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 . Claims 1-15 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1, 5-12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benchikhi (US 2017/0162176) in view of Lai (US 2023/0341257) and Galan (US 2019/01351993). All reference is to Benchikhi unless otherwise indicated.
Regarding Claim 1 (Currently Amended), Benchikhi teaches a display device, comprising:
a display panel that displays an image [figs. 1 and 2 @7];
a cover [fig. 2 @23] located closer to a viewer than the display panel [fig. 2 @27] and having translucency [¶0070, “The optical film 23 is a translucent material, for example a plastic material. The first area 25 has a first light transmission rate, and the second area 27 has a second light transmission rate greater than the first light transmission rate”], the cover [fig. 2 @23] including a first surface located on the viewer’s side [fig. 2 @23 (top side)] and a second surface located opposite to the first surface [fig. 2 @23 (bottom side];[fig. 2 @31
a decorative layer [fig. 2 @12] that covers at least one of the first surface or the second surface [fig. 2 @23 (bottom)];
an illuminance sensor [fig. 2 @31] that is located on the second surface side [fig. 2 illustrates 31 located under bottom side of 23] and that detects illuminance of incident light [¶0095, “the interior equipment is equipped with a luminosity sensor 31. The latter measures the incident light intensity 1, at the external surface 5, and more specifically at the edge area 12”]
Benchikhi does not teach a light guide that includes a first incidence end, which is an end fixed to a cover, the light guide guiding light incident on the first incidence end to an illuminance sensor, wherein the decorative layer overlaps the display panel entirely when seen from a direction normal to the first surface
Lai teaches a light guide [fig. 2 @201] that includes a first incidence end [fig. 2 @201a], which is an end fixed [¶0028, “The optical filter 204 can be disposed outside the light incident surface 201a of the light guide element 201 by means of electroplating and adhesion”] to a cover [fig. 2 @15], the light guide guiding light incident on the first incidence end [fig. 2 @L] to an illuminance sensor [fig. 2 @202]
Before the application was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a light guide connected between a light sensor and the display surface, as taught by Lai into the display device taught by Benchikhi in order to enhance the light uniformity of the ambient light collected and avoid the light sensor misjudging the ambient light and generating unexpected actions (Lai: ¶0008)
Benchikhi in view of Lai does not teach the decorative layer overlaps the display panel entirely when seen from a direction normal to the first surface
Galan teaches a decorative layer [fig. 17J, ¶0098, “the cover comprises an at least partially translucent cover; illumination from the display at the exterior surface of the composite structure comprises visible light at least transmitted through the sensor and through the functional layer and through the at least partially translucent cover (e.g. configured as an decorative layer/exterior surface). See e.g. FIGS. 2B, 3F and 17J-17O”] overlaps [fig. 17J illustrates decorative layer overlapping entire display] a display panel [¶0098, “… the display may comprise at least one of (a) an array; (b) a grid; (c) a panel; (d) a display screen; (e) a flexible panel; (f) a lighting array; (g) a lighting device array; (h) a light-emitting device array; (i) a LED array; (j) a flexible LED array; (k) a flexible sheet. See e.g. FIGS. 20A-20H and 22A-22E”] entirely when seen from a direction normal to the first surface [¶0093, “According to an exemplary embodiment, the user interface may be configured so that output from the display may be presented at least partially through the exterior surface of the cover”]
Before the application was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of completely covering a display with a decorative trim layer, as taught by Galan into the display device taught by Benchikhi in view of Lai in order to display information using a decorative layer that allows the display to be aesthetically integrated in the vehicle interior.
Regarding Claim 5 (Currently Amended), Benchikhi in view of Lai and Galen teaches the display device according to Claim 1, wherein
the light guide [Lai: fig. 2 @201] includes a columnar portion that includes the first incidence end [Lai: fig. 2 @201a], and wherein
a direction in which the columnar portion extends [Lai: fig. 2 vertical] is parallel to the direction normal to the first surface [Lai: fig. 2 @vertical] [Lai: fig. 2 @11 (upper side)].
Regarding Claim 6 (Currently Amended), Benchikhi in view of Lai and Galen teaches the display device according to Claim 1, wherein
the light guide [Lai: fig. 6 @601N] includes a columnar portion that includes the first incidence end [Lai: fig. 6 @601k], and wherein
a direction in which the columnar portion extends intersects the direction normal to the first surface [Lai: fig. 6 illustrates claimed structure].
Regarding Claim 7 (Original), Benchikhi in view of Lai and Galen teaches the display device according to Claim 6, wherein
the light guide [fig. 5 @501] includes an emission surface [fig. 5 @501b] from which light is emitted toward the illuminance sensor [fig. 5 @202], and
wherein the emission surface is parallel to the first surface [fig. 5 @11 (upper side)].
Regarding Claim 8 (Original), Benchikhi in view of Lai and Galen teaches the display device according to Claim 1, wherein the light guide comprises:
a first columnar portion [Lai: fig. 6 @601M] that is a columnar portion including the first incidence end [Lai: fig. 6 @601a];
a second columnar portion [Lai: fig. 6 @601N] that is a columnar portion including a second incidence end [Lai: fig. 6 @601k], which is an end fixed to the cover [Lai: fig. 6 @15]; and
a third columnar portion [Lai: fig. 6 @601T] that is connected to the first columnar portion and the second columnar portion and that guides light [Lai: fig. 6 @L] that has been guided by each of the first columnar portion and the second columnar portion, to the illuminance sensor [fig. 6 @202], and
wherein a direction in which the first columnar portion extends intersects a direction in which the second columnar portion extends [fig. 6 illustrates claimed structure].
Regarding Claim 9 (Original), Benchikhi in view of Lai and Galen teaches the display device according to Claim 1, wherein
the decorative layer [fig. 2 @12] covers the first surface [fig. 2 illustrates claimed structure].
Regarding Claim 10 (Original), Benchikhi in view of Lai and Galen teaches the display device according to Claim 1, wherein
the decorative layer [fig. 2 @12 corresponds to Lai: fig. 2 @11] covers the entirety of the first incidence end [Lai: fig. 2 @201a].
Regarding Claim 11 (Currently Amended), Benchikhi in view of Lai and Galen teaches the display device according to Claim 8, wherein
a direction in which the first columnar portion [fig. 6 @601M] extends [fig. 6 @vertical] is parallel to the direction [fig. 6 @ vertical] normal to the first surface [fig. 6 @15].
Regarding Claim 12 (Currently Amended), Benchikhi in view of Lai and Galen teaches the display device according to Claim 8, wherein
each of directions in which the first columnar portion [fig. 8 @801O (horizontal)] and the second columnar portion [fig. 8 @801N (angle to fig. 8 @15)] respectively extend intersects the direction normal to the first surface [fig. 8 @vertical]
Regarding Claim 15 (Original), Benchikhi in view of Lai and Galen teaches the display device according to Claim 1, wherein,
when viewed from a viewer’s side [Lai: fig. 1], the light guide and the illuminance sensor [Lai: fig. 1 @200] are arranged next to the display panel [Lai: fig. 1 @12].
Claims 2-4 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benchikhi in view of Lai, Galen, and Holenarsipur (US 2019/0080668). All reference is to Benchikhi unless otherwise indicated.
Regarding Claim 2 (Original), Benchikhi in view of Lai and Galen teaches the display device according to Claim 1, further comprising
Benchikhi in view of Lai and Galen does not teach an adhesive layer that bonds the first incidence end and the cover
Holenarsipur teaches an adhesive layer [fig. 9 @84] that bonds the first incidence end [fig. 9 @upper portion of 39T] and the cover [fig. 9 @78]
Before the application was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the use of a transparent adhesive to fasten the light guide to the display cover, as taught by Holenarsipur, into the display apparatus taught by Benchikhi in view of Lai and Galen, in order to attach the light guide directly to the display cover without reducing the amount of ambient light passing into the light guide.
Regarding Claim 3 (Original), Benchikhi in view of Lai and Galen teaches the display device according to Claim 1
Benchikhi in view of Lai and Galen does not teach the light guide is formed of the same material as the cover
Holenarsipur teaches a light guide [¶0059, “Core 134 and cladding 136 may be formed from glass, polymer, sapphire or other transparent crystalline material, or other transparent material”] is formed of the same material as a cover [¶0036, “Display 14 may be protected using a display cover layer such as a layer of transparent glass, clear plastic, sapphire, or other clear layer”]
Before the application was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the light guide and display cover from the same material, as taught by Holenarsipur, into the display apparatus taught by Benchikhi in view of Lai and Galan, in order to use transparent materials with good optical qualities and make it easier to match each component index of refraction index thereby maximize the optical coupling between the light guide and the display cover.
Regarding Claim 4 (Original), Benchikhi in view of Lai and Galen teaches the display device according to Claim 1
Benchikhi in view of Lai and Galen does not teach the light guide is formed integrally with the cover
Holenarsipur teaches a light guide [¶0059, “Core 134 and cladding 136 may be formed from glass, polymer, sapphire or other transparent crystalline material, or other transparent material”] is formed of the same material as a cover [¶0036, “Display 14 may be protected using a display cover layer such as a layer of transparent glass, clear plastic, sapphire, or other clear layer”]
Before the application was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the light guide and display cover from the same material, as taught by Holenarsipur, into the display apparatus taught by Benchikhi in view of Lai and Galen, in order to use transparent materials with good optical qualities and make it easier to match each component index of refraction index thereby maximize the optical coupling between the light guide and the display cover
Benchikhi in view of Lai, Galen, and Holenarsipur does not teach forming the light guide and the cover as a single structure
Before the application was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to manufacture a light guide and a cover, made of the same material, as a single integrated structure in order to eliminate manufacturing defects that affect the amount or quality of ambient light reaching the electronic sensor, thereby improving the accuracy of the measured ambient light.
Regarding Claim 13 (Original), Benchikhi in view of Lai, Galen, and Holenarsipur teaches the display device according to Claim 2, wherein
the adhesive layer [fig. @84] has translucency [¶0049, “Clear adhesive such as a layer of pressure sensitive adhesive 84 may be used”].
Regarding Claim 14 (Original), Benchikhi in view of Lai, Galen, and Holenarsipur teaches the display device according to Claim 2, wherein
the decorative layer [fig. 2 @12] covers the second surface [fig. 2 @23 lower side], and wherein
the first incidence end [Lai: fig. 3 @301a] is fixed to the cover [Lai: fig. 3 @11] via the adhesive layer [Holenarsipur: fig. 9 @84] and the decorative layer [fig. 2 @12, 84 and 12 are construed as layers between the first incidence end (Lai: 301a) and the lower side of cover (Lai: fig. 3 @15].
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 Douglas Wilson whose telephone number is (571)272-5640. The examiner can normally be reached 1000-1700 EST. 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, Patrick Edouard can be reached at 571-272-7603. 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.
/Douglas Wilson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622
Prosecution Insights