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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 10/26/2023 has been acknowledged
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP-2022-180510, filed on 11/10/2022.
Status of Application
Claims 1-2, 4-20 are pending.
Claims 1 is the independent claims.
This Final Office Action is in response to the “Amendments and Remarks” received on 09/09/2025.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 6 has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “illumination unit” coupled with functional language “configured to illuminate” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since Claim 6 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, Claim 6 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
In reviewing the specification, the disclosed structure corresponding to “illumination unit” is a light emitting element ([0043]). Therefore, the examiner is interpreting “illumination unit” as a light emitting element.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 10-11, 14, 16-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE-102020200049-A1 to Erwet et. al (“Erwet”) in view of US-20030227778-A1 (“Tanabe”), further in view of EP-1688326-A1 to Grave et. al. (“Grave”).
Regarding claim 1, Erwet teaches a switch device comprising (Erwet Fig. 3-4):
a panel having a first design (Erwet Fig. 4 ref 13-1 & 13-2 has designs displayed) and a second design (Erwet Fig. 4 ref 14-1, 14-2, & 15 are initially not displayed but can be displayed), the panel being mounted on a vehicle (Erwet Fig. 2);
a first switch configured to detect an operation performed on the first design displayed on the panel (Erwet ref 13-1 & 13-2 and Description “With the switching elements 13-1 , 13-2 (also summarized by the reference symbol 13th named), which in the second area 4-2 of the control panel 4th are displayed, they are switching elements 13th of the second switching element type for additionally available functions.”);
a second switch configured to detect an operation performed on the second design displayed on the panel (Erwet ref 14-1, 14-2, & 15 and Description “If the user touches the switching element 14-1 in the upper area, it is detected that the exterior mirror of the vehicle door 2 is to be swiveled towards this or away from it … To operate the seat adjustment function, the user first operates the switching element 14-2 in the upper or lower area … The user then operates the supplementary switching element 15th to determine the directions of movement of the vehicle seat”);
and a controller (Erwet ref 9 “operating unit”) configured to set, in an initial state, a display state in which the first design is displayed and a non-display state in which the second design is not displayed, (Erwet Fig. 4 switching elements 13-1 & 13-2 are currently displayed and Description “4th Representation … the elements of the reference numerals 14-1, 14-2 and 15 are initially not displayed”),
and switch the second design from the non-display state to the display state in which the second design is displayed based on an operation to the first switch (Erwet Description “With the switching elements 13-1 , 13-2 … they are switching elements 13th of the second switching element type for additionally available functions. These additionally available functions are characterized in particular by the fact that when such a switching element is actuated 13th … the display on the display area 3 is changed so that further switching elements 14th , 15th are displayed …”).
Erwet does not teach that the structure required for the controller includes a CPU, RAM, and ROM. However, Tanabe teaches a control unit that includes a CPU, RAM, and ROM (Tanabe [0020] “controller 11, which is installed inside an installment panel, includes a wireless transceiving unit 12, a ROM (read only memory) 13, a RAM (random access memory) 14, a CPU 15, and an output interface 16.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the device of Erwet to incorporate the teachings of Tanabe such that the control unit includes a CPU, RAM, and ROM. Doing so would allow the data to be read out and executed (Tanabe [0022]).
Erwet as modified by Tanabe does not teach that the first design is displayed on the panel with only unlocking of the vehicle as the initial state. However, Grave teaches that the first design is displayed on the panel with only unlocking of the vehicle as the initial state (Grave Fig. 4 and Description “About this LC display 105, the driver can read an information. Preferably, it is displayed on the LCD display 105 after depressing the buttons 102 and 104 whether the vehicle is locked or unlocked.” And Description “When unlocking and locking a vehicle via an ID transmitter, the process steps that take place can also be displayed via the display 112. For example, the user can be informed via the display 112 that no valid ID transmitter was found in the detection area.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Grave to Erwet as modified by Tanabe such that the first design is displayed on the panel with only unlocking of the vehicle as the initial state. Doing so would allow the driver to recognize “whether the vehicle has been locked or not in response to his input” (Grave Description).
