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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/27/2025 has been entered.
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.
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 1-12, 14-17, 19, 20, 22-30, 32-35, 37, 38, 40, 41, 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iimure (US-2015/0354759) in view of Suzuki (JP-2013003489).
As to claim 1, Iimure teaches a display device comprising a color layer 15, a black light-transmitting member, smoke layer 13, the smoke layer being in contact with the color layer 15 (see figure 3) and, and a backlighting light source SB1 (see Iimure paragraph 0047) . (see Figure 3 paragraph 0034).
Iimure (US-2015/0354759) also teaches a prior art device (see figure 12b) having colored layer 912, smoke layer 913, and light source 908 and a light blocking layer 914 (see Iimure paragraph 0010). Regarding the amended language, this prior art device shows the black light transmitting member 913 located between the color layer 912 and the light blocking layer 914. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention that the display device of Iimure could have been provided with these functional layers in this order since the result would have yielded predictable results.
As to claims 1, 2, 5-10, 24-28, Iimure teaches the smoke layer 13 may has transmittance values (see paragraph 0037). Suzuki and Iimure do not specify the total transmittance ranges and L* values claimed. However these are not patentable because these limitations amount to a mere change in color, lighter or darker, for the purpose of producing a desired aesthetic appearance. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to specify transmittance and L* values in the claimed ranges since the display taught by Sazuki and Iimure function by the same working principle, i.e. the smoke layer conceals the color filter layers when the illumination source is off because the smoke layer is dark in color. How dark the filter layers need to be is a matter of design choice and color choices are known in the art within claimed ranges are within the capabilities of one skilled in the art to modify, e.g. the amount of pigment introduced into the resin forming each layer, to obtain a lighter or darker multilayer assembly. 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 routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
As to claim 3, Iimure does not specify a transmission band for the color layer. Suzuki teaches a layered display comprising a smoke layer 100, and a colored filter layer 110 with a transmission band (see Suzuki abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to specify a transmission band for a color filter layer, since this means essentially selecting a color for the display to have when backlit, and would have yielded predictable results.
As to claim 4, Iimure teaches an embodiment combining a smoke layer 13, a color layer 15, and a light blocking layer 17, with a light source LE1 and a light blocking base material 59 (see Iimure figure 3, paragraph 0072).
Iimure (US-2015/0354759) also teaches a prior art device (see figure 12b) having colored layer 912, smoke layer 913, and light source 908 and a light blocking layer 914 (see Iimure paragraph 0010). Regarding the amended language, this prior art device shows the black light transmitting member 913 located between the color layer 912 and the light blocking layer 914. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention that the display device of Iimure could have been provided with these functional layers in this order since the result would have yielded predictable results.
Iimure does not specify a transmission band for the color layer. Suzuki teaches a layered display comprising a smoke layer 100, and a colored filter layer 110 with a transmission band (see Suzuki abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to specify a transmission band for a color filter layer, since this means essentially selecting a color for the display to have when backlit, and would have yielded predictable results.
As to claim 11 and 29, 12, 30, the layers of Iimure and Suzuki are laminated planar layers. (see Iimure figures 3 and 4).
As to claim 14 and 32, Iimure teaches that the smoke layer has diffusivity (see Imure paragraph 0036,0043, 0060, 0067).
As to claim 15-17 and 33-35, Iimure teaches the colored and smoke layers are formed by mixing pigment with a transparent resin and teaches acrylic resin among other examples (see Iimure paragraphs 0036, 0038, 0043, 0044).
As to claims 19, 20, 22, 23, 37, 38, 40, and 41, Iimure teaches that the display device is for an illuminated display in a vehicle (see Iimure, paragraph 0014).
As to claim 42, Iimure shows the light source LE1 between the light blocking base, circuit board 59, and the colored base material 17 (see figure 3, 4).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iimure (US-2015/0354759) in view of Katayama (US-2002/0051294).
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iimure (US-2015/0354759) in view of Suzuki (JP-2013-3489) and further in view of Katayama (US-2002/0051294).
As to claim 13 and 31, Iimure does not specify a difference in refractive index to be less than 0.3. Katayama teaches an antireflective substrate formed by transparent layers and describes a different in refractive index between layer to be less than 0.3 (see Katayama paragraph 0138). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to specify a difference in refractive index as taught by Katayama between the layers in Iimure to be within the claimed range since this is known to be effective at reducing glare from reflections at the layer interface.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iimure (US-2015/0354759) in view of Sakamaki (US-2018/0204493).
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iimure (US-2015/0354759) in view of Suzuki (JP-2013-3489) and further in view of Sakamaki (US-2018/0204493).
As to claim 18 and 36, Iimure does not specify a white LED. Sakamaki (US-2018/0204493) teaches a backlit display device comprising laminated layers including a smoke layer, and further specifies a white LED for backlighting symbols on the display (see Sakamaki paragraph 0033). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a white LED as taught by Sakamaki in combination with a display as taught by Iimure since Iimure is silent and white LEDs are well known in the art and would have yielded predictable results.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iimure (US-2015/0354759) in view of De Saro (US-6526681).
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iimure (US-2015/0354759) in view of Suzuki (JP-2013-3489) and further in view of De Saro (US-6526681).
As to claim 21 and 39, Iimure does not specify a signboard. De Saro teaches a backlit signboard with translucent layers. (see De Saro abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to form a multilayer display device according to Iimure as a sign board as taught by De Saro in order to use the display to display things on a sign.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant merely asserts that the amended claim language defines over the art of record. As shown above, the limitation is already known in the prior art embodiment of figure 12 of Iimure (US-2015/0354759). Thus the applicant’s argument is moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER E VERAA whose telephone number is (571)272-2329. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-5pm 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, David Dunn can be reached on 5712726670. 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.
/CeV/Examiner, Art Unit 3636
/DAVID R DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3636