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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 28, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1 and 3-11 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
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matthews (U.S. Patent 4,272,901 A).
With regards to Claim 1, Matthews discloses an electronic apparatus [Figures 1-3] including:
An exterior body (18) having, on a front side, a display [e.g., area of (30, 32, 34, 36)] that shows at least one of a character, a symbol, or a figure [note Figures 1-3]; and
A light-emitting device (40, 42, 44, 46) that is provided inside the exterior body at a position facing the display and that is configured to emit light to an outside through the exterior body [note Figures 1-3],
Wherein a difference in transmittance of the light emitted from the light-emitting device is generated between a region corresponding to the display and a region on a periphery in the exterior body [note Figures 1-3], and
Wherein transmission of the light in the region corresponding to the display is suppressed by a transmission suppression layer (30-36) formed on a surface of the exterior body [note Figures 1-3], and
Wherein the transmission suppression layer has a shape in which at least one of the character, the symbol, or the figure shown by the display is inverted [note Figures 1-3].
Matthews does not specifically teach the transmission suppression layer being formed on an inner surface of the exterior body.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have rearranged the transmission suppression layer of Matthews to be formed on an inner surface of the exterior body, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70 [MPEP 2114.04]. In this case, the transmission suppression layer on the inner surface would facilitate cleaning and improve durability from wear-and-tear due to environmental factors if on an outer/outside surface.
With regards to Claim 3, Matthews discloses the transmission suppression layer (30-36) being formed by printing.1
With regards to Claim 4, Matthews discloses the transmission suppression layer (30-36) being formed by attaching an attachment member [note Column 2, Lines 43-46].1
With regards to Claim 5, Matthews discloses the transmission suppression layer (30-36) contains a material having a lower light transmittance than the periphery, wherein the material being a coating material that absorbs light having a wavelength in a visible light range [note Column 2, Lines 43-49].
With regards to Claim 6, Matthews discloses the display [e.g., area of (30, 32, 34, 36)] shows at least one of the character, the symbol, or the figure by using a difference in a three-dimensional shape (30-36) from the periphery on the front surface [note Figures 1-3].
With regards to Claim 7, Matthews discloses the claimed invention as modified and cited above. In addition, Matthews teaches the three-dimensional shape (30-36) being a shape that protrudes to an outer side of the exterior body rather than the periphery [note Figures 1-3].
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matthews (U.S. Patent 4,272,901 A) as applied to Claim 6 above, and further in view of Takii et al. (U.S. Patent 5,036,440).
With regards to Claim 8, Matthews discloses the claimed invention as modified and cited above, but does not specifically teach a coating film being formed on an outer side of the exterior body, and a thickness of the coating film in a transmission portion through which the light from the light-emitting device is transmitted is set to be less than a thickness of the coating film in another region.
Takii discloses a coating film (15) formed on an outer side of an exterior body (11), and a thickness of the coating film in a transmission portion (16) through which the light from a light-emitting device (17) is transmitted is set to be less than a thickness of the coating film in another region [note Figure 1].
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electronic apparatus of Matthews to have incorporated the coating film of Takii, such that a thickness of the coating film in a transmission portion through which the light from the light-emitting device is transmitted is set to be less than a thickness of the coating film in another region. Such an obvious modification would provide a low-cost and effective transmissivity as desired.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matthews (U.S. Patent 4,272,901 A) as applied to Claim 6 above, and further in view of Oh (U.S. Publication 2014/0133128 A1).
With regards to Claim 9, Matthews discloses the claimed invention as modified and cited above, but does not specifically teach a stripe pattern consisting of periodic recessed and protruding portions being formed on the front surface of the exterior body, and the difference in the three-dimensional shape being a difference in height of the protruding portion of the stripe pattern.
Oh teaches a stripe pattern (620, 630, 640) consisting of periodic recessed and protruding portions being formed on a front surface of an exterior body, and the difference in the three-dimensional shape being a difference in a height of the protruding portion of the stripe pattern [note Figures 1-3].
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electronic apparatus of Matthews to have incorporated the stripe pattern consisting of periodic recessed and protruding portions being formed on the front surface of the exterior body, and the difference in the three-dimensional shape being a difference in height of the protruding portion of the stripe pattern, as taught in principle by Oh, since such a configuration is considered functionally equivalent in producing the desired illumination/character/display effect, and whereby the stripe pattern with difference in the three-dimensional shape being a difference in height of the protruding portion of the stripe pattern may provide a greater contrast as desired.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matthews (U.S. Patent 4,272,901 A).
With regards to Claim 10, Matthews discloses the claimed invention as cited above, but does not specifically the electronic apparatus having a printer function, and the light-emitting device is provided at a position facing the display formed on a surface of the exterior body opposite to a side on which a film containing a photosensitive material is accommodated.
However, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electronic apparatus of Matthews to have incorporated into a printer with a printer function, and the light-emitting device is provided at a position facing the display formed on a surface of the exterior body opposite to a side on which a film containing a photosensitive material is accommodated. Such an obvious modification of electronic devices, whether sign or phone or printer, is an obvious matter of application. In this case, it is considered obvious that one could incorporate the display functionality within a printer such that the light-emitting device is provided at a position facing the display formed on a surface of the exterior body opposite to a side on which a film containing a photosensitive material is accommodated. It has also been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matthews (U.S. Patent 4,272,901 A).
With regards to Claim 11, Matthews discloses a method of manufacturing an electronic apparatus [Figures 1-3] including:
Preparing an exterior body (18) having, on a front surface, a display [e.g., area of (30, 32, 34, 36)] that shows at least one of a character, a symbol, or a figure [note Figures 1-3]; the exterior body emitting light from a light-emitting device (40, 42, 44, 46) that is provided inside the exterior body at a position facing the display to an outside through the exterior body [note Figures 1-3],
Performing processing of generating a difference in transmittance of the light emitted from the light-emitting device is generated between a region corresponding to the display and a region on a periphery in the exterior body [notes Figures 1-3], and
Suppressing transmission of the light in the region corresponding to the display by a transmission suppression layer (30-36) formed on a surface of the exterior body [note Figures 1-3], and
Wherein the transmission suppression layer has a shape in which at least one of the character, the symbol, or the figure shown by the display is inverted [note Figures 1-3].
Matthews does not specifically teach the transmission suppression layer being formed on an inner surface of the exterior body.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have rearranged the transmission suppression layer of Matthews to be formed on an inner surface of the exterior body, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70 [MPEP 2114.04]. In this case, the transmission suppression layer on the inner surface would facilitate cleaning and improve durability from wear-and-tear due to environmental factors if on an outer/outside surface.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON M HAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2207. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST 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, Abdulmajeed Aziz can be reached at 571-270-5046. 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.
Thursday, August 27, 2026
/Jason M Han/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
1 “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). [see MPEP 2113]
Prosecution Insights