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 .
Response to Arguments
Examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s Remarks dated October 31, 2025.
As for Applicant’s argument regarding the transparent three-dimensional operation unit of independent claim 1 overcoming Endo: “Even assuming arguendo that the frame FR of Endo is a three dimensional operation unit, as alleged, there is zero disclosure or suggestion that such frame FR is transparent, as require by original claim 1.” (Remarks, page 4); the floating image layer IML of Edo corresponds to the transparent three-dimensional operation unit of the claim.
As for Applicant’s argument regarding the amendments to independent claim 1 overcoming Endo: “Among Endo's other deficiencies, the floating image VM does not overlap a top surface of the frame FR.” (Remarks, page 4); a secondary reference is being introduced in this Office Action in view of the amendments to claim 1.
Accordingly, amended independent claim 1 remains rejected. The previously presented dependent claims remain rejected as well. The new dependent claim 8 is also rejected.
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 § 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.
Claims 1-5, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edo (US 2022/0413645 A1) in view of Takahashi (US 2024/0184133 A1).
Instant Claim 1: An input display device comprising: an image display device configured to display an aerial image (“The image system includes a display device displaying at least one floating image layer on a top surface of the display device” (Edo, abstract) The image system and display device of the claim correspond to the input display device image display device of the claim, respectively. The floating image means that the image is an aerial image.)
at a height from a surface of a display of the image display device; (“In detail, as shown in FIG. 1, the display device DD of the present embodiment may display a floating image layer IML on a top surface TS1 of the display device DD, or in other words, the display device DD may display the floating image layer IML having a floating image VM, but not limited thereto.” (Edo, paragraph 22) The top surface TS1 of Edo corresponds to the surface of the display of the claim.)
and a capacitive touch panel disposed on the image display device, (“In the present embodiment, the floating touch sensor FT may for example be arranged at the frame FR to receive the touch signal of the users, … The floating touch sensor FT (fig 7) of the present embodiment may for example include an infrared sensor, a capacitive touch sensor,” (Edo, paragraph 34) The frame FR of Edo corresponds to the capacitive touch panel of the claim.)
wherein the touch panel includes at least one transparent three-dimensional operation unit (“In the present embodiment, the image system IS shown in FIG. 1 may include a display device DD, wherein the display device DD of the present disclosure may display at least one floating image layer IML, but not limited thereto.” (Edo, paragraph 22) The floating image layer IML of Edo, which is included in the frame FR, corresponds to the transparent three-dimensional operation unit of the claim.)
as an uneven portion of the touch panel on a surface thereof, (According to section 2144.04 of the MPEP, under the heading Changes in Shape, in the case of In re Dailey “The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.” Therefore, any uneven portions of the floating image layer IML of Edo is an obvious matter of design choice.)
and the image is displayed inside the transparent three-dimensional operation unit at a position overlapping the top surface. (“In the present embodiment, the image system IS shown in FIG. 1 may include a display device DD, wherein the display device DD of the present disclosure may display at least one floating image layer IML, but not limited thereto.” (Edo, paragraph 22) Referring to fig 1 of Edo, the floating image VM is displayed inside the floating image layer IML, overlapping the top surface TS1.
Edo does not explicitly teach the following limitation of this claim:
the transparent three-dimensional operation unit forming a top surface that is a touch surface,
In the same field of endeavor, however, Takahashi does teach an image floating in the air, wherein a touch surface overlaps the image.
the transparent three-dimensional operation unit forming a top surface that is a touch surface, (“A size and an attachment position of the capacitive touch panel 361 (fig 13A) may be similarly selected so as to sufficiently cover the air floating video 3.” (Takahashi, paragraph 191) Similar to Takahashi, it would be obvious for the top surface TS1 to also be the capacitive touch panel.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the image system as taught by Endo, wherein an image is floating in the air; with the display apparatus as taught by Takahashi, wherein an image is floating in the air and the capacitive touch panel is covering the image. Such a combination involves incorporating a known feature (Takahashi) into a known system in order to yield the predictable result of the user being able to present a touch input on the entirety of the floating image.
Instant Claim 2: The input display device according to claim 1, wherein the position is not beyond the top surface. (“A size and an attachment position of the capacitive touch panel 361 (fig 13A) may be similarly selected so as to sufficiently cover the air floating video 3.” (Takahashi, paragraph 191) According to section 2144.04 of the MPEP, under the heading Changes in Shape, in the case of In re Kuhle “the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice”. Similarly, in the image system of Endo/Takahashi, the exact location of the capacitive touch panel 361 is an obvious matter of design choice.)
Instant Claim 3: The input display device according to claim 1, further comprising a detector configured to detect a touch operation including proximity to the touch panel. (“The floating touch sensor FT (fig 7) of the present embodiment may for example include an infrared sensor, a capacitive touch sensor, other suitable touch sensors or the combinations of the above-mentioned sensors, but not limited thereto” (Edo, paragraph 34) The floating touch sensor FT of Edo corresponds to the detector of the claim.)
Instant Claim 4: The input display device according to claim 1, wherein the transparent three-dimensional operation unit is molded integrally with a cover glass of the touch panel. (“The first substrate SB1 (fig 2) and the second substrate SB2 may be a rigid substrate or a flexible substrate respectively, wherein the rigid substrate may include glass,” (Edo, paragraph 23))
Instant Claim 5: The input display device according to claim 1, wherein the transparent three-dimensional operation unit is coupled to a cover glass of the touch panel via an optical adhesive. (“The first substrate SB1 (fig 2) and the second substrate SB2 may be a rigid substrate or a flexible substrate respectively, wherein the rigid substrate may include glass,” (Edo, paragraph 23) Although Edo does not explicitly teach the use of an adhesive, such is obvious as the various layers of the image system must be bonded together.)
Instant Claim 7: The input display device according to claim 1, wherein the transparent three-dimensional operation unit is a cylindrical or rectangular knob or button. (“According to the present disclosure, the image system IS (fig 1) may for example be applied to … touch displays” (Edo, paragraph 22) Touch displays contain virtual buttons.)
Instant Claim 8: The input display device according to claim 7, wherein a perimeter of the transparent three-dimensional operation unit is graspable by fingers on a hand of the user. (“A size and an attachment position of the capacitive touch panel 361 (fig 13A) may be similarly selected so as to sufficiently cover the air floating video 3.” (Takahashi, paragraph 191) Although the floating image layer IML of Edo is not graspable by the user, the capacitive touch panel 361 of Takahashi is graspable.)
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edo, in view of Takahashi, and further in view of Iguchi (US 2019/0356907 A1).
Instant Claim 6: The input display device according to claim 1, wherein the image display device displays the image in the air using a retroreflective member. (Edo/Takahashi teaches the image system in accordance with claim 1, but does not disclose the use of a retroreflective member. However, in the same field of endeavor, Iguchi teaches the use of a retroreflective film for a three-dimensional display: “The half mirror 81 (fig 13) and the retroreflective film 82 are optical members for displaying the three-dimensional image PIMAGE generated by the three-dimensional display 31 including the display unit 26 in the air.” (Iguchi, paragraph 150))
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the image system as taught by Edo/Takahashi, wherein floating images are displayed; with the three-dimensional display as taught by Iguchi, wherein a retroreflective film is used to produce floating images. Such a combination involves incorporating a known technique (Iguchi) into a known system in order to yield the predictable result of effective and reliable display of images appearing to be floating.
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 Yaron Cohen whose telephone number is (571)270-7995. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM to 5:00 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, Temesghen Ghebretinsae can be reached at 571-272-3017. 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.
/YARON COHEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2626