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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/12/2025 is considered by the examiner.
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 4 and 8 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.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation reciting “wherein the light reflective colored particles absorb any light having a wavelength in the visible spectrum other than the specific wavelength without transmitting the light” is indefinite. Claim 1 requires that the light reflective colored particles reflect light having a specific wavelength in a visible spectrum and absorb light having wavelengths other than the specific wavelength in the visible spectrum. Claim 4 then recites that the light reflective colored particles “absorb any light having a wavelength in the visible spectrum other than the specific wavelength without transmitting the light”, however, claim 1 already requires that all other wavelengths of light in the visible spectrum that are not the specific wavelength are absorbed. It is not clear what further structure is recited or required by the limitations of claim 4 that is not already recited by claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the phrase “the black colored material” in line 5 of the claim. A black colored material has not been previously recited or required by claim 6 or 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 13, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takeyasu et al. (JP 2012-088683, machine translation provided via EPO).
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Takeyasu et al. teaches a display device comprising a display front panel (40; display panel) and a design layer (10) disposed on a viewer side of the display front panel (40; display pane) and a display unit (50) comprising a backlight disposed on the opposite side of the display front panel (40; display panel) as shown as least by Figures 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 (Figure 19, 20; [0001-0002, 0012-0018, 0030-0038, 0040-0044, 0053-0054, 0072-0077, 0091, 0108-0113, 0127-0131, 0154, 0171, 0172]). Takeyasu et al. teaches that the design layer (10) is comprised of an ink or paint with a binder resin, colorant (light reflective colored particles) and other additives as appropriate ([0043-0044, 0053-0054]).
With respect to the limitation requiring that the light reflective colored particle reflect light having a specific wavelength in a visible spectrum while absorbing light having a wavelength other than the specific wavelength in the visible spectrum, such a feature would be inherent to any color of the colorant. For example, when the colorant is red, wavelengths pertaining to red would be reflected and all other wavelengths would be absorbed. Therefore, the visible color of the colorant would correlate to the color reflected by the colorant and the other wavelength corresponding to other colors would be absorbed by the colorant.
The limitation reciting “in a reflective display state in which the backlight is turned off, the display device reflects external light to the viewer side and allows a viewer to observe a pattern of the design part, and in a display state in which the backlight is turned on, the display device displays an image of the display panel without allowing the viewer to perceive a complementary color of a color perceived by the viewer in the reflective display state” is considered functional language related to the intended use of and the process of using the product and is accorded limited weight as the language does not further limit the structure or the process. The method of using the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. See MPEP § 2113. Furthermore, there does not appear to be a difference between the prior art structure and the structure resulting from the claimed method because Takeyasu et al. discloses the structure of claim 1 as described above, and therefore would be capable of performing in the same manner.
Additionally, Takeyasu et al. teaches that because the design layer (10) is formed from ink, reflection of ambient light is unlikely to occur and even if ambient light is reflected by the design layer, it does not adversely affect the display characteristics of the display device, allowing the display device to maintain the display characteristics originally intended ([0054]).
Regarding claim 13, Takeyasu et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, and as shown at least by Figures 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, there is no air layer between the display front panel (40; display panel) and the design layer (10), as the design layer (10) is shown to be directly on the upper surface of the display front panel (40; display panel)(Figure 19, 20; [0001-0002, 0012-0018, 0030-0038, 0040-0044, 0053-0054, 0072-0077, 0091, 0108-0113, 0127-0131, 0154, 0171, 0172]).
Regarding claim 14, Takeyasu et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches a transparent substrate (20; transparent base material) disposed in front of the viewer side of the front panel display (40; display panel); wherein the design layer (10) is on a viewer side of the transparent base material (see Figures 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, [0001-0002, 0012-0018, 0030-0038, 0040-0044, 0053-0054, 0072-0077, 0091, 0108-0113, 0127-0131, 0154, 0171, 0172]).
Regarding claim 15, Takeyasu et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches that the display panel is a liquid crystal display panel as shown by Figures 19 and 20 ([0126-0131]).
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.
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 3, 6, 9, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeyasu et al. (JP 2012-088683, machine translation provided via EPO).
Regarding claim 3, Takeyasu et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above and while the reference does not expressly reach that the colorants (light reflective colored particles) include colorants (light reflective colored particles) of more than one color that include pigments of coating with different colors, such a modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as an obvious matter of design choice based upon the desired visual features of the design layer (10) for the overall display device.
Regarding claim 6, Takeyasu et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches that the design part includes a region containing the colorant (light reflective colored particles) and a region not containing the light reflective color particles (i.e. where there is no design layer present), as shown in Figures 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 (Figure 19, 20; [0001-0002, 0012-0018, 0030-0038, 0040-0044, 0053-0054, 0072-0077, 0091, 0108-0113, 0127-0131, 0154, 0171, 0172]).
While the reference does not expressly teach that a ratio between the region of the design layer containing the colorant (light reflective colored particles) and the region not containing the colorant (light reflective colored particles is changed to express color shades, such a modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as an obvious matter of design choice based upon the desired design layer formed on the overall display device, and the desired visual effects.
Regarding claim 9, Takeyasu et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. While the reference does not expressly teach that the design part (10) includes light reflective colored particles of different colors stacked on top of one another with in the binder resin in a thickness direction, such a modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as an obvious matter of design choice based upon the desired visual effects of the design layer in the overall display device. Takeyasu et al. teaches that the ink can comprise colorant and other additives ([0040-0044]), wherein it would be reasonable to one of ordinary skill in the art that the other additives could be additional colorants.
Regarding claim 11, Takeyasu et al. in view of Morimitsu et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. While the reference does not expressly teach that the design part (10) includes light reflective colored particles that are white colored particles, such a modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as an obvious matter of design choice based upon the desired visual effects of the design layer in the overall display device.
Regarding claim 12, Takeyasu et al. in view of Morimitsu et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. While the reference does not expressly teach that the design part (10) is divided in an in-plane direction into regions containing light reflective colored particles of different colors, such a modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as an obvious matter of design choice based upon the desired visual effects of the design layer in the overall display device.
Claims 2, 5, 7, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeyasu et al. (JP 2021-088683, machine translation provided via EPO) in view of Morimitsu et al. (US 2009/0017082, cited on IDS).
Regarding claim 2, Takeyasu et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, and while the reference teaches that the design layer (10) is comprised of a colorant (light reflective colored particle) and a binder resin ([0043-0044, 0053-0054]), the reference does not expressly teach that the colorant includes a piece of metal coated with a pigment.
Morimitsu et al. teaches colored metallic pigments that can develop a variety of colors and varied interference colors while maintaining good lightfastness, weather fastness and hiding powers (Abstract; [0047-0090]). Morimitsu et al. teaches a multicolored metallic pigment comprising coatings of amorphous silicon oxide, metal layers and metallic particles (pigment) to form the desired colorations ([0047-0090]).
As both Takeyasu et al. and Morimitsu et al. are in the field of decorative finishes, 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 colorant of the design layer (10) taught by Takeyasu et al. to include the multicolored metallic pigments taught by Morimitsu et al. to provide a variety of colors and varied interference colors while maintaining good lightfastness, weather fastness and hiding powers.
Regarding claim 5, Takeyasu et al. in view of Morimitsu et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, and Morimitsu et al. further teaches that the average particle diameter of the metallic particles is not more than 50nm, which falls within the claimed range of 30mm or smaller.
Regarding claim 7, Takeyasu et al. in view of Morimitsu et al. teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 5 above, and Takeyasu et al. further teaches in a couple examples that the design part can comprise black ink ([0176]). The reference does not expressly teach that the design part includes a region containing black colored material and a region not containing black colored material, wherein the proportion of the region containing the black colored material is low in a region in which a proportion of the light reflective colored particles is high, and a proportion of the region containing black colored material is high in a region in which the proportion of the light reflective colored particles is low. Such a modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as an obvious matter of design choice based upon the desired design and visual effects of the design layer on the resultant display device.
Regarding claim 8, Takeyasu et al. in view of Morimitsu et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and 6 above. Takeyasu et al. further teaches in a couple examples that the design part can comprise black ink ([0176]) and as previously stated, Morimitsu et al. teaches a multicolored metallic pigment ([0047-0090]).
The references do not expressly teach that the black colored material includes black colored particles each including a piece of metal coated with a black pigment, nor that a different in concentration between a colorant (light reflective color particles) and the black colored particles in the binder resin is 5% by mass or less.
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 colorant (light reflective color particles) taught by Takeyasu et al. in view of Morimitsu et al. to include black colored particles and have variable differences in concentration between two types of color particles to achieve the desired visual effects for the design layer (10) of the resultant display device.
Regarding claim 10, Takeyasu et al. in view of Morimitsu et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and 8 above. While the references do not expressly teach that the colorants (light reflective colored particles) include light reflective red colored particles, light reflective green colored particles and light reflective blue colored particles, such a modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in light of the desired coloration of the design layer (10) of the resultant display device to convey the desired visual effects.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kawada et al. (JP 2008-197519A, Machine Translation via EPO provided) teaches a display device comprising a display, electric field reaction layer and a back light (see Figure 1,2, 5 [0001-0008, 0013-0030, 0037-0043]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA POWERS whose telephone number is (571)270-5624. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 10:00AM-3:00PM.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 571-272-1291. 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.
LAURA POWERS
Examiner
Art Unit 1785
/LAURA C POWERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights