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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/17/2023 was filed and is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shen et al (US 2016/0014866 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Shen et al disclose a display with anti-fogging function, comprising:
a display module (10);
a backlight module (200); and
an anti-fogging module (250), disposed behind the display module and corresponding to the backlight module, configured to selectively operate in a first state or a second state (see last note);
wherein when the display is not activated, the backlight module is turned off and the anti-fogging module operates in the first state to absorb moisture inside the display;
PNG
media_image1.png
266
550
media_image1.png
Greyscale
when the display is activated, the backlight module is turned on and generates heat, and the anti-fogging module operates in the second state to be heated to release the absorbed moisture (the first state and the second state are inherent states of the desiccant—when the backlight is off, the desiccant would absorb moisture—when the backlight is on, when it generates heat, the desiccant would release moisture). (Figure 1; see at least [0047])
In regard to claim 5, Shen et al disclose the anti-fogging module and the backlight module are disposed on the same side of the display module.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2-4 and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen et al (US 2016/0014866 A1) in view of Hasegawa et al (US 2015/0253612 A1).
In regard to claim 2-4, Shen et al disclose a desiccant.
Shen et al fail to disclose a desiccant box.
Hasegawa et al teach the anti-fogging module is a desiccant box (17), and the desiccant box comprises a box body and a desiccant contained in the box body, and as recited in claim 3, wherein the desiccant is a silica gel desiccant, and as recited in claim 4, the display also comprises a transparent cover (2), and there is an air layer between the transparent cover and the display module, when the anti-fogging module operates in the first state, the anti-fogging module absorbs the moisture in the air layer, when the anti-fogging module operates in the second state, the anti-fogging module is heated to release the moisture into the air layer. (Figure 12; see at least [0105])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to replace the desiccant of Shen et al with the desiccant box of Hasegawa et al in order to contain the desiccant.
PNG
media_image2.png
509
495
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 6 and 7, the combination of Shen et al and Hasegawa et al disclose a backlight modules.
The combination of Shen et al and Hasegawa et al fail to expliclty disclose the backlight module is a direct-type backlight module and comprises a plurality of light-emitting units disposed at intervals on a bottom edge of the backlight module, the anti-fogging module and the plurality of light-emitting units are at least partially overlap in a vertical projection direction of a display surface of the display module, or as recited in claim 7, the backlight module is an edge-lit backlight module and comprises a plurality of light-emitting units disposed at intervals on a side of the backlight module, the anti-fogging module and the plurality of light-emitting units are at least partially overlap in a vertical projection direction of a display surface of the display module.
However, direct-type and edge-lit backlights are notoriously old and well-known—using a plurality of LEDs is notoriously old and well-known. Moreover, the vertical projection direction of the display module is poorly defined, and thus when modified with a plurality of direct-type or edge-lit LEDs, the vertical direction overlap would be satisfied.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a plurality of direct-type or edge-lit LEDs in the backlight of the combination of Shen et al and Hasegawa et al in order to provide illumination to the display.
In regard to claim 8, the combination of Shen et al and Hasegawa et al fail to explicitly disclose the display is applied to a vehicle and disposed corresponding to an engine, when the vehicle is activated, both the backlight module and the engine start to operate to generate heat, and the anti-fogging module operating in the second state is heated to release.
However, cars heating up when they are turned on is notoriously old and well-known, and displays in vehicles is notoriously old and well-known. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to install the display of the combination of Shen et al and Hasegawa et al in order to display information to a driver.
Claim(s) 9-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa et al (US 2015/0253612 A1).
In regard to claim 9, Hasegawa et al disclose a display with anti-fogging function, comprising:
a display module (9) having a display surface;
a backlight module; and
an anti-fogging module (17) disposed on the same side of the display module with the backlight module, and the anti-fogging module and the plurality of light-emitting units are at least partially overlap in a vertical projection direction of the display surface. (Figure 12; see at least [0105])
Hasegawa et al fail to disclose a plurality of light-emitting units
Where Hasegawa et al teaches a backlight, it is silent on its makeup. However, using a plurality of LEDs is notoriously old and well-known, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a plurality of LEDs in order to make a brighter more efficient backlight.
In regard to claim 10, Hasegawa et al disclose when the display is not activated, the backlight module is turned off, and the anti-fogging module operates in a first state to absorb moisture inside the display; when the display is activated, the backlight module is turned on and generates heat, and the anti- fogging module operates in a second state to be heated to release the absorbed moisture. (As discussed, this is a inherent feature of the desiccant.)
In regard to claim 11, Hasegawa et al disclose the anti-fogging module is a desiccant box, and the desiccant box comprises a box body and a desiccant contained in the box body.
In regard to claim 12, Hasegawa et al disclose the desiccant is a silica gel desiccant.
In regard to claim 13, Hasegawa et al disclose a transparent cover (2), wherein there is an air layer between the transparent cover and the display module, when the anti-fogging module operates in the first state, the anti-fogging module absorbs the moisture in the air layer, when the anti- fogging module operates in the second state, the anti-fogging module is heated to release the moisture into the air layer.
In regard to claim 14 and 15, Hasegawa et al disclose a backlight module.
Hasegawa et al fail to expliclty disclose the backlight module is a direct-type backlight module and comprises a plurality of light-emitting units disposed at intervals on a bottom edge of the backlight module, or as recited in claim 15, the backlight module is an edge-lit backlight module and comprises a plurality of light-emitting units disposed at intervals on a side of the backlight module.
However, direct-type and edge-lit backlights are notoriously old and well-known—using a plurality of LEDs is notoriously old and well-known.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a plurality of direct-type or edge-lit LEDs in the backlight of Hasegawa et al in order to provide illumination to the display.
In regard to claim 16, Hasegawa et al fail to explicitly disclose the display is applied to a vehicle and disposed corresponding to an engine, when the vehicle is activated, both the backlight module and the engine start to operate to generate heat, and the anti-fogging module operating in the second state is heated to release.
However, cars heating up when they are turned on is notoriously old and well-known, and displays in vehicles is notoriously old and well-known. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to install the display of Hasegawa et al in order to display information to a driver.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hosoumi et al (US 2016/0351829 A1) disclose a display device.
Watabe et al (US 2014/0191220 A1) disclose a display device.
Watanabe (US 2013/0183894 A1) disclose an anti-fogging device.
Watanabe (US 2012/0241127 A1) disclose an anti-fogging device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER E DUNAY whose telephone number is (571)270-1222. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 am - 6:00 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, James (Jong-Suk) Lee can be reached at 571-272-7044. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER E DUNAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875