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.
Claim 5 is 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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation " the light-transmissive substrate" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purposes of examination, the Examiner has assumed, based on the instant specification and drawings, that the claim is intended to recite – a light-transmissive substrate --
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (US 2004/0032797 hereinafter refer as “Sato”) in view of PILES et al. (US 2023/0082216 hereinafter refer as “PILES”).
Regarding claim 1. Sato discloses a decorative panel (e.g. 30, see Fig. 5, Para. 0083), comprising a light-transmissive substrate (31, see Fig. 5, Para. 0083) configured to visually express a three-dimensional pattern created by an uneven surface (i.e., plurality of projection ribs 31a and grooves 31b, see Fig. 5, Para. 0083) of the light-transmissive substrate; and a semi-transmissive layer (transmissive decoration color film 33, see Fig. 5, Para. 0083) configured to be disposed on a back side of the light-transmissive substrate (31) and having a contour corresponding to the uneven surface of the light-transmissive substrate.
However, Sato is silent with respect to a transparent resin layer such that the light-transmissive substrate is configured to be disposed on a back side of the transparent resin layer.
Sato further discloses a third embodiment of a panel that includes a transparent resin layer (54, see Fig. 8, see Para. 0093 and 0095) in order to protect a second pattern (51d) of a light-transmissive substrate (51, see Fig. 8, Para. 0093) that is configured to be disposed on a back side of the transparent resin layer and configured to visually express a three-dimensional pattern created by an uneven surface (plurality of projection ribs 51a and grooves 51b, see Fig. 8, Para. 0093) of the light-transmissive substrate.
PILES teaches a decorative panel (204, see Fig. 2D, Para. 0022), comprising: a light-transmissive layer (topcoat 228, see Fig. 2D); a second base coat primer layer (218) that includes an uneven surface; and a semi-transmissive layer (translucent metallic-looking layer 224, see Fig. 2A, Para. 0019 and 0022) configured to be disposed on a back side of the light-transmissive layer (see Fig. 2B) and having a contour corresponding to the uneven surface of the light-transmissive substrate.
Therefore, in view of Sato’s third embodiment and PILES, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sato by including a transparent resin layer in order to protect the top surface of the light-transmissive substrate. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to provide the predictable benefits of controlling light transmission through the top layer, improving the visual appearance and visibility of the decorative pattern, and perming light to selectively pass through the decorative structure to enhance the three dimensional appearance thereof.
Regarding claim 2. Sato further discloses a light-shielding layer (i.e., a nontransmissive white film 32, see Fig. 5, Para. 0083) configured to be disposed on a back side of the semi-transmissive layer (color film 33, see Fig. 5, Para. 0083), having a contour corresponding to the uneven surface of the light-transmissive substrate and a transmissive portion (31a1, see Figs. 5 and 7, Para. 0084-0085 and 0089).
However, Sato is silent with respect as to whether the transmissive portion is positioned along an outer frame of a graphic symbol or a display area of a display.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Sato’s transmissive portion to be positioned along an outer frame of a graphic symbol or a display area of a display, such an arrangement would have been a predictable application of Sato’s discloses transmissive portion to a particular portion of a graphic symbol or a display area of a display, depending on the requirement of a given application, since it has been held by the courts that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, positioning Sato’s transmissive portion along the outer frame of a graphic symbol or a display area of a display would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application.
Regarding claim 3. Sato further discloses a light source (i.e., a back light such as electroluminescence on the underside thereof, see Para. 0134) disposed on a back side of the light-shielding layer, wherein light emitted from the light source passes through the transmissive portion of the light-shielding layer, the semi-transmissive layer, and the light-transmissive substrate to display the graphic symbol or the display area of the display on a front surface of the transparent resin layer.
Regarding claim 4. Sato further discloses the semi-transmissive layer (transmissive decoration color film 33, see Fig. 5, Para. 0083) has a uniform transmittance and a uniform film thickness, and is superposed on the back surface of the light-transmissive substrate (see Figs. 5 and 7b).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato in view of SHIINA et al. (US 2020/0122367 hereinafter refer as “SHIINA”).
Regarding claim 5. Sato discloses a manufacturing method, comprising forming a semi-transmissive layer (33) having a uniform transmittance and a uniform film thickness on a back side of the light-transmissive substrate (31, see Fig. 5, 7b, Para. 0083 and 0086); forming, on the light-transmissive substrate on which the semi-transmissive layer is formed, an uneven surface (i.e., plurality of projection ribs 31a and grooves 31b, see Fig. 5, Para. 0083) that is perceived as a three-dimensional pattern (see Figs. 5, 7a, and 7b).
However, Sato is silent with respect to forming the semi-transmissive layer by screen-printing a semi-transmissive ink on a back side of the light-transmissive substrate and performing insert molding to form a transparent resin layer on a front surface of the light-transmissive substrate on which the uneven surface is formed.
SHIINA teaches a manufacturing method that includes forming a semi-transmissive layer (20) having a uniform transmittance and a uniform film thickness by screen-printing a semi-transmissive ink on a back side of a light-transmissive substrate (10, see Fig. 2, Para. 0034, 0039, 0047, 0101); and a protective layer (40) is formed, for example, by using an ink including a thermoplastic resin or ultraviolet curable resin by coating with a known method such as screen printing (see Para. 0098).
Therefore, in view of SHIINA, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sato by forming the semi-transmissive layer by screen-printing a semi-transmissive ink on a back side of the light-transmissive substrate such a modification would have involved selecting a well-known manufacturing technique for forming a semi transmissive layer and would have yield predictable results, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, screen-printing a semi-transmissive ink to form Sato’s semi transmissive layer would have been a known predictable manufacturing option to one of ordinary skill in the art and would not have changed the principle of operation of Sato.
Sato further discloses a third embodiment of a panel that includes a transparent resin layer (54, see Fig. 8, see Para. 0093 and 0095) in order to protect a second pattern (51d) of a light-transmissive substrate (51, see Fig. 8, Para. 0093) that is configured to be disposed on a back side of the transparent resin layer and configured to visually express a three-dimensional pattern created by an uneven surface (plurality of projection ribs 51a and grooves 51b, see Fig. 8, Para. 0093) of the light-transmissive substrate.
Therefore, in view of Sato’s third embodiment, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sato by including a transparent resin layer in order to protect the top surface of the light-transmissive substrate. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to provide the predictable benefits of controlling light transmission through the top layer, improving the visual appearance and visibility of the decorative pattern, and perming light to selectively pass through the decorative structure to enhance the three dimensional appearance thereof.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sasatani et al. (US 6,967,438) discloses a display device which is formed by attaching together a device substrate and a sealing substrate, a desiccant is coated to form a shape having a plurality of bending portions on the sealing substrate; FUJII et al. (US 2018/0282207) discloses a manufacturing method of a processed member, a plate member, and an opening member; MOCHIZUKI et al. (US 2017/0282716) discloses a reflective layer that includes a light transmission area that allows the light emitted from a light source arranged on the back face side to transmit therethrough to a front face side, and displays a display design by the light transmitting through the light transmission area when the light source is turned on.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tsion Tumebo whose telephone number is 571-270-1668. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 am to 4:00 pm, Monday thru Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jong-Suk (James) Lee can be reached on (571)272-7044. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/TSION TUMEBO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights