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 § 103
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 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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1–4 and 6–8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2012-083589 to Yamashita (cited in Applicant’s March 23, 2021 IDS in parent application US 17/270,326 and Applicant’s October 25, 2024 IDS in the pending application, citations are made to the translation provided by Applicant in the parent application) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0130986 to Richard and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0334293 to Kawamoto et al.
Regarding Claim 1, Yamashita discloses (where the whole document appears relevant) a decorative sheet 1 comprising a picture pattern portion 5; and a plurality of transmitting portions 6 that are portions in which the picture pattern portion and the shielding portion are not formed (e.g., paragraphs [0025]–[0030]).
Yamashita teaches that the transmitting portions 6 are sized between 10–300µm (paragraph [0030]) and that the light emitting section 2 is a dot matrix display (paragraph [0027]) and that the transmitting portions 6 may be formed at a same intervals as pixels in the dot matrix display (paragraph [0034]), but does not explicitly disclose wherein an aperture ratio of the decorative sheet is 5% or more and 50% or less (though teaching in paragraph [0018] that “the size of the hole is preferably half or less of the size of the pixel”), and each of the transmitting portions is formed such that a distance between the transmitting portions adjacent to each other is 40 µm or more and 230 µm or less.
Richard discloses a display, and teaches that for a dot matrix display, the pixel pitch is not particularly limited, and suggests a pixel pitch of up to 150 µm (paragraph [0017]). Combined with Yamashita, this reasonably suggests a distance between adjacent transmitting portions of 150 µm minus the width/size of the transmitting portions, which Yamashita teaches as between 10-300µm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the device of Yamashita, based on the teachings of Richard, to select an appropriate pixel pitch (and corresponding distance between the transmitting portions adjacent to each other) of 40 µm or more and 230 µm or less, based on design considerations like size of the display and desired resolution or pixel density; further, selecting such a pixel pitch, based on the aperture size taught by Yamashita, where part of the range taught also meets the limitation "wherein an aperture ratio of the decorative sheet is 5% or more and 50% or less," would also have been obvious as a matter of design choice, taking into consideration known design considerations such as brightness, contrast, and image quality.
The combination of Yamashita and Richard does not explicitly disclose a shielding portion that covers the picture pattern portion.
Kawamoto discloses a vehicle display with a decoration panel, and teaches that the picture pattern portion 42 includes a matching light shielding film 44 that blocks or does not transmit light in which are formed micropores 46 (corresponding to the claimed transmitting portions) that transmit light (e.g., at least paragraph [0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the device of Yamashita and Richard to include a shielding portion that covers the picture pattern portion, as suggested by Kawamoto, in order to shield light outside the transmitting portions, and also as a suitable configuration for a picture pattern portion (e.g., MPEP §§ 2144.06–07).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Yamashita, Richard, and Kawamoto would have rendered obvious wherein a resolution of the picture pattern portion is 150 dpi or higher (where selecting a resolution would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, based on desired image quality and intended use of the device, yielding predictable results, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim features).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Yamashita, Richard, and Kawamoto would have rendered obvious a base material portion that supports the picture pattern portion and each of the transmitting portions (e.g., front panel portion 1 of Yamashita may reasonably be considered the base material portion because it supports the picture pattern portion and also each of the transmitting portions, as they are formed therein; also base 22 of Kawamoto and/or plate 34), wherein the base material portion has a thickness of 10 μm or more and 500 μm or less (where selecting an appropriate thickness, based on desired strength balanced with minimizing overall thickness of the device, would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, yielding predictable results, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim features).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Yamashita, Richard, and Kawamoto would have rendered obvious wherein the picture pattern portion includes wood grain texture, marble texture, geometric patterns, carbon texture, stripes or polka dots (where paragraph [0056] of Kawamoto teaches that "[w]hen light is not irradiated . . . , the decoration film 42 . . . configures part of the design surface D of the decoration panel 20, in conjunction with the design surface D," suggesting that decoration film takes the form or design or image to blend with the surroundings, and where Kawamoto teaches the surface as part of a vehicle interior, using one or more of the claimed designs would have been obvious).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Yamashita, Richard, and Kawamoto would have rendered obvious wherein each of the transmitting portions has a circular shape when observed from a normal direction of the decorative sheet (e.g., Fig. 3 of Yamashita; paragraph [0045] of Kawamoto).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Yamashita, Richard, and Kawamoto would have rendered obvious wherein the transmitting portions are arranged in a grid pattern when observed from the normal direction of the decorative sheet (e.g., Fig. 3 of Yamashita; Fig. 2 of Kawamoto).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Yamashita, Richard, and Kawamoto would have rendered obvious wherein each of the transmitting portions is formed such that the distance between the transmitting portions adjacent to each other is 100 μm or more (e.g., as discussed above with respect to Claim 1, where Richards suggests a pitch of 150μm and Yamashita teaches a transmitting portion size of 10-300μm, and Kawamoto teaches 30μm, which provides an overlapping range for a distance between the transmitting portions adjacent to each other being 100μm or more; further, selecting an appropriate range would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, taking into account known considerations and yielding predictable results).
Claims 9–12, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita and Richard.
Regarding Claim 9, Yamashita discloses (where the whole document appears relevant) a decorative sheet 1 comprising a picture pattern portion 5; and a plurality of transmitting portions 6 that are portions in which the picture pattern portion is not formed (e.g., paragraphs [0025]-[0030]).
Yamashita teaches that the transmitting portions 6 are sized between 10-300μm (paragraph [0030]) and that the light emitting section 2 is a dot matrix display (paragraph [0027]) and that the transmitting portions 6 may be formed at a same intervals as pixels in the dot matrix display (paragraph [0034]), but does not explicitly disclose wherein an aperture ratio of the decorative sheet is 5% or more and 50% or less (though teaching in paragraph [0018] that "the size of the hole is preferably half or less of the size of the pixel"), and each of the transmitting portions is formed such that a distance between the transmitting portions adjacent to each other is 40 μm or more and 230 μm or less.
Richard discloses a display, and teaches that for a dot matrix display, the pixel pitch is not particularly limited, and suggests a pixel pitch of up to 150 μm (paragraph [0017]). Combined with Yamashita, this reasonably suggests a distance between adjacent transmitting portions of 150 μm minus the width/size of the transmitting portions, which Yamashita teaches as between 10-300μm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the device of Yamashita, based on the teachings of Richard, to select an appropriate pixel pitch (and corresponding distance between the transmitting portions adjacent to each other) of 40 μm or more and 230 μm or less, based on design considerations like size of the· display and desired resolution or pixel density; further, selecting such a pixel pitch, based on the aperture size taught by Yamashita, where part of the range taught also meets the limitation "wherein an aperture ratio of the decorative sheet is 5% or more and 50% or less," would also have been obvious as a matter of design choice, taking into consideration known design considerations such as brightness, contrast, and image quality.
The combination of Yamashita and Richard does not explicitly disclose a resolution of the picture pattern portion is 150 dpi or higher.
However, selecting a resolution would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, based on desired image quality and intended use of the device, yielding predictable results, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim features.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Yamashita and Richard would have rendered obvious wherein the picture pattern portion is formed by printing 75 or more of printing lines (where the specific manner of forming the picture pattern is not explicitly taught, but printing by lines would have been obvious as a known technique for printing, yielding predictable results, absent evidence of criticality in the means of forming the picture, or otherwise unobvious results from the claim feature).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Yamashita and Richard would have rendered obvious a base material portion that supports the picture pattern portion and each of the transmitting portions (e.g., front panel portion 1 of Yamashita may reasonably be considered the base material portion because it supports the picture pattern portion and also each of the transmitting portions, as they are formed therein), wherein the base material portion has a thickness of 10 μm or more and 500 μm or less (where selecting an appropriate thickness, based on desired strength balanced with minimizing overall thickness of the device, would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, yielding predictable results, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim features).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Yamashita and Richard would have rendered obvious wherein the picture pattern portion includes wood grain texture, marble texture, geometric patterns, carbon texture, stripes or polka dots (e.g. , paragraph [0028] of Yamashita, picture pattern formed by printing, where Yamashita suggests simple repeating patterns).
Regarding Claim 14, Yamashita discloses (where the whole document appears relevant) a decorative sheet 1 comprising a picture pattern portion 5; a plurality of transmitting portions 6 that are portions in which the picture pattern portion is not formed (e.g., paragraphs [0025]-[0030]); and a base material portion that supports the picture pattern portion and each of the transmitting portions (e.g., front panel portion 1 may reasonably be considered the base material portion because it supports the picture pattern portion and also each of the transmitting portions, as they are formed therein), wherein the base material portion has a thickness of 10 μm or more and 500 μm or less (where selecting an appropriate thickness, based on desired strength balanced with minimizing overall thickness of the device, would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, yielding predictable results, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim features).
Yamashita teaches that the transmitting portions 6 are sized between 10-300μm (paragraph [0030]) and that the light emitting section 2 is a dot matrix display (paragraph [0027]) and that the transmitting portions 6 may be formed at a same intervals as pixels in the dot matrix display (paragraph [0034]), but does not explicitly disclose wherein an aperture ratio of the decorative sheet is 5% or more and 50% or less (though teaching in paragraph [0018] that "the size of the hole is preferably half or less of the size of the pixel"), and each of the transmitting portions is formed such that a distance between the transmitting portions adjacent to each other is 40 μm or more and 230 μm or less.
Richard discloses a display, and teaches that for a dot matrix display, the pixel pitch is not particularly limited, and suggests a pixel pitch of up to 150 μm (paragraph [0017]). Combined with Yamashita, this reasonably suggests a distance between adjacent transmitting portions of 150 μm minus the width/size of the transmitting portions, which Yamashita teaches as between 10-300μm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the device of Yamashita, based on the teachings of Richard, to select an appropriate pixel pitch (and corresponding distance between the transmitting portions adjacent to each other) of 40 μm or more and 230 μm or less, based on design considerations like size of the display and desired resolution or pixel density; further, selecting such a pixel pitch, based on the aperture size taught by Yamashita, where part of the range taught also meets the limitation "wherein an aperture ratio of the decorative sheet is 5% or more and 50% or less," would also have been obvious as a matter of design choice, taking into consideration known design considerations such as brightness, contrast, and image quality.
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Yamashita and Richard would have rendered obvious wherein the picture pattern portion includes wood grain texture, marble texture, geometric patterns, carbon texture, stripes or polka dots (e.g., paragraph [0028] of Yamashita, picture pattern formed by printing, where Yamashita suggests simple repeating patterns).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita, Richard, and Kawamoto, further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0344306 to Arai et al.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Yamashita, Richard, and Kawamoto does not explicitly disclose wherein the picture pattern portion is formed by using mica, iron oxide, aluminum powder or carbon black.
Arai discloses a decorative sheet, and teaches a suitable material or configuration includes forming the image or picture pattern with carbon black, iron oxide, and the like (e.g., Abstract and paragraphs [0070]-[0072]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the device of Yamashita, Richard, and Kawamoto such that the picture pattern portion is formed by using mica, iron oxide, aluminum powder or carbon black, as suggested by Arai as a suitable configuration (e.g., MPEP §§ 2144.06-07).
Claims 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita and Richard, further in view of Arai.
Regarding Claims 13 and 16, the combination of Yamashita and Richard does not explicitly disclose wherein the picture pattern portion is formed by using mica, iron oxide, aluminum powder or carbon black.
Arai discloses a decorative sheet, and teaches a suitable material or configuration includes forming the image or picture pattern with carbon black, iron oxide, and the like (e.g., Abstract and paragraphs [0070]-[0072]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the device of Yamashita and Richard such that the picture pattern portion is formed by using mica, iron oxide, aluminum powder or carbon black, as suggested by Arai as a suitable configuration (e.g., MPEP §§ 2144.06-07).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN CROCKETT whose telephone number is (571)270-3183. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am to 5pm.
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, Michael Caley can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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.
/RYAN CROCKETT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights