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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Interpretations
In claim 9, the limitation “wherein an icon is formed when light is emitted from the light-emitting portion of the surface” appears to be conditional claims. For examining purposes, the examiner assumes the first part of the limitation is no longer valid if light is not emitted from the light-emitting portion of the surface.
In claim 12, the limitation “wherein a brightness of the display remains constant when light is emitted directly from the light-emitting portion of the surface” appears to be conditional claims. For examining purposes, the examiner assumes the first part of the limitation is no longer valid if light is not emitted directly from the light-emitting portion of the surface.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-13, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Laine et al. (FR 3074925).
Regarding claim 1, Laine et al. (figure 1) discloses a vehicle interior assembly comprising a non-visible display (EA) facing a surface (FV; see at least abstract) configured to reflect an image appearing on the display toward an occupant area of a vehicle passenger cabin (dashboard PB) in which the assembly is installed, wherein the assembly is configured to emit light directly from a light-emitting portion of the surface facing the occupant area (ME and EI).
Regarding claim 2, Laine et al. (figure 1) discloses a panel that includes the surface, wherein the panel is at least partially transparent at the light-emitting portion (the front face FV of the opaque blade LO can be semi-reflective; see at least page 5, 1st paragraph).
Regarding claim 3, Laine et al. (figure 1) discloses wherein the panel is at least partially transparent at an image-reflecting portion of the surface (the front face FV of the opaque blade LO can be semi-reflective; see at least page 5, 1st paragraph).
Regarding claim 4, Laine et al. (figure 1) discloses wherein the light-emitting portion and the image-reflecting portion form a continuous planar surface (the front face FV of the opaque blade LO can be semi-reflective; see at least page 5, 1st paragraph).
Regarding claim 6, Laine et al. (figure 1) discloses a light-emitting layer arranged to emit light directly from the light-emitting portion of the surface, wherein the light-emitting layer is at least partially transparent (The lighting means ME are capable of selectively illuminating the information elements El so that they appear selectively illuminated on the opaque plate LO; see at least page 5, 3rd paragraph).
Regarding claim 7, Laine et al. (figure 1) discloses a light-emitting diode (LED) that includes the light-emitting layer (the lighting means ME may comprise light-emitting diodes (or LEDs) and / or light boxes associated with the information elements El; see at least page 5, 4th paragraph).
Regarding claim 8, Laine et al. (figure 1) discloses wherein the light-emitting portion of the surface is an upper portion of the surface closest to the display (the lighting means ME may comprise light-emitting diodes (or LEDs) and / or light boxes associated with the information elements El; see at least page 5, 4th paragraph).
Regarding claim 9, Laine et al. (figure 1) discloses wherein an icon is formed when light is emitted from the light-emitting portion of the surface (this display screen EA can be responsible for displaying information relating to the operation of vehicle V (speed, engine speed, gearbox ratio engaged, oil temperature, for example), and / or to the operation of on-board equipment (heating / air conditioning installation, pollution control unit, indicators, headlights, cruise control or speed limiter, for example), and / or a navigation or multimedia or telephone application, and / or aids ( driving assistance); see at least page 4, 2nd paragraph).
Regarding claim 10, Laine et al. (figure 1) discloses wherein the icon is a warning icon (this display screen EA can be responsible for displaying information relating to the operation of vehicle V (speed, engine speed, gearbox ratio engaged, oil temperature, for example), and / or to the operation of on-board equipment (heating / air conditioning installation, pollution control unit, indicators, headlights, cruise control or speed limiter, for example), and / or a navigation or multimedia or telephone application, and / or aids ( driving assistance); see at least page 4, 2nd paragraph).
Regarding claim 11, Laine et al. (figure 1) discloses wherein light from the light-emitting portion of the surface appears at least twice as bright as the reflected image.
The limitation, “wherein light from the light-emitting portion of the surface appears at least twice as bright as the reflected image” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Laine et al. discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Regarding claim 12, Laine et al. (figure 1) discloses wherein a brightness of the display remains constant when light is emitted directly from the light-emitting portion of the surface.
The limitation, “wherein light from the light-emitting portion of the surface appears at least twice as bright as the reflected image” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Laine et al. discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Regarding claim 13, Laine et al. (figure 1) discloses wherein the display (EA) is a downward-facing display that displays the image in a direction toward a floor of the vehicle passenger cabin.
Regarding claim 15, Laine et al. (figure 1) discloses a vehicle instrument panel comprising the vehicle interior assembly of claim 1, wherein the reflected image includes at least one of: a speedometer, a tachometer, an odometer, a temperature gauge, a fuel gauge, a turn indicator, a headlight indicator, a compass, a navigation map, or a gear indicator (this display screen EA can be responsible for displaying information relating to the operation of vehicle V (speed, engine speed, gearbox ratio engaged, oil temperature, for example), and / or to the operation of on-board equipment (heating / air conditioning installation, pollution control unit, indicators, headlights, cruise control or speed limiter, for example), and / or a navigation or multimedia or telephone application, and / or aids ( driving assistance); see at least page 4, 2nd paragraph).
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, 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 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laine et al. (FR 3074925).
Regarding claim 5, Laine et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 2 above. However, Laine et al. is silent regarding wherein the panel is 50-75% transparent. Laine et al. (figure 1) discloses wherein the panel is 50-75% transparent (For example, the rear face FR of the opaque blade LO can comprise a black layer which is screen printed except in each portion of each chosen zone containing an element of information El. Also, for example, the front face FV of the opaque blade LO can be semi-reflective. In this case its reflection coefficient can, for example, be between 30% and 60%). Therefore, 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 panel as taught by Laine et al. in order to obtain a display of information on two slightly spaced planes and possibly with an overlapping effect, which makes it possible to prioritize or highlight certain information.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 14, Laine et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Laine et al. is silent regarding wherein the surface is oriented at a 10 to 80 degree angle with respect to the display. Laine et al. (figure 1) discloses wherein the surface is oriented at a 10 to 80 degree angle with respect to the display (the angle is between 30 ° and 60 °’ see at least claims 1-3). Therefore, 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 panel as taught by Laine et al. in order to obtain a display of information on two slightly spaced planes and possibly with an overlapping effect, which makes it possible to prioritize or highlight certain information.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1428. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 8:00 AM -6:00 PM.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LAUREN NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights