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 response to this Office Action, the Examiner respectfully requests that support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line numbers in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the Examiner in prosecuting this application.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/02/2026 has been entered.
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 of this title, 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 1-3, 5-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0139956 A1 to Joseph et al. (hereinafter "Joseph") in view of PCT Publication WO 2021/076280 A1 to Burdette (hereinafter "Burdette", included in IDS provided by Applicant).
Regarding Claim 1, Joseph teaches a display element comprising: a display panel; a backlight arranged behind the display panel (Fig. 1; Para. 30-34 of Joseph; display device 130 that includes a display or monitor screen 132… light source 134 with an adjustable or selectable illumination level 136); a surface shield (Fig. 1; Para. 30-34 of Joseph; rear surface 116); and a decoration arranged on a top side of the surface shield (Fig. 1; Para. 30-34 of Joseph; diffusing display element surface 114); wherein a transmission of the decoration is less than 30% (Fig. 1; Para. 26-33 of Joseph; thematic overlay surface 114 may be formed of a printed chiffon with coloring and materials chosen to block the viewer 102 from viewing the display device under highest anticipated illumination levels 122 of light source 120)..
Joseph does not explicitly disclose a surface shield made from glass or plastic; and a decoration, which is a laminated film; wherein a distance between light valves of the display panel and a surface of the decoration is less than 3 mm.
However, Burdette teaches a surface shield made from glass or plastic (Fig. 2; Para. 23-30 of Burdette; glass sheet 12); and a decoration, which is a laminated film (Fig. 2; Para. 23-30 of Burdette; glass sheet 12 may also include a pigment design on the first major surface 18); wherein a distance between light valves of a display panel and a surface of the decoration is less than 3 mm (Figs. 2-3; Para. 23-34; Table 1 of Burdette; First Adhesive 24 Thickness (mm) 0.25… glass sheet 12 has a thickness T1… that is in a range from 0.05 mm… backlight for the LCD 28, which would be arranged over the first polarizer 34 - this results in a distance from the upper edge of the light valve to the lower edge of the decoration of 0.3 mm and the decoration is a printed layer. Therefore designing a display panel wherein a distance between light valves of the display panel and a surface of a decoration is less than 3 mm would only require routine skill for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time when the invention was filed based on the afore-mentioned teachings of Burdette can be accomplished without any undue experimentation with a reasonable expectation of success that would have yielded predictable results in order to keep the display element as thin as possible so that no parallax or lack of focus effects arise due to too great a distance from the decorative surface).
Therefore, at the time when the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a surface shield made from glass or plastic; and a decoration, which is a laminated film; wherein a distance between light valves of the display panel and a surface of the decoration is less than 3 mm using the teachings of Burdette in order to modify the device taught by Joseph. The motivation to combine these analogous arts would have been to provide display assemblies having reduced stress mura associated with bending a display (Para. 2-4 of Burdette).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Joseph and Burdette teaches that a thickness of the surface shield in a display region located above the display panel is thinner than in a peripheral region extending around the display panel (Figs. 6-7; Para. 55-57 of Joseph; masking element 620 includes a feathered mask 621 that is opaque (e.g., black paint or the like applied to a surface of the pane/sheet of element 620) and defines an irregular shaped (not simply a square, rectangle, a circle or the like that may be expected for a monitor) and feathered edge of a viewing port or window 631 through the structural sheet 630).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Joseph and Burdette teaches that the display panel is connected to the surface shield by an optical bonding layer having a thickness of less than 0.5 mm (Fig. 2; Para. 23-30; Table 1 of Burdette; First Adhesive 24 Thickness (mm) 0.25).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Joseph and Burdette teaches that a resolution of the display panel is greater than 150 ppi (Para. 26 of Joseph; high resolution, ultra bright LCD monitor... Having a resolution of the display panel to be greater than 150 ppi would only require routine skill for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time when the invention was filed based on the combination of Joseph and Burdette and can be accomplished without any undue experimentation with a reasonable expectation of success that would have yielded predictable results).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Joseph and Burdette teaches that a luminance of the backlight is greater than 2500 cd/m2 (Para. 24 of Joseph; ultrahigh brightness LCDs (e.g., up to 1500 nits or more).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Joseph and Burdette teaches that the backlight is locally controllable (Fig. 1; Para. 33 of Joseph; display device 130 includes a light source 134 with an adjustable or selectable illumination level 136. It is preferable that the brightness or illumination level 136 be tunable for the light source(s) 134).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Joseph and Burdette teaches that the display panel has in-cell touch sensors (Fig. 1; Para. 35 of Joseph; display system 100 further includes digital media source/controller 150 that may take the form of a computer or similar electronic device with a processor 152. The processor 152 manages operation of input/output devices 154 (such as keyboards, touchscreens/pads)).
Regarding Claim 9, Joseph teaches a method for producing a display element (Claim 8 Fig. 1; Para. 30-34 of Joseph; display device 130 that includes a display or monitor screen 132), the method comprising: producing a surface shield (Fig. 1; Para. 30-34 of Joseph; rear surface 116) with a decoration arranged on a top side of the surface shield (Fig. 1; Para. 30-34 of Joseph; diffusing display element surface 114); connecting a display panel to the surface shield (Para. 33 of Joseph; screen 132 abuts the rear surface 116); wherein a transmission of the decoration is less than 30% (Fig. 1; Para. 26-33 of Joseph; thematic overlay surface 114 may be formed of a printed chiffon with coloring and materials chosen to block the viewer 102 from viewing the display device under highest anticipated illumination levels 122 of light source 120).
Joseph does not explicitly disclose a surface shield made from glass or plastic with a decoration, which is a laminated film; and connecting a display panel to the surface shield by an optical bonding layer having a thickness of less than 0.5 mm.
However, Burdette teaches a surface shield made from glass or plastic (Fig. 2; Para. 23-30 of Burdette; glass sheet 12) with a decoration, which is a laminated film (Fig. 2; Para. 23-30 of Burdette; glass sheet 12 may also include a pigment design on the first major surface 18); and connecting a display panel to the surface shield by an optical bonding layer having a thickness of less than 0.5 mm (Fig. 2; Para. 23-30; Table 1 of Burdette; First Adhesive 24 Thickness (mm) 0.25).
Therefore, at the time when the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include that a distance between light valves of the display panel and a surface of the decoration is less than 3 mm using the teachings of Burdette in order to modify the device taught by Joseph. The motivation to combine these analogous arts would have been to provide display assemblies having reduced stress mura associated with bending a display (Para. 2-4 of Burdette).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Joseph and Burdette teaches that a thickness of an upper cover glass of the display panel is reduced before the process of connecting the display panel to the surface shield (Fig. 6; Para. 55-56 of Joseph; system 600 further includes a masking element 620 such as a thin sheet of transparent material (plastic, glass, or the like) that includes a mask that disguises the shape and/or boundaries of the screen 614... Having a thickness of an upper cover glass of the display panel reduced before connecting the display panel to the surface shield would only require routine skill for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time when the invention was filed based on the teachings of Joseph and can be accomplished without any undue experimentation with a reasonable expectation of success that would have yielded predictable results in order to keep the display element as thin as possible so that no parallax or lack of focus effects arise due to too great a distance from the decorative surface).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Joseph and Burdette teaches that a distance between light valves of the display panel and a surface of the decoration is less than 2 mm (Figs. 2-3; Para. 23-34; Table 1 of Burdette; First Adhesive 24 Thickness (mm) 0.25… glass sheet 12 has a thickness T1… that is in a range from 0.05 mm… backlight for the LCD 28, which would be arranged over the first polarizer 34 - this results in a distance from the upper edge of the light valve to the lower edge of the decoration of 0.3 mm and the decoration is a printed layer. Therefore designing a display panel wherein a distance between light valves of the display panel and a surface of a decoration is less than 2 mm would only require routine skill for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time when the invention was filed based on the afore-mentioned teachings of Joseph and Burdette can be accomplished without any undue experimentation with a reasonable expectation of success that would have yielded predictable results in order to keep the display element as thin as possible so that no parallax or lack of focus effects arise due to too great a distance from the decorative surface).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Joseph in view of Burdette, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0057356 A1 to Krier et al. (hereinafter "Krier").
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Joseph and Burdette does not explicitly disclose that a modulation transfer function of the decoration is greater than 0.5.
However, Krier teaches a modulation transfer function of a film greater than 0.5 (Fig. 9; Para. 55-56 of Krier; first graph 800 shows a Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) impulse responses of different distances of film from the display surface of a Bayer LM 296 Modulation Transfer Function (MTF) being implemented. In FIG. 8, distances of 0 mm to 4 mm (801-805) are plotted. The y-axis 810 is a MTF (FFT magnitude) while the x-axis 820 is the spatial frequency. The MTF is the FFT magnitude of the impulse function… in FIG. 9, graph 900 shows a similar y-axis 910 and an x-axis 920. The main difference in FIG. 9 is that distance from the display 0 mm-5 mm (901-906) of a second film is shown. As shown, in spatial frequencies above 6, the FFT magnitude does not collapse to zero (as shown in graph 800) and maintains an MTF that is large enough to provide image fidelity or clarity at an acceptable level).
Therefore, at the time when the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include that a modulation transfer function of the decoration is greater than 0.5 using the teachings of Krier in order to modify the device taught by the combination of Joseph and Burdette. The motivation to combine these analogous arts would have been to provide a seamless instrument cluster (Para. 11 of Krier).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Joseph in view of Burdette, as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0241363 A1 to Ma et al. (hereinafter "Ma").
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Joseph and Burdette does not explicitly disclose that a transparent glass is laminated onto an underside of the display panel.
However, Ma teaches a transparent glass laminated onto an underside of a display panel (Fig. 2; Para. 49 of Ma; third glass base 503).
Therefore, at the time when the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include that a transparent glass is laminated onto an underside of the display panel using the teachings of Ma in order to modify the device taught by the combination of Joseph and Burdette. The motivation to combine these analogous arts would have been for improving the transparency of the transparent LCD device during transparent displaying while improving the brightness of the picture (Para. 64 of Ma).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant representative’s arguments Burdette fails to teach "a decoration which is a laminated film" because Burdette describes only a coating or printed pigment on a glass sheet. The argument is not persuasive. Burdette teaches a curved display assembly in which decorative features are incorporated into a laminated glass assembly. Burdette discloses that the glass sheet may include a pigment design on a major surface and further teaches that the display assembly includes multiple layers permanently bonded together by adhesive layers. See Burdette Para. 20-30 and Fig. 2. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that decorative layers incorporated within such laminated display structures constitute laminated decorative elements. Applicant's claim does not expressly require that the decoration itself be a separate removable film independent of the laminated structure. Therefore, Burdette reasonably teaches or at least suggests the claimed limitation.
Applicant further argues that Burdette does not disclose a distance between the light valves and the decorative surface of less than 3 mm. This argument is likewise unpersuasive.
Burdette discloses a glass sheet thickness between 0.05 mm and 2 mm, an adhesive thickness of approximately 0.25 mm, and an LCD positioned directly beneath the glass assembly. The light valves of an LCD are necessarily located immediately beneath the front polarizer of the display panel. Consequently, the total distance between the light valves and the decorative surface would necessarily be less than the combined thickness of the disclosed glass and adhesive layers. Even under Applicant's interpretation, the disclosed dimensions produce a spacing below the claimed 3 mm threshold. Optimization of spacing between a display and its decorative cover to minimize parallax and improve optical quality represents a recognized result-effective variable. Selecting a spacing below 3 mm would therefore have been an obvious matter of routine engineering design.
Applicant additionally argues that neither Joseph nor Burdette teaches a transmission of less than 30%. The argument is not persuasive. Joseph discloses that the thematic overlay is specifically configured to prevent a viewer from observing the display under anticipated ambient illumination conditions while permitting display visibility during operation. See Joseph Para. 29-31. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized that achieving this deadfront functionality necessarily requires selecting decorative materials having sufficiently low optical transmission. Although Joseph does not expressly disclose the numerical value of 30%, the claimed value merely defines the degree to which the known deadfront function is implemented. Selection of a particular transmission value sufficient to perform the intended function would have constituted routine optimization of a known result-effective variable.
Furthermore, Burdette likewise teaches decorative coatings having transparency selected to provide deadfront functionality. The combined teachings therefore suggest the claimed optical transmission.
Applicant argues that Joseph's disclosure of a "high-resolution LCD monitor" does not teach a display resolution greater than 150 pixels per inch. This argument is not persuasive.
Joseph expressly teaches use of a high-resolution LCD suitable for automotive display applications. At the time of the invention, high-resolution LCD panels exceeding 150 pixels per inch were well known and commercially available. Selection of a particular pixel density above 150 pixels per inch would have been an obvious design choice motivated by improved image quality and reduced pixel visibility. The claimed numerical threshold merely represents one point within a known range of suitable display resolutions and would have been obvious to optimize according to application requirements.
In addition, Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive because they attack the references individually rather than the combined teachings of Joseph and Burdette. The proposed amendments merely recite optimization of known optical parameters and structural dimensions that would have been within the ordinary level of skill in the art. The combination of Joseph and Burdette continues to teach or render obvious the subject matter of independent claim 1. Accordingly, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103 is maintained.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABHISHEK SARMA whose telephone number is (571)272-9887. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amr Awad can be reached on 571-272-7764. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABHISHEK SARMA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
Prosecution Insights