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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/08/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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 § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jin et al. (US 20190113796 A1; hereinafter Jin”).
In re claim 1, Jin discloses in figs. 1-5, a display apparatus comprising:
a display panel (display panel comprising 10, 20, PL1, PL2, TP) (hereinafter “Panel”) including an upper end and a lower end extending in a first direction DR1 and a left end and a right end extending along a second direction DR2 crossing the first direction (¶51, 54, 59),
wherein the display panel (Panel) is curved with respect to a central axis (e.g., an axis which goes through the center of the display panel; hereinafter “C-axis”) extending along the second direction DR2 (¶51);
a bottom chassis 90 (¶54) disposed on a rear surface of the display panel (Panel); and
a coupling member 30 (¶54) disposed between the display panel (Panel) and the bottom chassis 90 to attach the display panel (Panel) and the bottom chassis 90 to each other,
wherein the coupling member 30 comprising:
a first coupling part (31 on the left side in fig. 2; hereinafter “31_1”) extending along the second direction DR2, spaced apart from the central axis (C-axis) and disposed adjacent to the left end of the display panel (fig. 5 shows a first coupling part 31_1 disposed adjacent to the left end of the display panel);
a second coupling part (31 on the right side in fig. 2; hereinafter “31_2”) parallel to the first coupling part (31_1), spaced apart from the first coupling part (31_1) having the central axis (C-axis) interposed therebetween and disposed adjacent to the right end of the display panel (fig. 5 shows a second coupling part 31_2 disposed adjacent to the left end of the display panel);
a third coupling part (31 on the upper side in fig. 2; hereinafter “31_3”) extending along the first direction DR1 and crossing the central axis (C-axis);
a fourth coupling part (31 on the bottom side in fig. 2; hereinafter “31_4”) parallel to the third coupling part (31_3) and crossing the central axis (C-axis); and
a fifth coupling part 33 (¶101-102) disposed along at least a portion of an edge of the display panel (Panel) and disposed outside of the first to fourth coupling parts (31_1-31_4),
wherein the bottom chassis 92 has a single and unitary structure, and
wherein the display panel (Panel) does not directly come into contact with any other component other than the coupling member 30 or the bottom chassis 92 (fig. 5).
In re claim 2, Jin discloses in figs. 1-5, the display apparatus of claim 1, wherein the bottom chassis 92 covers the rear surface of the display panel (Panel) and exposes a side surface S1 of the display panel (fig. 5).
In re claim 3, Jin discloses in figs. 1-5, the display apparatus of claim 1,
wherein the fifth coupling part 33 comprises:
a first portion (33 on the left in fig. 5) attached to the left end of the display panel;
a second portion (33 on the right side in fig. 5) attached to the right end of the display panel and bent from the first portion; and
a third portion (33 on the upper side in fig. 2) attached to the upper end of the display panel and bent from the second portion.
In re claim 13, Jin discloses in figs. 1-5, the display apparatus of claim 1, wherein the coupling member 30 is a foam-type tape (¶121).
In re claim 14, Jin discloses all the limitations like claim 1. Specifically, Jin discloses wherein the coupling member comprises:
a first coupling part (31 on the left side in fig. 2; hereinafter “31_1”) parallel to the central axis (C-axis) and disposed adjacent to the left end of the display panel (fig. 5 shows a first coupling part 31_1 disposed adjacent to the left end of the display panel);
a second coupling part (31 on the right side in fig. 2; hereinafter “31_2”) parallel to the central axis (C-axis), spaced apart from the first coupling part 31_1 with the central axis interposed therebetween and disposed adjacent to the right end of the display panel (fig. 5 shows a second coupling part 31_2 disposed adjacent to the left end of the display panel); and
a third coupling part 33 extending along the left end, the upper end, and the right end (as shown in fig. 2).
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.
Claim(s) 5-6, 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, respectively.
In re claim 5, Jin is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “wherein a separation distance between the first coupling part and the left end of the display panel is in a range of about 4% to about 7% of a length of the upper end of the display panel”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a separation distance between the first coupling part and the left end of the display panel is in a range of about 4% to about 7% of a length of the upper end of the display panel on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select a separation distance between the first coupling part and the left end of the display panel is in a range of about 4% to about 7% of a length of the upper end of the display panel in order to strengthen the attachment of the display panel and the rear case.
In re claim 6, Jin is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “wherein a separation distance between the first coupling part and the lower end of the display panel is about 40 mm or less”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a separation distance between the first coupling part and the lower end of the display panel is about 40 mm or less on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select a separation distance between the first coupling part and the lower end of the display panel is about 40 mm or less in order to strengthen the attachment of the display panel and the rear case.
In re claims 15-16, same as claims 5-6 described above.
Claim(s) 4, 7-9, 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin et al. (US 20190113796 A1; hereinafter Jin”), as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Lee et al. (US 20240143036 A1; hereinafter Lee”).
In re claim 4, Jin discloses in figs. 1-5, the display apparatus of claim 3.
Jin does not expressly disclose wherein the coupling member further comprises a sixth coupling part disposed on a lower side of the fourth coupling part, and attached to the lower end of the display panel,
wherein the sixth coupling part includes a plurality of patterns arranged in the second direction.
In the same field of endeavor, Lee discloses in figs. 1-3, 6-7, a display apparatus comprising a coupling member 600, wherein the coupling member 600 comprises a sixth coupling part (see fig. 6 annotated below; hereinafter “Part6”) disposed on a lower side of a fourth coupling part Part4, and attached to a lower end of the display panel 100_L, wherein the sixth coupling part includes a plurality of patterns arranged in the second direction Y (see fig. 6 annotated below).
PNG
media_image2.png
478
624
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It 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 to employ the teachings of Lee into the display apparatus of Jin in order to reliably secure the display panel on the rear case.
In re claim 7, Jin discloses the display apparatus of claim 1 outlined above. Jin does not expressly disclose the coupling member further comprises a seventh coupling part disposed on a lower side of the fourth coupling part, and disposed between the first coupling part and the second coupling part, wherein the seventh coupling part includes a first left pattern and a first right pattern disposed spaced apart from each other in the first direction.
In the same field of endeavor, Lee discloses in figs. 1-3, 6-7, a display apparatus comprising: a coupling member 600 comprises a seventh coupling part (see fig. 6 annotated below; hereinafter “Part7”) disposed on a lower side of the fourth coupling part Part4, and disposed between the first coupling part Part1 and the second coupling part Part2, wherein the seventh coupling part Part7 includes a first left pattern (e.g., top vertical left pattern of Part7) and a first right pattern (e.g., top vertical right pattern of Part7) disposed spaced apart from each other in the first direction X.
PNG
media_image3.png
522
923
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It 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 to employ the teachings of Lee into the display apparatus of Jin in order to reliably secure the display panel on the rear case.
In re claim 8, Jin as modified by Lee discloses the display apparatus of claim 7,
Lee further discloses wherein the seventh coupling part Part7 further comprises a center pattern (e.g., a center vertical pattern of Part7) disposed between the fourth coupling part Part4 and the third coupling part Part3, disposed between the first coupling part Part1 and the second coupling part Part2, and overlapping the central axis C_Axis on a plane.
PNG
media_image3.png
522
923
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In re claim 9, Jin as modified by Lee discloses the display apparatus of claim 8.
Jin as modified by Lee is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the seventh coupling part further comprises a second left pattern and a second right pattern disposed between the third coupling part and the fifth coupling part, and disposed spaced apart from each other in the first direction”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select the seventh coupling part comprising a second left pattern and a second right pattern disposed between the third coupling part and the fifth coupling part, and disposed spaced apart from each other in the first direction on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select the seventh coupling part comprising a second left pattern and a second right pattern disposed between the third coupling part and the fifth coupling part, and disposed spaced apart from each other in the first direction in order to strengthen the attachment of the display panel and the rear case.
In re claim 17, Jin discloses the display apparatus of claim 14 outlined above. Jin does not expressly disclose wherein the coupling member further comprises a fourth coupling part and a fifth coupling part, each of which is extending along the first direction and disposed spaced apart from each other in the second direction, and each of which is disposed overlapping the central axis, wherein the fourth coupling part and the fifth coupling part are disposed in a space surrounded by the third coupling part.
In the same field of endeavor, Lee discloses in figs. 1-3, 6-7, a display apparatus, wherein a coupling member 600 (¶61) further comprises a fourth coupling part (see fig. 6 annotated below; hereinafter “Part4”) and a fifth coupling part (see fig. 6 annotated below; hereinafter “Part5”), each of which is extending along a first direction X and disposed spaced apart from each other in a second direction Y, and each of which is disposed overlapping a central axis C_Axis, wherein the fourth coupling part Part4 and the fifth coupling part Part5 are disposed in a space surrounded by a third coupling part Part3.
PNG
media_image4.png
637
795
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It 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 to employ the teachings of Lee into the display apparatus of Jin in order to reliably secure the display panel on the rear case.
In re claim 18, Jin as modified by Lee discloses the display apparatus of claim 17.
Lee discloses in figs. 1-3, 6-7, in the display apparatus, wherein the coupling member further comprises a first pattern (e.g., a vertical portion of the foam 600 between Part4 and Part5) disposed adjacent to the fifth coupling part and spaced apart from each other.
Jin as modified by Lee is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “wherein a plurality of the first patterns is disposed between the fourth and fifth coupling parts”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a plurality of the first patterns are disposed between the fourth and fifth coupling parts on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select a plurality of the first patterns are disposed between the fourth and fifth coupling parts in order to strengthen the attachment of the display panel and the rear case.
In re claim 19, Jin as modified by Lee discloses the display apparatus of claim 17.
Jin as modified by Lee is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “wherein the coupling member further comprises a plurality of second patterns disposed adjacent to the fourth coupling part, spaced apart from each other in the first direction, and spaced apart from the first patterns in the second direction, wherein the second patterns are spaced apart from each other with the central axis interposed therebetween”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a plurality of second patterns disposed adjacent to the fourth coupling part, spaced apart from each other in the first direction, and spaced apart from the first patterns in the second direction, wherein the second patterns are spaced apart from each other with the central axis interposed therebetween on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select a plurality of second patterns disposed adjacent to the fourth coupling part, spaced apart from each other in the first direction, and spaced apart from the first patterns in the second direction, wherein the second patterns are spaced apart from each other with the central axis interposed therebetween in order to strengthen the attachment of the display panel and the rear case.
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jang et al. (US 20210072600 A1; hereinafter “Jang”).
In re claim 10, Jin discloses the display apparatus of claim 1 outlined above. Jin doesn’t expressly disclose wherein the display panel comprises:
a display unit including:
a base substrate;
a light emitting element disposed on the base substrate; and
an encapsulation layer disposed on the light emitting element;
a functional unit including:
a window substrate facing the base substrate; and
a light control layer material on a rear surface of the window substrate and including a wavelength conversion material; and
a sealing layer disposed between the display unit and the functional unit, wherein the sealing layer is disposed on a front surface of the display panel.
In the same field of endeavor, Jang discloses in fig. 19 (¶229-237), a display panel 20_2, wherein the display panel comprises:
a display unit (211, 212, 213, 214) including:
a base substrate 211;
a light emitting element 213 disposed on the base substrate 211; and
an encapsulation layer 214 disposed on the light emitting element 213;
a functional unit including:
a window substrate 216 facing the base substrate 211; and
a light control layer material 215, 218 on a rear surface of the window substrate 216 and including a wavelength conversion material 218; and
a sealing layer 217 disposed between the display unit (211, 212, 213, 214) and the functional unit (218, 215, 216),
wherein the sealing layer 217 is disposed on a front surface of the display panel.
It 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 to incorporate the layers as cited above in the display panel of Jin to reduce the variations of the viewing-angle gamma distortion index (GDI) of a display device as suggested by Jang (¶3-34).
In re claim 11, Jin as modified by Jang discloses the display apparatus of claim 10 outlined above.
Jang further discloses in fig. 19, wherein the wavelength conversion materials 218 comprise quantum dots (¶237).
In re claim 12, Jin as modified by Jang discloses the display apparatus of claim 10 outlined above.
Jang further discloses in fig. 19, wherein each of the base substrate 211 and the window substrate 216 comprises glass (¶136, 204, 219).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Jang et al. (US 20210072600 A1; hereinafter “Jang”) and Lee et al. (US 20200225528 A1; hereinafter “Lee’528”).
In re claim 20, Jin discloses the display apparatus of claim 14 outlined above. Jin doesn’t expressly disclose wherein the display panel comprise quantum dots.
In the same field of endeavor, Jang discloses in fig. 19 (¶229-237), a display panel 20_2, wherein the display panel comprises quantum dots 218 (¶230, 237).
It 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 to incorporate the layers as cited above in the display panel of Jin to improve color reproducibility by changing a wavelength of light as suggested by Lee’528 (¶56 of Lee’528).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NILUFA RAHIM whose telephone number is (571)272-8926. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5:30pm 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, Yara J. Green can be reached at (571) 270-3035. 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.
/NILUFA RAHIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights