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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of species C (figure 3A, claims 1-5, 7-8, 11-12) in the reply filed on 06/12/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the species are mutually inclusive and search and examination of both species could be carried out by the PTO without posing an undue burden on the Examiner. This is not found persuasive because figures 1, 2, 3A, 4, 5 and claims 6 and 9-10 are directed to multiple species (different arrangements of the display elements). Therefore, search and examination of both species could not be carried out by the PTO without posing an undue burden on the Examiner. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
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 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 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ishii (US 2016/0357094).
Regarding claim 1, Ishii (figure 58) discloses a display apparatus, comprising: a display board and at least one image generating device, wherein the display board has at least one display region, comprising
a substrate (5803), having a light transmittance in the at least one display region (figure 58);
a decorative film (5804), disposed on one side of the substrate; and
a holographic optical element film (DOE or HOE 5802; see at least paragraph 0099), disposed in at least one of the at least one display region, and disposed on another side of the substrate relative to the decorative film (5804), wherein the substrate is disposed between the decorative film and the holographic optical element film,
wherein the at least one image generating device is configured to project image light toward the holographic optical element film, wherein the holographic optical element film is disposed between the substrate and the at least one image generating device (an incident light (5801) is collimated and focused to each hole (5806) by HOE or DOE (5802), which functions as both collimator and micro-lens-array; see at least paragraph 0099),
wherein the holographic optical element film converts the image light into display light, and transmits the display light toward the substrate (an incident light (5801) is collimated and focused to each hole (5806) by HOE or DOE (5802), which functions as both collimator and micro-lens-array; see at least paragraph 0099).
Regarding claim 12, Ishii (figure 58) discloses a display board having at least one display region, comprising:
a substrate (5803), having a light transmittance in the display region;
a decorative film (5804), disposed on one side of the substrate; and
a holographic optical element film, disposed in at least one of the at least one display region, and disposed on another side of the substrate relative to the decorative film, wherein the substrate is disposed between the decorative film and the holographic optical element film (DOE or HOE 5802; see at least paragraph 0099).
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 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.
Claims 2-3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishii (US 2016/0357094).
Regarding claim 2, Ishii discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Ishii is silent regarding wherein the light transmittance of the substrate and the decorative film of the display board in the at least one display region falls within a range of 1% to 30%. Ishii (figure 58) discloses wherein the light transmittance of the substrate and the decorative film of the display board in the at least one display region falls within a range of 1% to 30% (wherein an incident light (5501) is focused by micro-lens-array or lenticular (5502) onto holes or transparent spots (5506), so that the majority of the incident light will be outputted (see at least paragraph 0061). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by 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).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, 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) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 3, Ishii discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Ishii is silent regarding wherein a light-emitting angle of the display light after passing through the substrate falls within a range of 0 degree to 45 degrees. Ishii (figure 58) discloses wherein a light-emitting angle of the display light after passing through the substrate falls within a range of 0 degree to 45 degrees (5805). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by 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).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, 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) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 11, Ishii discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Ishii is silent regarding wherein a ratio of a brightness of the display light after passing through the display board to a brightness of the image light is greater than 5%. Ishii (figure 58) discloses wherein a ratio of a brightness of the display light after passing through the display board to a brightness of the image light is greater than 5% (When the display is turned on, an image will be visible and the decorative surface will not be noticeable if the brightness of image is 50 times brighter than that of the decorative surface; see at least paragraph 0098). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by 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).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, 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) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishii (US 2016/0357094) in view of Lu et al. (CN 210324152).
Regarding claim 4, Ishii discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Ishii is silent regarding a touch sensor film located between the decorative film and the substrate. Lu et al. (figures 1-2) teaches a touch sensor film (50) located between the decorative film and the substrate (10 and 20). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the touch sensor film as taught by Lu et al. in order to achieve a touch display device and prevent the scattering phenomenon, ensuring the display effect, and can effectively avoid pressing the rear display screen and display control board floating high-after the welding.
Regarding claim 5, Lu et al. (figures 1-2) teaches wherein the display board further has a non-display region surrounding the at least one display region (60-61, 20).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishii (US 2016/0357094) in view of Lu et al. (CN 210324152); further in view of Huang et al. (CN 208985125).
Regarding claim 7, Ishii discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 5 above. However, Ishii is silent regarding wherein materials of the substrate in the at least one display region and the non-display region are different. Huang et al. (figure 1) teaches wherein materials of the substrate in the at least one display region and the non-display region are different (10 and 20). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the material taught by Huang et al. in order to achieve a touch display device having simple structure, thin, good light transmittance, low production cost and high product yield.
Regarding claim 8, Huang et al. (figure 1) teaches wherein the substrate is doped with a colorant, and concentrations of the colorant in the at least one display region and the non-display region are different (10 and 20).
The limitation “wherein the substrate is doped with a colorant, and concentrations of the colorant in the at least one display region and the non-display region are different” is a product by process claim. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP §2113.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1428. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 8:00 AM -6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Carruth, can be reached at 571-272-9791. 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.
/LAUREN NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights