DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to a Preliminary Amendment filed on 09/07/2023.
Currently, claims 1-17 are examined as below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 09/07/2023. The IDS has been considered.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested:
(Marked-Up Version) Display Device Having Higher Image Quality While Emitting No Light
(Clean Version) Display Device Having Higher Image Quality While Emitting No Light
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 12-14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Japanese Patent Publication No. 2005062441 A (“JP441”).
PNG
media_image1.png
404
761
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
689
265
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
477
768
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding independent claim 1, JP441 in Figs. 1-4 and Annotated Fig. 3 teaches a display device (Figs. 1-4 & ¶ 32, display device), comprising:
a cavity structure 2/3/4 (¶ 32, a collective of board 2, sheet member 3 and frame body 4) including a display surface (Figs. 1-4, ¶ 32, ¶ 34, ¶ 38 & ¶ 48, light emitting surface with light emitted from light emitters 1 displaying characters 10) and a cavity CV (Annotated Fig. 3) in the display surface; and
a light emitter 1 (¶ 32, LED 1 as light-emitting element) in the cavity CV (Annotated Fig. 3),
wherein the display surface includes a first area 3 (¶ 32, sheet member 3) configured to display information (Fig. 1 & ¶ 48) with light emitted from the light emitter 1 in the cavity CV and a second area 4 (¶ 32, frame body 4) adjacent to the first area 3 (Figs. 1-3), and
a ratio of a first brightness of the first area 3 in a non-display state (¶ 37, when the LED 1 is not lit) to a second brightness of the second area 4 is in a predetermined range including 1 (¶ 37, when the LED 1 is not lit, the frame body 4 and the sheet member 3 look like a single wood plate as a whole. In other words, when the LED 1 is not lit, the brightnesses of the areas 3 and 4 are the same (i.e., ratio of 1) such that they look like a single wood plate as a whole).
Regarding claim 4, JP441 in Figs. 1-3 further teaches a ratio of a first hue of the first area 3 in the non-display state to a second hue of the second area 4 is in a predetermined range including 1 (¶ 37, when the LED 1 is not lit, the frame body 4 and the sheet member 3 look like a single wood plate as a whole. In other words, when the LED 1 is not lit, the hues of the areas 3 and 4 are the same (i.e., ratio of 1) such that they look like a single wood plate as a whole).
Regarding claim 6, JP441 in Figs. 1-4 further teaches a ratio of a first chroma of the first area 3 in the non-display state to a second chroma of the second area 4 is in a predetermined range including 1 (¶ 37, when the LED 1 is not lit, the frame body 4 and the sheet member 3 look like a single wood plate as a whole. In other words, when the LED 1 is not lit, the chromas of the areas 3 and 4 are the same (i.e., ratio of 1) such that they look like a single wood plate as a whole).
Regarding claim 12, JP441 in Figs. 1-4 further teaches the display surface is a design surface (Figs. 1-4, ¶ 32, ¶ 34, ¶ 38 & ¶ 48 disclose the display surface is designed to display characters 10 i.e., design surface).
Regarding claim 13, JP441 in Figs. 1-4 further teaches the design surface includes at least one of the group consisting of a patterned part 9 (Fig. 4 & ¶ 36, translucent hole portion 9 is a patterned part) and a text part 10 (Fig. 1, ¶ 38 & ¶ 48, character 10 of “Yamaya” in Japanese as text).
Regarding claim 14, JP441 in Figs. 1-4 and Annotated Fig. 3 further teaches the cavity structure 2/3/4 includes a layered portion 3 (Fig. 4, ¶ 32 & ¶ 36, sheet member 3 includes base material 6, black coating layer 7 and image display layer 8) defining the display surface (Figs. 1-4, ¶ 32, ¶ 34, ¶ 38 & ¶ 48, light emitting surface with light emitted from light emitters 1 displaying characters 10), and the layered portion 3 has a thickness less than half a width WD (Annotated Fig. 3) of an opening CV (Annotated Fig. 3) of the cavity CV (Annotated Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 17, JP441 in Fig. 3 further teaches the first area 3 is surrounded by the second area 4.
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.
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 2-3, 5, 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP441.
Regarding claim 2, JP441 in Figs. 1-4 teaches S1=S11+S12, where S1 is an area size of the first area 3, S11 is a total area size of an opening 9 (Fig. 4 & ¶ 36, translucent hole portion 9) in the first area 3, and S12 is an area size of the portion of the first area 3 other than the opening 9, V1 is the first brightness (Figs. 1-4 & ¶ 37, the brightness of area 3 when the LED 1 is not lit; see the rejection of claim 1 as noted above), and V2 is the second brightness (Figs. 1-4 & ¶ 37, the brightness of area 4 when the LED 1 is not lit; see the rejection of claim 1 as noted above), and
the predetermined range is 0.8≤V1/V2≤1.2 (¶ 37, the ratio of the first brightness in the non-display state to the second brightness is in a predetermined range including 1, which anticipates the claimed range of 0.8≤V1/V2≤1.2; see the rejection of claim 1 as noted above).
JP441 does not explicitly disclose V1=V11×S11/S1+V12×S12/S1, where V11 is a brightness, defined by a Munsell color system, of an opening of the cavity in the first area in the non-display state, V12 is a brightness of a portion of the first area other than the opening.
However, the ordinary artisan would have recognized “an area size of the first area, a brightness, defined by a Munsell color system, of an opening of the cavity in the first area in the non-display state, a total area size of the opening in the first area, a brightness of a portion of the first area other than the opening, an area size of the portion of the first area other than the opening” to be a result effective variable affecting “the first brightness.” Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the “an area size of the first area, a brightness, defined by a Munsell color system, of an opening of the cavity in the first area in the non-display state, a total area size of the opening in the first area, a brightness of a portion of the first area other than the opening, an area size of the portion of the first area other than the opening” to be within the claimed range [and such that it satisfies the conditions of V1=V11×S11/S1+V12×S12/S1], since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 3, JP441 in Fig. 4 further teaches the opening 9 in the non-display state has the brightness V11 lower than the brightness V12 of the portion of the first area 3 other than the opening 9 (¶ 37, the light transmitting hole portion 9 is part of the inside of the display device which is darker than the outside (i.e., surface of the first area 3) when the LED 1 is not lit).
Regarding claim 5, JP441 in Figs. 1-4 teaches S1=S11+S12, where S1 is an area size of the first area 3, S11 is a total area size of the opening 9 (Fig. 4 & ¶ 36, translucent hole portion 9) in the first area 3, and S12 is an area size of the portion of the first area 3 other than the opening 9, H1 is the first hue (Figs. 1-4 & ¶ 37, the hue of area 3 when the LED 1 is not lit; see the rejection of claim 4 as noted above), and H2 is the second hue (Figs. 1-4 & ¶ 37, the hue of area 4 when the LED 1 is not lit; see the rejection of claim 4 as noted above), and
the predetermined range is 0.8≤H1/H2≤1.2 (¶ 37, the ratio of the first hue in the non-display state to the second hue is in a predetermined range including 1, which anticipates the claimed range of 0.8≤H1/H2≤1.2; see the rejection of claim 4 as noted above).
JP441 does not explicitly disclose H1=H11×S11/S1+H12×S12/S1, where H11 is a hue, defined by a Munsell color system, of an opening of the cavity in the first area in the non-display state, H12 is a hue of a portion of the first area other than the opening.
However, the ordinary artisan would have recognized “an area size of the first area, a hue, defined by a Munsell color system, of an opening of the cavity in the first area in the non-display state, a total area size of the opening in the first area, a hue of a portion of the first area other than the opening, an area size of the portion of the first area other than the opening” to be a result effective variable affecting “the first hue.” Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the “an area size of the first area, a hue, defined by a Munsell color system, of an opening of the cavity in the first area in the non-display state, a total area size of the opening in the first area, a hue of a portion of the first area other than the opening, an area size of the portion of the first area other than the opening” to be within the claimed range [and such that it satisfies the conditions of H1=H11×S11/S1+H12×S12/S1], since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 7, JP441 in Figs. 1-4 teaches S1=S11+S12, where S1 is an area size of the first area 3, S11 is a total area size of the opening 9 (Fig. 4 & ¶ 36, translucent hole portion 9) in the first area 3, and S12 is an area size of the portion of the first area 3 other than the opening 9, C1 is the first chroma (Figs. 1-4 & ¶ 37, the chroma of area 3 when the LED 1 is not lit; see the rejection of claim 6 as noted above), and C2 is the second chroma (Figs. 1-4 & ¶ 37, the hue of area 4 when the LED 1 is not lit; see the rejection of claim 6 as noted above), and
the predetermined range is 0.8≤C1/C2≤1.2 (¶ 37, the ratio of the first chroma in the non-display state to the second chroma is in a predetermined range including 1, which anticipates the claimed range of 0.8≤C1/C2≤1.2; see the rejection of claim 6 as noted above).
JP441 does not explicitly disclose C1=C11×S11/S1+C12×S12/S1, where C11 is a chroma, defined by a Munsell color system, of an opening of the cavity in the first area in the non-display state, C12 is a chroma of a portion of the first area other than the opening.
However, the ordinary artisan would have recognized “an area size of the first area, a chroma, defined by a Munsell color system, of an opening of the cavity in the first area in the non-display state, a total area size of the opening in the first area, a chroma of a portion of the first area other than the opening, an area size of the portion of the first area other than the opening” to be a result effective variable affecting “the first chroma.” Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the “an area size of the first area, a chroma, defined by a Munsell color system, of an opening of the cavity in the first area in the non-display state, a total area size of the opening in the first area, a chroma of a portion of the first area other than the opening, an area size of the portion of the first area other than the opening” to be within the claimed range [and such that it satisfies the conditions of C1=C11×S11/S1+C12×S12/S1], since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 15, JP441 in Annotated Fig. 3 teaches an opening CV (Annotated Fig. 3) of the cavity CV (Annotated Fig. 3).
JP441 does not explicitly disclose the opening of the cavity has a maximum width less than or equal to 85 μm.
However, it would have been obvious to form the maximum width of the opening within the claimed range, since it has been held by the Federal circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 8-11 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if (i) rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims or (ii) the objected claim and any intervening claims are fully incorporated into the base claim.
Claim 8 would be allowable, because the prior art of record, singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other claimed elements in claim 8, wherein the second area includes an optical adjuster corresponding to an opening of the cavity, and the optical adjuster adjusts the second brightness.
Claims 9-11 would be allowable, because they depend from the allowable claim 8.
Claim 16 would be allowable, because the prior art of record, singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other claimed elements in claim 16 the opening is apart from another opening adjacent to the opening at an interval greater than or equal to 85 μm.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2021/0143229 A1 to Feng
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIKKA LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-2568. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-5AM EST M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eliseo Ramos-Feliciano can be reached on 571-272-7925. 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.
/M.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/ELISEO RAMOS FELICIANO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817