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 .
Summary
The Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments received on December 8, 2025 are entered into the file. Currently, claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 12 are amended; claims 3, 10, and 11 are canceled; claims 13 and 14 are withdrawn; claims 15-18 are new; resulting in claims 1, 2, 4-9, 12, and 15-18 pending for examination.
Specification
The substitute specification filed December 8, 2025 complies with the requirements set forth in 37 CFR 1.125(b) and (c) and has been entered.
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 17 and 18 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.
Regarding claim 17 and 18, the limitation in line 13 reciting “said portion of the decorative layer extending at least in front of the display area” is indefinite in view of the limitation in lines 11-12 requiring that the decorative layer extends on the internal face of the support and in view of the limitation in lines 1-2 and lines 7-8 requiring that the display area is designed to extend in front of a display element, wherein a portion of the external face of the support forms the display area. In particular, it is not clear how the decorative layer can be said to extend “in front” of the display area formed by the support while also being provided on the internal face of the support.
In looking to Fig. 1 of the instant invention, the cover element (14) is shown as extending in front of the display element (12), where the support (30) of the cover element extends in front of the portion (32P) of the decorative layer (32) which is located on the internal face (30B) of the support. The display area (18) is shown as corresponding to a part of the external surface (30A) of the cover element.
Based on this configuration, it is not clear how the portion of the decorative layer can be said to extend at least in front of the display area. Rather, it appears as if the portion of the decorative layer must be located behind the display area. Given that independent claim 1 was amended to change the phrase “in front of the display area” to “behind the display area”, these limitations in claims 17 and 18 will similarly be interpreted as such for the purpose of applying prior art.
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, 2, 4-6, 9, 12, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamanaka et al. (US 2024/0053517, previously cited).
Regarding claims 1, 2, and 9, Yamanaka et al. teaches a display apparatus (10; display assembly) comprising a light emitting device (40; display element) and a decorative panel (50; cover element) including a panel member (30) and a decorative sheet (20) ([0051], see Fig. 4 reproduced below).
PNG
media_image1.png
293
468
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The light emitting device is any display device that emits image light (L; displayed content), such as a liquid crystal display, a plasma display, an organic EL display, or the like [0052]. The decorative sheet faces a display surface (display area) of the display apparatus, such that the image light is displayed through the decorative sheet [0002]. The decorative sheet can impart designability to the display apparatus so as to match with a surrounding environment [0002].
The decorative sheet (20) has a structure in which a base layer (21), a design layer (22), and a transparent resin layer (23; support) are sequentially laminated on the panel member [0061]. The design layer includes a shielding layer (222) and a pattern layer (221) sequentially laminated on the base layer [0061]. The pattern layer (221; decorative layer) forms any pattern (decorative pattern), such as a woodgrain pattern, marble pattern, geometrical pattern, carbon tone, or the like, and the transparent resin layer (23) has asperities (20A) formed on a front-side surface which are disposed in correspondence with the design of the design layer ([0067], [0073], Figs. 1, 4). For example, in an example where the design layer provides a woodgrain pattern, recesses or projections of the asperities may be formed in a region facing a duct of the woodgrain pattern [0073]. Therefore, the transparent resin layer corresponds to the claimed support which comprises a translucent part having an external face which has the texture of a predefined material (e.g., wood) and is formed from a material distinct from the predefined material. The pattern layer (221) corresponds to the claimed decorative layer which extends on the internal face of the transparent resin layer and which has the visual appearance of the predefined material.
Yamanaka et al. teaches that when the display apparatus is off, the pattern of the pattern layer (i.e., the visual appearance of the predefined material) is viewed, while when the display apparatus is on, the image light (L) is transmitted through the decorative sheet and is viewed by a viewer outside ([0078]-[0079]), wherein the content displayed by the image light is different from the visual appearance of the pattern (Figs. 1A-1B).
Yamanaka et al. further teaches that that the light shielding layer (222) is disposed on the back side of the pattern layer (221) and covers the pattern layer from a side where the light emitting device is disposed ([0069], Fig. 4). Yamanaka et al. teaches that the shielding layer serves to absorb light so that light from the light emitting device does not enter the pattern layer, wherein the shielding layer can contain light-absorbing particles, such as a black pigment [0069].
Although Yamanaka et al. does not expressly teach a light transmission rate of the pattern layer (221; decorative layer), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine an optimal light transmission rate of the pattern layer, e.g., by adjusting the thickness and/or pigment concentration of the pattern layer, in order to achieve a desired aesthetic appearance for the decorative pattern produced thereby. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to adjust the light transmission rate of the pattern layer to an appropriate value, such as within the claimed range of 30-40%, depending on the desired hue of the design layer (21), where a higher light transmittance of the pattern layer (221) increases the influence of the color of the light shielding layer (222) on the overall color tone of the design layer.
Regarding claim 4, Yamanaka et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches that a value of haze in the decorative sheet may be lower than or equal to 40% ([0007], Table 1), which overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 5, Yamanaka et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches that the thickness of the pattern layer (221; decorative layer) is, for example, greater than or equal to 10 µm and less than or equal to 500 µm ([0068]), which overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 6, Yamanaka et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches that the decorative sheet may include a diffusion layer (25; coating layer) comprising particles (26) and a binder resin (27) formed over the transparent resin layer (23; support) ([0119], [0123], [0133], Figs. 4, 8).
Regarding claim 12, Yamanaka et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 9 above and further teaches that the panel member (30) may be an interior or exterior member of a vehicle, such as a center console, a door trim, an instrument panel, or the like of an automobile [0054]. Yamanaka et al. further teaches that the decorative sheet can impart designability matching with a surrounding environment to a display apparatus ([0002]), such that the portions of the vehicle console, trim, or panel into which the display apparatus is installed corresponds to the claimed appearance layer which has a visual appearance similar to that of the pattern layer of the decorative sheet. The display apparatus (10) and the surrounding parts of the console, trim, or panel into which it is installed together correspond to the claimed trim element for a vehicle.
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Yamanaka et al. teaches a display apparatus (10; display assembly) comprising a light emitting device (40; display element) and a decorative panel (50; cover element) including a panel member (30) and a decorative sheet (20) ([0051], Fig. 4).
The light emitting device is any display device that emits image light (L; displayed content), such as a liquid crystal display, a plasma display, an organic EL display, or the like [0052]. The decorative sheet faces a display surface (display area) of the display apparatus, such that the image light is displayed through the decorative sheet [0002]. The decorative sheet can impart designability to the display apparatus so as to match with a surrounding environment [0002].
The decorative sheet (20) has a structure in which a base layer (21), a design layer (22), and a transparent resin layer (23; support) are sequentially laminated on the panel member [0061]. The design layer includes a shielding layer (222) and a pattern layer (221) sequentially laminated on the base layer [0061]. The pattern layer (221; decorative layer) forms any pattern (decorative pattern), such as a woodgrain pattern, marble pattern, geometrical pattern, carbon tone, or the like, and the transparent resin layer (23) has asperities (20A) formed on a front-side surface which are disposed in correspondence with the design of the design layer ([0067], [0073], Figs. 1, 4). For example, in an example where the design layer provides a woodgrain pattern, recesses or projections of the asperities may be formed in a region facing a duct of the woodgrain pattern [0073].
Therefore, the transparent resin layer corresponds to the claimed support which comprises a translucent part having an external face which has the texture of a predefined material (e.g., wood) and is formed from a material distinct from the predefined material. The pattern layer (221) corresponds to the claimed decorative layer which extends on the internal face of the transparent resin layer and which has the visual appearance of the predefined material. Yamanaka et al. further teaches that a value of haze in the decorative sheet may be lower than or equal to 40%, and that the thickness of the pattern layer (221) is, for example, greater than or equal to 10 µm and less than or equal to 500 µm ([0007], [0068], Table 1). Yamanaka et al. therefore teaches ranges for the haze and thickness of the decorative layer which overlap the ranges of claims 17 and 18. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Yamanaka et al. further teaches that when the display apparatus is off, the pattern of the pattern layer (i.e., the visual appearance of the predefined material) is viewed, while when the display apparatus is on, the image light (L) is transmitted through the decorative sheet and is viewed by a viewer outside ([0078]-[0079]), wherein the content displayed by the image light is different from the visual appearance of the pattern (Figs. 1A-1B).
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamanaka et al. (US 2024/0053517, previously cited) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Hudaya et al. (“Antiglare and antireflective coating of layer-by-layer SiO2 and TiZrO2 on surface-modified glass”, doi:10.1016/j.apsusc.2019.06.027; Available online June 10, 2019).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Yamanaka et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 6 above. Although Yamanaka et al. teaches that the decorative sheet may include a diffusion layer (25) comprising particles (26) and a binder resin (27) formed over the transparent resin layer (23; support) in order to prevent a decrease in visibility due to reflected light ([0119], [0123], [0133], Figs. 4, 8), the reference does not expressly teach that the coating layer comprises TiZrO2 or silicon dioxide.
Hudaya et al. teaches antiglare and antireflection coatings comprising alternating layers of SiO2 and TiZrO2, wherein the coatings are applied to transparent optical materials to decrease the reflectance and increase the transmittance thereof (p. 278-279, Fig. 1). In particular, Hudaya et al. teaches that suppressing light reflection contributes to a beneficial impact in increasing the efficiency of optical materials such as display devices (p. 278).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display apparatus of Yamanaka et al. by forming an antiglare and antireflection coating comprising SiO2 and TiZrO2 over the transparent resin layer, as taught by Hudaya et al., in order to improve the optical properties, such as reflectance and transmittance, of the display apparatus.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-9, 12, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Araya et al. (US 2023/0221471, previously cited).
Regarding claims 1, 2, and 9, Araya et al. teaches a display apparatus (100; display assembly) comprising a display (10; display element), a transparent plate (30), a diffusion layer (40), and a decorative sheet (20) arranged on the display surface (10a) side of the display ([0038], Figs. 1-2). The display includes a plurality of pixels and is configured to display images on the display surface [0040]. The display apparatus may be mounted to an object or may be embedded in an object so that the decorative sheet is flush with the surface of the object ([0036], [0039]).
Araya et al. teaches that the decorative sheet (20) is provided to conceal (hide) the display apparatus when the apparatus is embedded in the object [0043]. The decorative sheet is light-transmissive and is decorated according to the appearance of the object, where the “appearance” includes the pattern, color tone, gloss, and texture of the object [0043]. For example, when the object is a wood tone wall, the decorative sheet is decorated with the same wood tone [0045]. The display apparatus further comprises a controller (50) to switch the display between a non-display mode (display element turned off) in which no images are displayed and the decoration of the decorative sheet is visible to the user, and a display mode (display element turned on) in which images are displayed on the display. As shown in Figs. 12A-14B, the displayed content is different from the visual appearance of the predefined material.
The decorative sheet (20) includes, in order from the display surface side, a film (21), a base layer (22), a design layer (23), a film (24), and a textured layer (25) ([0048], Fig. 2). The decorative sheet, either alone or in combination with the diffusion layer and/or transparent plate, is taken to correspond to the claimed cover element. The external surface which faces an observer (represented in Fig. 2 by an eye) corresponds to the claimed display area which is configured to present a visual appearance and a texture of a predefined material (e.g., wood).
Araya et al. teaches that the base layer (22) is used to adjust the overall hue, shade, etc. of the decorative sheet, while the decorative pattern of the design layer (23) is selected to have the same color tone or pattern as that of the object in which the display apparatus is embedded ([0050], [0068]). The pair of films (21, 24) serve as the base films of the decorative sheet and are made of a light-transmissive resin material [0049]. The textured layer (25) is light-transmissive and functions as part of the decorative pattern formed by the design layer and the textured layer [0075]. Therefore, the film (24) and textured layer (25) together can be taken to correspond to the claimed support having a translucent part which has the texture of the predefined material (e.g., wood) and comprises a polymer material which is distinct from the predefined material. The base layer (22) and design layer (23) together form decorative layer (20a), which corresponds to the claimed decorative layer which extends along the internal face of the translucent part of the support and has a decorative pattern which has the visual appearance of the predefined material.
Araya et al. further teaches that the design layer (23) is a light-transmissive decorative design layer formed of a transparent resin ink containing pigment or paint and is formed continuously (i.e., without breaks or openings) over the entire area of the base layer ([0068]-[0069], [0072], Fig. 2). Araya et al. further teaches that the base layer (22) is formed by printing, for example using ink or paint containing pigment [0051]. The base layer (22) includes microholes (22a), which are a transmissive portion such as an air layer that transmits image light, and non-opening portions (22b) which block the image light, wherein the transmittance of the non-opening portion can be adjusted by the pigment content ratio, thickness, etc. ([0051]-[0053]). The portions of the decorative layer (20a) in which the light-transmissive design layer (23) is disposed over the transmissive microholes (22a) therefore correspond to the claimed portion of the decorative layer which is translucent and which has the visual appearance of the predefined material.
Although Araya et al. does not expressly teach a light transmission rate of this portion of the decorative layer (20a), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine an optimal light transmission rate of the portion of the decorative layer, e.g., by adjusting the thickness and/or pigment concentration of the design layer, in order to achieve a desired aesthetic appearance for the decorative pattern produced thereby. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to adjust the light transmission rate of the decorative layer (20a) to an appropriate value, such as within the claimed range of 30-40%, depending on the desired hue of the decorative layer (20a), where a higher light transmittance of the design layer (23) increases the influence of the color of the base layer (22) on the overall color tone of the decorative layer in the areas of the non-opening portions (22b) and ensures that light from the underlying display can be viewed therethrough in the areas of the microholes (22a).
Regarding claim 4, Araya et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches that the decorative layer (20a) has a haze value greater than or equal to 20 and less than 55% ([0159]), which overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claims 6-8 and 16, Araya et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches that the textured layer (25) may be an anti-glare film or a layer (coating layer) formed by applying, drying, curing, etc. a coating liquid containing resin components, particles, and solvent on film (24) [0076]. The particles may be inorganic particles such as silica (silicon dioxide) or alumina ([0076]), which both correspond to the claimed anti-glare and anti-reflection materials. As shown in Fig. 2, the textured layer defines the portion of the external face of the translucent part of the support which forms the display area and which has the texture of the predefined material.
Regarding claim 12, Araya et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 9 above. As noted above, Araya et al. teaches an object (trim element, appearance layer) into which the display apparatus (100; display assembly) is embedded such that the decorative sheet is flush with the surface of the object ([0038]-[0039]). Araya et al. teaches that the decorative sheet is decorated according to the appearance of the object ([0043], Figs. 12A-14B), such that the external face of the appearance layer has a visual appearance similar to the visual appearance of the portion of the decorative layer which has a visual appearance of a predefined material.
It is noted that the preamble limitation reciting “for a vehicle” is interpreted as functional language related to the intended use of the trim element and is considered to be met when the prior art product is capable of performing the recited function. See MPEP 2173.05(g). The object of Araya et al. is capable of being used in a vehicle, thus satisfying the claimed functional limitation.
Regarding claim 17, Araya et al. teaches a display apparatus (100; display assembly) comprising a display (10; display element) and a transparent plate (30), a diffusion layer (40), and a decorative sheet (20) arranged on the display surface (10a) side of the display ([0038], Figs. 1-2). The display includes a plurality of pixels and is configured to display images on the display surface [0040]. The display apparatus may be mounted to an object or may be embedded in an object so that the decorative sheet is flush with the surface of the object ([0036], [0039]).
Araya et al. teaches that the decorative sheet (20) is provided to conceal (hide) the display apparatus when the apparatus is embedded in the object [0043]. The decorative sheet is light-transmissive and is decorated according to the appearance of the object, where the “appearance” includes the pattern, color tone, gloss, and texture of the object [0043]. For example, when the object is a wood tone wall, the decorative sheet is decorated with the same wood tone [0045]. The display apparatus further comprises a controller (50) to switch the display between a non-display mode (display element turned off) in which no images are displayed and the decoration of the decorative sheet is visible to the user, and a display mode (display element turned on) in which images are displayed on the display. As shown in Figs. 12A-14B, the displayed content is different from the visual appearance of the predefined material.
The decorative sheet (20) includes, in order from the display surface side, a film (21), a base layer (22), a design layer (23), a film (24), and a textured layer (25) ([0048], Fig. 2). The decorative sheet, either alone or in combination with the diffusion layer and/or transparent plate, is taken to correspond to the claimed cover element. The external surface which faces an observer (represented in Fig. 2 by an eye) corresponds to the claimed display area which is configured to present a visual appearance and a texture of a predefined material (e.g., wood).
Araya et al. teaches that the base layer (22) is used to adjust the overall hue, shade, etc. of the decorative sheet, while the decorative pattern of the design layer (23) is selected to have the same color tone or pattern as that of the object in which the display apparatus is embedded ([0050], [0068]). The pair of films (21, 24) serve as the base films of the decorative sheet and are made of a light-transmissive resin material [0049]. The textured layer (25) is light-transmissive and functions as part of the decorative pattern formed by the design layer and the textured layer [0075]. Therefore, the film (24) and textured layer (25) together can be taken to correspond to the claimed support having a translucent part which has the texture of the predefined material (e.g., wood) and comprises a polymer material which is distinct from the predefined material. The base layer (22) and design layer (23) together form decorative layer (20a), which corresponds to the claimed decorative layer which extends along the internal face of the translucent part of the support and has a decorative pattern which has the visual appearance of the predefined material.
Araya et al. further teaches that the decorative layer (20a) has a haze value greater than or equal to 20 and less than 55% ([0159]), which overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Araya et al. (US 2023/0221471, previously cited) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Hudaya et al. (“Antiglare and antireflective coating of layer-by-layer SiO2 and TiZrO2 on surface-modified glass”, doi:10.1016/j.apsusc.2019.06.027; Available online June 10, 2019).
Regarding claim 15, Araya et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches that the textured layer (25) may be an anti-glare film (coating layer) or a layer formed by applying, drying, curing, etc. a coating liquid containing resin components, particles, and solvent on film (24) [0076]. As shown in Fig. 2, the textured layer (25) defines the portion of the external face of the translucent part of the support which forms the display area and which has the texture of the predefined material.
Araya et al. differs from the claimed invention in that the reference does not expressly teach that the coating layer comprises TiZrO2.
Hudaya et al. teaches antiglare and antireflection coatings comprising alternating layers of SiO2 and TiZrO2, wherein the coatings are applied to transparent optical materials to decrease the reflectance and increase the transmittance thereof (p. 278-279, Fig. 1). In particular, Hudaya et al. teaches that suppressing light reflection contributes to a beneficial impact in increasing the efficiency of optical materials such as display devices (p. 278).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display apparatus of Araya et al. by forming the anti-glare film from an SiO2-TiZrO2 coating, as taught by Hudaya et al., in order to improve the optical properties, such as reflectance and transmittance, of the display apparatus.
Response to Arguments
Response-Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous rejections of claims 1-9 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention are overcome by the Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 3, 7, 8, and 12 in the response filed December 8, 2025.
However, new claims 17 and 18 contain the same language that was previously indicated as indefinite. Therefore, the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) with respect to claim 1 is presented above with respect to claims 17 and 18.
Response-Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 103
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-11 of the remarks filed December 8, 2025, with respect to amended claim 1 have 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.
In light of the amendment to claim 1 adding the new limitation requiring that the decorative layer presents a light transmission rate of 30% to 40%, the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 based on Yamanaka et al. and Araya et al. are withdrawn. However, new rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 using Yamanaka et al. and Araya et al. are presented above, where the pattern layer (221) in Yamanaka et al. and the decorative layer (20a) in Araya et al. are relied upon to address the limitations directed to the claimed decorative layer.
The Applicant’s arguments directed to the shielding layer (222) or the design layer (22) in Yamanaka et al. failing to teach or render obvious the claimed light transmission property are therefore moot, as neither of these features are relied upon to address the claimed limitation. However, for clarity of the record, it is noted that the Applicant’s clarifying remarks on pages 9-10 identifying an apparent typographical error in Yamanaka et al. do appear to be correct, in that Yamanaka et al. appears to intend to state that the shielding layer (222) has an absorption of greater than or equal to 80%, 90%, or 95% (rather than a transmittance of less than or equal to 80%, 90%, or 95%).
The Applicant’s arguments on page 9 of the remarks directed to the design layer (23) in Araya et al. failing to anticipate the claimed light transmission rate are similarly moot, as the new ground of rejection relies upon the decorative layer (20a) in Araya et al. to address this new limitation.
Applicant's arguments, see page 11 of the remarks filed December 8, 2025, with respect to new claims 17 and 18 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Since new claims 17 and 18 recite the subject matter of previous claims 4 and 5, respectively, the Applicant’s arguments will be addressed insofar as they apply to the current rejections of claims 4, 5, 17, and 18 presented above.
With respect to claim 17, the Applicant argues that while Yamanaka teaches a transmission haze of 40% or less, which partly overlaps the claimed transmission haze rate of 10% to 50%, Yamanaka also generally discloses that lower is better for transmission haze, citing paragraph [0102]. The Applicant submits that claim 17 permits a haze rate as high as 50%, which Yamanaka would indicate produces an image quality that is less than “good”, such that claim 17 patentably defines over the prior art for this reason.
This argument is not persuasive. As explained in the prior art rejections and as acknowledged by the Applicant, Yamanaka et al. teaches a transmission haze which overlaps the claimed transmission haze rate. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Moreover, it is noted that disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. See MPEP 2123(II). Although Yamanaka et al. may teach preferred embodiments in which the transmission haze is lower than the claimed range, the reference broadly discloses a range which overlaps the claimed range. Absent any evidence of criticality or unexpected results associated with the claimed range of the transmission haze rate relative to the range disclosed by Yamanaka et al., the overlapping range in the prior art is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed range. See MPEP 716.02.
With respect to claim 18, the Applicant argues that the rejection of claim 5 relied on the disclosed thickness of the pattern layer (221) of Yamanaka to satisfy the limitation of claim 18 requiring that the decorative layer has a thickness of 180-500 micrometers, but that this omits the thickness of the shielding layer (222), which is part of the design layer (22) of Yamanaka. The Applicant argues that there is no apparent reason to modify the thickness of the combined pattern and shielding layers to have the specific range recited in claim 18.
This argument is not persuasive. As explained in the rejections above, the pattern layer (221) of Yamanaka et al. is used alone to satisfy the limitations directed to the claimed decorative layer. Therefore, the thickness of the shielding layer (222) is not relevant to the claimed thickness limitation recited in claim 18. Yamanaka et al. teaches a thickness for the pattern layer (221) which overlaps the claimed thickness range. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mizuochi et al. (WO 2023/033150, machine translation via EPO provided) teaches a display system (10) comprising a decorative member (30) arranged in front of a display device (20), wherein the decorative member comprises a decorative layer (50) located between a cover layer (56) and a substrate (45), where the decorative layer (50) includes a design layer (52) and a light-shielding layer (54) superimposed on the design layer ([0054], [0082], [0088], Figs. 5A-5C).
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 REBECCA L GRUSBY whose telephone number is (571) 272-1564. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM-5:30 PM.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/Rebecca L Grusby/Examiner, Art Unit 1785