Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/733,835

DECORATION DEVICE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Jun 04, 2024
Examiner
VU, PHU
Art Unit
2871
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Carux Technology Pte. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
85%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 85% — above average
85%
Career Allow Rate
848 granted / 994 resolved
+17.3% vs TC avg
Moderate +9% lift
Without
With
+9.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
30 currently pending
Career history
1024
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
57.3%
+17.3% vs TC avg
§102
34.5%
-5.5% vs TC avg
§112
4.2%
-35.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 994 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . 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. Claim(s) 1-4, 7-12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hansen US 2020/0369223 A1. Regarding claim 1, Hansen teaches a decoration device, comprising a first region (fig. 7-8 display D for decorative region DR) and a second region ( instrumentation region IR/D , functional region FR/D) disposed adjacent to the first region, the decoration device comprising: a display (D) [0067]-[0070], disposed corresponding to the first region and used to display a variable image; a light emitting module, disposed in the second region and used to emit a light beam to present a fixed pattern ([0016] indicator would use a fixed pattern and [0070]); and a decoration film (cover C [0071]), disposed at least corresponding to the second region, wherein the decoration device displays a decoration film surface in a first state (fig. 8A), and the decoration device displays the variable image and the fixed pattern in a second state (fig. 8B). Regarding claim 2, Hansen teaches the decoration device according to claim 1, wherein the decoration film (C see fig. 8A and 8B) is also disposed corresponding to the first region, wherein when the decoration device is in the first state, the first region and the second region both display the decoration film surface (fig. 8A), and when the decoration device is in the second state, the first region displays the variable image and the second region (IR FR) displays the fixed pattern (fig 8B). Regarding claim 3, while Hansen does not explicitly teach wherein when the decoration device is in a third state, the first region displays the decoration film surface and the second region displays the fixed pattern this does not appear to teach a structural limitations not taught by Hansen(see MPEP § 2114) as the device of Hansen would be capable of applying third state , the first region displays the decoration film surface and the second region displays the fixed pattern and in the case where indicators are used [0016] the display of the first region and indicators of the second region would operate independently of one another. Regarding claim 4, Hansen teaches the decoration film (C) is disposed outside the first region (DR) while Hansen does not explicitly teach wherein when the decoration device is in the first state, the first region displays the variable image and the second region displays the decoration film surface, and when the decoration device is in the second state, the first region displays the variable image and the second region displays the fixed pattern the device of Hansen would be capable operating such that when decoration device is in the first state, the first region displays the variable image and the second region displays the decoration film surface, and when the decoration device is in the second state, the first region displays the variable image and the second region displays the fixed pattern this does not appear to teach a structural limitations not taught by Hansen. See MPEP § 2114 Regarding claim 7, Hansen teaches the decoration device according to claim 1, wherein a thickness of the decoration film is greater than 0 mm and less than or equal to 4 mm [0092]. Regarding claim 8, Hansen teaches the decoration device according to claim 1, wherein the decoration film is an insulating film [0092]. Regarding claim 9, Hansen teaches the decoration device according to claim 1, wherein the decoration film comprises a protective layer (coating [0092]) and a pattern defining layer (cover [0092]), and the pattern defining layer is used to provide the fixed pattern and is disposed between the light emitting module and the protective layer [0092]. Regarding claim 10, Hansen teaches the decoration device according to claim 9, wherein the protective layer is transparent [0029]. Regarding claim 11, Hansen teaches the decoration device according to claim 9, wherein a surface of the protective layer away from the pattern defining layer has unevenness or roughness (a coating applied by brush for instance would have some degree of unevenness or roughness [0092]). Regarding claim 12, Hansen teaches the decoration device according to claim 9, wherein the pattern defining layer has a through hole allowing the light beam emitted by the light emitting module to pass through, the decoration film further comprises a color defining layer, and the color defining layer at least overlaps with the through hole [0099]. Regarding claim 15, Hansen teaches the decoration device according to claim 1, further comprising: a detection module, at least used to detect a hand gesture or a line of sight of a user; and a touch module, disposed between the decoration film and the light emitting module and used to execute at least one of a floating touch and a physical touch [0013][0071]. 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) 13-14 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen US 2020/0369223 A1. Regarding claim 13-14, while Hansen does not explicitly teach the decoration device according to claim 12, wherein a peel strength of the pattern defining layer and the color defining layer is greater than 30 N/5 cm and a temperature tolerance of the pattern defining layer and the color defining layer is-45 degrees Celsius to 90 degrees Celsius. This appears to be achievable through routine experimentation. As peel strength and temperature tolerance a direct function of durability (wear resistance) and temperature resistance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to peel strength of the pattern defining layer and the color defining layer is greater than 30 N/5 cm and a temperature tolerance of the pattern defining layer and the color defining layer is-45 degrees Celsius to 90 degrees Celsius to increase durability regarding wear and temperature fluctuation. Regarding claim 18, Hansen teaches the decoration device according to claim 1, wherein the display comprises a backlight module (fig. 19 L/LED LED array module) and a non-self-luminous display panel (Display D), the decoration device comprises two of the light emitting modules (LED array MD/LED). The non-self luminous display panel is located between the decoration film (wood appearance texture W) and the backlight module (MD/LED). Hansen does not explicitly teach the non-self-luminous display panel is disposed between the two light emitting modules however this is considered a matter of obvious design choice as one of ordinary skill in the art could easily arrange the display centered around two indicator lights as a matter of obvious design choice. Regarding claim 19, Hansen as applied to claim 18 above would teach wherein a distance is maintained between each of the two light emitting modules and the non-self-luminous display panel. Regarding claim 20, Hansen as applied to claim 18 above would teach the decoration device according to claim 18, wherein a light shielding element (mask M) is disposed between each of the two light emitting modules (MD/LED) and the non-self-luminous display panel (D). Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen US 2020/0369223 A1 in view of Sugiyama US 2019/0063722. Regarding claim 5, Hansen teaches the decoration device according to claim 1, but does not teach a light transmittance of the decoration film is greater than 50%. Sugiyama teaches decoration films that high transmittance that are capable of mimicking multiple wood grains including darker wood grains while maintaining transparency [0039]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hansen in view Sugiyama to mimicking multiple wood grains including darker wood grains while maintaining transparency. Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen US 2020/0369223 A1 in view of Da Silva US 20230415670. Regarding claim 6, Hansen teaches all the limitations of claim 6 except a haze of the decoration film is less than 30%. However Da Silva teaches a haze of a decoration film of 10 to 50% allowing for reduction in cost while maintaining favorable aesthetics [0006]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hansen in view of Da Silva to reduce costs while maintaining aesthetics. Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen US 2020/0369223 A1 in view Byoun US 20210063783. Regarding claim 17, Hansen teaches all the limitations of claim 17 except the decoration device according to claim 1, further comprising: a viewing angle switching module, disposed between the light emitting module and the decoration film. However Byoun teaches a viewing angle switching device (fig. 3 PDLC layer 1122) which would be disposed between the light emitting module (1110 backlight) and decorative film (above display panel 1130) to precisely control information going to the driver/ passenger (see fig. 2A-2B). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hansen in view of Byoun to precisely control information going to the driver/ passenger. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 16 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHU VU whose telephone number is (571)272-1562. The examiner can normally be reached 11:00 - 7:00 M-F. 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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at 571-272-9791. 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. /PHU VU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 04, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601960
CONTROL APPARATUS, INTERCHANGEABLE LENS, CONTROL METHOD, AND STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12596217
OPTICAL ELEMENT AND DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12585152
DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12585081
OPTICAL MODULE AND VIRTUAL REALITY (VR) DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12560841
LIQUID CRYSTAL DISPLAY DEVICE AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREFOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
85%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+9.2%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 994 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month