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
The amendment filed 6/3/2026 has been entered.
The objections as presented in the Office Action mailed 3/27/2026 have been withdrawn based on the amendment filed 6/3/2026.
The rejections pertaining to the limitations of Claims 7, 8, 9, 15, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as presented in the Office Action mailed 3/27/2026 have been withdrawn based on the amendment filed 6/3/2026. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) pertaining to the limitations of Claims 23 and 24 as presented in the Office Action mailed 3/27/2026 have been withdrawn based on the amendment filed 6/3/2026. The examiner notes that new rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on the amendment filed 6/3/2026 is presented below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 9 “element configured to hide” should be --is configured to hide--
Claim 15 line 4 “of the plastic component the multi-layer display element” should be --of the plastic component, the multi-layer display element--
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.
Claims 15-19 and 23-24 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
With regards to Claim 15 and claims depending therefrom, Claim 15 lines 4-6 recite the limitations “the multi-layer display element produced by the method configured to hide an outline of a graphic when a light source is not illuminated and to display the outline of the graphic when the light source is illuminated”. It is unclear as to how the light source is related to the structure of the multi-layer display element produced by the method, particularly whether the light source is intended to be utilized in the step of masking the B-surface, whether the light source is intended to be part of the multi-layer display element, or whether the light source is intended to be external to the method of producing a multi-layer display element and external to the multi-layer display element produced with the produced multi-layer display element being capable of hiding an outline of a graphic when used in proximity to a light source and the light source is not illuminated, and capable of displaying the outline of the graphic when the light source is illuminated, or whether another arrangement is intended, and thereby the scope of the claim is indefinite. Furthermore, it is unclear as to whether the result of the multi-layer display element produced by the method is inherently configured to hide an outline of a graphic when a light source is not illuminated and to display the outline of the graphic when the light source is illuminated is achieved utilizing only the two method steps recited in the claim (i.e. the step of molding of Claim 15 lines 2-3 and the step of masking the B-surface of Claim 15 line 4), or whether an additional step is required to produce the multi-layer display element configured to hide the outline of the graphic when the light source is not illuminated and to display the outline of the graphic when the light source is illuminated. The examiner notes that should additional steps be required to produce the multi-layer display element configured to hide the outline of the graphic when the light source is not illuminated and to display the outline of the graphic when the light source is illuminated, the steps required to produce such a feature should be included in the claim or the claim. Please see MPEP 2172.01. For the purpose of examination, the examiner understands this limitation such that the method of Claim 15 produces a multi-layer display element which hides an outline of a graphic when used near a light source and the light source is not illuminated, and displays the outline of the graphic when the light source is illuminated. The applicant is encouraged to clarify in the claim language the intended relationship between the light source and the method steps of Claim 15 and/or with the multi-layer display element produced using such method steps, and including all required steps to produce the intended multi-layer display element, fully supported by the original disclosure.
With regards to Claim 23, lines 2-4 recite the limitation “the plastic component is configured to allow a light source to pass from the B-surface of the plastic component through the A-surface of the plastic component”. It is unclear as to how a light source is allowed to pass from the B-surface of the plastic component through the A-surface of the plastic component (e.g., does the method include forming holes in the A-surface and B-surface such that the light source passes through such holes from the B-surface through the A-surface?), and how the light source is related to the method of producing the multi-layer display element (e.g., whether a method step involving passing the light source from the B-surface through the A-surface is included in the scope of the claim to further limit the method) or whether another arrangement is intended. For the purpose of examination, the examiner understands this limitation such the structure of the plastic component produced by the method of Claim 17 allows light from a light source to pass from the B-surface of the plastic component through the A-surface of the plastic component. The applicant is encouraged to clarify in the claim language the intended arrangement of the light source with respect to the structure of the multi-layer display element produced by the method of Claim 17 and/or the method of producing the multi-layer display element, fully supported by the original disclosure.
With regards to Claim 24, lines 2-4 recite the limitation “the plastic component configured to allow a signal to pass from the A-surface of the plastic component through the B-surface of the plastic component”. It is unclear as to how a signal is intended to pass from the A-surface through the B-surface and how the signal is related to the structure (e.g., how is the signal generated? Is it generated by a component of the multi-layer display element? Is it generated within the A-surface?) and/or the method steps of the method of Claim 17 (e.g., does the method of producing the multi-layer display element of Claim 17 further include passing a signal generated external to the multi-layer display element from the A-surface through the B surface? or further include generating a signal capable of passing through the multi-layer display element from the A-surface through the B-surface?). For the purpose of examination, the examiner understands this limitation such that the structure of the plastic produced by the method of Claim 17 allows a signal generated external to the multi-layer display element from the A-surface through the B-surface. The applicant is encouraged to clarify in the claim language the intended association between the signal and the structure of the multi-layer display element produced by the method of Claim 17 and/or the method producing the multi-layer display element, fully supported by the original disclosure.
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, 2, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harmelink et al. (WO 2019165441; please see attached copy for reference to paragraphs) in view of Eppers et al. (DE 102019208135; please see attached translation for reference to pages).
With regards to Claim 1, Harmelink et al. discloses a multi-layer display element comprising: a first layer [LN] comprising an optical plastic (see paragraphs 72 and 88 and Figure 16A; the first layer [LN] is a lens which can be an optically clear/transparent lens of plastic): a second layer [W] comprising a matte grain or varnish (see paragraphs 72 and 88; the layer [W] has a protective clear coat material, which substantially acts as a varnish), wherein the second layer [W] is disposed onto the first layer [LN] (see Figures 16A and 16C; a third layer [M] comprising a graphical mask (see paragraph 72 and Figures 16A and 16B), wherein the third layer [M] is disposed onto the first layer [LN] (see Figures 16A and 16C); and at least one interactive component (comprising the component including light source [LED], see paragraph 72 Figures 16A and 16C) configured to provide a light source (see paragraph 72 and Figure 16C); and the multi-layer display element configured to hide an outline of a graphic defined by the graphical mask when the light source is not illuminated and to display the outline of the graphic when the light source is illuminated (see paragraphs 14 and 63 and Figures 4A and 4B).
Harmelink et al. does not explicitly disclose the grain or varnish is a matte grain or matte varnish. However, Harmelink et al. does disclose utilizing the multi-layer display element to present an image, to present information, to present a graphic, to present text, to present a graphic and text, and to present the user interface (see Harmelink et al. paragraph 6), the multi-layer display element is utilized in a vehicle interior component (see Harmelink et al. paragraph 5), the multi-layer display element includes a cover which comprises a material having a surface configured to provide the image when the light source is illuminated and to provide a surface effect on the surface of the cover when the light source is not illuminated, the surface effect being at least one of a grain texture or wood texture (see Harmelink et al. paragraph 5), and including a surface effect including texture, color, contour, visual effect, image display, etc. (see Harmelink et al. paragraph 60). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to utilize a grain or varnish which is a matte grain or matte varnish in order to allow a user to view the presented image, information, graphic, text, and/or user interface when the light source is illuminated and present the surface effect when the light source is not illuminated without substantial gloss or shine, thereby substantially being viewable by a user. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the grain or vanish of Harmelink et al. to be a matte grain or matte varnish. One would have been motivated to do so in order to allow a user to view the presented image, information, graphic, text, and/or user interface when the light source is illuminated and present the surface effect when the light source is not illuminated without substantial gloss or shine, thereby substantially being viewable by a user (see Harmelink et al. paragraphs 5 and 6).
Harmelink et al. does not disclose the second layer and the third layer are arranged on opposite surfaces of the first layer.
Eppers et al. teaches the second layer [13] (see middle of page 5 and bottom of page 6 and Figure 2; the layer [13] is a protective layer which can be formed by a lacquer layer, which is substantially a varnish) and the third layer [22] (see bottom of page 6 and Figure 2) are arranged on opposite surfaces of the first layer [12] (see bottom of page 6 and Figure 2; layer [12] is a layer which can be made completely translucent to allow light to pass therethrough).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the position of the second layer and the third layer of Harmelink et al. such that the second layer and the third layer are arranged on opposite surfaces of the first layer as taught by Eppers et al. One would have been motivated to do so in order to control a passage of light from the second layer through the first layer to provide the graphic and protect an exterior surface of the first layer (see Eppers et al. bottom of page 6).
With regards to Claim 2, Harmelink et al. and Eppers et al. disclose the multi-layer display element as discussed above with regards to Claim 1.
Harmelink et al. further discloses a fourth layer [SN] comprising a touch screen interface [SNa] (see paragraph 72 and Figure 16A).
With regards to Claim 5, Harmelink et al. and Eppers et al. disclose the multi-layer display element as discussed above with regards to Claim 1.
Harmelink et al. further discloses the at least one interactive component configured to provide a light source includes a plurality of light sources (see paragraph 72 and Figures 16A and 16C), wherein the light sources are independently operable to generate selective light or a light flux or spectrum (see paragraph 87).
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harmelink et al. (WO 2019165441) as modified by Eppers et al. (DE 102019208135; please see attached translation for reference to pages), further in view of Lambricht et al. (US 2021/0347260).
With regards to Claim 3, Harmelink et al. and Eppers et al. disclose the multi-layer display element as discussed above with regards to Claim 2.
Harmelink et al. does not explicitly disclose at least one haptic feedback actuator device.
Lambricht et al. teaches at least one haptic feedback actuator device [122] (see paragraph 46 and Figure 1a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multi-layer display element of Harmelink et al. to include at least one haptic feedback actuator device, as taught by Lambricht et al. One would have been motivated to do so in order to indicate a function of a button on the location of which the finger of a user is placed (ese Lambricht et al. paragraph 47).
With regards to Claim 4, Harmelink et al., Eppers et al., and Lambricht et al. disclose the multi-layer display element as discussed above with regards to Claim 3.
Harmelink et al. does not explicitly disclose the at least one haptic feedback actuator device includes a plurality of haptic feedback actuators.
Lambricht et al. teaches at least one haptic feedback actuator device [122] includes a plurality of haptic feedback actuators (see paragraph 46 and Figure 1a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multi-layer display element of Harmelink et al. to include at least one haptic feedback actuator device which includes a plurality of haptic feedback actuators, as taught by Lambricht et al. One would have been motivated to do so in order to indicate a function of a button on the location of which the finger of a user is placed (ese Lambricht et al. paragraph 47).
Claims 9-11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harmelink et al. (WO 2019165441; please see attached copy for reference to paragraphs).
With regards to Claim 9, Harmelink et al. discloses a multi-layer display element comprising: an A-surface (comprising a surface with portion [W], see paragraph 72 and Figure 16C); a B-surface (comprising a surface with portions [LN,M], see paragraph 72 and Figures 16A and 16B); and at least one interactive component configured to provide a light source, wherein the A-surface is an outer surface of the multi-layer display element (see Figure 16C; the surface with portion [W] is an outer surface with respect to at least the B-surface), the B-surface is an inner surface of the multi-layer display element (see Figure 16C; the B-surface is substantially an inner surface with respect to the A-surface), and wherein the A-surface and the B-surface are on opposite sides of the multi-layer display element (see Figures 16A and 16C; the A-surface is on an outer side which is substantially opposite an inner side on which the B-surface is located), wherein the A-surface comprises a grain or varnish (see paragraphs 72 and 88; the layer [W] has a protective clear coat material, which substantially acts as a varnish), and wherein the B-surface is configured to control a path of light emitted by the light source (see paragraph 72).
Harmelink et al. does not explicitly disclose the grain or varnish is a matte grain or matte varnish. However, Harmelink et al. does disclose utilizing the multi-layer display element to present an image, to present information, to present a graphic, to present text, to present a graphic and text, and to present the user interface (see Harmelink et al. paragraph 6), the multi-layer display element is utilized in a vehicle interior component (see Harmelink et al. paragraph 5), the multi-layer display element includes a cover which comprises a material having a surface configured to provide the image when the light source is illuminated and to provide a surface effect on the surface of the cover when the light source is not illuminated, the surface effect being at least one of a grain texture or wood texture (see Harmelink et al. paragraph 5), and including a surface effect including texture, color, contour, visual effect, image display, etc. (see Harmelink et al. paragraph 60). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to utilize a grain or varnish which is a matte grain or matte varnish in order to allow a user to view the presented image, information, graphic, text, and/or user interface when the light source is illuminated and present the surface effect when the light source is not illuminated without substantial gloss or shine, thereby substantially being viewable by a user. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the grain or vanish of Harmelink et al. to be a matte grain or matte varnish. One would have been motivated to do so in order to allow a user to view the presented image, information, graphic, text, and/or user interface when the light source is illuminated and present the surface effect when the light source is not illuminated without substantial gloss or shine, thereby substantially being viewable by a user (see Harmelink et al. paragraphs 5 and 6).
With regards to Claim 10, Harmelink et al. discloses the multi-layer display element as discussed above with regards to Claim 9.
Harmelink et al. further discloses the B-surface comprises a graphical mask [M] (see paragraph 72 and Figures 16A, 16B, and 16C).
With regards to Claim 11, Harmelink et al. discloses the multi-layer display element as discussed above with regards to Claim 9.
Harmelink et al. further discloses a touch screen interface [SNa] (see paragraph 72 and Figure 16A).
With regards to Claim 14, Harmelink et al. discloses the multi-layer display element as discussed above with regards to Claim 9.
Harmelink et al. further discloses the at least one interactive component configured to provide a light source includes a plurality of light sources (see paragraph 72 and Figures 16A and 16C; an LED module is included), wherein the light sources are independently operable to generate selective light or a light flux or spectrum (see paragraph 87).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harmelink et al. (WO 2019165441) in view of Lambricht et al. (US 2021/0347260).
With regards to Claim 12, Harmelink et al. discloses the multi-layer display element as discussed above with regards to Claim 11.
Harmelink et al. does not disclose at least one haptic feedback actuator.
Lambricht et al. teaches at least one haptic feedback actuator device [122] (see paragraph 46 and Figure 1a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multi-layer display element of Harmelink et al. to include at least one haptic feedback actuator device, as taught by Lambricht et al. One would have been motivated to do so in order to indicate a function of a button on the location of which the finger of a user is placed (ese Lambricht et al. paragraph 47).
With regards to Claim 13, Harmelink et al. discloses the multi-layer display element as discussed above with regards to Claim 12.
Harmelink et al. does not explicitly disclose the at least one haptic feedback actuator device includes a plurality of haptic feedback actuators.
Lambricht et al. teaches at least one haptic feedback actuator device [122] includes a plurality of haptic feedback actuators (see paragraph 46 and Figure 1a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multi-layer display element of Harmelink et al. to include at least one haptic feedback actuator device which includes a plurality of haptic feedback actuators, as taught by Lambricht et al. One would have been motivated to do so in order to indicate a function of a button on the location of which the finger of a user is placed (ese Lambricht et al. paragraph 47).
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okuda et al. (US 2024/0083153) in view of Harmelink et al. (WO 2019165441).
With regards to Claim 15, Okuda et al. discloses a method of producing a multi-layer display element comprising: molding an optical-grade resin into a plastic component comprising an A-surface and a B-surface (see paragraphs 43, 49, and 50, and Figures 8A and 13); and masking the B-surface of the plastic component (see paragraph 63 and Figures 8A and 13) the multi-layer display element produced by the method configured to display the outline of a graphic [75] when the light source is illuminated (see paragraphs 37 and 40 and Figures 1A and 1B).
Okuda et al. does not explicitly disclose hiding an outline of the graphic when the light source is not illuminated.
Harmelink et al. teaches a multi-layer display element configured to hide an outline of a graphic when a light source is not illuminated and to display the outline of the graphic when the light source is illuminated (see paragraphs 14 and 63 and Figures 4A and 4B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multi-layer display element of Okuda et al. to be configured to hide an outline of a graphic when a light source is not illuminated and to display the outline of the graphic when the light source is illuminated, as taught by Harmelink et al. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide only the surface effect when the light source is not illuminated (see Harmelink et al. paragraphs 14 and 63).
With regards to Claim 16, Okuda et al. and Harmelink et al. disclose the method as discussed above with regards to Claim 15.
Okuda et al. further discloses the plastic component has a grained matte finish after being molded (see paragraphs 56, 57, and Figure 8A).
Claims 17 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okuda et al. (US 2024/0083153) as modified by Harmelink et al. (WO 2019165441), further in view of Kotani (US 2020/0198535).
With regards to Claim 17, Okuda et al. and Harmelink et al. discloses the method as discussed above with regards to Claim 15.
Okuda et al. does not disclose coating the A-surface of the plastic component with a matte clearcoat varnish.
Kotani teaches coating the A-surface of the plastic component with a matte clearcoat varnish (see paragraphs 59 and 60 and Figure 4; due to the plastic component [110] including a predetermined design and intended for visual recognition, the clearcoat varnish will substantially be at least partially matte).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Okuda et al. to include coating the A-surface of the plastic with a matte clearcoat varnish as taught by Kotani. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide a protective layer and reduce damage to the A-surface of the plastic (see Kotani paragraph 60).
With regards to Claim 23, Okuda et al., Harmelink et al. and Kotani disclose the method as discussed above with regards to Claim 17.
Okuda et al. further discloses the plastic component is configured to allow a light source to pass from the B-surface of the plastic component through the A-surface of the plastic component (see paragraphs 63 and 64; light is substantially capable of passing through portions [71a,31,41] and Figures 1B and 8A).
With regards to Claim 24, Okuda et al., Harmelink et al., and Kotani disclose the method as discussed above with regards to Claim 17.
Okuda et al. does not explicitly disclose the plastic component is configured to allow a signal to pass from the A-surface of the plastic component through the B-surface of the plastic component. However, Okuda et al. does disclose the plastic component is formed of a resin (see Okuda et al. paragraph 17), which will substantially be capable of allowing a signal to pass from an A-surface thereof through a B-surface thereof, and the multi-layer display element is included in a display of a vehicle console (see Okuda paragraph 36). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Okuda et al. to include the multi-layer display element is capable of allowing a signal to pass from the A-surface of the plastic through the B-surface of the plastic. One would have been motivated to do so in order to form the multi-layer display element from a resin material and to allow for electrical transmission of signals from within the multi-layer display element.
Claim 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okuda et al. (US 2024/0083153), as modified by Harmelink et al. (WO 2019165441) and Kotani (US 2020/0198535), further in view of Yang et al. (US 2022/0024378).
With regards to Claim 18, Okuda et al. and Kotani disclose the method as discussed above with regards to Claim 17.
Okuda et al. does not disclose the masking of the B-surface of the plastic component comprises laser-etching a light-blocking paint onto the B-surface of the plastic component.
Yang et al. teaches masking of a surface of the plastic component comprises laser-etching a light-blocking paint onto the surface of the plastic component (see paragraphs 8 and 46 and Figure 11B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the step of masking of the B-surface of the plastic component of Okuda et al. to comprise laser-etching a light-blocking paint onto the B-surface of the plastic component, as taught by Yang et al. One would have been motivated to do so in order to create a mask using a pattern/image (see Yang et al. paragraph 46) with substantially high precision.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okuda et al. (US 2024/0083153), as modified by Harmelink et al. (WO 2019165441) and Kotani (US 2020/0198535), further in view of Piccin (US 2021/0300265).
With regards to Claim 19, Okuda et al., Harmelink et al., and Kotani disclose the method as discussed above with regards to Claim 17.
Okuda et al. does not disclose the masking of the B-surface of the plastic component comprises over-molding the plastic component with an opaque plastic.
Piccin teaches masking a surface of a plastic component comprising over-molding the plastic component with an opaque plastic (see paragraph 44 and Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the masking of the B-surface of the plastic component of Okuda et al. to comprise over-molding the plastic component with an opaque plastic, as taught by Piccin. One would have been motivated to do so in order to affix the masking material to the plastic component during a two-shot molding process (see Piccin paragraph 44).
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments pertaining to the Drawing objections presented in the Office Action mailed 3/27/2026 are persuasive in light of the amendments to the claims filed 6/3/2026, and such objections have been withdrawn.
The applicant’s arguments pertaining to the Claim objections presented in the Office Action mailed 3/27/2026 are persuasive in light of the amendments to the claims filed 6/3/2026, and such objections have been withdrawn.
The applicant’s arguments pertaining to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of Claims 7-22 as presented in the Office Action mailed 3/27/2026 are persuasive in light of the amendments to the claims filed 6/3/2026 and such rejections have been withdrawn.
The applicant’s arguments pertaining to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as presented in the Office Action mailed 3/27/2026 are persuasive in light of the amendments to the claims filed 6/3/2026 and such rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 6/3/2026 pertaining to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of Claims 23 and 24 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The examiner responds below.
With regards to the applicant’s argument that the amendment to Claims 23 and 24 in each respective claim tie the recited functionality to the structure of the plastic component produced by the amendment and resolve the rejection, the examiner directs the applicant to the above rejections of Claims 23 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Particularly, while the claims have been amended to include the language “the plastic component is configured to allow”, it remains unclear as to how the light source which passes from the B-surface of the plastic component through the A-surface of the plastic component is related to the structure/method of Claim 17 (as in Claim 23), and how the signal which passes from the A-surface of the plastic component through the B-surface of the plastic component is related to the structure/method of Claim 17 (as in Claim 24).
Applicant's arguments filed 6/3/2026 pertaining to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) of Claims 9-11 and 14 are persuasive, and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) of Claims 9-11 and 14 over Harmelink et al. have been withdrawn. However, new rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Harmelink et al. based on the amendment filed 6/3/2027 are presented herein. Please see the above rejection of at least Claim 9 over Harmelink et al. for a discussion of the disclosure, teaching, and suggestion of Harmelink et al. The examiner notes, with regards to the applicant’s arguments that a matte finish is a non-reflective, diffusive surface that scatters incident light, distinguishing it from a glossy or reflective finish, that amended Claim 9 recites on line 8 “the A-surface comprises a matte grain or matte varnish”. The applicant is directed to the attached reference “VARNISH Definition & Meaning”, which discloses a varnish as a liquid preparation that when applied to a surface dries to form a hard lustrous typically transparent coating, the covering or glaze given by the application of varnish, or something suggests varnish by its gloss, and the reference “VARNISH Synonyms”, which discloses that varnish (used as a noun) as a gloss. The applicant is also directed to the attached reference “MATTE Definition & Meaning”, which discloses matte (as an adjective) as being lacking or deprived of luster or gloss. Therefore, the phrasing “matte varnish” has been understood by the examiner to include a liquid preparation that when applied to a surface dries to form a hard lustrous typically transparent coating, including at least a component of a gloss and/or a matte finish. Should the applicant determine a particular reflectivity or finish is required by the present invention, the applicant is encouraged to define in the claim language the intended coating, finish, or appearance of the A-surface, fully supported by the original disclosure.
Applicant's arguments filed 6/3/2026 pertaining to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) of Claims 15-16 are persuasive in view of the examiner’s understanding of the scope of the claims (please see the discussion of Claim 15 as best understood in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)), and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) of Claims 15-16 over Okuda et al. have been withdrawn. However, new rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Okuda et al. in view of Harmelink et al. based on the amendment filed 6/3/2027 are presented herein. Please see the above rejections of Claims 15 and 16 above for further discussion of the disclosure, teaching, and suggestion of Okuda et al. and Harmelink et al. are relate to the scope of Claim 15 as best understood by the examiner. The applicant is encouraged to review the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and clarify the scope of at least Claim 15. Furthermore, the examiner notes that the applicant’s arguments appear to intend the matte finish of the A-surface is required to provide the result of the multi-layer display element produced by the method being able to selectively hide and reveal an outline of a graphic in dependence on the illumination state of a light source. The applicant is reminded that all essential steps to produce such a resulting product should be included in the claim.
Applicant's arguments filed 6/3/2026 pertaining to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 of Claim 1 and claims currently depending therefrom are not persuasive. Please see the above rejection of at least Claim 1 over Harmelink et al. for a discussion of the disclosure, teaching, and suggestion of Harmelink et al. With regards to the applicant’s arguments that Harmelink et al. does not teach a matte grain or matte varnish, the applicant is directed to the above discussion of the disclosure, teaching, and suggestion of Harmelink et al. as pertains to the amended limitations of Claim 9 and to the above discussion of the “MATTE Definition & Meaning”, “VARNISH Definition & Meaning”, and “VARNISH Synonyms” references. With regards to the applicant’s argument that the combination of Harmelink et al. and Eppers et al. does not teach the recited hiding-until-lit configuration because Harmelink’s cover with a clear coat does not produce the hiding effect because a clear coat is transparent and reflective, not diffuse, and without the matte character of the A-surface, an underlying graphic cannot be hidden in the manner claimed, the applicant is directed to Harmelink et al. paragraphs 14 and 63 and Figures 4A and 4B, which disclose a graphic having an outline (shown as graphic [IM] in Harmelink et al. Figure 4B) visible when the light source is illuminated, and the graphic outline is not visible when the light source is not illuminated (see Harmelink et al. Figure 4A). Thereby, Harmelink et al. does substantially disclose an arrangement including this limitation of amended Claim 1. With regards to the applicant’s argument that the examiner’s rationale to combine is unsupported because Harmelink et al. page 6 does not supply the cited motivation, the examiner acknowledges the typographical error citing the Harmelink et al. reference rather than the Eppers et al. reference in the motivation. The bottom of page 6 of the Eppers et al. reference was discussed in paragraph 36 of the Office Action mailed 3/27/2026, and Eppers et al. discloses on the bottom of page 6 at least the third layer being a protective layer disposed to protect the first layer, and the second layer being disposed between the first layer and light source to project the masked light through the first layer. The motivation has been clarified in the rejection above.
Applicant's arguments filed 6/3/2026 pertaining to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 of Claim 17 are not persuasive. Please see the above rejection of at least Claim 17 over Okuda in view of Kotani for a discussion of the disclosure, teaching, and suggestion of the combination of Okuda and Kotani. With regards to the applicant’s arguments that Kotani does not disclose a matte clearcoat or any matting agents, texture, or finish that would yield a matte optical character, the applicant is directed to the above discussion of the disclosure, teaching, and suggestion of Kotani as pertains to the limitations of Claim 17 and to the above discussion of the “MATTE Definition & Meaning”, “VARNISH Definition & Meaning”, and “VARNISH Synonyms” references. As such, Kotani does substantially disclose, teach, or suggest a matte clearcoat varnish. Should the applicant determine a particular reflectivity or finish is required by the present invention, the applicant is encouraged to define in the claim language the intended coating, finish, or appearance of the A-surface, fully supported by the original disclosure.
Prior Art Referral
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In addition to the prior art discussed in this action, the applicant is directed to form 892, and particularly the reference Galan Garcia (US 2020/0139814), which discloses at least a multi-layer display element including an outer layer having a visual texture including a matte or grain.
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 ERIN KRYUKOVA whose telephone number is (571)272-3761. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a.m. - 4p.m.
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, Jong-Suk (James) Lee can be reached at 5712727044. 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.
/ERIN KRYUKOVA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights