexes is less than or equal to 0.02).

Claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Funamoto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sugiura.
Wang does not disclose:
wherein the plurality of edge surfaces comprises a first edge surface and a second edge surface opposite the first edge surface, the plurality of bridge structures comprises a first set of bridge structures positioned along a first axis extending between the first edge surface and the second edge surface, and a distance separating adjacent bridge structures, 
wherein the plurality of bridge structures comprises a second set of bridge structures positioned along the first axis, and a distance separating adjacent bridge structures of the second set of bridge structures decreases in a direction from the second edge surface toward the first edge surface of the first set of bridge structures along the first axis decreases in a direction from the first edge surface toward the second edge surface,
wherein the plurality of edge surfaces comprises a third edge surface and a fourth edge surface opposite the third edge surface and the plurality of bridge structures comprises a third set of bridge structures positioned along a second axis extending between the third edge surface and the fourth edge surface, and a distance separating adjacent bridge structures of the third set of bridge structures decreases in a direction from the third edge surface toward the fourth edge surface,
wherein the plurality of bridge structures comprises a fourth set of bridge structures positioned along the second axis, and a distance separating adjacent bridge structures of the fourth set of bridge structures decreases in a direction from the fourth edge surface toward the third edge surface,
 wherein the first edge surface is orthogonal to the third edge surface.
Sugiura (in at least Fig 18 and ¶¶ 0105-0107) teaches:
a plurality of reflection structures (plurality of light reflection portions 328; analogous in at least position to the claimed bridge structures); and
a plurality of edge surfaces (a plurality of light entrance surfaces 319b) comprising a first edge surface (surface of light guide plate 319 facing short-side LED board 318S on the bottom of Fig 18) and a second edge surface (surface of light guide plate 319 facing short-side LED board 318S on the top of Fig 18) opposite the first edge surface (configuration and orientation shown in Fig 18), the plurality of reflection structures (328) comprises a first set of reflection structures positioned along a first axis extending between the first edge surface and the second edge surface (set of 318 extending from first edge to the area with the highest density of 328), and a distance separating adjacent reflection structures of the first set of reflection structures along the first axis (along the X axis) decreases in a direction from the first edge surface toward the second edge surface (shown in Fig 18 and described in ¶ 0107), 
wherein the plurality of reflection structures comprises a second set of reflection structures positioned along the first axis (set of 318 extending from second edge to the area with the highest density of 328, along the X axis), and a distance separating adjacent reflection structures of the second set of reflection structures decreases in a direction from the second edge surface toward the first edge surface (shown in Fig 18 and described in ¶ 0107),
wherein the plurality of edge surfaces comprises a third edge surface (surface of light guide plate 319 facing long-side LED board 318L on the left side of Fig 18) and a fourth edge surface (surface of light guide plate 319 facing long-side LED board 318L on the right side of Fig 18) opposite the third edge surface (configuration and orientation shown in Fig 18) and the plurality of reflection structures comprises a third set of reflection structures positioned along a second axis (along the Y axis) extending between the third edge surface and the fourth edge surface (set of 318 extending from third edge to the area with the highest density of 328), and a distance separating adjacent reflection structures of the third set of reflection structures decreases in a direction from the third edge surface toward the fourth edge surface (shown in Fig 18 and described in ¶¶ 0070 and 0107),
wherein the plurality of reflection structures comprises a fourth set of reflection structures positioned along the second axis (set of 318 extending from fourth edge to the area with the highest density of 328, along the Y axis), and a distance separating adjacent reflection structures of the fourth set of reflection structures decreases in a direction from the fourth edge surface toward the third edge surface (shown in Fig 18 and described in ¶¶ 0070 and 0107),
 wherein the first edge surface is orthogonal to the third edge surface (shown in Fig 18, see mapping above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to modify the density of the plurality of bridge structures of Wang (as modified in view of Funamoto) according to the density of the plurality of reflection structures as taught (in at least principle) by Sugiura for the benefit of reducing uneven brightness (Sugiura: ¶¶ 0070 and 0105).

Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Funamoto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Huang.
Wang does not explicitly disclose that the plurality of bridge structures are disposed in a matrix material and a refractive index of the matrix material is at least about 10% less than a refractive index of the bridge structures.  
Huang teaches a plurality of bridge structures (plurality of pillar structures 330, Figs 3a-3c) are disposed in a matrix material and a refractive index (nA) of the matrix material is at least about 10% less than a refractive index (n3) of the bridge structures (n3 ≥ n1 > is larger nA, as described in Col 3, ~lines 46-62).
With further regard to the refractive index, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2nd 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Further, 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. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to have recognized Huang as at least suggesting an equivalent refractive index for the plurality of bridge structures and matrix material to the claimed refractive index of the matrix material is at least about 10% less than a refractive index of the bridge structures for the purpose of directing light downward (Huang: Col 3, ~lines 46-62). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA configure the refractive index of the plurality of bridge structures of Wang (as modified in view of Funamoto) and include a matrix material as taught (in at least principle) by Huang for the benefit of optimizing the light downward (Col 3: ~lines 46-62).

Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Printer (US 20040062031 A1) and  Lee et al. (US 20170003439 A1) disclose a sets of reflective structures.

Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH G DELAHOUSSAYE whose telephone number is (469)295-9088. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 10:00 am-6:00 pm CST.
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, James Greece can be reached at (571) 272-3711. 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.

KEITH G. DELAHOUSSAYE JR.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2875



/KEITH G. DELAHOUSSAYE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875