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 September 17, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 4, and 6 have been amended and new claims 9-13 have been added. Claims 1-6 and 8-13 are therefore pending in the application. The amendments to claims 4 and 6 have overcome the 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated July 7, 2025.
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 1-3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito (US 2020/0167013 A1), and further in view of Huang (US 2021/0356989 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Saito teaches a display device (IWB 100) comprising:
a housing (main body 100A and controller box 102) including a first portion (100A) and a second portion (102) thicker than the first portion (100A);
a screen (touch panel display 101) disposed on a front face of the housing (100A and 102);
a storage groove (see annotated Fig. 1B below) disposed in the second potion of the housing (102); and
a control board (see paragraph 0019 stating that components disposed in controller box 102 control various pieces of hardware included in the IWB) configured to control the display device (100),
wherein the second portion of the housing (102) protrudes backward from a lower portion of the first portion (100A) without protruding with respect to the first portion (100A) as viewed from a rear face of the housing (see Fig. 1B),
wherein the second portion of the housing (102) is divided by the storage groove into a left grip portion, a right grip portion, and an intermediate portion disposed between the left grip portion and the right grip portion in a horizontal direction (see annotated Fig. 1B below), and
wherein the control board (within intermediate portion of 102) is disposed at a position at which the control board does not overlap with the left grip portion and the right grip portion (see annotated Fig. 1B below) in a direction orthogonal to the screen (101).
PNG
media_image1.png
739
743
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Saito lacks a specific teaching that the left grip portion and the right grip portion are configured to be held by a user while using the display device. Saito also fails to disclose a stand having a rectangular frame shape, the stand configured to be rotatable and be stored in the storage groove without protruding with respect to an outline of the housing as viewed in the direction orthogonal to the screen.
Huang discloses display device (see Abstract) with left and right grip portions (portions to the left and right of support frame 10, respectively) configured to be held by a user while using the display device, as well as a stand (support frame 10) having a rectangular frame shape (see Figs. 1-2), the stand configured to be rotatable (see paragraph 0008) and be stored in a storage groove (receiving groove 210) without protruding with respect to an outline of its housing (housing 20) as viewed in the direction orthogonal to the screen (see Figs. 1-4).
Saito and Huang 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 teachings of Saito by incorporating the above-described features of Huang. Including a stand with a rectangular frame shape configured to be rotatable and stored in the storage groove would allow the display device to stand on a table or other flat surface. When the stand is not being used, it can be stored in the storage groove without protruding out from the device and getting in the way of the user. Making the display device smaller would also be beneficial because the device could be portable and easily held by a user. Huang teaches this smaller size, although it would still be obvious even without the teaching of Huang because a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 2, Saito teaches a display device (100) comprising:
a housing (100A and 102) including a first portion (100A) and a second portion (102) thicker than the first portion (100A);
a screen (101) disposed on a front face of the housing (100A and 102); and
a storage groove (see annotated Fig. 1B above) disposed in the second potion of the housing (102),
wherein the second portion of the housing (102) protrudes backward from a lower portion of the first portion (100A) without protruding with respect to the first portion (100A) as viewed from a rear face of the housing (see Fig. 1B), and
wherein the second portion of the housing (102) is divided by the storage groove into a left grip portion, a right grip portion, and an intermediate portion disposed between the left grip portion and the right grip portion in a horizontal direction (see annotated Fig. 1B above).
Saito lacks a specific teaching that the left grip portion and the right grip portion are
configured to be held by a user while using the display device. Saito fails to disclose a stand configured to be rotatable and be stored in the storage groove without protruding with respect to an outline of the housing as viewed in the direction orthogonal to the screen. Saito also fails to disclose a battery configured to drive the display device, the battery being disposed at a position at which the battery does not overlap with the left grip portion and the right grip portion in a direction orthogonal to the screen.
Huang discloses display device (see Abstract) with left and right grip portions (portions
to the left and right of support frame 10, respectively) configured to be held by a user while using the display device, as well as a stand (10) configured to be rotatable (see paragraph 0008) and be stored in a storage groove (210) without protruding with respect to an outline of its housing (20) as viewed in the direction orthogonal to the screen (see Figs. 1-4). Huang also discloses a battery (battery cover 40) configured to drive the display device, the battery disposed a position at which the battery does not overlap with the left grip portion and the right grip portion in a direction orthogonal to the screen (see Fig. 3 showing battery cover 40 inside the U-shaped receiving groove 210, the left and right grip portions are outside of the U-shaped receiving groove 210).
Saito and Huang 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 teachings of Saito by incorporating the above-described features of Huang. Including a stand configured to be rotatable and stored in the storage groove would allow the display device to stand on a table or other flat surface. When the stand is not being used, it can be stored in the storage groove without protruding out from the device and getting in the way of the user. Including a battery would be beneficial because the battery would be capable of driving the device without the device needing to be plugged in to an external power source. Having the battery not overlap the grip portions would make the device more comfortable for a user to hold since the battery would produce heat. Making the display device smaller would also be beneficial so that the device could be portable and easily held by a user. Huang teaches this smaller size, although it would still be obvious even without the teaching of Huang because a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 3, Saito in view of Huang teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as
stated above. Saito in view of Huang further teaches the display device according to claim 1, wherein the housing (Saito: 100A and 102) has a rectangular shape in a plan view from a front side or a rear side of the display device (see Saito, Figs. 1A-B).
Regarding claim 9, Saito in view of Huang teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 as
stated above. Saito in view of Huang further teaches the display device according to claim 2, wherein the housing (Saito: 100A and 102) has a rectangular shape in a plan view from a front side or a rear side of the display device (see Saito, Figs. 1A-B).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito in view of Huang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hanatsuka et al. (US 2007/0297124 A1), hereinafter Hanatsuka.
Saito in view of Huang teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Saito in view of Huang lacks the specific teaching that a thermal conductive sheet is attached to an inner face of the housing at a position at which the inner face faces the control board.
Hanatsuka teaches a display device (information processing device 1) that includes a thermal conductive sheet (metal frame 46) attached to an inner face of a housing (first case 44) at a position at which the inner face faces a control board (circuit board 48).
Hanatsuka 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 Saito in view of Huang to include a thermal conductive sheet attached to an inner face of the housing at a position that faces the control board. Doing so would allow for heat to be conducted away from the control board and reduce the likelihood of malfunction due to overheating.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito in view of Huang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yanagawa et al. (US 7,705,536 B2), hereinafter Yanagawa.
Regarding claim 5, Saito in view of Huang teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Saito in view of Huang fails to teach a heat transfer member disposed between a rear face of the screen and a rear face of the housing that are opposed to each other.
Yanagawa teaches a display device (display device 10) comprising a heat transfer member (chassis 12, heat transfer member 71, and graphite sheet 140) disposed between a rear face of a screen (PDP 11) and a rear face of a housing (casing 120) that are opposed to each other.
Yanagawa 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 of Saito in view of Huang to include a heat transfer member disposed between a rear face of the screen and a rear face of the housing that are opposed to each other. Yanagawa teaches a motivation for this configuration: “[It] allows heat generated from the PDP 11 to be transferred through the chassis 12 and the heat transfer member 71 to the graphite sheet 140 highly efficiently, thereby making it possible to inhibit the temperature of the PDP 11 from being elevated.” (col. 11, lines 22-26).
Regarding claim 6, Saito in view of Huang teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Saito in view of Huang fails to teach a heat transfer member disposed between a rear face of the screen the control board.
Yanagawa teaches a display device (10) comprising a heat transfer member (12) disposed between a rear face of a screen (11) and a control board (circuit board 17). 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 of Saito in view of Huang to include the features described above. Yanagawa teaches a motivation for these features: “The chassis 12 positioned to extend along the rear face of the PDP 11 acts to uniformalize [sic] the heat distribution in the plane of the PDP 11, thereby making it possible to inhibit the occurrence of display irregularities. In addition, the installation of the chassis 12 on the rear of the PDP 11 can bring an advantage that the heat dissipation efficiency of the PDP 11 is enhanced.” (col. 9, lines 37-43). Likewise, components typically mounted on a control board “generate large amounts of heat.” (col. 10, line 22). Having a heat transfer member disposed between the screen and the control board would allow for the heat transfer member to dissipate the heat generated by both the screen and the control board.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito in view of Huang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ubbesen et al. (US 10,835,106 B1), hereinafter Ubbesen.
Saito in view of Huang teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Saito in view of Huang further teaches that the left grip portion and the right grip portion (Huang: portions to the left and right of support frame 10, respectively) are disposed at positions outside the stand (Huang: 10) in the display device. Saito in view of Huang fails to teach a terminal to which a cable is to be connected, wherein the stand surrounds the terminal.
Ubbesen teaches a display device (monitor 20) with a storage groove (grooves 42 and 44) disposed a back part of its housing (body 54). Ubbesen further teaches a stand having a rectangular frame shape (handle 26), the stand (26) configured to be rotatable and be stored in the storage groove (see Abstract). Ubbesen also teaches a terminal to which a cable can be connected (video output recess 400) that is surrounded by the stand (26).
Ubbesen 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 include a terminal in the intermediate portion of the housing so that a cable can be used to provide an external signal or power to the components disposed within the controller box. Placing the terminal so that it is surrounded by the stand would allow users to easily access the terminal when the stand is being utilized. Further, if the terminal was located outside of the stand and on the grip portions, the device would be less comfortable for a user to hold.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito in view of Huang as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Hanatsuka.
Saito in view of Huang teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 as stated above. Saito in view of Huang lacks the specific teaching that a thermal conductive sheet is attached to an inner face of the housing at a position at which the inner face faces the battery.
Hanatsuka teaches a display device (1) that includes a thermal conductive sheet (46) attached to an inner face of a housing (44) at a position at which the inner face faces a control board (48).
Hanatsuka 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 Saito in view of Huang to include a thermal conductive sheet attached to an inner face of the housing at a position that faces the battery. A battery produces heat similar to a circuit board. Thus, doing so would allow for heat to be conducted away from the battery and reduce the likelihood of malfunction due to overheating.
Claim 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito in view of Huang as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Yanagawa.
Regarding claim 11, Saito in view of Huang teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 as stated above. Saito in view of Huang fails to teach a heat transfer member disposed between a rear face of the screen and a rear face of the housing that are opposed to each other.
Yanagawa teaches a display device (10) comprising a heat transfer member (12, 71, and 140) disposed between a rear face of a screen (11) and a rear face of a housing (120) that are opposed to each other.
Yanagawa 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 of Saito in view of Huang to include a heat transfer member disposed between a rear face of the screen and a rear face of the housing that are opposed to each other. Yanagawa teaches a motivation for this configuration: “[It] allows heat generated from the PDP 11 to be transferred through the chassis 12 and the heat transfer member 71 to the graphite sheet 140 highly efficiently, thereby making it possible to inhibit the temperature of the PDP 11 from being elevated.” (col. 11, lines 22-26).
Regarding claim 12, Saito in view of Huang teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 as stated above. Saito in view of Huang fails to teach a heat transfer member disposed between a rear face of the screen the battery.
Yanagawa teaches a display device (10) comprising a heat transfer member (12) disposed between a rear face of a screen (11) and a control board (17). 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 of Saito in view of Huang to include the features described above. Yanagawa teaches a motivation for these features: “The chassis 12 positioned to extend along the rear face of the PDP 11 acts to uniformalize [sic] the heat distribution in the plane of the PDP 11, thereby making it possible to inhibit the occurrence of display irregularities. In addition, the installation of the chassis 12 on the rear of the PDP 11 can bring an advantage that the heat dissipation efficiency of the PDP 11 is enhanced.” (col. 9, lines 37-43). Likewise, components typically mounted on a control board “generate large amounts of heat.” (col. 10, line 22). A battery produces heat similar to a circuit board. Thus, having a heat transfer member disposed between the screen and the battery would allow for the heat transfer member to dissipate the heat generated by both the screen and the battery.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito in view of Huang as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Ubbesen.
Saito in view of Huang teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 as stated above. Saito in view of Huang further teaches that the left grip portion and the right grip portion (Huang: portions to the left and right of support frame 10, respectively) are disposed at positions outside the stand (Huang: 10) in the display device. Saito in view of Huang fails to teach a terminal to which a cable is to be connected, wherein the stand surrounds the terminal.
Ubbesen teaches a display device (20) with a storage groove (42 and 44) disposed a back part of its housing (54). Ubbesen further teaches a stand having a rectangular frame shape (26), the stand (26) configured to be rotatable and be stored in the storage groove (see Abstract). Ubbesen also teaches a terminal to which a cable can be connected (400) that is surrounded by the stand (26).
Ubbesen 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 include a terminal in the intermediate portion of the housing so that a cable can be used to provide an external signal or power to the components disposed within the controller box. Placing the terminal so that it is surrounded by the stand would allow users to easily access the terminal when the stand is being utilized. Further, if the terminal was located outside of the stand and on the grip portions, the device would be less comfortable to hold.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed September 17, 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of the combination of Saito (US 2020/0167013 A1) and Huang (US 2021/0356989 A1). Saito in view of Huang teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 2 as stated above.
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
/JERRY WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841