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 AMENDMENT
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
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.
With Regards to Claims 19 and 20: This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitations are: "means for containing glass fragments of the cover glass, the means positioned along at least part of the exposed glass edge, the means attached to an inside of the cover glass at the outermost region" in claim 19; and "the means extends around an entirety of the exposed glass edge, wherein the means is transparent, and wherein the means comprises a polyethylene terephthalate film" in claim 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
With Regards to Claim 15: Claim 15 recites --the edge of the housing-- in line 2, which appears to be a typographical error; it is recommended to correct this to read "an[[the]] edge of the housing".
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With Regards to Claim 6: Instant claim 6 recites --the protective film comprises a polyethylene terephthalate film-- in lines 1 to 2. Claim 5, from which claim 6 depends, recites --the protective film comprises a polymer resin-- in lines 1 to 2. As written, the claim is rendered indefinite because it can have two conflicting interpretations: (1) that claim 6 intended to further define the "polymer resin" of claim 5 to comprise "a polyethylene terephthalate resin" (in which case claim 6 should be corrected to read "the polymer resin resin); or (2) that claim 6 intended to further define the "protective film" to comprise "a polyethylene terephthalate film" (in which case claim 6 should have recited dependency to claim 1 and not claim 5). For the purposes of examination, both interpretations will be applied. (Appropriate clarification and correction is required.)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
With Regards to Claim 6: Instant claim 6 recites --the protective film comprises a polyethylene terephthalate film-- in lines 1 to 2. Claim 5, from which claim 6 depends, recites --the protective film comprises a polymer resin-- in lines 1 to 2. As written, claim 6 is deemed to be of improper dependent form because it does not include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends (i.e., it would no longer contain the limitation of the protective film comprising a polymer resin, the limitation redefining the claimed protective film).
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-6, 9, 14, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsubishi (JP 6548670 B2) in view of Sakakibara et al. (US 2017/0022343 A1).
Regarding Claims 1 and 19: Mitsubishi discloses a display device (ref. #1H) comprising a housing formed by combining a front panel (ref. #2A) and a rear panel (ref. #3), the front panel comprising an opening in which a cover glass (ref. #4) is placed, the front panel has a flanged portion extending inwards from the inner periphery of the opening onto which the cover glass is affixed (figure 10 and [0070] of Mitsubishi). Mitsubishi also discloses a sensor glass (ref. #6A; which is considered equivalent to the claimed "substrate") and a display panel (ref. #7) of the same dimensions affixed to one another by an adhesive film (ref. #5B), and that the sensor glass is affixed to the back side of the cover glass at a portion corresponding to the display surface via an adhesive film (ref. #5A), wherein the adhesive films (ref. #5A and #5B) can be made of light transmitting doubled-sided adhesive sheets of optically clear adhesive (OCA) (figure 10 and [0071]-[0072] of Mitsubishi). It is also disclosed by Mitsubishi that that cover glass has a dimension larger than that of the sensor glass, and that the adhesive film (ref. #5A) is applied to the entire back side of the cover glass (figure 10 and [0071] of Mitsubishi). Specifically, Mitsubishi provides for --a vehicle display device comprising: a housing forming an opening to an interior; a display module positioned in the interior of the housing, the display module including a substrate; a cover glass that covers the opening to the interior of the housing, the cover glass at least partially bounded by an exposed glass edge, the cover glass attached to the substrate by an optically clear adhesive, wherein an outermost region of the cover glass extends beyond an edge of the substrate -- {instant claim 1} and --a vehicle display device comprising: a housing forming an opening to an interior; a display module positioned in the interior of the housing, the display module including a substrate; a cover glass that covers the opening to the interior of the housing, the cover glass at least partially bounded by an exposed glass edge, the cover glass attached to the substrate by an optically clear adhesive, wherein an outermost region of the cover glass extends beyond an edge of the substrate -- {instant claim 19}.
Mitsubishi fails to disclose --a protective film positioned along at least part of the exposed glass edge, the protective film attached to an inside of the cover glass at the outermost region-- {instant claim 1} or --means for containing glass fragments of the cover glass, the means positioned along at least part of the exposed glass edge, the means attached to an inside of the cover glass at the outermost region-- {instant claim 19}.
Sakakibara discloses an anti-shatter film comprising, in order, a pressure sensitive adhesive (e.g., an optically clear adhesive (OCA)) for attaching the anti-shatter film to a cover glass, a transparent resin layer (e.g., polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film), and a clear hard coat (CHC) layer for protecting the transparent resin layer ([0003] and [0004] of Sakakibara).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have combined the anti-shatter film of Sakakibara with the cover glass of the vehicle display device disclosed by Mitsubishi in order to have --a protective film positioned along at least part of the exposed glass edge, the protective film attached to an inside of the cover glass at the outermost region-- {instant claim 1} or --means for containing glass fragments of the cover glass, the means positioned along at least part of the exposed glass edge, the means attached to an inside of the cover glass at the outermost region-- {instant claim 19}. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have combined the anti-shatter film of Sakakibara with the cover glass of the vehicle display device disclosed by Mitsubishi, from the stand-point of preventing the scattering of glass fragments to the inside (backside or inner layer) of the cover glass ([0003] of Sakakibara). (In the instant case, the PET film and CHC layer of Sakakibara would be added to the entirety of the OCA adhesive layer (ref. #5A) on the inner side of the cover glass (ref. #4) disclosed by Mitsubishi.)
Regarding Claim 2: Mitsubishi in view of Sakakibara discloses that the protective film extends around an entirety of the exposed glass edge (figure 10 of Mitsubishi). (In the instant case, it is assumed that the PET film is coextensive with the OCA which is coextensive with the cover glass, and would therefore extend entirely around the exposed glass edge.)
Regarding Claim 3: Mitsubishi in view of Sakakibara discloses that the exposed glass edge extends around an entire perimeter of the cover glass (figure 10 of Mitsubishi).
Regarding Claim 4: Mitsubishi in view of Sakakibara discloses that the protective film is transparent ([0004] of Sakakibara).
Regarding Claim 5: Mitsubishi in view of Sakakibara discloses that the protective film comprises a polymer resin ([0004] of Sakakibara).
Regarding Claim 6: Mitsubishi in view of Sakakibara discloses that the protective film comprises a polyethylene terephthalate film ([0004] of Sakakibara).
Regarding Claim 9: Mitsubishi in view of Sakakibara discloses that the display module further includes a frame (ref. #8B; "intermediate frame") positioned adjacent at least one edge of the display module (ref. 10 and [0073] of Mitsubishi).
Regarding Claim 14: Mitsubishi in view of Sakakibara discloses that the frame is positioned adjacent an entire perimeter of the display module (figure 10 and [0073] of Mitsubishi).
Regarding Claim 20: Mitsubishi in view of Sakakibara discloses that the means extends around an entirety of the exposed glass edge, wherein the means is transparent, and wherein the means comprises a polyethylene terephthalate film ([0004] of Sakakibara; figure 10 of Mitsubishi).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsubishi (JP 6548670 B2) in view of Sakakibara et al. (US 2017/0022343 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fujitsu (JP 4516244 B2).
Mitsubishi in view of Sakakibara is relied upon as stated above.
Regarding Claim 7: Mitsubishi in view of Sakakibara failed to disclose --the substrate defines an active pixel area for the display--.
Fujitsu discloses a liquid crystal display device comprising a liquid crystal display panel (ref. #30) having a structure between two insulating glass substrates, namely an active matrix liquid crystal display substrate (ref. #2) and an opposing substrate (ref. #4), wherein the substrate (ref. #4) comprising pixel regions (figures 1 to 2, [Pg. 6 to Pg. 8] of Fujitsu).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have incorporated the liquid crystal display device of Fujitsu as the substrate of the display module of the vehicle display device disclosed by Mitsubishi in view of Sakakibara in order to have --the substrate defines an active pixel area for the display--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have incorporated the liquid crystal display device of Fujitsu as the substrate of the display module of the vehicle display device disclosed by Mitsubishi in view of Sakakibara, from the stand-point of having a liquid crystal display device having a switching element for each pixel ([Pg. 1] of Fujitsu).
Claims 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsubishi (JP 6548670 B2) in view of Sakakibara et al. (US 2017/0022343 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Trummer (EP 3396930 B1).
Mitsubishi in view of Sakakibara is relied upon as stated above.
Regarding Claim 15: Mitsubishi in view of Sakakibara failed to disclose --a foam positioned between the outermost region and an edge of the housing--.
Trummer discloses a display device comprising a foam pad (ref. #702) arranged to seal against the housing shell, and a display bezel (ref. #703) that serves to hold the display (ref. #704), the display is additionally surrounded by a foam (ref. #702A) to prevent the glass from breaking (figure 7 and [0030] of Trummer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have combined the foam of Trummer and the vehicle display device of Mitsubishi in view of Sakakibara in order to have --a foam positioned between the outermost region and an edge of the housing--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have combined the foam of Trummer and the vehicle display device of Mitsubishi in view of Sakakibara, from the stand-point of compensating for any forces to prevent the glass of the display from breaking ([0030] of Trummer). (In the instant case, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have inserted the foam or foam padding of Trummer into any spaces or gaps to prevent the glass from breaking, such as the gaps (ref. "D1") between the intermediate frame (ref. #8B) and the display module as disclosed by Mitsubishi (figure 10 of Mitsubishi).)
Regarding Claim 17: Mitsubishi in view of Sakakibara and Trummer discloses that the foam abuts the protective film (figure 10 of Mitsubishi; [0030] of Trummer). (In the instant case, the gap (ref. "D1") of Mitsubishi would be entirely filled with the foam of Trummer, and would subsequently come into abutment with the protective film disclosed by Sakakibara.)
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsubishi (JP 6548670 B2) in view of Sakakibara et al. (US 2017/0022343 A1) and Trummer (EP 3396930 B1) as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Bayne et al. (US 2011/0019351 A1).
Mitsubishi in view of Sakakibara and Trummer is relied upon as stated above.
Regarding Claim 16: Mitsubishi in view of Sakakibara and Trummer discloses that the display module further includes a frame (ref. #8B; "intermediate frame") positioned adjacent at least one edge of the substrate (figure 10 of Mitsubishi), but failed to disclose --the vehicle display device further comprising adhesive positioned between the foam and the frame--. (In the instant case, as recited above, Mitsubishi in view of Sakakibara and Trummer discloses the foam between the frame and the substrate, but does not disclose --adhesive positioned between the foam and the frame--.)
Bayne discloses a bezel packaging for sealed glass assemblies, wherein a layer of adhesive (e.g., double sided adhesive foam tape) is included between the frame or bezel (ref. #10) and the glass assembly ([0048] of Bayne). (Note: Double sided adhesive foam tape are well-known tapes comprising a foam intermediate layer between two opposing adhesive layers.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have incorporated the double sided adhesive foam tape of Bayne as the foam of the vehicle display device disclosed by Mitsubishi in view of Sakakibara and Trummer in order to have --the vehicle display device further comprising adhesive positioned between the foam and the frame--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have incorporated the double sided adhesive foam tape of Bayne as the foam of the vehicle display device disclosed by Mitsubishi in view of Sakakibara and Trummer, from the stand-point of securing the glass assembly in place ([0048] of Bayne).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsubishi (JP 6548670 B2) in view of Sakakibara et al. (US 2017/0022343 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hansen et al. (US 2019/0285878 A1).
Mitsubishi in view of Sakakibara is relied upon as stated above.
Regarding Claim 18: Mitsubishi in view of Sakakibara failed to disclose --the vehicle display device comprises an instrument cluster device for a vehicle--.
Hansen discloses a display device for a vehicle capable of having multiple display indicators in one location (figures 1D to 1E, and [0050]-[0051] of Hansen).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have combined the display device of Hansen with the vehicle display device disclosed by Mitsubishi in view of Sakakibara in order to have --the vehicle display device comprises an instrument cluster device for a vehicle--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have combined the display device of Hansen with the vehicle display device disclosed by Mitsubishi in view of Sakakibara, from the stand-point of providing multiple display modules in one or multiple locations to provide data/information for the operator and/or occupants ([0051] of Hansen).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 10-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regards to the closest prior art of record Mitsubishi (JP 6548670 B2): Mitsubishi teaches --a vehicle display device--, wherein Mitsubishi's vehicle display device further comprises the structure --a display device (ref. #1H) comprising a housing formed by combining a front panel (ref. #2A) and a rear panel (ref. #3), the front panel comprising an opening in which a cover glass (ref. #4) is placed, the front panel has a flanged portion extending inwards from the inner periphery of the opening onto which the cover glass is affixed; a sensor glass (ref. #6A) and a display panel (ref. #7) of the same dimensions affixed to one another by an adhesive film (ref. #5B), and that the sensor glass is affixed to the back side of the cover glass at a portion corresponding to the display surface via an adhesive film (ref. #5A), wherein the adhesive films (ref. #5A and #5B) can be made of light transmitting doubled-sided adhesive sheets of optically clear adhesive (OCA); and wherein the cover glass has a dimension larger than that of the sensor glass, and that the adhesive film (ref. #5A) is applied to the entire back side of the cover glass-- (figure 10 and [0070]-[0072] of Mitsubishi). However, Mitsubishi does not teach that --a protective film positioned along at least part of the exposed glass edge, the protective film attached to an inside of the cover glass at the outermost region-- {instant claim 1} along with --the protective film being positioned entirely outside the active pixel area-- {instant claim 8} or --an adhesive applied between the protective film and the frame-- {instant claim 10}. Therefore, the claims as written overcome the prior art of record. Furthermore, no combination of Mitsubishi with any other prior art of record would have provided sufficient motivation for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified Mitsubishi in such a way as to meet the claimed invention. It is these teachings that makes the claim(s) allowable over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Donald M. Flores, Jr. whose telephone number is (571) 270-1466. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 to 17:00 M-F; Alternate Fridays 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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/DONALD M FLORES JR/
Donald M. Flores, Jr.Examiner, Art Unit 1781