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 .
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 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.
In addressing the rejection ground, each claim may not have been separately discussed to the extent the claimed features are the same as or similar to the previously-discussed features; the previous discussion is construed to apply for the other claims in the same or similar way.
In the office action, “/” should be read as and/or as generally understood. For example, “A/B” means A and B, or A or B.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species I as embodied claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 03/18/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Applicant’s election without traverse of electing Species I in the reply filed on 03/18/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5-9 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Salter et al. (US 2015/0232019).
Regarding claim 1, Salter discloses an electronic device [see at least figs. 6, 2-4], comprising: an electronic unit, comprising: a light-emitting unit [e.g. 58 fig. 2/3/4] that provides a first emitted light; and a first light-filtering unit [e.g. 70, 71 fig. 2/3; 66, 71 fig. 4; or see para. 0035] disposed on the light-emitting unit, wherein the first light-filtering unit comprises: a substrate [e.g. 70 fig. 2/3; or 66 fig. 4]; and a first light-conversion layer [e.g. 71 fig. 2/3; or 71 fig. 4] disposed on the substrate; a vehicle control unit [e.g. 140] electrically connected to the light-emitting unit; and a sensing unit [e.g. ambient light sensor 152] transmitting a sensing signal to the vehicle control unit, wherein the vehicle control unit modulates [e.g. pulse width modulation (PWM) is based on duty cycles; see at least para. 0054] an intensity [see at least para. 0054] of the first emitted light based on a sensing signal from the sensing unit, and a modulated first emitted light passes through the first light-filtering unit to form a second emitted light [e.g. 28/110/112].
Regarding claim 5, Salter discloses the electronic device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the sensing unit comprises an ambient-light sensor (ALS).
Regarding claim 6, Salter discloses the electronic device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the electronic unit further comprises a cover plate [e.g. 102] disposed on the first light-filtering unit.
Regarding claim 7, Salter discloses the electronic device as claimed in claim 6, wherein the electronic unit further comprises a second light-filtering unit [e.g. 106/106a fig. 4; 108/108a fig. 4] disposed on the cover plate.
Regarding claim 8, Salter discloses the electronic device as claimed in claim 7, wherein the second light-filtering unit comprises a pattern area [e.g. the portion of 116; or the portion of 118.].
Regarding claim 9, Salter discloses the electronic device as claimed in claim 8, wherein the first light-conversion layer has a surface area which is greater than or equal to that of the pattern area [see fig. 4].
Regarding claim 11, Salter discloses the electronic device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the electronic unit further comprises a diffusion plate [e.g. 64/66b] disposed between the light-emitting unit and the first light-filtering unit.
Regarding claim 12, Salter discloses the electronic device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the electronic unit further comprises a touch unit [e.g. 64, a touchable unit] disposed on the first light-filtering unit and electrically connected to the vehicle control unit.
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 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salter et al. (US 2015/0232019) in view of Chen et al. (US 2023/0217769).
Regarding claim 2, Salter discloses the electronic device as claimed in claim 1, except wherein the first light-filtering unit further comprises a second light-conversion layer disposed on the substrate, and the first light-conversion layer is separated from the second light-conversion layer by a distance. However, Chen discloses a second light-conversion layer [e.g. 108b] disposed on a substrate [e.g. 146], and a first light-conversion layer [e.g. 108a] is separated from the second light-conversion layer by a distance [see at least fig. 1].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Salter in accordance with the teaching of Chen regarding a conversion layer in order to provide a conversion layers comprising separates conversion layers [para. 0031].
Regarding claim 3, the combination discussed above discloses the electronic device as claimed in claim 2, except wherein the distance is 2.0-20.0 mm. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a distance is 2.0-20.0 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum of working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claims 4 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salter et al. (US 2015/0232019).
Regarding claim 4, Salter discloses the electronic device as claimed in claim 1, except wherein the first light-filtering unit has a light transmittance which is less than or equal to 30% or greater than or equal to 80%. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the first light-filtering unit with a light transmittance which is less than or equal to 30% or greater than or equal to 80%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum of working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 10, Salter discloses the electronic device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first emitted light has a first transmittance chromaticity coordinates (x1, yl), the second emitted light has a second transmittance chromaticity coordinates (x2, y2), except and 0.003<Ix1-x2|<0.2 and 0.003 <|yl -y2|<0.2. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have 0.003<Ix1-x2|<0.2 and 0.003 <|yl -y2|<0.2, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum of working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK C CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7207. The examiner can normally be reached M-F Flexible 8:00-16:30.
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, Regis Betsch can be reached at 571-270-7101. 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.
/PATRICK C CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2842
Prosecution Insights