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
The Amendments filed 03/05/2026 responsive to the Office Action filed 11/05/2025 has been entered. Claims 1 and 3 have been amended. Claim 10 has been canceled. Claims 1-9, 11-13 and 16-21 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Amendment, filed 03/05/2026 in pages 5-6, with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 3 under 103 have been fully considered and the rejection has been withdrawn due to the amendments. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection under 103 is made in view of Hansen et al. (US 6,277,312-of record) further in view of Dellock et al. (US 2017/0355321-of record), Higashikawa et al. (US 2020/0010660-of record) and Vidal et al. (US 2021/0039135).
Applicant argues that “Higashikawa discloses a fluorine-based coating that enables the formation of a protective layer. Although Higashikawa mentions a film with a thickness between 10 and 500 µm (and preferably lower), it praises the transparency properties of the film, for example in paragraph 31, which describes the alleged advantages of the invention: "The present invention enables to provide a resin composition capable of preventing die build-up at the time of production that results in appearance defects of film and excellent in fine-texture matting properties, transparency, chemical resistance, and stress whitening resistance, a fluorine-based film, a fluorine-based laminated film, and a laminated molded body using the same." Accordingly, Higashikawa attributes excellent transparency properties to a coating with a thickness between 10 and 500 µm, and preferably 40 to 200 µm. (Para. 0142.) Therefore, one skilled in the art would not have applied the teachings of Higashikawa to choose a thickness of the screen printed translucent white layer 52 disclosed in Hansen. Doing so would risk losing the semi-transparency of that layer and instead imparting excellent transparency, which teaches away from the invention. Moreover, the thickness recited in claims 1 and 3, being greater than 500 µm and up to 1 mm, is outside of the range disclosed in Higashikawa.
These arguments are found to be unpersuasive because:
In the paragraph cited by Applicant Higashikawa teaches transparency as one property of the product formed of a resin composition (Pa [0031]). However, Higashikawa further teaches that the fluorine-based film is widely used as a protective film to be laminated on surfaces of various substrates (Pa [0002]), and the thickness of the fluorine-based laminated film is preferably 10 to 500 μm, and when the thickness of the film is within these ranges, the laminated film has appropriate rigidity, and the laminateability and the secondary processability become favorable (Pa [0142] and [0143]). Thus, Higashikawa teaches the range of thickness of the laminated film for the benefits of appropriate rigidity, laminateability and favorable processability. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hansen with the teachings of Higashikawa and provide the semi-transparent film having the thickness in the range taught by Higashikawa for the purpose of rigidity, laminateability and favorable secondary processability. Furthermore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775,227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-8, 11-13 and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen et al. (US 6,277,312-of record) further in view of Dellock et al. (US 2017/0355321-of record), Higashikawa et al. (US 2020/0010660-of record) and Vidal et al. (US 2021/0039135).
With respect to claim 1, Hansen teaches a method for manufacturing a vehicle part that emits light (“in-mold decorating with laser etching”, co 1 li 6; “Molded part 96 is in the form of a toggle or paddle button nested in an automotive instrument cluster panel 118”, co 4 li 21-22; “illuminating light bulbs 124, 126”, co 4 li 25-26), characterized in that it comprises the following steps:
a0) making a transparent or translucent part (“a flat thin sheet plastic substrate 50”) by molding (“a flat thin sheet plastic substrate 50, for example polycarbonate, polyester, etc., extruded in sheet form”, co 2 li 62-64),
a) applying a semi-transparent film (“a translucent white layer 52”) on the transparent or translucent part (“a flat thin sheet plastic substrate 50”) (“A translucent white layer 52 is printed on substrate 50”, co 2 li 64-65; “daytime visual display of molded part 96. Incoming ambient light at 114 is reflected by layer 52 back towards the user or viewer at 116. Thus, layer 52 provides a daytime color showing the designated graphics “UP” and “DN” as white lettering against the black background of opaque layers 54, 52 through transparent outer hard coat layer 58.”, co 4 li 12-18; “In the nighttime operational mode … light bulb 124 is illuminated, and light therefrom passes through substrate 50 and white translucent layer 52 as shown at arrow 134”, co 4 li 31-36), the semi-transparent film configured for preventing transmission of natural light to a light source (“light bulbs 124, 126”) behind the transparent or translucent part (“Incoming ambient light at 114 is reflected by layer 52 back towards the user or viewer at 116.”, co 4 li 12-13) such that the light source is inherently not visible from outside the vehicle part when the light source is switched off (Fig. 14),
b1) applying a paint layer (“opaque layers 54 and 56”) on the semi-transparent film (“Following printing of layer 52, opaque layers 54 and 56 and hard coat layer 58 are printed on the substrate…Each of opaque layers 54 and 56 is a black screen printing ink”, co 3 li 5-9),
b2) applying a varnish layer (“hard coat layer 58”) on the paint layer (“Following printing of layer 52, opaque layers 54 and 56 and hard coat layer 58 are printed on the substrate…Hard coat layer 58 is transparent and preferably has a high abrasion resistance.”, co 3 li 5-7, 11-12), and
b3) partially irradiating the paint layer and the varnish layer with laser radiation so as to etch the paint layer and the varnish layer (“Molded part 96 is then etched with laser 108, FIG. 11, at laser beam 109 to provide a designated graphic in the opaque layers on the part”, co 3 li 66-co 4 li 1; “hard coat layer 58 and opaque layers 56 and 54 are printed with laser-vaporization-susceptible ink, whereby such layers ablate away as etched along the desired graphic by laser 108. White translucent layer 52 is printed with laser-vaporization-resistant ink and hence does not ablate away.”, co 4 li 6-11).
Hansen further teaches that the semi-transparent film (“layer 52”) is preferably screen printed on the part (“substrate 50”), though other methods may be used for applying such layer, and other layers, to be described, including offset printing, roll coating, and other methods of applying or coating a layer (co 2 li 65-co 3 li 2), but does not explicitly teach (1) overmolding the semi-transparent film on the transparent or translucent part, (2) the semi-transparent film having a thickness greater than 500 μm and up to 1 mm, and (3) the paint layer comprising a primer undercoat.
As to (1), in the same field of endeavor, a vehicle applique, Dellock teaches that the substrate 18 is made by extrusion, injection molding, compression molding, calendaring, thermoforming, etc (Pa [0026]), and the decorative layer 22 is arranged over the substrate 18, which is arranged over the photoluminescent structure 110, and the decorative layer 22 is molded over the photoluminescent structure 110 and light-producing assembly 114, and the decorative layer 22 may be at least partially light transmissible (Pa [0059]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hansen with the teachings of Dellock and substitute overmolding the semi-transparent film (“layer 52”) on the part (“substrate 50”) for printing the semi-transparent film (“layer 52”) on the part (“substrate 50”) in order to provide the semi-transparent film on the molded part, since it has been held that Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.).
As to (2), in the same field of endeavor, laminated film and laminated molded body, Higashikawa teaches that a fluorine-based film formed of a fluorine-based resin, which is represented by a vinylidene fluoride-based resin, is excellent in weather resistance, solvent resistance, and contamination resistance, and therefore the fluorine-based film is widely used as a protective film to be laminated on surfaces of various substrates such as plastic, glass, slate, rubber, metal plate, and wood board and the substrates having a surface protected by the fluorine-based film is used for many applications such as interior materials and exterior materials for buildings, furniture, interior materials and exterior materials for automobiles (Pa [0002]). Higashikawa further teaches that the thickness of the fluorine-based laminated film is preferably 10 to 500 μm, and when the thickness of the film is within these ranges, the laminated film has appropriate rigidity, and the laminateability and the secondary processability become favorable (Pa [0142] and [0143]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hansen with the teachings of Higashikawa and provide the semi-transparent film having the thickness in the range taught by Higashikawa for the purpose of rigidity, laminateability and favorable secondary processability. Furthermore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775,227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
As to (3), in the same field of endeavor, method for manufacturing a vehicle part, Vidal teaches that advantageously, the paint coat comprises an opacifying primer undercoat, the opacifying primer undercoat makes it possible to opacify the paint coat and thus improve its appearance (Pa [0027] and [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hansen with the teachings of Vidal and provide the opacifying primer undercoat with the opaque layers 54 and 56 in order to opacify the opaque layers and thus improve its appearance.
With respect to claim 2, Hansen as applied to claim 1 above does not specifically teach applying a protective layer on the semi-transparent film, under the paint layer. However, Hansen further teaches that layer 52 has a high melt temperature and abrasion resistance and laser-vaporization-resistance (co 3 li 4-5, 13). Thus, one would have found it obvious to duplicate the layers 52 on the substrate 50 for the purpose of obtaining the benefit of abrasion resistance and laser-vaporization-resistance, since it has been held that the mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04). In this modification, the first layer 52 with the substrate 50 would be the claimed semi-transparent film and the second layer 52 would be the claimed protective layer.
With respect to claim 3, Hansen teaches a method for manufacturing a vehicle part that emits light (“in-mold decorating with laser etching”, co 1 li 6; “Molded part 96 is in the form of a toggle or paddle button nested in an automotive instrument cluster panel 118”, co 4 li 21-22; “illuminating light bulbs 124, 126”, co 4 li 25-26), characterized in that it comprises the following steps:
a0) making a transparent or translucent part (“a flat thin sheet plastic substrate 50”) by molding (“a flat thin sheet plastic substrate 50, for example polycarbonate, polyester, etc., extruded in sheet form”, co 2 li 62-64),
a) applying a semi-transparent film (“a translucent white layer 52”) on the transparent or translucent part (“a flat thin sheet plastic substrate 50”) (“A translucent white layer 52 is printed on substrate 50”, co 2 li 64-65; “daytime visual display of molded part 96. Incoming ambient light at 114 is reflected by layer 52 back towards the user or viewer at 116. Thus, layer 52 provides a daytime color showing the designated graphics “UP” and “DN” as white lettering against the black background of opaque layers 54, 52 through transparent outer hard coat layer 58.”, co 4 li 12-18; “In the nighttime operational mode … light bulb 124 is illuminated, and light therefrom passes through substrate 50 and white translucent layer 52 as shown at arrow 134”, co 4 li 31-36), the semi-transparent film configured for preventing transmission of natural light to a light source (“light bulbs 124, 126”) behind the transparent or translucent part (“Incoming ambient light at 114 is reflected by layer 52 back towards the user or viewer at 116.”, co 4 li 12-13) such that the light source is inherently not visible from outside the vehicle part when the light source is switched off (Fig. 14),
b1) applying a paint layer (“opaque layers 54 and 56”) on the semi-transparent film (“Following printing of layer 52, opaque layers 54 and 56 and hard coat layer 58 are printed on the substrate…Each of opaque layers 54 and 56 is a black screen printing ink”, co 3 li 5-9),
b2) applying a varnish layer (“hard coat layer 58”) on the paint layer (“Following printing of layer 52, opaque layers 54 and 56 and hard coat layer 58 are printed on the substrate…Hard coat layer 58 is transparent and preferably has a high abrasion resistance.”, co 3 li 5-7, 11-12), and
b3) partially irradiating the paint layer and the varnish layer with laser radiation so as to etch the paint layer and the varnish layer (“Molded part 96 is then etched with laser 108, FIG. 11, at laser beam 109 to provide a designated graphic in the opaque layers on the part”, co 3 li 66-co 4 li 1; “hard coat layer 58 and opaque layers 56 and 54 are printed with laser-vaporization-susceptible ink, whereby such layers ablate away as etched along the desired graphic by laser 108. White translucent layer 52 is printed with laser-vaporization-resistant ink and hence does not ablate away.”, co 4 li 6-11).
Hansen does not explicitly teach the order of claimed steps. However, one would have found it obvious to perform the different order of steps in Hansen for the purpose of manufacturing a vehicle part that emits light since it has been held that in general, the transposition of process steps or the splitting of one step into two, where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result, was held to be not patentably distinguish the processes (e.g., Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. Pat. App. 1959); In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930)). See MPEP § 2144.04 (IV)(C).
Hansen further teaches that the semi-transparent film (“layer 52”) is preferably screen printed on the part (“substrate 50”), though other methods may be used for applying such layer, and other layers, to be described, including offset printing, roll coating, and other methods of applying or coating a layer (co 2 li 65-co 3 li 2), but does not explicitly teach (1) overmolding the semi-transparent film on the transparent or translucent part, (2) the semi-transparent film having a thickness greater than 500 μm and up to 1 mm, and (3) the paint layer comprising a primer undercoat.
As to (1), in the same field of endeavor, a vehicle applique, Dellock teaches that the substrate 18 is made by extrusion, injection molding, compression molding, calendaring, thermoforming, etc (Pa [0026]), and the decorative layer 22 is arranged over the substrate 18, which is arranged over the photoluminescent structure 110, and the decorative layer 22 is molded over the photoluminescent structure 110 and light-producing assembly 114, and the decorative layer 22 may be at least partially light transmissible (Pa [0059]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hansen with the teachings of Dellock and substitute overmolding the semi-transparent film (“layer 52”) on the part (“substrate 50”) for printing the semi-transparent film (“layer 52”) on the part (“substrate 50”) in order to provide the semi-transparent film on the molded part, since it has been held that Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.).
As to (2), in the same field of endeavor, laminated film and laminated molded body, Higashikawa teaches that a fluorine-based film formed of a fluorine-based resin, which is represented by a vinylidene fluoride-based resin, is excellent in weather resistance, solvent resistance, and contamination resistance, and therefore the fluorine-based film is widely used as a protective film to be laminated on surfaces of various substrates such as plastic, glass, slate, rubber, metal plate, and wood board and the substrates having a surface protected by the fluorine-based film is used for many applications such as interior materials and exterior materials for buildings, furniture, interior materials and exterior materials for automobiles (Pa [0002]). Higashikawa further teaches that the thickness of the fluorine-based laminated film is preferably 10 to 500 μm, and when the thickness of the film is within these ranges, the laminated film has appropriate rigidity, and the laminateability and the secondary processability become favorable (Pa [0142] and [0143]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hansen with the teachings of Higashikawa and provide the semi-transparent film having the thickness in the range taught by Higashikawa for the purpose of rigidity, laminateability and favorable secondary processability. Furthermore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775,227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
As to (3), in the same field of endeavor, method for manufacturing a vehicle part, Vidal teaches that advantageously, the paint coat comprises an opacifying primer undercoat, the opacifying primer undercoat makes it possible to opacify the paint coat and thus improve its appearance (Pa [0027] and [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hansen with the teachings of Vidal and provide the opacifying primer undercoat with the opaque layers 54 and 56 in order to opacify the opaque layers and thus improve its appearance.
With respect to claim 4, Hansen as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that the transparent or translucent part is manufactured by molding a plastic (“a flat thin sheet plastic substrate 50, for example polycarbonate, polyester, etc., extruded in sheet form”, co 2 li 62-64).
With respect to claim 5, Hansen as applied to claim 4 above further teaches that the plastic is polycarbonate (co 2 li 63).
With respect to claims 6 and 7, Hansen as applied to claim 1 above does not explicitly teach that the laser radiation has a wavelength in the infrared. Vidal as applied in the combination above further teaches that a portion of the vehicle part 2 is irradiated using laser radiation 14 so as to etch the paint coat 6 and the first varnish coat 12, advantageously, the laser radiation has a wavelength within the infrared, preferably the near infrared (Pa [0020], [0042]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hansen with the teachings of Vidal and use a near infrared laser for the purpose of laser etching, since it has held that Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.).
With respect to claim 8, Hansen as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that the semi-transparent film has a shiny effect (“Incoming ambient light at 114 is reflected by layer 52 back towards the user or viewer at 116.”, co 4 li 13-14).
With respect to claim 11, Hansen as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that the transparent or translucent part has at least one main shape in relief under the semi-transparent film (Figs. 11 and 13).
With respect to claim 12, Hansen as applied to claim 11 above further teaches that the laser irradiation of step b3) is carried out at least opposite the at least one main shape in relief (Fig. 11).
With respect to claim 13, Hansen as applied to claim 11 above does not specifically teach that the transparent or translucent part comprises a first face on which the semi-transparent film is overmolded and having the at least one shape in relief, and a second face opposite the first face, the second face having at least one secondary shape in relief opposite the main shape in relief and of opposite convexity. However, one would have found it obvious to modify the shape of the transparent or translucent part for the purpose using it in its desired use.
With respect to claim 17, Hansen as applied to claim 11 above further teaches that apart from the at least one main shape in relief, the transparent or translucent part has a flat or curved shape (Fig. 13).
With respect to claims 18 and 19, the combination as applied to claims 1 and 3 above further teaches that the semi-transparent film (“a translucent white layer 52”) is overmolded directly on a surface of the transparent or translucent part (“plastic substrate 50”) (Hansen: “A translucent white layer 52 is printed on substrate 50”, co 2 li 64-65; Dellock: “the decorative layer 22 is arranged over the substrate 18, which is arranged over the photoluminescent structure 110, and the decorative layer 22 is molded over the photoluminescent structure 110 and light-producing assembly 114”, Pa [0059]).
With respect to claims 20 and 21, the combination as applied to claims 1 and 3 above further teaches that the semi-transparent film (“a translucent white layer 52”) is overmolded on the transparent or translucent part (“plastic substrate 50”) so that an inner face of the semi-transparent film only contacts the transparent or translucent part (Hansen: “A translucent white layer 52 is printed on substrate 50”, co 2 li 64-65 and Fig. 3; Dellock: “the decorative layer 22 is arranged over the substrate 18, which is arranged over the photoluminescent structure 110, and the decorative layer 22 is molded over the photoluminescent structure 110 and light-producing assembly 114”, Pa [0059]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen et al. (US 6,277,312-of record) further in view of Dellock et al. (US 2017/0355321-of record), Higashikawa et al. (US 2020/0010660-of record) and Vidal et al. (US 2021/0039135) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Juenemann et al. (US 2020/0346431-of record).
With respect to claim 9, Hansen as applied to claim 1 above does not explicitly teach that the semi-transparent film comprises a stack of layers made of polyethylene terephthalate.
In the same field of endeavor, a light-permeable multilayer composite film for a motor vehicle part, Juenemann teaches that illumination of the optical layer may be achieved either via for example light emitting diodes from the back side, or else by glass fibers from the side or from the back side, but in any case in such a way that light enters into the optical layer and is therein conducted in a diffuse or directed manner according to the properties of said layer so that in combination with the top layer the latter is illuminated/transmits light and appears translucent, transparent or autoluminous from the outside. (Pa [0016]), and the optical layer is preferably made of a substantially glass-clear or translucent polyethylene terephthalate (PET), which depending on the processing conditions is producible as a semicrystalline (PET-C) or amorphous polyethylene terephthalate (PET-A). Provided clouding through excessive crystallinity is avoided, this affords not only very good optical properties but also, depending on the addition of plasticizer, thickness and configuration, a flexible layer which may be readily combined, laminated and further processed with further plastic layers (Pa [0019]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hansen with the teachings of Juenemann and forming the semi-transparent film with polyethylene terephthalate (PET) for the purpose of very good optical properties and flexibility. Furthermore, one would have found it obvious to duplicate the semi-transparent films, since it has been held that the mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen et al. (US 6,277,312-of record) further in view of Dellock et al. (US 2017/0355321-of record), Higashikawa et al. (US 2020/0010660-of record) and Vidal et al. (US 2021/0039135) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sato et al. (US 2020/0088944-of record).
With respect to claim 16, Hansen as applied to claim 11 above does not explicitly teach that the at least one main shape in relief is in a form of a rounded convex bump, wherein the paint layer and the varnish layer are at least partially irradiated on an exterior surface of the main shape in relief, and wherein the main shape in relief is configured to scatter light emitted by the light source.
In the same field of endeavor, a vehicle display device, Sato teaches that the three-dimensional surface display device 100 includes a mounting member 10, a plurality of light guide portions 20, and an outer panel 30 (Pa [0027]), the mounting member 10 is a member on which a plurality of light emitting elements 11 are mounted (Pa [0028]), each of the light guide portions 20 is a substantially columnar member made of a material which transmits light from the light emitting element 11, and one end surface thereof is a light incidence surface 21 and the other end surface thereof is a light extraction surface 22 (Pa [0030]), in order to reduce a directivity of the light extracted to the outside from the light extraction surfaces 22 and improve a visibility from multiple directions, it is preferable to form a light scattering structure for scattering and extracting the light such as minute unevenness on surfaces of the light extraction surfaces 22 (Pa [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hansen with the teachings of Sato and form the light scattering structure such as minute unevenness on surfaces of base 98, substrate 50, and layer 52 where the layer 54, 56, 58 are etched for the purpose of scattering and extracting the light so as to reduce a directivity of the light extracted to the outside from the surface and improve a visibility from multiple directions.
Conclusion
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 YUNJU KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1146. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00-4:00 EST M-Th; Flexing Fri.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached on 571-272-1176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YUNJU KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742