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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 24th, 2026, has been entered.
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 1-2, 7-13, 15-17, and 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amano et al (US 2017/0060187 A1) in view of Dinkin (US 2002/0057552 A1), Stephens (US 2005/0094362 A1), and Bae et al (US 2016/0132176 A1).
With regards to claim 1, Amano discloses a laptop personal computer (i.e., electronic device) comprising a rectangular flat-plate lid 22 with a display device 20 disposed inside (i.e., the lid 22 and device 20 constituting a display layer) and a front face cover 12b (i.e., support part) disposed underneath the rectangular flat-plate lid with display device, wherein the rear face cover includes rear layer 38 (i.e., first support portion) with a surface (i.e., first surface) facing an inner face of the overall chassis 12 (i.e., the first support portion includes a first surface facing the display layer, which is in the same direction as the overall chassis 12) and an intermediate layer 37 (i.e., second support portion) adjacent the other surface of the rear layer 38 (i.e., a second surface which faces the second support portion, the second surface being further from the display layer than the first surface) (Amano: para. [0020]-[0021] and [0031]; Figs. 1 and 4). The rear layer 38 is formed of, for example, a thermosetting epoxy resin reinforced with glass fibers (i.e., a first material including a glass fiber reinforced plastic) while the intermediate layer 37 is made of, for example, a polypropylene foam (i.e., a second material different from the first material) (Amano: para. [0031]-[0032]). Furthermore, Amano discloses a rear face cover 12a(10) (i.e., a bracket) disposed under a lower surface of the support part (Amano: Figs. 1 and 4). It is noted that, as best understood from the present specification, face cover 12a(10) is a bracket in that it is a layer (i.e., the present specification depicts its bracket as a layer). Alternatively, face cover 12a(10) includes a hole in which a screw is placed (i.e., a bracket structure) (Amano: Fig. 8).
Amano does not appear to disclose the further inclusion of a case which accommodates the display layer and the support part, such that the support part is disposed between the display layer and the case.
Dinkin is directed to a portable computer system comprising a laptop located in a briefcase (i.e., a case which accommodates the components of a laptop, which would include a support part and display layer), the portable computer system including at least a display screen 12 and a bottom box-like container portion 10a (i.e., which as best understood, would correspond to the location of a support part) (Dinkin: para. [0015]-[0016] and [0030]-[0032]; Fig. 1). It is noted in a closed state, the portable computing system would include the components of a container portion 10a (i.e., corresponding to the support part) located between the briefcase (i.e., case) and the display portion (i.e., corresponding to a display layer) (Dinkin: para. [0015]-[0016] and [0030]-[0032]; Fig. 1). Dinkin teaches that the inclusion of its briefcase with respect to the provided components results in a device with an attractive form factor, improved heat dissipation, and the ability to further embed an additional battery into the briefcase body (Dinkin: para. [0015]-[0016]). Amano and Dinkin are analogous art in that they are related to the same field of endeavor of laptop constructions. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have further placed the laptop of Amano within the case of Dinkin, thereby resulting in the claimed configuration including a support part disposed between the display layer and the case, in order to improve the form factor and heat dissipation of the laptop of Amano, while also providing an additional battery source. It is additionally noted that when the laptop of Amano is within the case of Dinkin, the support part and the adhesive layer are disposed between the display layer and case.
Amano and Dinkin still do not appear to teach a support part bonded to a lower surface of the display layer via layers including an adhesive layer.
Stephens is directed to a display device comprising an adhesive hinge 20 which is depicted as bonding a lower surface of a display filter (i.e., display layer) to a housing 14 (i.e., a support part) (Stephens: para. [0020] and [0023]-[0024]; Figs. 1 and 3B). The adhesive hinge 20 is disclosed as comprising a substrate with a layer of adhesive applied over one side thereto (i.e., a plurality of layers including an adhesive layer) (Stephens: para. [0024]; Fig. 3B). The adhesive hinge of Stephens is designed to have improved strength and stability, while also ensuring easy movement of the attached display filter (Stephens: para. [0038]). Amano, Dinkin, and Stephens are analogous art in that they are related to the same field of endeavor of laptop constructions. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have selected the adhesive hinge of Stephens (i.e., which constitutes a plurality of layers including an adhesive layer) such that it bonds a lower surface of the display to a support part of the laptop of Amano and Dinkin, in order to provide improved strength and stability while ensuring ease of movement (Stephens: para. [0038]). It is noted that in such a configuration, a series of layers including the adhesive layer (i.e., the substrate and adhesive layer between the display and support part) are attached to a lower surface of the display layer and an upper surface of the support part (i.e., the present claim language does not actually require the adhesive to perform the bonding, but rather, the combination of the adhesive layer and other layers, such as the substrate, to be performing the claimed bonding).
Amano, Dinkin, and Stephens still do not appear to teach the further inclusion of a window, such that the display layer is disposed under the window, and further, the display layer is disposed between the window and support part.
Bae is directed to a display apparatus for laptop comprising a cover window 260 located over a combination of a thin film transistor layer 220 and liquid crystal layer 230 (i.e., a display layer) (Bae: [0048] and [0054]-[0055]; Fig. 2c). It is noted that the claim terms “under” and “lower surface” are not recited with reference to a particular orientation, and therefore, regardless of whether the cover window is above or below the display layer, it is still “under” a “lower surface” of the display layer with regards to at least one orientation. Based on the order of the layers disclosed in Bae, as best understood, placement of the cover window 260 over the display layer of Amano, Dinkin, and Stephens would result in a display layer which is disposed between a window and a support part (Bae: Fig. 2c; see above discussion). In addition, Bae further discloses a light source (not pictured in the Figures of Bae) underlying the base substrate 210, the light source passing through the above layers of the display apparatus, including the cover window 260 (i.e., the window provides light generated from the display layer to a user through each of its surfaces, which include an upper surface thereof) (Bae: para. [0054]-[0055]). Amano, Dinkin, Stephens, and Bae are analogous art in that they are related to the same field of endeavor of laptop constructions. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have placed the window of Bae over the display layer of Amano, Dinkin, and Stephens, such that the display layer of Amano, Dinkin, and Stephens is disposed between the window and support part, in order to provide improved protection to the display layer of Amano, Dinkin, and Stephens (Bae: para. [0058]).
With regards to claim 2, Amano discloses the rear layer 38 as comprising glass fibers impregnated with an epoxy resin (i.e., includes a first resin and a glass fiber disposed in the first resin) (Amano: para. [0031]).
With regards to claim 7, it is noted that the present specification defines the higher surface energy of the first material compared to the second material as a higher surface uniformity of the first material compared to the second material. The intermediate layer is disclosed as formed of, for example, carbon fibers which contain gaps (i.e., a material which does not have a uniform surface) while the rear layer contains no such gaps (i.e., and therefore does not have such surface nonuniformities, and can be considered to be more uniform) (Amano: para. [0032]). As the first material of Amano has greater surface uniformity, it has a greater surface energy compared to the surface energy of the second material. Alternatively, the materials of Amano and Takebe and the claimed invention are substantially identical to each other (see above discussion). A material and its properties are inseparable, per MPEP 2112. Therefore, the first and second materials of Amano and Takebe are expected to exhibit the claimed surface energy difference (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 8, as best understood from the drawings of Amano, when the laptop is in the closed position, the entire display layer overlaps the rear face cover 12a(10) (i.e., includes the first support portion). It is additionally noted that the term “area” as recited in the claims is rather broad, and technically, the display layer of Amano can be arbitrarily subdivided into first, second, and third areas, such that a second area is spaced from a first area in a first direction and a third area is spaced apart from the first area in a first direction with the second area therebetween. The location of any of these areas may be defined in a manner overlapping a through hole 30 which is defined in the entirety of the rear face cover 12a(10) (i.e., includes the first support portion) in a plan view. It is additionally noted that since the rear face cover 12a(10) is formed of a single unit, it is considered to have a continuous shape.
With regards to claim 9, Amano further depicts a plurality of through holes 30 (i.e., a plurality of pattern holes) which are spaced apart from each other in both the direction in which the areas are spaced (i.e., a first direction) and a direction perpendicular to a direction in which the areas are spaced (i.e., a second direction crossing a first direction), wherein each of the pattern holes is defined through the entirety of the thickness of the rear layer 38 (i.e., through an entirety of the first support portion in a thickness direction of the first support portion) (Amano: Figs. 2 and 4).
With regards to claim 10, the rear layer 38 and intermediate layer 37 (i.e., first and second support portions, respectively) are depicted as in contact with one another (Amano: Fig. 4).
With regards to claim 11, a surface layer 36 (i.e., third support portion) is further located adjacent the intermediate layer 37 (Amano: para. [0031]; Fig. 4). It is noted that whether or not the term “under” is met is a matter of the orientation of the overall structure, and therefore, it is submitted that the overall structure may be rotated such that the surface layer 36 is “under” intermediate layer 37 (Amano: para. [0031]; Fig. 4). Alternatively, it is noted that, technically, rear layer 38 is the layer which faces the inside surface of the formed laptop, and therefore, even when the laptop is placed on a given surface, the surface layer 36 is generally “under” intermediate layer 38 (Amano: Figs. 1, 2, and 4).
With regards to claim 12, the third support portion is also formed of a thermosetting epoxy resin reinforced with glass fibers (i.e., the same material as the first portion) (Amano: para. [0031]).
With regards to claim 13, the rear layer 38 (i.e., first portion) and surface layer 36 (i.e., third portion) are depicted as spaced apart, with the intermediate layer 37 (i.e., second portion) located therebetween (Amano: Fig. 4).
With regards to claim 15, Amano further teaches incorporating additional layers of fiber-reinforced plastic in between the rear layer 38 and surface layer 36 (the plurality of which would constitute a second support portion including a plurality of layers) (Amano: para. [0049]).
With regards to claim 16, the rear layer 38 (i.e., first support portion) is closer to the display layer than the intermediate layer 37 (i.e., second support portion) (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 17, Amano discloses a laptop personal computer (i.e., electronic device) comprising a rectangular flat-plate lid 22 with a display device 20 disposed inside (i.e., the lid 22 and device 20 constituting a display layer) and a rear face cover 12a(10) (i.e., support part) disposed underneath the rectangular flat-plate lid with display device, wherein the rear face cover includes rear layer 38 (i.e., first support portion) with a surface (i.e., first surface) facing an inner face of the overall chassis 12 (i.e., the first support portion includes a first surface facing the display layer, which is in the same direction as the overall chassis 12) and an intermediate layer 37 (i.e., second support portion) adjacent the other surface of the rear layer 38 (i.e., a second surface which faces the second support portion, the second surface being further from the display layer than the first surface) (Amano: para. [0020]-[0021] and [0031]; Figs. 1 and 4). The rear layer 38 is formed of, for example, a thermosetting epoxy resin reinforced with glass fibers (i.e., a first material including glass fibers) while the intermediate layer 37 is made of, for example, carbon fiber (which is a material different from the first fiber) (Amano: para. [0031]-[0032]). Amano further depicts the display layer as having hinges 24 (i.e., constituting folding areas) and adjacent areas without hinges 24 (i.e., non-folding areas), wherein the hinges 24 function to open and close the laptop (i.e., the folding area is foldable about a folding axis) (Amano: para. [0021] Fig. 1).
Amano does not appear to disclose the further inclusion of a case which accommodates the display layer and the support part, such that the support part is disposed between the display layer and the case.
Dinkin is directed to a portable computer system comprising a laptop located in a briefcase (i.e., a case which accommodates the components of a laptop, which would include a support part and display layer), the portable computer system including at least a display screen 12 and a bottom box-like container portion 10a (i.e., which as best understood, would correspond to the location of a support part) (Dinkin: para. [0015]-[0016] and [0030]-[0032]; Fig. 1). It is noted in a closed state, the portable computing system would include the components of a container portion 10a (i.e., corresponding to the support part) located between the briefcase (i.e., case) and the display portion (i.e., corresponding to a display layer) (Dinkin: para. [0015]-[0016] and [0030]-[0032]; Fig. 1). Dinkin teaches that the inclusion of its briefcase with respect to the provided components results in a device with an attractive form factor, improved heat dissipation, and the ability to further embed an additional battery into the briefcase body (Dinkin: para. [0015]-[0016]). Amano and Dinkin are analogous art in that they are related to the same field of endeavor of laptop constructions. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have further placed the laptop of Amano within the case of Dinkin, thereby resulting in the claimed configuration including a support part disposed between the display layer and the case, in order to improve the form factor and heat dissipation of the laptop of Amano, while also providing an additional battery source. It is additionally noted that when the laptop of Amano is within the case of Dinkin, the support part and the adhesive layer are disposed between the display layer and case.
Amano and Dinkin still do not appear to teach a support part bonded to a lower surface of the display layer via layers including an adhesive layer.
Stephens is directed to a display device comprising an adhesive hinge 20 which is depicted as bonding a lower surface of a display filter (i.e., display layer) to a housing 14 (i.e., a support part) (Stephens: para. [0020] and [0023]-[0024]; Figs. 1 and 3B). The adhesive hinge 20 is disclosed as comprising a substrate with a layer of adhesive applied over one side thereto (i.e., a plurality of layers including an adhesive layer) (Stephens: para. [0024]; Fig. 3B). The adhesive hinge of Stephens is designed to have improved strength and stability, while also ensuring easy movement of the attached display filter (Stephens: para. [0038]). Amano, Dinkin, and Stephens are analogous art in that they are related to the same field of endeavor of laptop constructions. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have selected the adhesive hinge of Stephens (i.e., which constitutes a plurality of layers including an adhesive layer) such that it bonds a lower surface of the display to a support part of the laptop of Amano and Dinkin, in order to provide improved strength and stability while ensuring ease of movement (Stephens: para. [0038]).
Amano, Dinkin, and Stephens still do not appear to teach the further inclusion of a window, such that the display layer is disposed under the window, and further, the display layer is disposed between the window and support part.
Bae is directed to a display apparatus for laptop comprising a cover window 260 located over a combination of a thin film transistor layer 220 and liquid crystal layer 230 (i.e., a display layer) (Bae: [0048] and [0054]-[0055]; Fig. 2c It is noted that the claim terms “under” and “lower surface” are not recited with reference to a particular orientation, and therefore, regardless of whether the cover window is above or below the display layer, it is still “under” a “lower surface” of the display layer with regards to at least one orientation. Based on the order of the layers disclosed in Bae, as best understood, placement of the cover window 260 over the display layer of Amano, Dinkin, and Stephens would result in a display layer which is disposed between a window and a support part (Bae: Fig. 2c; see above discussion). In addition, Bae further discloses a light source (not pictured in the Figures of Bae) underlying the base substrate 210, the light source passing through the above layers of the display apparatus, including the cover window 260 (i.e., the window provides light generated from the display layer to a user through each of its surfaces, which include an upper surface thereof) (Bae: para. [0054]-[0055]). Based on the order of the layers disclosed in Bae, as best understood, placement of the cover window 260 over the display layer of Amano, Dinkin, and Stephens would result in a display layer which is disposed between a window and a support part (Bae: Fig. 2c; see above discussion). Amano, Dinkin, Stephens, and Bae are analogous art in that they are related to the same field of endeavor of laptop constructions. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have placed the window of Bae over the display layer of Amano, Dinkin, and Stephens, such that the display layer of Amano, Dinkin, and Stephens is disposed between the window and support part, in order to provide improved protection to the display layer of Amano, Dinkin, and Stephens (Bae: para. [0058]). It is noted that in such a configuration, a series of layers including the adhesive layer (i.e., the substrate and adhesive layer between the display and support part) are attached to a lower surface of the display layer and an upper surface of the support part (i.e., the present claim language does not actually require the adhesive to perform the bonding, but rather, the combination of the adhesive layer and other layers, such as the substrate, to be performing the claimed bonding).
With regards to claim 22, it is noted that the present specification defines the higher surface energy of the first material compared to the second material as a higher surface uniformity of the first material compared to the second material. The intermediate layer is disclosed as formed of, for example, carbon fibers which contain gaps (i.e., a material which does not have a uniform surface) while the rear layer contains no such gaps (i.e., and therefore does not have such surface nonuniformities, and can be considered to be more uniform) (Amano: para. [0032]). As the first material of Amano has greater surface uniformity, it has a greater surface energy compared to the surface energy of the second material. Alternatively, the materials of Amano and Takebe and the claimed invention are substantially identical to each other (see above discussion). A material and its properties are inseparable, per MPEP 2112. Therefore, the first and second materials of Amano and Takebe are expected to exhibit the claimed surface energy difference (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 23, the rear layer 38 and intermediate layer 37 (i.e., first and second support portions, respectively) are depicted as in contact with one another (Amano: Fig. 4).
With regards to claim 24, a surface layer 36 (i.e., third support portion) is further located adjacent the intermediate layer 37 (Amano: para. [0031]; Fig. 4). It is noted that whether or not the term “under” is met is a matter of the orientation of the overall structure, and therefore, it is submitted that the overall structure may be rotated such that the surface layer 36 is “under” intermediate layer 37 (Amano: para. [0031]; Fig. 4). Alternatively, it is noted that, technically, rear layer 38 is the layer which faces the inside surface of the formed laptop, and therefore, even when the laptop is placed on a given surface, the surface layer 36 is generally “under” intermediate layer 38 (Amano: Figs. 1, 2, and 4).
With regards to claim 25, the third support portion is also formed of a thermosetting epoxy resin reinforced with glass fibers (i.e., the same material as the first portion) (Amano: para. [0031]).
Claims 3-6 and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amano et al in view of Dinkin, Stephens, and Bae as applied to claims 2 and 17 above, and further in view of Takebe et al (US 2015/0376353 A1).
With regards to claim 3, Amano, Dinkin, Stephens, and Bae teach an electronic device as applied to claim 2 above (see above discussion). Although the first material includes glass fibers (i.e., includes a first fiber and a second fiber), Amano appears silent as to a first fiber extending in a first direction and a second fiber extending in a second direction crossing the first direction.
Takebe is directed to a fiber-reinforced resin sheet comprising a nonwoven fabric formed of a random dispersion of discontinuous reinforcing fibers comprising filaments which intersect one another (i.e., includes a first fiber extending in a first direction and a second fiber extending in a second direction crossing the first direction), wherein the filaments are, for example, carbon fibers or glass fibers (Takebe: para. [0001], [0073], and [0077]). Takebe teaches that the random distribution of its fibers maximizes the performance of the nonwoven fabric, and further imparts isotropy, thereby reducing internal stresses and providing improved the mechanical properties of the formed sheet (Takebe: para. [0075]). It is noted that Takebe uses its fiber-reinforced resin sheet to form a housing, chassis, or interior member of a personal computer or display (Takebe: para. [0098]). Amano, Dinkin, Stephens, Bae, and Takebe are analogous art in that they are related to the same field of endeavor of fiber-reinforced resin sheets for use in interior members for electronic personal computers or display devices. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have selected a nonwoven formed of fibers having a random distribution (and therefore, fibers which include a first fiber extending in a first direction and a second fiber extending in a second direction crossing the first direction) for the fiber material of Amano in order to provide improved properties, and more specifically, improved mechanical properties caused by reduced internal stresses due to enhanced isotropy (Takebe: para. [0075]).
With regards to claim 4, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have formed the intermediate layer material (i.e., second material) of Amano from a carbon fiber reinforced plastic in order to provide improved specific strength (Takebe: para. [0077]).
With regards to claim 5, it would have been obvious to have specifically selected carbon disposed in a plastic in order to take advantage of the combined properties of both materials, such as, for example, a combination of improved specific strength and improved shock absorbency (Takebe: para. [0077]).
With regards to claim 6, it is noted that, technically, the carbon fibers extend in all directions, and therefore, the carbon fibers extend in at least a first direction.
With regards to claim 18, Amano, Dinkin, Stephens, and Bae teach an electronic device as applied to claim 17 above (see above discussion). Although the first material includes glass fibers (i.e., includes a first fiber and a second fiber), Amano appears silent as to a first fiber extending in a first direction and a second fiber extending in a second direction crossing the first direction.
Takebe is directed to a fiber-reinforced resin sheet comprising a nonwoven fabric formed of a random dispersion of discontinuous reinforcing fibers comprising filaments which intersect one another (i.e., includes a first fiber extending in a first direction and a second fiber extending in a second direction crossing the first direction), wherein the filaments are, for example, carbon fibers or glass fibers (Takebe: para. [0001], [0073], and [0077]). Takebe teaches that the random distribution of its fibers maximizes the performance of the nonwoven fabric, and further imparts isotropy, thereby reducing internal stresses and providing improved the mechanical properties of the formed sheet (Takebe: para. [0075]). It is noted that Takebe uses its fiber-reinforced resin sheet to form a housing, chassis, or interior member of a personal computer or display (Takebe: para. [0098]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have selected a nonwoven formed of fibers having a random distribution (and therefore, fibers which include a first fiber extending in a first direction and a second fiber extending in a second direction crossing the first direction) for the fiber material of Amano, Stephens, Dinkin, and Bae, in order to provide improved properties, and more specifically, improved mechanical properties caused by reduced internal stresses due to enhanced isotropy (Takebe: para. [0075]).
With regards to claim 19, the third support portion is also formed of a thermosetting epoxy resin reinforced with glass fibers (i.e., the same material as the first portion) (Amano: para. [0031]).
With regards to claim 20, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have formed the intermediate layer material (i.e., second material) of Amano from a carbon fiber reinforced plastic in order to provide improved specific strength (Takebe: para. [0077]).
With regards to claim 21, it would have been obvious to have specifically selected carbon disposed in a plastic in order to take advantage of the combined properties of both materials, such as, for example, a combination of improved specific strength and improved shock absorbency (Takebe: para. [0077]). In addition, it is noted that, technically, the carbon fibers extend in all directions, and therefore, the carbon fibers extend in at least a first direction.
Claims 14 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amano et al in view of Dinkin, Stephens, and Bae as applied to claims 1 and 17 above, and further in view of Jeltsch et al (US 2018/0179330 A1).
With regards to claim 14, Amano, Dinkin, Stephens, and Bae teach an electronic device as applied to claim 1 above (see above discussion). Although Amano teaches the selection of resin materials such as epoxies in its layers, Amano does not appear to more specifically teach the first material as having a first curing temperature which is higher than a second curing temperature of the second material (see above discussion).
Jeltsch is directed to curable resin epoxy systems for carbon fiber-reinforced composites, wherein the curable resin epoxy systems are disclosed as having adjustable curing temperature (Jeltsch: para. [0001]-[0003], [0009], [0035], and [0042]). Jeltsch teaches higher curing temperatures leads to reduced demold time, while lower temperatures are necessary when higher gel times are preferable (Jeltsch: para. [0035]-[0036]). Jeltsch additionally teaches its epoxy as capable of undergoing a separate post curing operation (and therefore, having a separate curing temperature) at a higher temperature in order to enable the buildup of a macromolecular network (Jeltsch: para. [0041]). Amano, Dinkin, Stephens, Bae, and Jeltsch are analogous art in that they are related to the same field of endeavor of fiber-reinforced epoxy composites. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized the curing temperature as a result effective variable, as it affects demold time versus gel time, and therefore, adjustment of curing temperature, including adjusting the curing temperature of the first material to be greater than that of the second material, would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill (Jeltsch: para. [00035]-[0036]). Alternatively, it is noted that, technically, as the epoxy of Jeltsch has multiple curing temperatures, selection of the same epoxy taught by Jeltsch for the epoxy in the layers of Amano would result in a first epoxy having a first curing temperature which is different from that of the second epoxy (i.e., selecting an epoxy with a curing temperature range of, for example 60⁰C to 180⁰C as taught by Jeltsch would mean each epoxy layer has both a curing temperature of 60⁰C and 180⁰C, of which, the 180⁰C curing temperature of the first material is higher than the 60⁰C curing temperature of the second material). Selection of such a material of Jeltsch would have been obvious in order to improve the cycle time of the article of Amano and have enabled an increase in glass transition temperature (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 26, Amano, Stephens, Dinkin, and Bae teach an electronic device as applied to claim 17 above (see above discussion). Although Amano teaches the selection of resin materials such as epoxies in its layers, Amano does not appear to more specifically teach the first material as having a first curing temperature which is higher than a second curing temperature of the second material (see above discussion).
Jeltsch is directed to curable resin epoxy systems for carbon fiber-reinforced composites, wherein the curable resin epoxy systems are disclosed as having adjustable curing temperature (Jeltsch: para. [0001]-[0003], [0009], [0035], and [0042]). Jeltsch teaches higher curing temperatures leads to reduced demold time, while lower temperatures are necessary when higher gel times are preferable (Jeltsch: para. [0035]-[0036]). Jeltsch additionally teaches its epoxy as capable of undergoing a separate post curing operation (and therefore, having a separate curing temperature) at a higher temperature in order to enable the buildup of a macromolecular network (Jeltsch: para. [0041]). A person of ordinary skill would have recognized the curing temperature as a result effective variable, as it affects demold time versus gel time, and therefore, adjustment of curing temperature, including adjusting the curing temperature of the first material to be greater than that of the second material, would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill (Jeltsch: para. [00035]-[0036]). Alternatively, it is noted that, technically, as the epoxy of Jeltsch has multiple curing temperatures, selection of the same epoxy taught by Jeltsch for the epoxy in the layers of Amano would result in a first epoxy having a first curing temperature which is different from that of the second epoxy (i.e., selecting an epoxy with a curing temperature range of, for example 60⁰C to 180⁰C as taught by Jeltsch would mean each epoxy layer has both a curing temperature of 60⁰C and 180⁰C, of which, the 180⁰C curing temperature of the first material is higher than the 60⁰C curing temperature of the second material). Selection of such a material of Jeltsch would have been obvious in order to improve the cycle time of the article of Amano and have enabled an increase in glass transition temperature (see above discussion).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but they are not found persuasive.
On pages 9-11, Applicant summarizes the claims and rejection, and then argues that Amano does not disclose a bracket disposed under a lower surface of the support part, such that the bracket is accommodated by a case. This argument is not found persuasive as Amano discloses a combination of a front cover 12b and a rear cover 12a(10) (i.e., a support part with a bracket disposed under the support part) which, per Dinkin, is within a case (i.e., the bracket being accommodated by a case). Applicant further argues that Dinkin and Stephens do not cure the aforementioned deficiencies (i.e., inclusion of a support bracket), but this argument is not found persuasive as Dinkin and Stephens are not relied upon to teach the claimed bracket.
On pages 11-12, Applicant argues that Stephens does not disclose the adhesive as claimed, and instead, Stephens merely discloses an adhesive hinge. Applicant argues that modification via Stephens would not have been obvious, as Stephens is directed to a display screen filter versus a computer display screen. This argument is not found persuasive as a display screen filter is still technically part of a computer display screen. Stephens is considered to teach the inclusion of hinge in a specific location of a display screen (i.e., the filter) as opposed to a generic teaching of a hinge. Therefore, the teaching of Stephens still obviates the use of an adhesive hinge with respect to an overall display screen (as Stephens teaches its hinge connected to at least a portion of the display screen, namely, the filter).
On pages 12-13, Applicant argues that Bae does not remedy the deficiencies of Amano, Dinkin, and Stephens. This argument is not found persuasive as Bae is not relied upon to teach the argued structural features. Applicant further describes the claimed invention, but Applicant does not appear to provide any arguments (i.e., Applicant indicates where support may be found for the claimed bracket, though Applicant does not provide further articulation as to why the claimed invention would not have been obvious over the combination of Amano, Dinkin, Stephens, and Bae).
On page 14, Applicant argues that Takebe does not cure the deficiencies of Amano, Dinkin, Stephens, and Bae. Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive as Takebe is not relied upon to teach the argued bracket or adhesive hinge.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETHAN WEYDEMEYER whose telephone number is (571)270-1907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:00.
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, Maria V. Ewald can be reached on (571) 272-8519. 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.
/E.W./
Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783