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 .
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 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.
DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
Claim 1, in line 2, “a stationary waring zone”;
Claim 1, in line 3, “different types of sensors”;
Claim 8, in line 2, “a microprocessor”;
Claim 9, in lines 3-4, “a driving module”;
Claim 9, in line 5, “a microprocessor”.
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 4-5 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation " the pointer" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 4 depends on Claim 1 but a pointer is not introduced until Claim 2, so either the claim should state “a” pointer rather than “the” pointer or it should depend on Claim 2. The examiner understands the “pointer” of Claim 4 (line 4) to be in reference to a “virtual pointer” and the “pointer” of Claim 2 (line 2) to be in reference to a “physical pointer”. For examination purposes the claim will be treated as: “a” pointer dependent on Claim 1 which appears to be consistent with the specification.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected due to their dependency on Claim 4.
Claim 9 recites the limitation " the light guide" in line 3 and the limitation " the microprocessor" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for each limitation in the claim. Claim 9 depends on Claim 6 but a plurality of light guides is not introduced until Claim 7 and a microprocessor is not introduced until Claim 8, so the claim should state “a” light guide rather than “the” light guide and “a” microprocessor rather than “the” microprocessor. The examiner understands the “microprocessor” of Claim 9 (lines 4-5) to be in reference to a “processor” as stated in the applicant’s specification (page 5, lines 5-6) and lines 14-15). For examination purposes the claim will be treated as: “a” light guide and “a” microprocessor dependent on Claim 6 which appears to be consistent with the specification.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected due to their dependency on Claim 9.
Regarding Claim(s) 10: The phrase "in particular" ( line 2), renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For examination purposes the limitation “ in particular an integrally injection molding housing, which has an opening aligned with the selector and being closable by a removable plug” will be treated as a housing which has an opening being closable by a removable plug.
Examiner’s Notes
Regarding Claim(s) 1-10: With respect to the preamble, the preamble of the claim(s) has/have not been given any patentable weight because it has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim(s) is/are drawn to a structure and the portion of the claim(s) following the preamble is a self – contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150,152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 4 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tanaka et al. (7119764 B2, see reference in its entirety).
With respect to independent Claim 1, Tanaka et al. disclose(s): A display gauge (Fig. 3: see Examiner’s Notes paragraph above) comprising:
a display unit (Fig. 3: 1) and a control unit (Fig. 3: 23), the display unit having a stationary warning zone (Fig. 3: 7),
the control unit being connectable with different types of sensors (Fig. 3: S1-S3) to receive sensor signals (Fig. 3), wherein the display gauge further comprises a coded selector Fig. 3 : 12) that can be operated by a user (Fig. 1 and column 5, lines 14-19),
the selector being electrically connected to the control unit to transmit to the control unit a signal indicative of a type of a current sensor signal selected by the user (Fig. 3 and column 5, lines 14-19), and the control unit controls display of the display unit according to a value of the current sensor signal (Fig. 3 and column 5, lines 14-19), so that a state in which the value of the current sensor signal reaches a warning value range can be displayed through the warning zone regardless of the type of the sensor (Fig. 3).
As best understood: Regarding Claim 4, Tanaka et al. disclose(s) the display of Claim 1.
Tanaka et al. further disclose(s): the control unit is configured to convert the current sensor signal into a corresponding digital value (Fig. 3 and column 6, lines 39-59), and convert the digital value into a control signal corresponding to a desired pivot angle of a pointer (Fig. 1: 4) in a nonlinear manner based on the type of the current sensor signal selected by the user (Fig. 3 and column 5, lines 14-19).
Regarding Claim 8, Tanaka et al. disclose(s) the display of Claim 1.
Tanaka et al. further disclose(s): the control unit comprises a microprocessor (column 6, lines 41-42), which comprises a plurality of software processing modules for separately processing different sensor signals (Fig. 3: 24, 27 & 28) , and is to receive signals from the selector to run a software processing module corresponding to the current sensor signal (Fig. 3).
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.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. in view of Abel et al. (US 6693523, see reference in its entirety).
Regarding Claim 2, Tanaka et al. disclose(s) the display of Claim 1.
Tanaka et al. further disclose(s): the display unit comprises a dial (Fig. 1: 3) and a pointer (Fig. 1: 4) , the dial is provided with a scale (Fig. 3: 8) including the warning zone (Fig. 1: 7) , and the pointer can be driven by the control unit so as to point to the warning zone when the current sensor signal is within the warning value range (Fig. 3).
Tanaka et al. does not specifically disclose: wherein the pointer is a physical pointer and the scale is a physical scale.
However, Abel et al. teach(es) a display (Fig. 1) including: wherein the pointer is a physical pointer (6) and the scale is a physical scale (8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Tanaka et al., with the teachings of Abel et al., for the purpose of a display of more than one measured value so the change can be better perceived by the user (column 1, lines 34-39).
Regarding Claim 3, Tanaka et al. and Abel et al. disclose(s) the display of Claim 2.
Tanaka et al. further disclose(s): the scale comprises an arc line (Fig. 1: 41) and scale lines (Fig. 1: 2) extending in a radial direction to divide the arc line into a plurality of sections (Fig. 1) , wherein the section at the end in a clockwise direction forms the warning zone (Fig. 1: 7).
As best understood: Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. in view of Reynolds et al. (US 8736458 B2, see reference in its entirety).
Regarding Claim 5, Tanaka et al. disclose(s) the display of Claim 4.
Tanaka et al. further disclose(s): the control unit is configured to convert the digital value into the control signal corresponding to the desired pivot angle of the pointer (Fig. 3 and column 3, line 57 through column 4 line 9).
Tanaka et al. does not specifically disclose: applying a curve fitting algorithm in order to transform and adjust the measured values.
However, Reynolds et al. teach(es) a display (column 16, lines 10-12) including: applying a curve fitting algorithm in order to transform and adjust the measured values(column 16, lines 59-61).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Tanaka et al., with the teachings of Reynolds et al., for the purpose of applying a known algorithmic technique to create a visual representation of measured values (column 16, lines 59-61).
Claim(s) 6-7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. and Abel et al. further in view of Hein (US 7015407 B2; see reference in its entirety).
Regarding Claim(s) 6, Tanaka et al. and Abel et al. teach(es) the display of Claim 2.
Tanaka et al. further disclose(s): the dial is provided with a plurality of functional symbols indicative of the types of sensor signals (Fig. 3: 10), wherein these functional symbols can be lightened in correspondence to the type of current sensor signal selected by the user (column 5, lines 14 – 35) .
The combination does not specifically disclose: the dial is composed of a dark transparent film.
However, Hein teach(es) a display (Fig. 2) including: the dial is composed of a dark transparent film (Fig. 2 and column 2, lines 50-54).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the combined display of Tanaka et al. and Abel et al., with the further teachings of Hein, for the purpose of providing a visual contrast (column 2, lines 54-59).
Regarding Claim(s) 7, Tanaka et al., Abel et al. and Hein teach(es) the display of Claim 6.
The combination does not specifically disclose(s): the control unit comprises a plurality of light guides oriented towards the functional symbols for lightening the corresponding functional symbol.
However, Abel et al. further teach(es): the control unit comprises a plurality of light guides (Fig. 3: 19 & 22) oriented towards the functional symbols for lightening the corresponding functional symbol (Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the combined display of Tanaka et al., Abel et al. and Hein, with the further teachings of Abel et al., for the purpose of improving visual effect of the pointer (column 3, lines 2-5).
As best understood: Regarding Claim(s) 9, Tanaka et al., Abel et al. and Hein teach(es) the display of Claim 6.
Tanaka et al. further disclose(s): the control unit is composed of an upper circuit board (Fig. 2: 33) and a lower circuit board (Fig. 2: 34) which are signal-connected with each other (Fig. 2), and a microprocessor and the coded selector are arranged on the circuit board (Fig. 2).
The combination does not specifically disclose(s): wherein a light guide and a driving module for driving the pointer to rotate are arranged on the circuit board.
However, Abel et al. further teach(es): wherein a light guide and a driving module for driving the pointer to rotate are arranged on the circuit board (Fig. 3 ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the combined display of Tanaka et al., Abel et al. and Hein, with the further teachings of Abel et al., for the purpose of activating the display (column 3, lines 14-16).
As best understood: Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al., Abel et al. and Hein further in view of Bristol (US 3475602; see reference in its entirety).
With respect to Claim 10, Tanaka et al., Abel et al. and Hein teach(es) the display of Claim 9.
Tanaka et al. further disclose(s): the display unit and the control unit are encapsulated in a housing (Fig. 2: 37).
The combination does not specifically disclose(s): an integrally injection molded housing.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention where a product by process claim is rejected over a prior art product that appears to be identical, although produced by a different process, the burden is upon the applicants to come forward with the evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the two. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Tanaka et al. teaches a housing (Fig. 2: 37), the applicant’s specification states “the present invention may include a housing 4” (page 7, line 8), so it doesn’t matter the process to produce the housing, therefore Tanaka et al. teaches the claim limitation.
The combination does not specifically disclose(s): an opening aligned with the selector and being closable by a removable plug.
However, Bristol teach(es) a display (Fig. 1) including: an opening (Fig. 5: 40) aligned with the selector and being closable by a removable plug. (Fig. 5: 23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the combined apparatus of Tanaka et al., Abel et al. and Hein, with the further teachings of Bristol, for the purpose of facilitating replacement of selector (column 1, lines 39-41).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
The following reference(s) relate to displays: Sekisawa et al. (US 2025/0231051 A1); Muto (US 5469137); Igarashi (US 4713762); Gallant et al. (US 7327239 B2); Twombly (US 5136516; Damiani et al. (US 6667726 B1); Kumazawa et al. (US 6333697 B1); Kauff (EP 0895892 A2).
The following reference(s) relate to displays with removable plugs: Mund et al. (US 3761703); Aoshima (WO 0155667 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANIA COURSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2239. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (7am-3:30pm).
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, Kristina Deherrera, can be reached on (303) 297-4237. 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.
/TC/
21 September 2025
/KRISTINA M DEHERRERA/
Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855