Regarding claim 2, Erwet as modified by Tanabe and Grave teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Erwet further discloses that the second switch includes a plurality of switches (Erwet ref 14-1, 14-2, & 15), has the second design for each of the plurality of switches (Erwet Fig. 4), and is assigned with a function to be operated (Erwet Description “If the user touches the switching element 14-1 in the upper area, it is detected that the exterior mirror of the vehicle door 2 is to be swiveled towards this or away from it … To operate the seat adjustment function, the user first operates the switching element 14-2 in the upper or lower area … The user then operates the supplementary switching element 15th to determine the directions of movement of the vehicle seat”).
Regarding claim 4, Erwet as modified by Tanabe and Grave teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Erwet further discloses that the first design is a design related to the second design (Erwet Fig. 4 ref 13-1 relates to 14-1 and ref 13-2 relates to 14-2).
Regarding claim 5, Erwet as modified by Tanabe and Grave teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 4. Erwet further discloses that the second design has a reception design displayed on the panel in response to reception of an operation performed on the second switch (Erwet Description “the actuatable switching elements are shown highlighted when it has been detected that an actuation object has approached the touch-sensitive surface. For example, the switching elements can be highlighted by showing outlines for the corresponding switching elements. Furthermore, the switching elements can be displayed in a different brightness or a different contrast. In this way, the user can find out which switching elements can be actuated simply by approaching an actuating object, such as his fingertip, to the touch-sensitive surface.”).
Regarding claim 10, Erwet as modified by Tanabe and Grave teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Erwet further discloses that the first switch detects a touch operation performed on the first design as the operation performed on the first design (Ewert Description “switching element 13-1 , which represents an outside mirror, has been actuated because the user touches the touch-sensitive surface with his fingertip 5 in the area of this switching element 13-1 has touched,” and proximity detection device 7th), and the second switch detects a touch operation performed on the second design as the operation performed on the second design (Ewert Description “The switching element 14-1 is divided into two areas. If the user touches the switching element 14-1 in the upper area, it is detected that the exterior mirror of the vehicle door 2 is to be swiveled towards this or away from it” and proximity detection device 7th).
Regarding claim 11, Erwet as modified by Tanabe and Grave teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Erwet further discloses that the first switch detects a proximity to the first design as the operation performed on the first design, and the second switch detects a proximity to the second design as the operation performed on the second design (Ewert Description “The operating system also has a proximity detection device 7th on which with the control device 8th and the control unit 9 is coupled. By means of the proximity detection device 7th can be the approach of an object to be actuated to the touch-sensitive surface 5 are recorded. Such proximity detection devices 7th are known per se. When it has been detected that an object to be actuated is within a detection area in front of the touch-sensitive surface 5 is located, transmits the proximity detection device 7th a corresponding signal to the control device 8th and the control unit 9 .”).
Regarding claim 14, Erwet as modified by Tanabe and Grave teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Erwet further discloses that the controller is further configured to: in response to detection by the second switch of the operation performed on the second design displayed on the panel, operate a function of the vehicle, wherein the function is assigned to the second design (Erwet Description “The switching element 14-1 is divided into two areas. If the user touches the switching element 14-1 in the upper area, it is detected that the exterior mirror of the vehicle door 2 is to be swiveled towards this or away from it. If the user touches the switching element 14-1 in the lower area, it is recorded that the mirror surface recorded by the exterior mirror is to be pivoted about different axes”).
Regarding claim 16, Erwet as modified by Tanabe and Grave teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 14. Erwet further discloses that the function assigned to the second design is a mirror adjustment, and the operation performed on the second design causes an adjustment of at least one mirror of the vehicle (Erwet Description “The switching element 14-1 is divided into two areas. If the user touches the switching element 14-1 in the upper area, it is detected that the exterior mirror of the vehicle door 2 is to be swiveled towards this or away from it. If the user touches the switching element 14-1 in the lower area, it is recorded that the mirror surface recorded by the exterior mirror is to be pivoted about different axes”).
