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 1-8, and 9-20 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.
The phrase “internal reflectance” recited in claims 1 and 9 is confusing and indefinite since it is not clear what considered to be “internal reflectance”. It is not clear if this referred to the reflectance of light from the surface of the display or it is referred to some kind of “internal reflection” of the light reflected at the interface of the display surface and surrounding medium. An internal reflection as understood in the art is referred to light from the display (or an object) reflected back toward the display as it is reflected by the interface of the display (or object) with the surrounding medium. For the purpose of examination, this phrase is being interpreted as the reflection of an ambient light from the surface of the display, however proper correction and clarification are required.
The expression “CS
≈
RN+RI/|RD-RI|” recited in claim 9 is confusing and indefinite since it is not which surface of the substrate is referred here as “the second major surface”.
Claims 2-8 and 10-20 inherit the rejection from their respective based claim.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication by Krier et al (US 2017/0057356 A1) in view of the US patent application publication by Weindorf et al (US 2019/0331959 A1).
Krier et al, teaches with regard to claim 1, an article comprises an instrument cluster (200, Figures 2-4, 11C), serves as the dead front, that is comprised of a neutral density filter (260) and black printed ends or solid inked ends (253 and 254, please see paragraphs [0042], [0047]) serves as an ink layer disposed on the neutral density filter and a display (210) disposed on the dead front wherein the ink layer (253 and 254) defines a non-display region and a display region that is absence of the ink layer, (please see Figures 2-4 and 11C).
Krier et al teaches that the ink layer comprises black printed ends (please see paragraphs [0042] and [0047]) which implicitly means the reflection coefficient is less than 5% since black print implicitly absorb the incident light. It is implicitly true or obvious to one skilled in the art that the black print may be made to have a reflectance not exactly equal to zero and be greater than 0.1%. This means the non-display region having the black printed ends or layers would be made to have a visible transmittance of less than 5% since the black print has a reflectance coefficient that is less than 5%.
Krier et al teaches that the display may have an anti-reflection film (220, Figures 2-3) which means the reflectance of the display may be made to be less than 5% and greater than 0.1% since typical anti-reflection film may be designed to have reflectance less than 5% and greater than 0.1% for the benefit of reducing the reflection from the surface of the display.
The ink layer is configured to diminish a visual effect caused by the reflectance of the display when the display is off via the reflection coefficient.
This reference has met all the limitations of the claims. It however does not teach explicitly that the dead front has a substrate wherein the neutral density filter is disposed on the substrate.
Weindorf et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a dimmable lens (106, Figure Figures 1 and 3) that has a neutral density filter (160, Figures 1, 3 and 5) and an opaque print (130) that defines a display region with a display (104) and a non-display region. Weindorf et al teaches that the neutral density filter and the opaque print are disposed with a cover layer (120, Figures 1 and 3). It would then have been obvious to apply the teachings of Weindorf et al to include a cover layer that serves as a substrate to support the neutral density and the ink layer. Such modification would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art for the benefit of providing support for the dead front with the neutral density and the ink layer.
With regard to claim 2, Krier et al teaches that a contrast sensitivity between the non-display region and the display region is a function (please see Figure 7) of the spatial frequency of the fade pattern of the printed ends (253, Figure 5). As shown in Figure 7, for spatial frequency to be zero which means the printed ends are solid black printed ends, the contrast sensitivity is about 30 which is greater than or at least 15.
Weindorf et al teaches that the contrast ratio between the opaque print (130) and the display aperture areas may be calculated by equation (2), (Paragraph [0069]) in light of Figure 4. Weindorf et al teaches that the contrast ratio may assume value 1.02, (please see paragraph [0077]), which means the contrast sensitivity may have a value of 50. Weindorf et al also teaches a smooth glossy surface generally provides a seamless dead front look because light from the sides may be secularly reflected to the eye and only light from the surface is reflected back to the user when viewed perpendicularly, (please see paragraph [0074]). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Weindorf et al to modify and design the contrast ratio for the benefit of allowing the seamless cluster to achieve optimized dead front effect. Furthermore, since both Krier et al and Weindorf et al teach seamless dead front effect, which means the minimum contrast may be observed is essential zero and the contrast sensitivity must be greater than 15.
With regard to claim 7, Krier et al teaches that the ink layer comprise black print solid ends, (please see paragraphs [0042] and [0047]) which means the reflection ecoefficiency to be close to zero for black print would absorb the incident light. Krier et al also teach that the ink layer may comprise pattern (as shown in Figure 5) which means one skilled in the art may design it to have a reflectance coefficient to be in the range of 1% to 4% at the interface between the neutral density and the ink layer. It is implicitly true that the ink layer may reflect light incident on the interface through major surface of the substrate (in light of Weindorf et al).
Claim(s) 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krier et al and Weindorf et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of the US patent issued to Namazue et al (PN. 7,016,129).
The instrument cluster serves as the dead front, taught by Krier et al in combination with the teachings of Weindorf et al as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claims 3-5, Krier et al teaches that the neutral density filter is a film comprises dye, (please see page 4, column 1 lines 7-8) but it does not teach explicitly that the neutral density filter transmits up to 80% or at least 60% of the light in the visible spectrum and it also does not teach explicitly that the neutral density comprise one or more polyester layers.
Namazue et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a neutral density filter that comprises a film wherein the film comprises one or more polyester layers and at least one dye or pigment, (please see column 1, lines 57-63, column 3, lines 60-67). Namazue et al also teaches that the neutral density filter has a transmittance in the visible range, (please see column 8, lines 17-20). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Namazue et al to modify the neutral density filter to be made by polyester film with dye. Although this reference does not teach explicitly that the transmittance in the visible range is between 60% to 80%, however since the neutral density filter is to attenuate the visible light such modification would have been obvious to one skilled in the art for the benefit of making the filter to properly attenuate the light as desired.
With regard to claim 6, Namazue et al teaches that the neutral density filter may comprise a colored ink coating (112) that may include black color material, (please see column 8, lines 12-15). Although this reference does not teach explicitly that the ink coating has an L* of from 50 to 90 according to the CIE L*a*b* color space, such feature is either implicitly met or may be modified for the benefit of allowing the neutral density filter to have desired color feature.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krier et al and Weindorf et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of the US patent application publication by Wu et al (US 2019/0018514 A1).
The instrument cluster serves as the dead front, taught by Krier et al in combination with the teachings of Weindorf et al as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claim 8, these references do not teach explicitly that the dead front does not alter a perceived hue of the light transmitted through the dead front such that the light transmitted through the dead front exhibits a DE value that is less than 10 when compared to the light prior being transmitted through the dead front.
Wu et al in the same field of endeavor teaches that for a display a color difference DE value between the touch (or display region) region and the border region (or non-display region) in CIELAB color model may be smaller than 1 in the dark state of the display mode, (please see paragraph [0005]). This means if the dead front that has both the display region and the non-display region is capable of being made to have a color difference DE for the light transmitted through the both region to be about 1 or less than 10, the dead front would not alter a perceived hue of the light transmitted through the dead front. It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Wu et al to make the dead front to have a color difference DE value less than 10 for the benefit of preserving the perceived hue of the dead front.
Claim(s) 9, 13, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the US patent application publication by Krier et al (US 2017/0057356 A1) in view of the US patent application publication by Weindorf et al (US 2019/0331959 A1) and US patent application publication by Wu et al (US 2019/0018514 A1) .
Krier et al teaches, with regard to claim 9, a seamless instrument cluster (200, Figures 2, 3 and 11C) that includes a component serves as the dead front to hide a display (210), wherein the component is comprised of a neutral density filter (260, Figure 2), serves as the film or ink configured to reduce an intensity of light transmitted through the dead front and an ink layer (252/253 and 254) disposed on the neutral density filter or the film wherein the ink layer defines at least one display region (i.e. the opening portion defined by the ink layers 252/253 and 254) in which the component transmits incident light and at least one non-display region (252/253 and 254 being black printed areas, please see paragraph [0047]) in which the component transmits at most 5% of incident light (it is implicitly true that black region would have near zero transmittance).
This reference has met all the limitations. It however does not teach explicitly that the transmission of the incident light in the at least one display region of the component is at least 60%. But since Krier et al teaches that at least one display region is designed for the image light from the display to be transmitted to the viewer, (please see Figures 3 and 4) it is therefore either implicitly true or obvious modification to one skilled in the art to make the transmission of light in the at least one display region to be at least 60% in order for the incident light to be transmitted through.
This reference has met all the limitations of the claims. It however does not teach explicitly to further include a glass or plastic substrate having a first major surface and a second major surface opposite the first major surface.
Weindorf et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a dimmable lens (106, Figure Figures 1 and 3) that has a neutral density filter (160, Figures 1, 3 and 5) and an opaque print (130) that defines a display region with a display (104) and a non-display region. Weindorf et al teaches that the neutral density filter and the opaque print are disposed with a cover layer (120, Figures 1 and 3) that may be a plastic layer or glass layer, (please see paragraph [0052]). The cover layer has a first and second major surface that opposite to each other. It would then have been obvious to apply the teachings of Weindorf et al to include a cover layer that serves as a substrate to support the neutral density and the ink layer. Such modification would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art for the benefit of providing support for the dead front with the neutral density and the ink layer.
Krier et al teaches that a contrast sensitivity between the non-display region and the display region is a function (please see Figure 7) of the spatial frequency of the fade pattern of the printed ends (253, Figure 5). As shown in Figure 7, for spatial frequency to be zero which means the printed ends are solid black printed ends, the contrast sensitivity is about 30 which is greater than or at least 15.
Weindorf et al teaches that the contrast ratio between the opaque print (130) and the display aperture areas may be calculated by equation (2), (Paragraph [0069]) in light of Figure 4. Weindorf et al teaches that the contrast ratio may assume value 1.02, (please see paragraph [0077]), which means the contrast sensitivity may have a value of 50. Weindorf et al also teaches a smooth glossy surface generally provides a seamless dead front look because light from the sides may be secularly reflected to the eye and only light from the surface is reflected back to the user when viewed perpendicularly, (please see paragraph [0074]). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Weindorf et al to modify and design the contrast ratio for the benefit of allowing the seamless cluster to achieve optimized dead front effect. Furthermore, since both Krier et al and Weindorf et al teach seamless dead front effect, which means the minimum contrast may be observed is essential zero and the contrast sensitivity must be greater than 15.
It is implicitly true that the light reflected off the major surface of the substrate, reflected off the ink layer and reflected off the display surface may be defined.
These references however do not teach explicitly that the film or ink coat (or the neutral density filter) reduces the intensity of the light transmitted through the dead front without altering a perceived hue of the light transmitted through the dead front.
Wu et al in the same field of endeavor teaches that for a display a color difference DE value between the touch (or display region) region and the border region (or non-display region) in CIELAB color model may be smaller than 1 in the dark state of the display mode, (please see paragraph [0005]). This means if the dead front that has both the display region and the non-display region is capable of being made to have a color difference DE for the light transmitted through the both region to be about 1 or less than 10, the dead front would not alter a perceived hue of the light transmitted through the dead front. It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Wu et al to make the dead front to have a color difference DE value less than 10 for the benefit of preserving the perceived hue of the dead front.
With regard to claim 13, Krier et al teaches that the film or ink is a neutral density filter (260, Figures 2 and 3, paragraph [0044]).
With regard to claim 18, Krier et al teaches to include an anti-reflective coating (220, Figures 2 and 3) on the display surface which means the reflectance for the display should be less than 4% for a typical anti-reflective coating. Krier et al teaches that the printed black ends or layer is a black print which means the reflectance of the ink layer or printed black ends should be close to 0% or may be made to be in the range of 0.1% and 5% as desired.
With regard to claim 19, Wu et al teaches that the color difference DE could be about 1, (please see paragraph [0005]).
With regard to claim 20, both Krier et al and the Weindorf et al the contrast sensitivity could be greater than 20, (please see Figure 7 for Kreier et al, it could be 50 for Weindorf et al).
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krier et al, Weindorf et al and Wu et al as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of US patent application publication by Faik et al (US 2018/0111569 A1).
The seamless instrument cluster that includes a component serves as the dead front taught by Krier et al in combination with the teachings of Weindorf et al and Wu et al as described in claim 9 above has met all the limitations of claims.
With regard to claims 10-12, these references do not teach explicitly that the substrate may comprise the claimed materials.
Faik et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a cover layer supports an ink layer wherein the cover layer comprises a substrate layer (6, Figure 1b or 8, Figure 2b) wherein the substrate layer may comprise either plastic such as PMMA (polymethylmcthacrylatc) or glass such as Soda Lime Glass, (please see paragraphs [0036] and [0039], which implicitly has a 70% transmittance of the incident light in the visible spectrum.
It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Fail et al to modify the Krier et al in light of Weindorf et al for the benefit of using art well-known substrate materials to serve as the substrate.
Claim(s) 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krier et al, Weindorf et al and Wu et al as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of US patent issued to Namazue et al (PN 7,016,129).
The seamless instrument cluster that includes a component serves as the dead front taught by Krier et al in combination with the teachings of Weindorf et al and Wu et al as described in claim 9 above has met all the limitations of claims.
With regard to claims 14-16, Krier et al does not teach explicitly about the neutral density filter alternatively comprises an ink coating. Namazue et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a neutral density filter that may comprise a colored ink coating (112) that may include black color material, (please see column 8, lines 12-15). Although this reference does not teach explicitly that the ink coating has an L* of from 50 to 90 according to the CIE L*a*b* color space, such feature is either implicitly met or may be modified for the benefit of allowing the neutral density filter to have desired color feature. It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Namazue et al to make the neutral density filter alternatively comprises an ink coating to provide desired black color for the benefit of allowing the neutral density filter to have desired color feature.
With regard to claim 17, Namazue et al teaches that the neutral density filter has a transmittance in the visible range, (please see column 8, lines 17-20). Although this reference does not teach explicitly that the transmittance in the visible range is between 60% to 80%, however since the neutral density filter is to attenuate the visible light such modification would have been obvious to one skilled in the art for the benefit of making the filter to properly attenuate the light as desired.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,235,477. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both disclose a dead front that is comprised of a substrate, a neutral density filter and an ink layer that defines a non-display region and a display region, and a contrast sensitivity between the display region and the non-display region is at least 15.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUDREY Y CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2309. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 900AM-430PM.
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, Stephone B Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
AUDREY Y. CHANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/AUDREY Y CHANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights