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.
Response to Amendment
The amendment to Claim(s) 3-7 and the cancelation of Claim(s) 5 and 8, filed 02/25/2026, are acknowledged and accepted.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On Page 7 of Remarks, Applicant argues “By providing a red light absorbing layer in the section of the rear surface of the base member that is forward of the light-emitting unit, the red light included in the infrared light emitted from the light-emitting unit is prevented from being visually recognized through the main body. Therefore, the aesthetic appeal of the vehicle's interior components may be improved.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitation of “aesthetic appeal” was never noted in the claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
On Page 7 of Remarks, Applicant argues “…by not providing the red light absorbing layer in the section of the rear surface of the base member that is forward of the light-receiving unit, infrared light directed toward the light-receiving unit is prevented from being absorbed when passing through the main body, thereby preventing a decrease in detection accuracy of the infrared detector.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitation of “thereby preventing a decrease in detection accuracy of the infrared detector” was never noted in the claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
On Page 8 of Remarks, Applicant argues “Yasuhito neither discloses or suggests, "on the rear surface of the base member, the red light absorbing layer is provided in a section forward of the light-emitting unit and is not provided in a section forward of the light-receiving unit." Examiner respectfully disagrees. Yasuhito never taught the red light absorbing layer. Comparative Example 1 of Chen was brought in to cure that deficiency. Modifying Yasuhito so the red light absorbing layer could disposed on a rear surface of the base member in a traveling direction of infrared light from the light-emitting unit, and having the red light absorbing layer on the rear surface of the base member, the red light absorbing layer provided in a section forward of the light-emitting unit and is not provided in a section forward of the light-receiving unit would be an obvious modification. While Yasuhito didn’t have the red light absorbing, it did have the structure necessary for receiving infrared light as well as other structural limitations mentioned in Claim 1. Modifying Yasuhito with the Comparative Example 1 of Chen having the red light absorbing layer is obvious. Because the structure of the claimed system of Yasuhito, as identified above and in the original action, is the same as that claimed, it must inherently perform the same function and wherein an infrared transmissive product, comprising: a main body configured to cover both a light-emitting unit for emitting infrared light and modifying Yasuhito with the Comparative Example 1 of Chen having the red light absorbing layer. See MPEP § 2112.01.
On Pages 9-10 of Remarks, Applicant argues “Chen does not disclose or suggest the configuration in which the yellow light filter 114 is provided in a section forward of the light-emitting diode 122 and is not provided in a section forward of a light-receiving unit. Chen is silent as to such a selective structural distinction.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Yellow-light filters absorb red light (well-known in the art). While the Applicant didn’t explicitly state that a yellow light filter could not be used, Examiner cured the deficiency of Yasuhito not having the red light absorbing layer with the Comparative Example 1’s yellow light filter.
On Page 11 of Remarks, Applicant argues “the claimed configuration is not merely a design choice for reducing area, but a selective arrangement based on functional requirements.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is arguing functional requirements which may be stated in the Specification, but where not stated in the claim. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP § 2113; In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original, MPEP §2114).
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.
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 1-4, 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Yasuhito et al., (hereafter Yasuhito) (WO2020100450A1) in view of Chen et al., (hereafter Chen) (US 2019/0041701 A1).
The applied reference has a common assignee and inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
With respect to Claim 1, Yasuhito teaches an infrared transmissive product, comprising: a main body (50, Figure 3) configured to cover both a light-emitting unit (24, Figure 1) for emitting infrared light (transmitting the infrared IR, ¶[0038]) and a light-receiving unit (25, Figure 1) for receiving infrared light (receiving the infrared IR, ¶[0038]) in an infrared detector (20, Figure 1), the main body (50, Figure 3) being transmissive to infrared light, wherein the main body (50, Figure 3) includes: a base member (33 and 36, Figure 1) that absorbs visible light (visible light passes through 37 and 33, ¶[0051]).
Yasuhito fails to teach a red light absorbing layer, the red light absorbing layer absorbing red light in a wavelength region of 700 nm to 900 nm.
Yasuhito teaches an infrared transmission cover which absorbs specific wavelengths of light energy and Chen teaches a display device with a layer absorbing specific wavelengths of light energy.
Comparative Example 1 of Chen teaches a display device (title and abstract) comprising a red light absorbing layer (114, Figure 1), the red light absorbing layer absorbing red light in a wavelength region of 700 nm to 900 nm (620 nm and 750 nm, ¶[0034]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Yasuhito having the infrared transmissive product with the teachings of Comparative Example 1 of Chen having the red light absorbing layer disposed on a rear surface of the base member in a traveling direction of infrared light from the light-emitting unit, modifying Yashuhito having the red light absorbing layer on the rear surface of the base member, the red light absorbing layer provided in a section forward of the light-emitting unit and is not provided in a section forward of the light-receiving unit, for the purposes of color conversion and reducing the cost of production, ¶[0034].
With respect to Claim 2, Yasuhito teaches the infrared transmissive product according to claim 1.
Yasuhito fails to teach wherein a light transmissivity in the wavelength region of the red light absorbing layer is 10% or lower.
Comparative Example 1 of Chen teaches a display device (title and abstract) comprising a red light absorbing layer (114, Figure 1), wherein a light transmissivity in the wavelength region of the red light absorbing layer is 10% or lower (filter keeps 95%, therefor only allowing 5%, ¶[0034]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Yasuhito having the infrared transmissive product with the teachings of Comparative Example 1 of Chen having the red light absorbing layer for the purposes of color conversion and reducing the cost of production, ¶[0034].
With respect to Claim 3, Yasuhito teaches the infrared transmissive product according to claim 1.
Yasuhito fails to teach wherein a light transmissivity in a wavelength region of 900 nm to 1700 nm of the red light absorbing layer is 70% or higher.
Comparative Example 1 of Chen teaches a display device (title and abstract) comprising a red light absorbing layer (114, Figure 1).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Yasuhito having the infrared transmissive product with the teachings of Comparative Example 1 of Chen having the red light absorbing layer for the purposes of color conversion and reducing the cost of production, ¶[0034].
Yasuhito and Comparative Example 1 of Chen fail to teach wherein a light transmissivity in a wavelength region of 900 nm to 1700 nm of the red light absorbing layer is 70% or higher.
Comparative Example 2 of Chen teaches wherein a light transmissivity in a wavelength region of 900 nm to 1700 nm (900 to 1600 nm, ¶[0049]; see also Figure 5) of the red light absorbing layer is 70% or higher (50% or more, ¶[0049]; see also Figure 5).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Yasuhito and Comparative Example 1 of Chen having the infrared transmissive product with the teachings of Comparative Example 2 of Chen having a light transmissivity in a wavelength region of 900 nm to 1700 nm of the red light absorbing layer is 70% or higher for the purpose of allowing detection of movement.
With respect to Claim 4, Yasuhito further teaches wherein the base member (33 and 36, Figure 1) includes: a base member (33, Figure 1) body made of a transparent plastic (PC, PMMA, or COP, ¶[0042]); and a visible light absorbing layer (36, Figure 1; see also ¶[0045]), which is provided on a rear surface of the base member body and absorbs visible light (visible light passes through 37 and 33, ¶[0051]; see also ¶[0045]).
With respect to Claim 7, Yasuhito teaches the infrared transmissive product according to claim 1, wherein the infrared detector (20, Figure 1) is an infrared camera device (¶[0002]-[0003]) that forms a system for monitoring a driver (¶[0002]-[0003]) of a vehicle (¶[0002]-[0003]), the light-emitting unit (24, Figure 1) is configured to emit infrared light (¶[0002]) to the driver to illuminate the driver (¶[0002]-[0003]), the light-receiving unit (25, Figure 1) is configured to receive infrared light (¶[0002]-[0003]) from the driver (¶[0002]-[0003]), and the main body (50, Figure 3) forms a cover (30, Figure 1) that is located between the driver (¶[0002]-[0003]) and a section including the light-emitting unit (24, Figure 1) and the light-receiving unit (25, Figure 1), and covers the light-emitting unit (24, Figure 1) and the light-receiving unit (25, Figure 1).
With respect to Claim 9, Yasuhito teaches the infrared transmissive product according to claim 1.
Yasuhito fails to teach wherein the red light absorbing layer has a thickness in the range of 10 mm to 100 mm.
Comparative Example 1 of Chen teaches a display device (title and abstract) comprising a red light absorbing layer (114, Figure 1), has a thickness in the range of 10 mm to 100 mm (¶[0033]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Yasuhito having the infrared transmissive product with the teachings of Comparative Example 1 of Chen having the red light absorbing layer has a thickness in the range of 10 mm to 100 mm for the purposes of color conversion and reducing the cost of production, ¶[0034].
Claims 6 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Yasuhito (WO2020100450A1) in view of Chen (US 2019/0041701 A1) in further view of Narayan et al., (hereafter Narayan) (US 2015/0047710 A1)
With respect to Claim 6, Yasuhito teaches the infrared transmissive product according to claim 1, wherein the red light absorbing layer is a coating film layer formed by blending a dye that absorbs the red light into a transparent plastic.
Yasuhito fails to teach a red light absorbing layer.
Chen teaches a display device (title and abstract) comprising a red light absorbing layer (114, Figure 1).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Yasuhito having the infrared transmissive product with the teachings of Chen having the red light absorbing layer for the purposes of color conversion and reducing the cost of production, ¶[0034].
Yasuhito in view of Chen fails to teach wherein the red light absorbing layer is a coating film layer formed by blending a dye that absorbs the red light into a transparent plastic.
Yasuhito teaches an infrared transmission cover which absorbs specific wavelengths of light energy, Chen teaches a display device with a layer absorbing specific wavelengths of light energy, and Narayan teaches a photovoltaic cell which absorbs specific wavelengths of light energy.
Narayan teaches photo voltaic cells (abstract) wherein the red light absorbing layer (active layer, ¶[0203]) is a coating film layer (insulating polymeric layer, ¶[0203]) formed by blending a dye (dye incorporated in the insulating polymeric layer, ¶[0203]) that absorbs the red light (absorbs red light, ¶[0203]) into a transparent plastic (polymeric layer, ¶[0203]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Yasuhito in view of Chen having the infrared transmissive product with the teachings of Narayan having the red light absorbing layer is a coating film layer formed by blending a dye that absorbs the red light into a transparent plastic for the purpose of emitting light corresponding the wavelength color.
With respect to Claim 10, Yasuhito teaches the infrared transmissive product according to claim 6 and the base member (33, Figure 1) body made of a transparent plastic (PC, PMMA, or COP, ¶[0042]).
Yasuhito fails to teach a red light absorbing layer.
Chen teaches a display device (title and abstract) comprising a red light absorbing layer (114, Figure 1).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Yasuhito having the infrared transmissive product with the teachings of Chen having the red light absorbing layer for the purposes of color conversion and reducing the cost of production, ¶[0034].
Yasuhito in view of Chen fails to teach wherein the red light absorbing layer is formed by blending a dye, wherein the red light absorbing layer contains 3.0 to 10.0 mass part of the dye.
Yasuhito teaches an infrared transmission cover which absorbs specific wavelengths of light energy, Chen teaches a display device with a layer absorbing specific wavelengths of light energy, and Narayan teaches a photovoltaic cell which absorbs specific wavelengths of light energy.
Narayan teaches photo voltaic cells (abstract) wherein the red light absorbing layer (active layer, ¶[0203]) is a coating film layer (insulating polymeric layer, ¶[0203]) formed by blending a dye (dye incorporated in the insulating polymeric layer, ¶[0203]), wherein the red light absorbing layer (active layer, ¶[0203]) contains 3.0 to 10.0 mass part of the dye (¶[0203]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Yasuhito in view of Chen having the infrared transmissive product with the teachings of Narayan having the red light absorbing layer contains 3.0 to 10.0 mass part of the dye and modifying Yashuito in relation to 100 part of the transparent plastic for the purpose of emitting light corresponding the wavelength color.
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 TAMARA Y WASHINGTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3887. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur 730-530 EST.
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
/TYW/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights