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 .
Summary
The Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments received on July 22, 2025 are entered into the file. Currently, claim 5 is amended; claims 1-4 and 16-20 are withdrawn; claims 21 and 22 are new; resulting in claims 5-15, 21, and 22 pending for examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 7 of claim 5, the limitation reciting “that is made visible the emitted light is selectively transmitted through” appears to contain a typographical error that should be amended to recite --that is made visible when the emitted light is selectively transmitted through--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 5-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ikehara et al. (US 2025/0012426, previously cited).
Regarding claim 5, Ikehara et al. teaches a decorative molded article (100; user interface) comprising a laminate (1A; dead front assembly) attached to a surface of a molded article (110; molded component), with a light source (2; illumination element) positioned on the back side of the laminate ([0033], [0150], Fig. 6). The light source may be an incandescent lamp, a fluorescent lamp, a light-emitting diose (LED), an LED matrix display, an organic electroluminescence display, a liquid crystal display (LCD), or the like [0035]. Ikehara et al. teaches that the laminate (1A) has stealth properties, such that the light source positioned on the back side of the laminate is not visible when the light source is turned off, while when the light source is turned on, images can be displayed on the surface of the laminate [0033]. As shown in Fig. 6, the molded article (110) is arranged proximate the light source (2).
Ikehara et al. teaches that the laminate (1A) comprises a light adjusting layer (10), a transparent substrate layer (20), a pigment interference print layer (30; coating layer), a smoked layer (40; vacuum metalized layer), and a black layer (50; masking layer) ([0030], Fig. 6). The black layer (50) has a shape that matches the pattern to be displayed (two-dimensional graphic) and includes an opening (51) where light from the light source transmits through, and light blocking parts (52) positioned around the opening ([0112], Fig. 6). The smoked layer (40) is disposed between the black layer (50) and the print layer (30) and may be a thin metallic film layer formed by vapor deposition of a metal [0101]. Ikehara et al. teaches that the black layer (50) allows little light from the light source to transmit through the light blocking parts (52), such that light emitted from the light source is transmitted only through the opening (51) [0123]. The shape of the opening therefore corresponds to the claimed two-dimensional graphic that is made visible when the emitted light is selectively transmitted through the opening, such that the two-dimensional graphic conveys user information, e.g., information in the form of light indicating that the light source is turned on.
With respect to the preamble limitation reciting “for a component”, it is noted that this limitation is considered functional language related to an intended use of the claimed user interface. As set forth in MPEP 2111.02(II), to satisfy an intended use limitation, a prior art structure which is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble meets the claim. In the instant case, Ikehara et al. teaches that the display device (user interface) may be used as the front panel of a vehicle, wherein the device is provided with designs, patterns, or pictures on a surface of a vehicle interior part (component) in order to make the device blend in with its surroundings ([0003], [0168], Fig. 7). The prior art display device is capable of being incorporated into a component, thus satisfying the claimed intended use limitation.
With respect to the limitation reciting “configured to match a color of said component”, it is noted that this limitation is interpreted as relating the color of the coating layer to that of the component. However, as noted above, the limitations directed to the “component” refer to an intended use of the user interface and do not further limit the structure of the claimed product. Ikehara et al. teaches that the print layer (30; coating layer) may be configured to express a wood-grain pattern with light and dark brown colors, or may be configured as any other pattern or as a single color ([0029], [0071]), such that the coating layer matches a color of the component when the user interface is used with a component having the same colors.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Ikehara et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 5 above and further teaches that the thin metallic film layer of the smoked layer (40; vacuum metalized layer) is formed to be light-permeable (translucent), with a predetermined range of light transmittance of 1 to 70% ([0100]-[0101]). Ikehara et al. further teaches that the smoked layer has a function to make the design of the print layer easier to see when the light source is turned off, and has a function to make the boundary between the opening (51) and the light blocking part (52) of the black layer (50; masking layer) less visible [0100]. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the vapor deposited thin metallic film layer would necessarily be at least somewhat reflective to ambient light, where Ikehara et al. teaches that the smoked layer is configured to at least partially conceal the black layer.
Regarding claim 8, Ikehara et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 5 above and further teaches that the black layer (50; masking layer) may be formed by printing a black ink (opaque ink) having a content of pigment or dye such that the light transmittance is approximately zero [0114]. As noted above with respect to claim 5, the black layer includes an opening (51) where the light from the light source transmits through, and further includes light blocking parts (52; concealed portions) having light blocking properties [0112].
Regarding claim 10, Ikehara et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 5 above. As shown in Fig. 6, the print layer (30; coating layer) is formed a single layer on the surface of the smoked layer (40), where the print layer (30) may be formed using an ink composition containing pigments and a binder resin [0068].
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikehara et al. (US 2025/0012426, previously cited) as applied to claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 9, Ikehara et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 5 above. As noted above with respect to claim 5, Ikehara et al. teaches that the print layer (30; coating layer) may be configured to express a wood-grain pattern with light and dark brown colors, or may be configured as any other pattern or as a single color ([0029], [0071]), such that the coating layer matches a color of the component when the user interface is used with a component having the same colors.
Although Ikehara et al. teaches that the print layer may be formed as a single color (flat color) or as a pattern comprising a combination of brown colors (non-black and non-metallic colors), the reference does not expressly teach that the print layer comprises a flat (i.e., substantially uniform) non-black and non-metallic color. It would, however, have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the print layer to include any color, such as a flat non-black and non-metallic color, in order to achieve the desired aesthetic appearance for the display device. With respect to aesthetic considerations such as the color of the coating layer, it is well settled that “matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.” See MPEP 2144.04(I).
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikehara et al. (US 2025/0012426, previously cited) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Bach et al. (US 2016/0334094, previously cited).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Ikehara et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 5 above. Although Ikehara et al. teaches that the light sources (221; illumination element) may be formed with multiple light-emitting parts, such as an LED or LCD device, ([0171]-[0172]), the reference does not expressly teach that the display device further comprises a printed circuit board assembly on which the light sources are arranged, or a capacitive sensor operable to selectively actuate the light sources.
However, in the analogous art of backlit user interfaces, Bach et al. teaches a user interface assembly (140) comprising a user interface substrate (130), an opaque coating (148; masking layer), a light transmissive layer (150), and a display assembly (160) ([0026], [0030], Fig. 2). The display assembly serves to receive inputs from the user interface substrate and to display information in or on the substrate, wherein the display assembly includes a first printed circuit board (162) having one or more light sources (164; illumination element), e.g., a light emitting diode (LED), for illuminating one or more features [0027]. The first printed circuit board may include elements or components for controlling the user interface assembly [0028].
Bach et al. teaches that the display assembly may also include a second printed circuit board (166) including a capacitive touch sensing system, whereby the appliance (100) in which the user interface assembly is installed is controlled at least in part through capacitive touch inputs on the user interface substrate [0029]. Touch input components (132) can allow for the selective activation, adjustment, or control of any or all heating assemblies (120) in the appliance, as well as any timer features or other user adjustable inputs [0022]. The user interface (130) also includes a display component (134), such as a digital display device, designed to provide operational feedback to a user, such as whether a particular heating assembly is activated and the level at which the heating element is set ([0022], Fig. 1). Therefore, the light sources are actuated to display user information associated with an element of the appliance upon activation of the element via the capacitive touch sensors.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display device of Ikehara et al. by including a printed circuit board assembly and a capacitive touch sensor as claimed, as taught by Bach et al., for the purpose of controlling the electronic components of the display device and for enabling actuation of the light sources by touch.
Regarding claim 13, Ikehara et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 5 above but does not expressly teach that a diffusion film is arranged between the light sources (221; illumination element) and the black layer (50; masking layer).
However, in the analogous art of backlit user interfaces, Bach et al. teaches a user interface assembly (140) comprising a user interface substrate (130), an opaque coating (148; masking layer), a light transmissive layer (150; diffusion film), and a display assembly (160) ([0026], [0030], Fig. 2). The display assembly serves to receive inputs from the user interface substrate and to display information in or on the substrate, wherein the display assembly includes one or more light sources (164; illumination element), e.g., a light emitting diode (LED), for illuminating one or more features [0027].
Bach et al. teaches that the light transmissive layer (150) may be a light diffusion layer, which includes a support substrate (152) that diffuses light from the light sources (164) in order to provide uniform illumination of text, digits, graphics, or other features in or on user interface substrate (130) ([0031]-[0032], Fig. 3). In particular, the diffusive layer serves to disburse light from the light source to provide uniform brightness and wider viewing angles of the illuminated features [0031].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display device of Ikehara et al. by including a diffusion film arranged between the light sources and the black layer, as taught by Bach et al., in order to provide uniform illumination of information or graphics transmitted to the visible surface of the device, thus achieving a uniform brightness and wider viewing angle of the illuminated features.
Regarding claim 14, Ikehara et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 5 above but does not expressly teach that the dead front assembly comprise an indicia layer comprising visible iconography or text supplementing the user information.
However, in the analogous art of backlit user interfaces, Bach et al. teaches a user interface assembly (140) comprising a user interface substrate (130), an opaque coating (148), a light transmissive layer (150), and a display assembly (160) ([0026], [0030], Fig. 2). The display assembly serves to receive inputs from the user interface substrate and to display information in or on the substrate, wherein the display assembly includes one or more light sources (164), e.g., a light emitting diode (LED), for illuminating one or more features [0027]. Bach et al. further teaches that a variety of text, digits, and/or symbols (visible iconography or text) may be printed (indicia layer) on the user interface substrate to indicate, e.g., the heat setting of a heating assembly, or the area to touch to input certain information ([0025], [0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display device of Ikehara et al. by including an indicia layer comprising text and/or symbols in addition to the illuminated user information, as taught by Bach et al., in order to provide static information that is visible regardless of whether the illumination element is activated.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikehara et al. (US 2025/0012426, previously cited) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Schulze (DE 102009034944, machine translation previously provided).
Regarding claim 15, Ikehara et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 5 above and further teaches that the light adjusting layer (10) may be formed with two or more layers; for example, the light adjusting layer may be configured to provide one or more layers formed with uneven parts (11) which serve to impart a tactile feel and which have a concavo-convex shape formed to match the shape of the design shown by the print layer, and a flat layer (hard coat layer) having a surface protection function such as scratch resistance ([0046], [0048]). Although Ikehara et al. teaches that the light adjusting layer may be provided with a hard coat layer as an outermost layer of the display device, the reference does not expressly teach that the hard coat layer has a satin finish having a plurality of microscopic pores.
However, in the analogous art of decorative elements, Schulze teaches a vehicle interior decorative element having a continuous coating formed thereon, wherein the coating has a matte or satin surface texture that can be achieved by post-processing with a blasting agent ([0004]-[0009]). Schulze teaches that the coating is provided with the surface texture in order to alter the visual and haptic properties thereof [0007]. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a coating processed to have a satin surface texture by a blasting process would necessarily have a plurality of microscopic pores as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display device of Ikehara et al. by forming the outer coating layer to have a satin finish having a plurality of microscopic pores, as taught by Schulze, in order to impart the desired visual appearance and/or haptic properties to the display device.
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikehara et al. (US 2025/0012426, previously cited) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Timmerman et al. (US 2013/0314642, newly cited).
Regarding claims 21 and 22, Ikehara et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 5 above but does not expressly teach that the opening (51) of the black layer (50; masking layer) comprises a seven-segment opening, or that the two-dimensional graphic defined by the opening comprises an alphanumeric character.
However, in the analogous art of backlit displays, Timmerman et al. teaches a dead front display assembly comprising a first layer (2) which in the absence of backlighting is opaque to a viewer, a mask layer (15) with light transparent windows (16) defining at least one graphic (18), and a support component in the form of a printed circuit board (36) which serves as a support structure for light emitting diodes (LEDs) or a liquid crystal display (LCD) (Abstract, [0023], [0027], Fig. 1). Timmerman et al. teaches that the graphic (18) may depict a symbol, a numeral, an alphabet letter, a word, or combinations thereof ([0024]-[0025]). As shown in Fig. 1, the graphic may include windows (16; opening) in the form of seven-segment numerals, words, and symbols.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the decorative molded article of Ikehara et al. by forming the masking layer to have openings in the form of seven-segment numerals and/or alphanumeric characters, as taught by Timmerman et al., in order to enable the backlit article to display information in the form of numerals and/or text.
Response to Arguments
Response-Drawings
The previous objection to the drawings is overcome by replacement drawings received on July 22, 2025, which correct the reference numeral for the dead-front user interface (120) in Fig. 4.
Response-Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 103
Applicant's arguments, see pages 7-9 of the remarks filed July 22, 2025, with respect to amended claim 5 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that Ikehara et al. fails to disclose or suggest that the opening (51) of its masking layer (50) defines a two-dimensional graphic that is made visible when light is selectively transmitted through the opening, particularly wherein the two-dimensional graphic conveys user information. Rather, Ikehara’s opening (51) is merely a general opening for light that does not define any graphic of the user interface. Instead, graphics are defined by the display part (220) below, which has light sources (221) arranged in a matrix for displaying characters, numbers, images, and so forth.
This argument is not persuasive. In light of the amendments to claim 1, the previous rejection based on Ikehara et al. has been modified to address the new limitation requiring that the opening defines a two-dimensional graphic that conveys user information. In particular, as explained in the prior art rejections above, the light source (2) taught by Ikehara et al. is taken to correspond to the claimed illumination element that is configured to transmit emitted light, wherein the light source of Ikehara et al. can be a general light source such as an incandescent lamp, a fluorescent lamp, or a light-emitting diode (LED), or a display device such as an organic electroluminescence display or a liquid crystal display (LCD) [0035]. Ikehara et al. further teaches that the light from the light source (2) is transmitted only through the opening (51) and is not transmitted through the light blocking part (52) of the black layer [0123]. Therefore, the opening (51) defines a two-dimensional graphic corresponding to the shape of the opening, which is made visible when the light emitted from the light source is transmitted through the opening. In the case where the light source is a general light source rather than a display device, it is apparent that the graphic is not defined by the light source but is rather the result of light transmitted through the opening.
Regardless of the shape of the opening in Ikehara et al., the two-dimensional graphic defined by the opening is interpreted to convey user information, such as information related to an on/off state of the light source. Moreover, a user may recognize that visibility of the two-dimensional graphic as a result of light emitted through the opening conveys information related to an article to which the device is attached; for example, the illuminated opening may indicate that a vehicle or appliance door is currently open. Although new limitations in claims 21 and 22 were added to further define the features of the opening and/or the two-dimensional graphic, it is noted that the two-dimensional graphic which conveys user information is broadly recited in claim 5 and does not distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art to Ikehara et al.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sugiyama et al. (US 2019/0390839) teaches a display device (81) comprising a thin film layer (2), a protruding plate (1), a transparent base material (3), a metallic concealing layer (4) with light transmitting portions (11a-c), a light diffusion layer (5), a light color toning layer (6), a second concealing layer (7) with light transmitting portions (12a-c), and a reinforcing layer (9) with light sources (14a-c) attached to a rear surface of the reinforcing layer ([0056]-[0059], Figs. 2A-2B). When the light sources are turned on, light from the light source transmits through the light transmitting portions (11a-c, 12a-c), where the shapes of the light transmitting portions are displayed as the shape of marks (16a-c) displayed on the surface of the display device ([0059]-[0060], Fig. 2A). The shape, size, number, or position of marks (16a-c) can be set in an arbitrary manner by the user, and can include a display format such as characters or numerals represented by 7 segments, for example [0062].
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 REBECCA L GRUSBY whose telephone number is (571) 272-1564. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM-5:30 PM.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/Rebecca L Grusby/Examiner, Art Unit 1785
/LAURA C POWERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785