Regarding claim 17, Erwet as modified by Tanabe and Grave teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 14. Erwet further discloses that the function assigned to the second design is a seat adjustment, and the operation performed on the second design causes an adjustment of at least one seat of the vehicle (Erwet Description “The display of the switching elements 13-1 and 13-2 however, it can go away. To operate the seat adjustment function, the user first operates the switching element 14-2 in the upper or lower area to indicate that the seat should either be raised and lowered or swiveled. The user then operates the supplementary switching element 15th to determine the directions of movement of the vehicle seat.”).
Regarding claim 19, Erwet as modified by Tanabe and Grave teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Erwet further discloses that the controller is further configured to: in response to illuminating the first design, begin to monitor to determine whether the first switch detects the operation performed on the first design (Erwet Description “When actuating a switching element 13th of the second switching element type, the following steps are carried out: First be in the second area 4-2 of the control panel 4th only the switching elements 13-1 and 13-2 displayed. When the user approaches the touch-sensitive surface 5 on, this is done by the proximity detection device 7th detected as soon as the fingertip of the user is in a certain detection area in front of the touch-sensitive surface 5 entry.”).
Regarding claim 20, Erwet as modified by Tanabe and Grave teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Erwet further discloses that in the initial state, only the first design is displayed on the panel (Erwet Description “elements of the reference numerals 14-1 , 14-2 and 15 are initially not displayed.”), in a state in which the second design is in the display state, the first design also is displayed on the panel (Erwet Description “In addition to the switching element 13-1 or instead of the switching element 13-1 becomes another switching element 14-1 which is displayed as a submenu for the switching element 13-1 assigned.”).
Claim(s) 6-7 and 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erwet in view of Tanabe further in view of Grave and US-9487140-B2 to Linden et. al. (“Linden”).
Regarding claim 6, Erwet as modified by Tanabe and Grave teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Erwet as modified by Tanabe and Grave does not teach a first illumination unit configured to illuminate the first design and display the first design on the panel; and a second illumination unit configured to illuminate the second design and display the second design on the panel. However, Linden teaches a first illumination unit configured to illuminate the first design and display the first design on the panel; and a second illumination unit configured to illuminate the second design and display the second design on the panel (Linden col 3 lines 25-29 “the first indicator 28 comprises a first icon 34, in the form of an unlocked padlock, that is illuminated by a first light source 36. The second indicator 30 comprises a second icon 38, in the form of a locked padlock, that is illuminated by a second light source 40.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Linden to Erwet as modified by Tanabe and Grave such that the switch device further comprises a first illumination unit configured to illuminate the first design and display the first design on the panel; and a second illumination unit configured to illuminate the second design and display the second design on the panel. Doing so would allow vehicle operators to easily determine the lock status of vehicles (Linden Background).
Regarding claim 7, Erwet as modified by Tanabe, Grave, and Linden teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 6. Linden further discloses that the first illumination unit includes at least one first light-emitting diode electrically connected to the controller, and the second illumination unit includes at least one second light-emitting diode electrically connected to the controller (Linden col 3 lines 33-35 “In one possible embodiment, light emitting diodes are utilized because of their efficiency and reliability.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Linden to Erwet as modified by Tanabe, Grave, and Lidnen such that the first illumination unit includes at least one first light-emitting diode electrically connected to the controller, and the second illumination unit includes at least one second light-emitting diode electrically connected to the controller. Doing so would allow vehicle operators to easily determine the lock status of vehicles (Linden Background).
Regarding claim 13, Erwet as modified by Tanabe and Grave teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Erwet as modified by Tanabe and Grave does not teach that the controller is further configured to: in response to receiving a signal that indicates that the vehicle is unlocked, output a first illumination signal to cause the first design to be brought into the display state, the second design being in the non-display state; and in response to detecting operation of the first switch, output a second illumination signal to cause the second design to be brought into the display state, the first design being in the display state. However, Linden teaches that the controller is further configured to: in response to receiving a signal that indicates that the vehicle is unlocked, output a first illumination signal to cause the first design to be brought into the display state, the second design being in the non-display state; and in response to detecting operation of the first switch, output a second illumination signal to cause the second design to be brought into the display state, the first design being in the display state (Linden col 4 line 40 – col 5 line 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Linden to Erwet as modified by Tanabe and Grave such that the controller is further configured to: in response to receiving a signal that indicates that the vehicle is unlocked, output a first illumination signal to cause the first design to be brought into the display state, the second design being in the non-display state; and in response to detecting operation of the first switch, output a second illumination signal to cause the second design to be brought into the display state, the first design being in the display state. Doing so would allow vehicle operators to easily determine the lock status of vehicles (Linden Background).
Claim(s) 9 and 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erwet in view of Tanabe further in view of Grave and JP-2021133695-A (“Masaji”).
Regarding claim 9, Erwet as modified by Tanabe and Grave teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Erwet as modified by Tanabe and Grave does not teach that the first switch includes a first detection electrode using a first transparent electrode which is disposed on a back surface of the panel, and the second switch includes a second detection electrode using a second transparent electrode which is disposed on the back surface of the panel. However, Masaji teaches that the first switch includes a first detection electrode using a first transparent electrode which is disposed on a back surface of the panel, and the second switch includes a second detection electrode using a second transparent electrode which is disposed on the back surface of the panel (Masaji Description “made of an acrylic resin, which is a kind of light-transmitting resin… the touch panel substrate 3 in the vehicle decorative display device 1 of the present invention has a switch electrode 70 and a sensor electrode 71”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Masaji to Erwet as modified by Tanabe and Grave such that the first switch includes a first detection electrode using a first transparent electrode which is disposed on a back surface of the panel, and the second switch includes a second detection electrode using a second transparent electrode which is disposed on the back surface of the panel. Doing so would allow the display device to receive the detection result of the electrodes (Masaji Description).
Regarding claim 18, Erwet as modified by Tanabe and Grave teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Erwet as modified by Tanabe and Grave does not teach that the controller is further configured to: in response to a lapse of a predetermined time during which a touch operation is not performed, cause the second design to brought into to the non-display state. However, Masaji teaches that the controller is further configured to: in response to a lapse of a predetermined time during which a touch operation is not performed, cause the second design to brought into to the non-display state (Masaji Description “First, when the switch is not in use, the display 2 is in the off mode. More specifically, at this time, the display 2 is in the sleep state, and both the selective light emitting area 21 and the selective non-light emitting area 22 are turned off. At this time, since the display 2 is dark and does not emit light, the touch panel substrate 3 and the decorative body 4 do not transmit light from the lower layer side.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Masaji to Erwet as modified by Tanabe and Grave such that the controller is further configured to: in response to a lapse of a predetermined time during which a touch operation is not performed, cause the second design to brought into to the non-display state. Doing so would allow the display device to save power and its element life-span (Masaji Description).
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erwet in view of Tanabe further in view of Grave and JP-5720293-B2 (“JP57”).
Regarding claim 12, Erwet as modified by Tanabe and Grave teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Erwet as modified by Tanabe and Grave does not teach that the first switch includes at least one first microswitch that is turned on by a deformation of the panel at the first design as the operation performed on the first design, and the second switch includes at least one second microswitch that is turned on by a deformation of the panel at the second design as the operation performed on the second design. However, JP57 teaches that the first switch includes at least one first microswitch that is turned on by a deformation of the panel at the first design as the operation performed on the first design, and the second switch includes at least one second microswitch that is turned on by a deformation of the panel at the second design as the operation performed on the second design (JP57 Description “first switching element 41, a first operating unit 41a that operates on and off upon receiving a pushing operation force from the first operation section to be described later provided on the protective sheet 52 as shown in Figure 2 is provided to the second switch element 42 as well”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of JP57 to Erwet as modified by Tanabe and Grave such that the first switch includes at least one first microswitch that is turned on by a deformation of the panel at the first design as the operation performed on the first design, and the second switch includes at least one second microswitch that is turned on by a deformation of the panel at the second design as the operation performed on the second design. Doing so would allow the device to register the pushing/pressing operation force (JP57 Description).
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erwet in view of Tanabe further in view of Grave and US-10671205-B2 (“Kumon”).
Regarding claim 15, Erwet as modified by Tanabe and Grave teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 14. Erwet as modified by Tanabe and Grave does not teach that the function assigned to the second design is an air conditioner adjustment, and the operation performed on the second design causes an adjustment of an air conditioner of the vehicle. However, Kumon teaches that the function assigned to the second design is an air conditioner adjustment, and the operation performed on the second design causes an adjustment of an air conditioner of the vehicle (Kumon Fig. 4A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Kumon to Erwet as modified by Tanabe and Grave such that the function assigned to the second design is an air conditioner adjustment, and the operation performed on the second design causes an adjustment of an air conditioner of the vehicle. Doing so would allow the user to perform an air conditioning operation (Kumon col 1 lines 35-40).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erwet in view of Tanabe further in view of Grave, Linden, and Masaji.
Regarding claim 8, Erwet as modified by Tanabe, Grave, and Linden teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 7. Erwet as modified by Tanabe, Grave, and Linden does not teach a substrate positioned below the panel, wherein the at least one first light-emitting diode is disposed on the substrate and positioned below the first design so as to illuminate the first design, and the at least one second light-emitting diode is disposed on the substrate and positioned below the second design so as to illuminate the second design. However, Masaji teaches a substrate positioned below the panel, wherein the at least one first light-emitting diode is disposed on the substrate and positioned below the first design so as to illuminate the first design, and the at least one second light-emitting diode is disposed on the substrate and positioned below the second design so as to illuminate the second design (Masaji Abstract “A decorative display device 1 for vehicle comprises: a display 2 for luminous-displaying an image; a light transmission type touch panel substrate body 3 which is arranged on the upper layer of the display 2; and a light transmission type decorative body 4 which is arranged on the upper layer of the touch panel substrate body 3. The touch panel substrate body 3 has a display region 33 and a non-display region 34.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Masaji to Erwet as modified by Tanabe, Grave, and Linden such that the switch device further comprises a substrate positioned below the panel, wherein the at least one first light-emitting diode is disposed on the substrate and positioned below the first design so as to illuminate the first design, and the at least one second light-emitting diode is disposed on the substrate and positioned below the second design so as to illuminate the second design. Doing so would allow images to be displayed on the device.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 09/09/2025; Applicant's “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to the specification, abstract, and drawing objections, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered.
With respect to the claim interpretations under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (f), applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered.
With respect to the claim rejections 35 U.S.C. § 103, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered.
Applicant remarks:
However, in response to operating the key 104 for unlocking of the intelligent radio key 101 disclosed in Grave, the lock device is unlocked and the resulting state of the operation (i.e. unlocked state) is merely displayed on the LC display 105. In addition, in response to operating the key 102, the lock device is switched to “CLOSED” and the locked state is displayed. Grave discloses that the keys 102, 104 have luminescent markings that light up as soon as a depression of the keys 102 or 104 is detected, and then the driver learns whether he has made an input to the vehicle locking system. (Grave, PDF page 11.) Grave fails to disclose or suggest the feature of displaying unlocking at the initial state (“the first design is displayed on the panel with only unlocking of the vehicle as the initial state’).
Office response:
As shown in Fig. 4 of Grave and the cited text, only an unlocked state is displayed on the LC display as a result of unlocking the vehicle, which applicant agrees with based on their arguments. Therefore, a only one design is displayed on the panel based on unlocking of the vehicle, which is determined to be the initial state.
Applicant further argues that the other independent claims which recite similar features are allowable and the dependent claims are also allowable since they depend on allowable subject and the Office respectfully disagrees. It is the Office's stance that all of the claimed subject matter has been properly rejected; therefore, the Office's respectfully disagrees with applicant’s arguments.
Therefore, the Office's respectfully disagrees with applicant’s arguments.
It is the Office’s stance that all of applicant arguments have been considered and the rejections remain.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON TOAN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6163. The examiner can normally be reached M-T: 8-5:30 F1:8-12 F2: Off.
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, Scott Browne can be reached on 5712700151. 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.
/J.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights