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 .
REJECTIONS WITHDRAWN
There are no rejections withdrawn.
REJECTIONS REPEATED
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by JP2014-106425 (English machine translation provided herein).
JP2014-106425 discloses (the references in parentheses refer to this document) discloses a display device (Figs. 1-5; paragraphs 0001, 0002, 0015-0033: portable having a glass panel) cabinet comprising: a frame (2) having an opening for display use; and a surface panel (3) fixed to the opening, the surface panel having a panel body formed from a transparent material, a decorative layer (8), which is colored (paragraph 0017: decorative printing, e.g. black), in tight contact with an inner surface of a circumferential area of the panel body, the inner surface facing an interior of the display device cabinet, and an adhesion functional resin layer (adhesive print 9) overlaid on an inner surface of the decorative layer, the frame is formed from a synthetic resin material (Figs. 1-6), the frame having an end-face tight contact surface in tight contact with an end face of the surface panel and also having an inner-surface tight-contact surface in tight contact with the inner surface of the circumferential area of the panel body, and a tight-contact edge portion facing a center of the surface panel is formed as part of the inner-surface tight-contact surface so that the tight-contact edge portion is at a position at which the tight- contact edge portion overlaps both the decorative layer and the adhesion functional resin layer (Figs. 1-6).
The limitation, “a synthetic resin material cured while in a tight contact with the surface panel” is a method step in a product claim and has been given little to no patentable weight since the method by which a product is produced is not germane to the patentability of a product in a product claims (MPEP 2113).
Claim 2 is disclosed in JP2014-106425 (Fig. 1: layer 8 is longer than layer 9).
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) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2014-106425 (English machine translation provided herein) in view of JP2013-146875 (English machine translation provided herein).
JP2014-106425 does not disclose an inner surface support portion facing the interior of the display device cabinet is formed as part of the frame, and the inner surface support portion has the inner-surface tight- contact surface and an inner end face facing the center of the surface panel; and an inner end edge portion of the inner end face, the inner end edge portion facing the interior of the display device cabinet, is at a position closer to the end face than the tight- contact edge portion is, wherein a concave surface contiguous to the tight-contact edge portion is formed as part of the inner end face.
JP2013-146875 disclose an inner surface support portion facing the interior of the display device cabinet is formed as part of the frame, and the inner surface support portion has the inner-surface tight- contact surface and an inner end face facing the center of the surface panel; and an inner end edge portion of the inner end face, the inner end edge portion facing the interior of the display device cabinet, is at a position closer to the end face than the tight-contact edge portion is, wherein a concave surface contiguous to the tight-contact edge portion is formed as part of the inner end face (22 from Figs. 3-6) in a glass insert molded article for use in articles such as mobile phones for the purpose of providing improved bond strength between the glass material and a resin frame (paragraphs [0001 – 0002], [0006]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time applicant’s invention was made to have provided an inner surface support portion facing the interior of the display device cabinet is formed as part of the frame, and the inner surface support portion has the inner-surface tight- contact surface and an inner end face facing the center of the surface panel; and an inner end edge portion of the inner end face, the inner end edge portion facing the interior of the display device cabinet, is at a position closer to the end face than the tight- contact edge portion is, wherein a concave surface contiguous to the tight-contact edge portion is formed as part of the inner end face in JP2014-106425 in order to provide improved bond strength between the glass material and a resin frame as taught or suggested by JP2013-146875.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2014-106425 (English machine translation provided herein) in view of JP2005-121929 (English machine translation provided herein).
Applicant discloses that a frame made from Hytrel is a polyester elastomer having a tensile elastic modulus of at least 100 MPa and at most 500 MPa and a bending elastic modulus of at least 200 MPa and at most 1000 MPa (See applicant’s PGPUB US 2024/0074078, paragraph [0028]).
JP2014-106425 does not disclose a frame made from Hytrel is a polyester elastomer having a tensile elastic modulus of at least 100 MPa and at most 500 MPa and a bending elastic modulus of at least 200 MPa and at most 1000 MPa.
JP2005-121929 discloses a frame made from Hytrel is a polyester elastomer having a tensile elastic modulus of at least 100 MPa and at most 500 MPa and a bending elastic modulus of at least 200 MPa and at most 1000 MPa (since Hytrel is disclosed, paragraph [0060]) in a display device (paragraph [0001]) for the purpose of preventing damaging the panel (paragraph [0013]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time applicant’s invention was made to have provided a frame made from Hytrel is a polyester elastomer having a tensile elastic modulus of at least 100 MPa and at most 500 MPa and a bending elastic modulus of at least 200 MPa and at most 1000 MPa in JP2014-106425 in order to prevent damaging the panel as taught or suggested by JP2005-121929.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2014-106425 (English machine translation provided herein) in view of JP2005-121929 (English machine translation provided herein), as applied to claims 5-6 above, and further in view of JP2015-050675 (English machine translation provided herein).
Applicant discloses that the rear cover is made from ABS (acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene) which has a larger tensile elastic modulus and a larger bending elastic modulus than the frame (Hytrel) (See applicant’s PGPUB US 2024/0074078, paragraphs [0028] and [0043]).
JP2005-121929 discloses a frame made from Hytrel is a polyester elastomer having a tensile elastic modulus of at least 100 MPa and at most 500 MPa and a bending elastic modulus of at least 200 MPa and at most 1000 MPa (since Hytrel is disclosed, paragraph [0060]).
JP2014-106425 does not disclose a rear cover layer made from ABS which is linked to the frame to form the display device cabinet, wherein the rear cover has a larger surface area than the frame.
JP2015-050675 discloses a rear cover layer made from ABS (paragraph [0021]) which is linked to the frame to form the display device cabinet and wherein the rear cover has a larger surface (3c from Fig. 5) area than the frame (3a from Fig. 5) in a display device cabinet for the purpose of lowering costs (paragraph [0021]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time applicant’s invention was made to have provided a rear cover layer made from ABS which is linked to the frame to form the display device cabinet, wherein the rear cover has a larger surface area than the frame in JP2014-106425 in order to provide lower costs as taught or suggested by JP2015-050675.
The limitation, “the rear cover has a larger tensile elastic modulus and a larger bending elastic modulus than the frame” is provided by the prior art since JP2005-121929 discloses a frame made from Hytrel and JP2015-050675 discloses a rear cover made from ABS which are the exact same materials disclosed by applicant (See applicant’s PGPUB US 2024/0074078, paragraphs [0028] and [0043]).
NEW REJECTIONS
There are no new rejections.
ANSWERS TO APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS
Applicant’s arguments of 2/3/26 have been carefully considered but are deemed unpersuasive.
Applicant argues, “The Examiner asserts that Oda teaches each element of claim 1. Oda is directed to a portable terminal and manufacturing method for the same. In the Office Action, the Examiner cites Figures 1-6 as well as paragraphs [0001], [0002], and [0015]-[0033] of Oda in connection with claim 1. However, the Applicant respectfully submits that none of these portions of Oda teach a curing process such as a curing process where a frame is formed from a synthetic resin material cured while in a tight contact with the surface panel as recited in claim 1.”
However, the curing process is a method step in a product claim and has been given little to no patentable weight since the method by which a product is produced is not germane to the patentability of a product in a product claims (MPEP 2113).
Applicant argues, “Additionally, while the Examiner generally cites Figures 1-6 of Oda in connection with the element that a tight-contact edge portion facing a center of the surface panel is formed as part of the inner-surface tight-contact surface so that the tight-contact edge portion is at a position at which the tight-contact edge portion overlaps both the decorative layer and the adhesion functional resin layer of claim 1, the cited portions of Oda do not teach this. The Applicant respectfully notes that the Examiner has not provided any explanation as how Figures 1-6 of Oda are being interpreted as teaching this element.”
However, Oda discloses that the tight-contact edge portion is at a position
at which the tight-contact edge portion 2 overlaps both the decorative layer and the adhesion functional resin layer since the edge portion overlaps layers 8 (print layer) and 9 (adhesive) from underneath and the side (see figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
596
564
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MICHAEL C MIGGINS whose telephone number is (571)272-1494. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 1-9 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, Aaron Austin can be reached at 571-272-8935. 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.
/MICHAEL C MIGGINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
MCM
March 23, 2026