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 without traverse of electing Species I in the reply filed on 03/18/2026 is acknowledged.
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) 1, 5-9 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Salter et al. (US 2015/0232019) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Chen et al. (US 2023/0217769).
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]; and 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.
Alternatively, assuming arguendo, Salter does not disclose a diffusion plate disposed between the light-emitting unit and the first light-filtering unit. However, Chen discloses a functional/filtering layer [e.g. 146] including a transparent resin or other suitable material [para. 0051]. 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 layer in order to provide a filtering layer/ increase light emitting brightness [para. 0051].
Regarding claim 5, Salter/the combination discussed above discloses the electronic device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the sensing unit comprises an ambient-light sensor (ALS).
Regarding claim 6, Salter/the combination discussed above discloses the electronic device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the electronic unit further comprises a cover plate [e.g. 102 Salter] disposed on the first light-filtering unit.
Regarding claim 7, Salter/the combination discussed above 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 Salter] disposed on the cover plate.
Regarding claim 8, Salter/the combination discussed above 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. Salter].
Regarding claim 9, Salter/the combination discussed above 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 Salter].
Regarding claim 12, Salter/the combination discussed above discloses the electronic device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the electronic unit further comprises a touch unit [e.g. 64, a touchable unit Salter] disposed on the first light-filtering unit and electrically connected to the vehicle control unit.
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) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Chen et al. (US 2023/0217769) and Chen et al. (US 2023/0217769).
.Regarding claim 2, Salter/the combination discussed above 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) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Chen et al. (US 2023/0217769).
Regarding claim 4, Salter/the combination discussed above 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/the combination discussed above 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
‘As depicted in FIG. 2 and described in the paragraph [0026] of the disclosure of Salter, it reads, "The at least one dielectric layer 66 may correspond to a first dielectric layer 66a and a second dielectric layer 66b, which may be of a substantially transparent material. _The second electrode 64 may correspond to a top transparent conductor layer printed over the dielectric layer 66 to electrically connect the electrodes 54, 64." This means that Salter only discloses the second dielectric layer 66b is made of a transparent material, while the second electrode 64 is a transparent conductor layer. From the above-mentioned content, it is impossible to ascertain that Salter's second dielectric layer 66b and the second electrode 64 have a diffusing function.
Furthermore, it is well known to a person having ordinary skill in the art that the second dielectric layer 66b and the second electrode 64 are component layers that do not have a diffusing function. Therefore, equating the aforementioned second dielectric layer 66b and second electrode 64 of Salter to the claimed diffusion plate is unreasonable.’
However, a substantially transparent material does not mean it’s 100% transparent. It could be 95% or 98% transparent. In addition, the claim recites only “diffusion plate”. It does not recite the functionality of the diffusion plate. Therefore, it’s only a name. In addition, light is redistributed by a transparent layer. One can consider a transparent layer as a transparent diffusion plate. In addition, dielectric layer 66b and the second electrode 64 may be transparent but they are based on different materials. Accordingly, dielectric layer 66b and the second electrode 64 can be considered as a diffusion plate.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection rely on a new reference, Chen et al. (US 2023/0217769), which was not applied to claim 1 in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 PATRICK C CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7207. The examiner can normally be reached M-F Flexible 8:00-16:00.
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 2836
Prosecution Insights