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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/21/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant’s argument in the Remarks, Hanse in Fig.9, [65] teaches display D is configured to provide at least an information/instrumentation region IR that means display device at least covers or covers over information region, and in Fig.4A, [67]-[68], teaches surface T has display D being illuminated by a light source that indicates the display overlaps with illuminated region.
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(s) 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200369223 A1 Hansen; Scott Allen et al. (hereafter Hansen), in view of US 20150283939 A1 Parkes; Frederick Hayle et al. (hereafter Parkes), and further in view of US 20230001845 A1 TAKAGI; Noriaki et al. (hereafter Takagi).
Regarding claim 9, Hansen discloses A vehicle (Fig.1) comprising: a combined display-lighting unit (Figs.15A-15C, [75]), wherein the combined display-lighting unit has, integrated in one component part ([71], component C comprising of user interface UI/display panel D and light source LED, wherein the light source shown as LED array L and as module M (e.g. which may comprise an integrated light source/display panel and sensor/touch screen interface) ), a display device forming an information region and a lighting unit forming an illumination region (Fig.11, [71], DR is the illuminated region generated by light L, IR is the information region), wherein the e-paper display device extends over the information region and the illumination region (Fig.4A, Fig.9, [65], [67]-[68], display D is configured to provide at least an information/instrumentation region IR that means display device at least covers or covers over information region, and surface T has display D being illuminated by a light source that indicates the display overlaps with illuminated region).
Hansen fails to disclose e-paper display device, wherein the display-lighting unit is arranged on an outside of the vehicle body, and wherein the lighting unit is a headlight of the vehicle or a rear braking light of the vehicle.
However, Parkes teaches e-paper display device ([14], e ink display is e paper displayer), wherein the display-lighting unit is arranged on an outside of the vehicle body ([15], [18], a display including light source means the display integrated with light unit, and the display is placed outside of a vehicle), and Takagi teaches wherein the lighting unit is a headlight of the vehicle or a rear braking light of the vehicle (Figs.3, 6; [136], [160]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention having all the references Hansen, Parkes and DELLA VECCHIA before him/her, to modify the vehicle disclosed by Hansen to include the teaching in the same field of endeavor of Parkes and Takagi, in order to create a new and useful vehicle identification and registration information display, as identified by Parkes, and provide a simple, intuitive, and improve designability while avoiding deterioration of safety and functionality of a vehicle, as identified by Takagi.
Regarding claim 11, Hansen discloses The vehicle according to claim 9, wherein the display-lighting unit has a cover layer that is arranged on a surface of the display-lighting unit facing a viewer of the display-lighting unit and extends over the information region and the illumination region (Fig.10A, [75]).
Regarding claim 12, Hansen discloses The vehicle according to claim 11, wherein the cover layer is transparent, and/or is configured as a bistable layer and is transparent in a first of at least two states and opaque in a second of the at least two states ([80]).
Regarding claim 14, Parkes teaches The vehicle according to claim 9, further comprising: a sensor arranged behind the display-lighting unit, wherein the e-paper display device has a recess for the sensor ([10]).
Regarding claim 15, Parkes teaches The vehicle according to claim 14, wherein the sensor is a radar sensor ([24]).
Regarding claim 18, Hansen discloses The vehicle according to claim 9, wherein the vehicle is a motor vehicle (Fig.1A).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen, in view of Parkes and Takagi , and further in view of US 20190220179 A1 DELLA VECCHIA; Silvio et al. (hereafter DELLA VECCHIA).
Regarding claim 13, DELLA VECCHIA teaches The vehicle according to claim 9, wherein the display-lighting unit has a foreground illumination device for illuminating the information region and/or the illumination region ([04], [41]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention having all the references Hansen, Parkes, Takagi and DELLA VECCHIA before him/her, to modify the vehicle disclosed by Hansen to include the teaching in the same field of endeavor of Parkes, Takagi and DELLA VECCHIA, in order to create a new and useful vehicle identification and registration information display, as identified by Parkes, and provide a simple, intuitive, and improve designability while avoiding deterioration of safety and functionality of a vehicle, as identified by Takagi, and provide a simple, intuitive, and economic technology, which allows automotive interiors to be customized in any moment, as identified by DELLA VECCHIA.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen, in view of Parkes and Takagi, and further in view of US 11230225 B1 Stefanov-Wagner; Thaddeus et al. (hereafter Stefanov-Wagner).
Regarding claim 16, Stefanov-Wagner teaches The vehicle according to claim 9, wherein: the lighting unit has an element or a plurality of elements arranged one above the other, each having a light source arranged behind a bistable layer, and the bistable layer is transparent in a first of at least two states and is opaque in a second of the at least two states (Fig.9, col.10 line 66-col.11 line 20).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention having all the references Hansen, Parkes, Takagi and Stefanov-Wagner before him/her, to modify the vehicle disclosed by Hansen to include the teaching in the same field of endeavor of Parkes, Takagi and Stefanov-Wagner, in order to create a new and useful vehicle identification and registration information display, as identified by Parkes, and provide a simple, intuitive, and improve designability while avoiding deterioration of safety and functionality of a vehicle, as identified by Takagi and provide vehicle with light-based devices that emit light, as identified by Stefanov-Wagner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRACY Y. LI whose telephone number is (571)270-3671. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Friday (8:30 AM- 4:30 PM) 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 Czekaj can be reached at (571) 272-7327. 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.
/TRACY Y. LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487