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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant’s arguments, filed 5/29/2026, with respect to GAHAGAN KEVIN THOMAS (WO 2016196540 A1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 1-4,6-17,20,21 has been withdrawn.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4,6-10,13,15-17, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drinkwater, John (WO 02/06858 A2) in view of Laak et al (US 20180217388)
Regarding Claim 1
Drinkwater, John discloses (Fig. 25) a display (188,187,186); a light shaping diffuser (189); a display hiding layer (190); a cover lens (the layer above 190); wherein the light shaping diffuser is located between the display and the display hiding layer (see Claims 46), wherein the display hiding layer comprises a surface having physical indicia (shown in Fig. 24, the squiggly line where 190 is pointing to also pasted below with arrows)
PNG
media_image1.png
410
374
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Drinkwater, John does not disclose wherein light reflected from the hidden display system projects an image appearing to be displayed overlaying the physical indicia.
Laak et al discloses wherein light reflected form the hidden display system projects an image appearing to be displayed overlaying the physical indicia (ABSTRACT)[0010].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Drinkwater, John to include Laak et al’s wherein light reflected form the hidden display system projects an image appearing to be displayed overlaying the physical indicia motivated by the desire to provide a display device with reconfigurable display which is visually appealing both when turned off and when turned on [0010][0008].
Regarding Claim 2,
In addition to Drinkwater, John and Laak et al, Drinkwater, John discloses (Fig. 25) wherein the light shaping diffuser (189) is a holographic diffuser (see claim 46).
Regarding Claim 3,
In addition to Drinkwater, John and Laak et al,Drinkwater, John discloses (Fig. 25) wherein the light shaping diffuser (189) is a randomized micro lens array (MLA) diffuser (see claim 46).
Regarding Claim 4,
In addition to Drinkwater, John and Laak et al, Drinkwater, John discloses (Fig. 25) wherein the display hiding layer (190) comprises a perforated layer (plurality of micro holes as stated in claim 46).
Regarding Claim 6,
In addition to Drinkwater, John and Laak et al, Drinkwater, John discloses (Fig. 25) wherein the light shaping diffuser (189) is a generally Lambertian diffuser (Claim 62).
Regarding Claim 7,
In addition to Drinkwater, John and Laak et al, Drinkwater, John discloses (Fig. 25) wherein the light shaping diffuser (189) is a generally Gaussian diffuser.
Regarding Claim 8,
John discloses (Fig. 25) a display: a light shaping diffuser (189); a display hiding layer (190); wherein the light shaping diffuser reduces the number of pixels of an image projected by the display that are altered due to an optical interference effect between the image projected by the display and the display hiding layer.
One would have recognized wherein the light shaping diffuser reduces the number of pixels of an image projected by the display that are altered due to an optical interference effect between the image projected by the display and the display hiding layer as a result-effective variable able to be optimized for sharper and brighter images.
Drinkwater, John does not disclose wherein the display has an active and an inactive mode; wherein, when the display is in an inactive mode, light reflected from the hidden display system projects an image of the surface having physical indicia; wherein, when the display is in an active mode, light reflected from the hidden display system projects an image of the surface having physical indicia, and an image projected by the display.
Laak et al discloses wherein the display has an active and an inactive mode; wherein, when the display is in an inactive mode, light reflected from the hidden display system projects an image of the surface having physical indicia; wherein, when the display is in an active mode, light reflected from the hidden display system projects an image of the surface having physical indicia, and an image projected by the display appearing to be displayed overlaying the physical indicia and appearing translucent [0010].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Drinkwater, John to include Laak et al’s display has an active and an inactive mode; wherein, when the display is in an inactive mode, light reflected from the hidden display system projects an image of the surface having physical indicia; wherein, when the display is in an active mode, light reflected from the hidden display system motivated by the desire to project an image of the surface having physical indicia, and an image projected by the display motivated by the desire to provide a display device with reconfigurable display which is visually appealing both when turned off and when turned on [0010][0008].
Regarding Claim 9,
In addition to Drinkwater, John and Laak et al, Drinkwater, John discloses (Fig. 25) wherein the hidden display system further comprises a cover lens (layer above 190).
Regarding Claim 10,
In addition to Drinkwater, John and Laak et al, Drinkwater, John discloses (Fig. 25) wherein the display (188,187,186) is located beneath the light shaping diffuser (189), the light shaping diffuser (189) is located beneath the display hiding layer (190), and the display hiding layer is located beneath the cover lens (layer above 190).
Regarding Claim 13,
In addition to Drinkwater, John and Laak et al, Drinkwater, John discloses (Fig. 25) wherein the optical interference effect is a Moire effect (claim 80).
