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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-11 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 1 lacks antecedent basis for “the first movable member” in line 7. The limitation has been read as -the first movable body-.
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.
Claims 1, 4-6 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dadon (FR 2863370) in view of Luca et al. (US20110032726).
Regarding claim 1, Dadon discloses (Fig. 16) a mobile luminous display device (title, [0011] of the translation) for a timepiece, the display device including a dial (74) and a first movable body (7), the first movable body being configured to move relative to the dial ([0006]: “rotating indicator” and [0013]: “disc 74 fixed”) so as to indicate a plurality of positions on the dial ([0006]: the movable body rotates to indicate minutes of time), wherein the display device comprises a light source (71) arranged to emit a light radiation through the dial (Fig. 16), part of the light radiation passing through the dial passes through the first movable body (Fig. 16) and wherein the first movable body comprises a colour filter ([0006]: the first movable body is colored) configured to modify a colour of the part of the light radiation ([0011]: “when the rotating indicators 5, 6 and 7 rotate, the resulting apparent coloration…varies”) that passes through the first movable body (7) from the dial (74), so that the first movable body has a different colour from a color of the dial ([0013]: “disc 74…can be transparent or translucent”), the light source comprising a spectrum of at least two different colours, the spectrum being of an RGB type. The light source emits white light ([0011]: “a white light source” and “a white background”), which comprises all colors of the visible spectrum. The spectrum is of the RGB type as the light source emits white light that gets filtered into another color by the movably body’s filter in the same manner as Applicant’s light source and movably body ([0051] of Applicant’s specification).
Dadon does not show the spectrum being discrete.
Luca teaches a light source comprising a discrete spectrum of at least two different colors, the spectrum being of the RGB type ([0004]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted Dadon’s light source for Luca’s light source. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this substitution because LEDs are less expensive, longer-lasting, and more energy efficient.
Regarding claim 4, Dadon in view of Luca discloses the display device according to claim 1, wherein the light source comprises at least two RGB type lines. Luca teaches the source comprising red, green, and blue ([0004]).
Regarding claim 5, Dadon discloses the display device according to claim 1, wherein a color of the first movable body is variable according to a position of the first movable body relative to the dial ([0006]: “observation of a color resulting from the at least partial superposition” and [0011]: “when the rotating indicators 5, 6 and 7 rotate, the resulting apparent coloration…varies”). The device is viewed from above, so the apparent color of the first movable body changes.
Regarding claim 6, Dadon discloses the display device according to claim 1, wherein the dial is semi-transparent ([0013]: “disc 74…can be transparent or translucent”).
Regarding claim 9, Dadon discloses the display device according to claim 1, further comprising a second movable body, the second movable body including a second color filter ([0006]: “at least a second rotating indicator…comprising at least a second region not uniformly colored”).
Regarding claim 10, Dadon discloses a timepiece comprising the display device according to claim 1 ([0006]).
Regarding claim 11, Dadon discloses (Fig. 16) the display device according to claim 1, wherein the dial (74) is positioned between the light source (71) and the first movable body (7).
Claims 2-3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dadon in view of Luca as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Lukens (US 3798892).
Regarding claim 2, Dadon in view of Luca discloses the display device as claimed in claim 1.
The combination of Dadon and Luca does not show that the color filter is a band-stop filter.
Lukens teaches a movable body with a color filter that filters red light (column 2, lines 25-27), so the band of electromagnetic radiation comprising red light is filtered.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted Dadon’s color filter for Lukens’s color filter. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this substitution to predictable achieve a desired visual appearance that appeals to known market demands.
Regarding claim 3, Dadon in view of Luca discloses the display device according to claim 1.
The combination of Dadon and Luca does not show that the color filter has a transmission spectrum configured to block a color from the discrete spectrum of the light source.
Lukens teaches a movable body with a color filter that blocks red light (column 2, lines 25-27).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted Dadon’s color filter for Lukens’s color filter. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this substitution to predictable achieve a desired visual appearance that appeals to known market demands.
Regarding claim 8, Dadon in view of Luca discloses the display device according to claim 1.
The combination of Dadon and Luca does not show the display device further comprising an actuator configured to activate the light source.
Lukens teaches a display device with an actuator configured to activate a light source (column 2, lines 9-12: “wall socket”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Lukens’s actuator with Dadon’s device. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination so that a user would not waste electricity.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dadon in view of Luca as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Klopfenstein et al. (US 8169858).
Regarding claim 7, Dadon in view of Luca discloses the display device according to claim 1.
The combination of Dadon and Luca does not show the device further comprising a protective crystal.
Klopfenstein teaches a display device with a protective crystal (abstract).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Klopfenstein’s crystal with Dadon’s device. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination to protect Dadon’s device from exterior damage.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 has been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 Matthew Hwang whose telephone number is (571)272-1191. The examiner can normally be reached M-F from 9:30-5:30 PT.
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, Renee Luebke can be reached at (571)272-2009.
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.
/MATTHEW DANIEL HWANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 2833
/renee s luebke/ Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights