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 § 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 1-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, and dependents, recites the limitation "the interior surface" in line 6 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1-3,8-10,15,18,20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by LESUFFLEUR et al (US 2021/0181392).
Regarding claim 1, LESUFFLEUR discloses a kitchen appliance comprising a dead front display assembly (abstract; paragraph 20; the electronic device 100 is incorporated into another structure, device, or apparatus, such the electronic device 100 is a control panel, e.g., in a vehicle, on an appliance), the assembly comprising: a display panel having an exterior surface featuring a display zone for presenting visual display information from optical output of a display output device, wherein at least a portion of the exterior surface of the display panel comprises a curved surface, and at least a portion of the interior surface is planar. a display panel having an exterior surface 2050 featuring a display zone for presenting visual display information from optical output of a display output device, wherein at least a portion of the exterior surface of the display panel comprises a curved surface, and at least a portion of the interior surface is planar (Figure 5, 7; paragraph 21, 22, 41-45, 56-58; deadfront structure 2000 may be shaped into a wide variety of shapes to conform to a desired frame shape of a display assembly 2100, which in turn may be shaped to fit the shape of a portion of a vehicle interior system, as discussed herein).
Regarding claim 2, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. LESUFFLEUR further discloses wherein said display zone has one or more of: a low transmission ratio, a highly reflective visual characteristic, or a metallic ambient appearance when not displaying visual display information (paragraph 36-40, 62; the deadfront 106 allows for the creation of extra functionality, such as half-mirror finish, extra switching, low-reflective neutral color, or metallic and special color effect when display(s) is(are) off).
Regarding claim 3, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. LESUFFLEUR further discloses wherein the low transmission ratio, a highly reflective visual characteristic, or a metallic ambient appearance when not displaying visual display information is provided by a coating on an exterior surface of the display panel (paragraph 36-40, 62; standard industrial coating processes are utilized in constructing the deadfront 106).
Regarding claim 8, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. LESUFFLEUR further discloses further including a touch sensitive layer 102 applied to the planar interior surface (paragraph 21,22).
Regarding claim 9, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. LESUFFLEUR further discloses wherein the touch sensitive layer is flat and substantially rigid (Figure 1, 2; paragraph 21,24; substantially rigid based on conforming to deadfront).
Regarding claim 10, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. LESUFFLEUR further discloses wherein the touch sensitive layer is optically bonded to the interior surface (Figure 1; paragraph 20-22; touch display inherently requires an optical bond to provide touch functionality within the display region).
Regarding claim 15, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. LESUFFLEUR further discloses further including a chassis having secondary features for supporting the display panel (Figure 1, 10; paragraph 20; electronic device within a structure, device or apparatus would include support of some form).
Regarding claim 18, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. LESUFFLEUR further discloses wherein the display zone has an appearance simulating surrounding portions of the kitchen appliance (paragraph 36-40, 62).
Regarding claim 20, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. LESUFFLEUR further discloses a dead front display assembly for a kitchen appliance as defined in claim 1 (Figure 5, 7; paragraph 21, 22, 41-45, 56-58).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LESUFFLEUR et al (US 2021/0181392) in view of SCHOLTEN et al (US 2018/0078106).
Regarding claim 4, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. However, LESUFFLEUR does not expressly disclose wherein the coating is a non-conductive in mold decoration (IMD) film or a hot stamped film. In a similar field of endeavor, SCHOLTEN discloses wherein the coating is a non-conductive in mold decoration (IMD) film or a hot stamped film (paragraph 84). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify LESUFFLEUR to include the teachings of SCHOLTEN, since SCHOLTEN states that such a modification would eliminate labor and material cost associated with traditional post-molding decoration methods. Furthermore, as both inventions are analogous, such a modification would provide additional manufacturing means based on those disclosed by SCHOLTEN.
Regarding claim 5, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. LESUFFLEUR further discloses an ambient appearance simulating stainless steel (paragraph 40; metallic and special color effect when display(s) is(are) off). However, the combination of LESUFFLEUR and SCHOLTEN does not expressly disclose wherein the coating has a transmission ratio of about 10% to about 40%. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide such a transmission ratio, 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. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine.
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LESUFFLEUR et al (US 2021/0181392) in view of JOSHI et al (US 2022/0288893).
Regarding claim 6, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. However, LESUFFLEUR does not expressly disclose wherein the display panel thickness varies transverse along the display zone perpendicular to the thickness dimension by a ratio of equal or less than about 0.025. In a similar field of endeavor, JOSHI discloses wherein the display panel thickness varies transverse along the display zone perpendicular to the thickness dimension by a ratio of equal or less than about 0.025 (paragraph 22, 25-27; various thickness between layers can correspond to .025 or less). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify LESUFFLEUR to include the teachings of JOSHI, since JOSHI states such a modification would allow for cost effective forming of curved surfaces. Furthermore, it has been held that change in the size or proportion of a component is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)
Regarding claim 7, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. However, LESUFFLEUR does not expressly disclose wherein the exterior surface had a compound curvature, and wherein the display panel thickness varies along a first perpendicular transverse direction of the display zone by a ratio of about 0.02, and along a second perpendicular transverse direction of the display zone by a ratio of about 0.01. In a similar field of endeavor, JOSHI discloses wherein the exterior surface had a compound curvature, and wherein the display panel thickness varies along a first perpendicular transverse direction of the display zone by a ratio of about 0.02, and along a second perpendicular transverse direction of the display zone by a ratio of about 0.01 (paragraph 22, 25-27; various thickness between layers can correspond to thickness range). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify LESUFFLEUR to include the teachings of JOSHI, since JOSHI states such a modification would allow for cost effective forming of curved surfaces. Furthermore, it has been held that change in the size or proportion of a component is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LESUFFLEUR et al (US 2021/0181392) in view of FUJII et al (US 2020/0019261).
Regarding claim 11, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. However, LESUFFLEUR does not expressly disclose wherein tinted resin is used for optical bonding. In a similar field of endeavor, FUJII discloses wherein tinted resin is used for optical bonding (paragraph 37). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify LESUFFLEUR to include the teachings of FUJII, since FUJII states that sucha modification would reduce overall amount of external incident light. Furthermore, as both in inventions are analogous, such a modification would provide additional bonding means based on those disclosed by FUJII.
Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LESUFFLEUR et al (US 2021/0181392).
Regarding claim 12, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. However, LESUFFLEUR does not expressly disclose wherein brightness of the display zone is configured as between about 150 nits to about 500 nits. The Examiner takes Official Notice that configuration of a brightness of a display is well known and conventional in the art and such a configuration would be a design choice based on display needs. Furthermore, 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. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 13, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. However, LESUFFLEUR does not expressly disclose wherein brightness of the display zone is configured about 250 nits. The Examiner takes Official Notice that configuration of a brightness of a display is well known and conventional in the art and such a configuration would be a design choice based on display needs. Furthermore, 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. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 14, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. However, LESUFFLEUR does not expressly disclose wherein the optical display device has a backlight illuminance of less than about 2000 nits. The Examiner takes Official Notice that configuration of a brightness of a display is well known and conventional in the art and such a configuration would be a design choice based on display needs. Furthermore, 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. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LESUFFLEUR et al (US 2021/0181392) in view of KIM (US 2002/0186526).
Regarding claim 16, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. However, LESUFFLEUR does not expressly disclose wherein the secondary features include one or more of supporting ribs or screw tubes. In a similar field of endeavor, KIM discloses wherein the secondary features include one or more of supporting ribs or screw tubes (Figure 4A; paragraph 32). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify LESUFFLEUR to include the teachings of KIM, since such a modification would provide allow fastening a display to a device via known and conventional means.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LESUFFLEUR et al (US 2021/0181392) in view of WALTERS et al (US 2006/0209190).
Regarding claim 17, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. However, LESUFFLEUR does not expressly disclose wherein clip features are used to removably attached the chassis to the display panel. In a similar field of endeavor, WALTERS discloses wherein clip features are used to removably attached the chassis to the display panel (paragraph 32). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify LESUFFLEUR to include the teachings of KIM, since such a modification would provide allow fastening a display to a device via known and conventional means.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LESUFFLEUR et al (US 2021/0181392) in view of THAI et al (US 2018/0271322).
Regarding claim 19, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. LESUFFLEUR further discloses wherein the display zone has a first state without any visual display information from the display output device and a second state where the visual display information includes an indicia representing a power on operation (paragraph 18,19,31). However, LESUFFLEUR does not expressly disclose a third state with visual display information showing selectable modes of operation; and fourth state with the visual display information relating to the selected mode of operation. In a similar field of endeavor, THAI discloses a third state with visual display information showing selectable modes of operation; and fourth state with the visual display information relating to the selected mode of operation (Figure 7C-8C; paragraph 186-190). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify LESUFFLEUR to include the teachings of THAI, since THAI states that such a modification would allow a user to control various modes of a device using sensor defined feedback. Furthermore, as both inventions are analogous, such a modification would provide additional display options based on those disclosed by THAI.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIEL A BALAOING whose telephone number is (571)272-7317. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-4AM 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, Matthew Eason can be reached at (571) 270-7230. 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.
/ARIEL A BALAOING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2624
Prosecution Insights