Regarding Claim 15,
In addition to Drinkwater, John and Laak et al, Drinkwater, John discloses (Fig. 25) wherein the light shaping diffuser is a holographic diffuser (see claim 46).
Regarding Claim 16,
In addition to Drinkwater, John and Laak et al, Drinkwater, John discloses (Fig. 25) wherein the light shaping diffuser is a micro lens array (MLA) diffuser (see claim 46)
Regarding Claim 17,
In addition to Drinkwater, John and Laak et al, Drinkwater, John discloses (Fig. 25) wherein the MLA is randomized. (paragraph that starts with “6.5:”)
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.
Claim(s) 11,12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drinkwater, John (WO 02/06858 A2) and Laak et al (US 20180217388) in view of Okumura (US 6184955)
Regarding Claim 11,
Drinkwater, John and Laak et al discloses everything as disclosed above.
Drinkwater, John and Laak et al does not disclose wherein the display hiding layer comprises a perforated black layer, the perforated black layer having a plurality of evenly spaced holes.
Okumura discloses wherein the display hiding layer comprises a perforated black layer, the perforated black layer having a plurality of evenly spaced holes. (Column 9, lines 36)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Drinkwater, John and Laak et al to include Okumura’s perforated black layer motivated by the desire to create a gray colored appearance (Column 9, lines 36).
Regarding Claim 12,
In addition to Drinkwater, John, Drinkwater, John, Laak et al and Okumura, Okumura discloses wherein the perforated black layer is formed to include a plurality of spaced-apart apertures having a generally uniform aperture size across the plane of the perforated black layer, the plurality of apertures being generally spaced apart from one another a distance, the generally uniform aperture size in one dimension being between about 0.025 mm (20 mu.m) and about 0.1 mm.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drinkwater, John (WO 02/06858 A2) and Laak et al (US 20180217388) in view of Marshall (US 20090009860)
Regarding Claim 14,
Drinkwater, John and Laak et al discloses everything as disclosed above.
Drinkwater, John and Laak et al does not disclose wherein the light shaping diffuser (189) has a diffuser FWHM angle of 20 degrees or less.
Marshall discloses wherein the light shaping diffuser (189) has a diffuser FWHM angle of 20 degrees or less [0033].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Drinkwater, John and Laak et al to include Marshall’s diffuser angle degrees motivated by the desire to reduce the speckle effect [0033].
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drinkwater, John (WO 02/06858 A2) and of Laak et al (US 20180217388) in view of GAHAGAN KEVIN THOMAS (WO 2016196540 A1)
Regarding Claim 21,
Drinkwater, John and Laak et al discloses everything as disclosed above.
Drinkwater, John and Laak et al do not disclose wherein the physical indicia resembles a wood grain look.
GAHAGAN KEVIN THOMAS discloses wherein the physical indicia resembles a wood grain look [0035].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Drinkwater, John, Laak et al to include GAHAGAN KEVIN THOMAS’s physical indicia resembles a wood grain look [0035] motivated by the desire to create a display that resembles a wood grained dashboard.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is allowed.
Regarding Claim 20,
Drinkwater, John discloses (Fig. 25) a display (186,187,188); a light shaping diffuser (189); a display hiding layer (190); a cover lens (layer above 190); wherein the display is located beneath the light shaping diffuser (189), the light shaping diffuser is located beneath the display hiding layer, and the display hiding layer is located beneath the cover lens; wherein the light shaping diffuser is selected from the group consisting of a holographic surface and a randomized micro lens array (MLA)(see claim 46).
Okumura discloses wherein the display hiding layer comprises a perforated black layer, the perforated black layer having a plurality of evenly spaced holes. (Column 9, lines 36)
The prior art does not disclose nor would it obvious to combine so many references to disclose wherein the perforated black layer comprising a plurality of spaced-apart apertures having a generally uniform aperture size across the plane of the perforated black layer, the plurality of apertures being generally spaced apart from one another a distance, the generally uniform aperture size in one dimension being between about 0.025 mm and about 0.1 mm; wherein the display has an active and an inactive mode; wherein, when the display is in an inactive mode, light reflected from the hidden display system projects an image of the surface having physical indicia; wherein, when the display is in an active mode, light reflected from the hidden display system projects an image of the surface having physical indicia, and an image projected by the display; wherein the light shaping diffuser reduces a Moire interference effect between the image projected by the display and the display hiding layer; and wherein the light shaping diffuser has a diffuser FWHM angle of 20 degrees or less.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUCY P CHIEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8579. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM PST M-F.
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, Michael Caley can be reached on 571-272-2286. 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.
/LUCY P CHIEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights