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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed February 6, 2026 has been entered. Claim 1 has been amended to include the limitations of claim 7 and 12. Claims 7 and 12 have been canceled. Claim 14 has been amended to depend on claim 1. Claims 14 and 15 are now in proper dependent form; therefore the §112(d) rejections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed November 6, 2025 are withdrawn. Claims 1, 4-6, 8-11, and 13-21 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 6, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art fails teach or suggest that “the front part has a plurality of distinct openings each forming a passage between the rear part and the sheet.” Specifically, Applicant argues that the two openings (first 206 and second 207 openings) disclosed in Fu do not form a passage between the rear part (bottom portion of frame 204) and the sheet (cover lens 24). Applicant contends that Fu is silent regarding any passage formed by these two openings. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Fig. 4 (annotated and reproduced below) Fu explicitly discloses a passage, formed by first opening 206, between the bottom portion of frame 204 and cover lens 24. Examiner acknowledges that Fu does not explicitly disclose the second opening 207 forming a similar passage. However, it is reasonable to assume that both openings have the same structure (compare Figs. 2 with Fig. 12) and therefore both form the claimed passage. Nonetheless, since Fu does explicitly disclose at least one opening that forms a passage between the rear part and the sheet, adding another opening that also forms a passage between the rear part and the sheet would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since it has been held that a mere duplication of essential working parts involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Applicant argues that the prior art fails to teach or suggest that “the passage is defined by a lateral wall orthogonal to the front face and the front part has a rounded connecting surface with no sharp corners between the front face and said orthogonal lateral wall.” Specifically, Applicant points out that Fig. 36 of Ishikawa shows sharp corners on the front face of opening edge 762a. Examiner acknowledges that Fig. 36 does appear to show sharp corners. However, Figs. 32-35 show opening edge 762a as rounded. Further, paragraph 0180 explicitly states that “opening edge 762a is subjected to an edge removing process by plastic deformation all over the range connecting two end portions 762b.” Applicant also argues that Ishikawa’s end portions 762b are not lateral walls orthogonal to a front face because they are shown as the bottom of opening edge 762a and connected to the support portion 91. Examiner agrees to an extent, but the rejection is only relying on Ishikawa to teach that it would be obvious to make the connecting surface round with no sharp corners. Applicant also remarks that none of the prior art references teach or suggest means to limit stresses within the sheet. However, the reason or motivation to modify a reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. MPEP 2144, subsection IV.
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.
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 1, 6, 8, and 13-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0271874 A1 (hereinafter “Fu”) in view of JP 4978484 B2 (hereinafter “Japanese Patent”) and US 2011/0080697 A1 (hereinafter “Ishikawa”).
Regarding claim 1, Fu discloses a display device (see Abstract) comprising:
a display (display panel 22 and optical structure 202);
a partially transparent sheet (cover lens 24); and
a structural component (frame 204) comprising a rear part (bottom portion of frame 204) and a front part (side and top portion of frame 204) extending toward the sheet from the rear part and framing the display (see Fig. 4), the front part having a front face (supporter 201) extending at a constant distance from a rear face of the sheet (bottom surface of cover lens 24) so as to form a bearing surface supporting the sheet (see Fig. 4),
wherein the front part has a plurality of distinct openings (first 206 and second 207 openings) and one of the openings (206) forms a passage between the rear part and the sheet (see annotated Fig. 4 below),
wherein the passage is defined by a lateral wall orthogonal to the front face (see annotated Fig. 4 below),
wherein an electric cable (flexible circuit board 222) connected to the display (22) is arranged in the passage (see annotated Fig. 4 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
423
805
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Differences between Fu and claim 1:
Fu does not explicitly disclose that each opening forms a passage between the rear part and the sheet.
In Fig. 4 (annotated and reproduced above) Fu explicitly discloses a passage, formed by first opening 206, between the bottom portion of frame 204 and cover lens 24. It is reasonable to assume that both openings have the same structure (compare Figs. 2 with Fig. 12) and therefore both form the claimed passage.
Nonetheless, since Fu does explicitly disclose one opening that forms a passage between the rear part and the sheet, adding another opening that also forms a passage between the rear part and the sheet would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since it has been held that a mere duplication of essential working parts involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Fu does not disclose that the front part has a rounded connecting surface with no sharp corners between the front face and the orthogonal lateral wall.
Ishikawa discloses a display device having a passage (opening region 762) defined by lateral walls (end portions 762b) and a connecting surface (opening edge 762a) with no sharp corners (see paragraph 0180 describing how the opening edge is subjected to an edge removing process).
Fu and Ishikawa are considered to be analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to modify the display device taught by Fu by subjecting the front part to an edge removing process so that the front part has a rounded connecting surface with no sharp corners between the front face and the orthogonal lateral wall. Doing so would reduce the likelihood that the cable is damaged due to contact with the connecting surface (Ishikawa: see paragraph 0180).
Fu does not disclose that a residual space in the at least one opening adjacent to the passage where the electric cable is disposed is filled with adhesive applied between the front face of the front part and the rear face of the sheet.
Japanese Patent teaches a display device (watch body 10 includes a display module 3) that includes an opening (interior of cylindrical portion 631) through which an electric cable (tube 7, which covers conducting wires 61) passes. Residual space in the opening (interior of 631) is filled with adhesive (adhesive 650).
Japanese Patent also suggests that filling residual space in an opening through which an electric cable passes is a common practice in the art (“In such an electronic device, generally, the electrical cable is directly fixed to the exterior case by filling an adhesive between the hole formed in the exterior case and the electrical cable.”).
Japanese Patent is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to modify the device taught by Fu and Ishikawa by filling the residual space in at least one opening adjacent to the passage where the electric cable is disposed with adhesive applied between the front face of the front part and the rear face of the sheet. Doing so would not only secure the cable to the device, but would also form a seal capable of preventing moisture and dust from entering the interior of the device (see Japanese Patent, pg. 1 paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 6, Fu in view of Ishikawa and Japanese Patent teaches all of the
limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Fu in view of Ishikawa and Japanese Patent further teaches the display device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the sheet (Fu: 24) is curved and wherein said front face (Fu: 201) is inscribed in a cylinder (Fu: see Figs. 2-6, 9-10, 12-14, and 16-17).
Regarding claim 8, Fu in view of Ishikawa and Japanese Patent teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Fu in view of Ishikawa and Japanese Patent further teaches the display device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the sheet (Fu: 24) is bonded to said front face (see Fu paragraph 0033, stating that supporter 201 and cover lens 24 may be bonded).
Regarding claim 13, Fu in view of Ishikawa and Japanese Patent teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Fu in view of Ishikawa and Japanese Patent further teaches the display device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the display is at least partially bonded to said front face (see Fu Fig. 8 and paragraph 0055 stating that display 22 may overlap with plastic frame 2042).
Regarding claim 14, Fu in view of Ishikawa and Japanese Patent teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Fu in view of Ishikawa and Japanese Patent further teaches the display device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the display comprises a light modulator (Fu: 22) mounted on said rear face (Fu: bottom surface of 24).
Regarding claim 15, Fu in view of Ishikawa and Japanese Patent teaches all of the limitations of claim 14 as stated above. Fu in view of Ishikawa and Japanese Patent further teaches the display device as claimed in claim 14, wherein the electric cable (Fu: 222) is connected to the light modulator (Fu: see Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 16, Fu in view of Ishikawa and Japanese Patent teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Fu in view of Ishikawa and Japanese Patent further teaches the display device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the display comprises an illumination unit (Fu: see paragraph 0035 stating that optical structure 202 may include a light source) mounted on the structural component (Fu: 204).
Regarding claim 17, Fu in view of Ishikawa and Japanese Patent teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Fu in view of Ishikawa and Japanese Patent further teaches the display device as claimed in claim 1, wherein said front part (Fu: sides and top portion of 204) is of rectangular overall shape framing the display (Fu: see Figs. 2 and 11-12 showing that the device is a rectangular shape).
Regarding claim 18, Fu in view of Ishikawa and Japanese Patent teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Fu in view of Ishikawa and Japanese Patent further teaches the display device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the front part (Fu: sides and top portion of 204) is configured such that the front face (Fu: 201) has lateral regions (Fu: left and right portions of 201) situated on each side of the display (Fu: 22 and 202), and at least one transverse band (Fu: where 201 and 24 meet).
Regarding claim 19, Fu in view of Ishikawa and Japanese Patent teaches all of the limitations of claim 18 as stated above. Fu in view of Ishikawa and Japanese Patent further teaches the display device as claimed in claim 18, wherein said opening (Fu: 206) forms an interruption of the transverse band (Fu: see Figs. 2, 4, and 12).
Regarding claim 20, Fu in view of Ishikawa and Japanese Patent teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Fu in view of Ishikawa and Japanese Patent further teaches the display device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the sheet is made of glass (Japanese Patent: windshield glass 4 covers display panel 35).
Regarding claim 21, Fu in view of Ishikawa and Japanese Patent teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Fu in view of Ishikawa and Japanese Patent further teaches the display device as claimed in claim 1, comprising a touch-sensitive matrix (Fu: touch control layer 242) interposed between the display (Fu: 22) and the sheet (Fu: 24).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu in view of Ishikawa and Japanese Patent as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 9,128,666 B2 (hereinafter “Werner”).
Regarding claim 4, Fu in view of Ishikawa and Japanese Patent teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Fu in view of Ishikawa and Japanese Patent lacks a teaching that the opening accommodates at least one element for collaborating with a fixing tab belonging to an additional component.
Werner (Figs. 3 and 4A-C) teaches a display device (electronic device housing 300) with an opening (internal space 320) that accommodates at least one element (snap 424) for collaborating with a fixing tab (hole through which 424 mates with mounting bracket 422) belonging to an additional component (422).
Werner is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to incorporate the teachings of Werner by introducing a snap element to the frame to mate with a mounting bracket. Doing so would be beneficial because the mounting bracket could serve as a retaining component to secure elements of the display while also providing additional support to the sheet (Werner: see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 5, Fu in view of Ishikawa, Japanese Patent, and Werner teaches all of the limitations of claim 4 as stated above. Fu in view of Ishikawa, Japanese Patent, and Werner further teaches the display device as claimed in claim 4, wherein the additional component (Werner: 422) is a retaining component holding an element of the display (Werner: see 550 in Fig. 5 stating the display assembly is secured to the housing by the mounting brackets).
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu in view of Ishikawa and Japanese Patent as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2011/0186345 A1 (hereinafter “Pakula”).
Regarding claim 9, Fu in view of Ishikawa and Japanese Patent teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Fu in view of Ishikawa and Japanese Patent lacks a specific teaching that an intermediate component is interposed between the sheet and the front face.
Pakula teaches a display device that includes an intermediate component (interface member 904) interposed between a transparent sheet (outer housing member 902) and a front face (top surface 928) of a structural component (outer periphery member 908).
Pakula is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to modify the display device taught by Fu in view of Ishikawa and Japanese Patent by including an intermediate component interposed between the sheet and the front face. Doing so would help to secure the sheet to the front face.
Regarding claim 10, Fu in view of Ishikawa, Japanese Patent, and Pakula teaches all of the limitations of claim 9 as stated above. Fu in view of Ishikawa, Japanese Patent, and Pakula further teaches the display device as claimed in claim 9, wherein the intermediate component (Pakula: 904) comprises a frame onto which the sheet (Pakula: 902) is bonded (Pakula: see paragraph 0118 describing that the bottom surface 922 of outer housing member 902 is secured to a top surface 924 of the interface member 904).
Regarding claim 11, Fu in view of Ishikawa, Japanese Patent, and Pakula teaches all of the limitations of claim 9 as stated above. Fu in view of Ishikawa, Japanese Patent, and Pakula further teaches the display device as claimed in claim 9, wherein the intermediate component (Pakula: 904) comprises a part for fixing (Pakula: securing features 910) to the front part of the structural component (Pakula: 908).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROSS TERRY MULARSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-0284. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Imani Hayman can be reached at (571)270-5528. 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.
/R.T.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2841 /IMANI N HAYMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights