DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 4/5/24, 5/7/24 and 9/18/25 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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, 7-12, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a(1) and 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Eguchi (WO 2021/187458, using US 2023/0120727 as the English translation).
As to claim 1, Eguchi teaches a leather-like light-emitting display device (fig. 5), comprising:
a leather-like sheet (3) that is a laminate of a colored resin layer (3b) forming an outer surface layer, and a fiber substrate (3a, [0035]);
a light-emitting portion (19a) disposed below the leather-like sheet ([0069]); and
a light-blocking portion (4a) configured to partially limit transmission of light, and interposed between any layers from the colored resin layer to the light-emitting portion ([0045]),
Eguchi does not explicitly teach the leather-like light-emitting display device is configured to exhibit light-emitting display with a luminance Ya of 200 cd/m2 or less in a non-light emitting region corresponding to the light-blocking portion and a luminance Yb of 100 to 2,000 cd/m2 in a light-emitting region corresponding to a portion other than the light-blocking portion, both as measured from a surface of the colored resin layer, Yb/Ya being 2.0 or more.
However, the light blocking portion 4a is reducing the luminance in the non-light emitting layer as much as possible while the light permitting portion D is allowing the luminance to pass. It is obvious, if not inherent, that the luminances would be within the range and ratio claimed so as to optimize the light emission properties of the device.
Furthermore, the Applicant has NOT shown that anything other than choice of materials and layers contributes to these ranges and ratios. That is, no other steps are performed other than choosing these layers to be present leads to the ranges and ratio claimed. This supports the assertion that the ranges and ratio are inherent. In the event it is shown that they are not inherent, they are certainly obvious for the reason stated above, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re AIler, 105 USPQ 233.
As to claims 2, 5, 9, 10, 14, 17, and 18, these are also ranges and parameters that are determined based upon choice of materials and layers, and not on some extra, novel steps leading the unexpected results. Thus, they are either inherent or obvious to optimize so as to fabricate an LED device with better luminescent properties.
As to claims 3 and 11, Eguchi further teaches the colored resin layer has an average value of light transmittance of 15% or more for the entire visible light range of a wavelength of 380 to 780 nm, and an average value of light transmittance of 50% or more for a range of a wavelength of 680 to 780 nm ([0044]).
As to claims 4 and 12, Eguchi further teaches the colored resin layer comprises a polyurethane, and a first colorant dispersed in the polyurethane ([0041].
Eguchi does not teach the first colorant has an average dispersed particle size of 400 nm or less. However, reducing the particle size would have been obvious so as to enhance light scattering and absorption, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re AIler, 105 USPQ 233.
As to claim 7, Eguchi further teaches the light-blocking portion is a printed layer ([0045]).
As to claim 8, Eguchi further teaches the light-blocking portion comprises carbon black ([0048]).
As to claim 15, Eguchi further teaches the fiber substrate further comprises an elastic polymer in internal voids of the non-woven fabric ([0038]).
As to claim 16, Eguchi further teaches the elastic polymer comprises a combination of a polyurethane-based elastic body and an acrylic elastic body ([0038]).
Claim(s) 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eguchi, as applied to claim 1, in view of Xia (US 2008/0261052).
As to claims 6 and 13, Eguchi does not teach the first colorant is a pigment having a polymer segment bound to a chromophore. However, Xia teaches a color resin layer comprising a pigment having a polymer segment bound to a chromophore ([0033]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the pigment of Xia so as to improve color tunability and stability.
Conclusion
Any response to this Office Action should be faxed to (571) 273-8300 or mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Hand-Delivered responses should be brought to:
Customer Service Window
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22313
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREN M KUSUMAKAR whose telephone number is (571)270-3520. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday from 7:30a – 4:30p EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fernando Toledo can be reached on 571-272-1867. 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.
/KAREN KUSUMAKAR/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897
6/12/26
Prosecution Insights