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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 3, 5-11 and 13-20 are currently pending. Claims 10-11 and 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to a non-elected invention In response to the office action mailed 9/10/2025 submitted arguments for claims 1and amended claim 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 5-6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20050126351 A1 to Becker et al. in view of US 20140240844 A1 to Scherrer further in view of US 20150295615 A1 to Smith et al. in view of US 20190152831 A1 to An et al.
Regarding Claim 1. Becker discloses a tool housing for a tool comprising: a display unit (Fig. 10 LCD display 89); and a display housing assembly adapted to be coupled to the tool housing (See Fig. 3), the display housing assembly includes a lens (Fig. 10 lens 90), a base formed over the lens (See Fig. 10 bezel 91), and buttons formed over the base (See at least Fig. 1 key 113).
Becker does not specifically disclose a base over-molded to the lens; wherein the lens and base respectively have curved shapes; buttons over-molded to the base.
However, Scherrer discloses a base over-molded to a lens (para 42 “over-mold the bezel to the lens in a complete bezel mold and the gasket to the lens”) to create a one piece lens and base.
In addition, An discloses that that each of the lens and base has a curved shape (as shown in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2) as the substitution of one known shape for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP2143(I)(B), KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)). In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
Further, Smith discloses buttons over-molded to a base (para 98) to reduce thickness and improve cosmetics.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to include a base over-molded to the lens; wherein the lens and base respectively have curved shapes; buttons over-molded to the base.
Regarding Claim 3. Becker further discloses each of the curved shapes of the lens and base has a shape that substantially corresponds to an external geometry of the tool housing (as shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 5. Becker further discloses the display unit is one of either an LCD or LED display (See Fig. 10 LCD display 89).
Regarding Claim 6. An further discloses the lens includes first and second layers (See Fig. 2 glass module 110 with thin film glass 111, the transparent polymer film 112).
Regarding Claim 9. Becker further disclose the base includes a lens opening adapted to retain the lens and a button opening (as shown in Fig. 10 rectangular aperture 92).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker, Scherrer, Smith and An applied to claim 6 in view of US 20200257156 A1 to Reeves.
Regarding Claim 7. As stated above, Becker, Scherrer, Smith and An discloses all the limitations of base claim 6.
Becker, Scherrer, Smith and An do not specifically disclose that the second layer is disposed on an outer surface of the first layer and the first layer forms a peripheral lip that substantially surrounds the second layer.
However, Reeves discloses that the second layer is disposed on an outer surface of the first layer and the first layer forms a peripheral lip that substantially surrounds the second layer (as shown in Fig. 1d curved window/cover component 2 and component 6, where component 2 forms a peripheral lip that substantially surrounds the component 6 and component 6 is disposed on an outer surface of component 2) as the substitution of one known shape for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP2143(I)(B), KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to include that the second layer is disposed on an outer surface of the first layer and the first layer forms a peripheral lip that substantially surrounds the second layer.
Claims 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker, Scherrer, Smith and An as applied to claim 1 in view of US 20140332786 A1 to Nakazawa et al.
Regarding Claim 8. As stated above, Becker, Scherrer, Smith and An discloses all the limitations of base claim 1.
Becker, Scherrer, Smith and An do not specifically disclose that the lens is composed of a nylon material.
However, Nakazawa discloses that that the lens is composed of a nylon material (para 94), The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to include that the lens is composed of a nylon material.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant generally argues that the prior art of record fails to disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and amended claim 7 and that the rationale provide for the proposed combination is deficient.
Regarding deficiency of the prior art of record, the above provided rejection identifies the limitations disclosed by the prior art of record.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the references themselves explicitly provides sufficient teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combined the proposed teachings in the above rejection. Further, the limitation not taught in the primary reference is a process and structural teaching widely employed in numerous devices across multiple fields of endeavor, thus the teachings are in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDMOND C LAU whose telephone number is (571)272-5859. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-6pm EST.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at (571) 272-9791. 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.
/EDMOND C LAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871