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(s)
The Amendment, filed on 4/8/2026, has been entered and acknowledged by the Examiner.
Cancellation of claim(s) 3, 8 has been entered.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-7, 9-20 are pending in the instant application.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55, which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 8/16/2023. These drawings are considered acceptable by Examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's argument(s) filed on 4/8/2026 have been fully considered but are not found to be persuasive by Examiner.
A. In response to Applicant's arguments that the prior art of record does not disclose the claimed invention, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Per independent Claim(s) 1, 17, Examiner maintains that Mathew et al., does indeed disclose a first sealing member (220) positioned between an upper surface of the back cover (204) side portion and the cover member (202), and wherein the first sealing member (220) contacts the upper surface of the back cover side portion (204).
Specifically, the first sealing member does indeed “contact” the upper surface of the back cover side portion indirectly via subsequent intermediate elements, in this case via the support block, 16, within the device housing.
For purposes of expediting examination, Examiner suggests including language
such as -- directly contact -- in order to improve specificity of the elements in relation to
one another.
Per Claim(s) 5, 20, the modified scope and introduction of new elements in the amendment requires new art (see below).
Per Claim 6, Examiner maintains that Mathew et al., does indeed disclose a core plate (214 + 212) comprises a core supporting portion and a core side portion bent and extending in the thickness direction from the core supporting portion (supporting and bend portions, as depicted in Fig. 2B), wherein the core supporting portion and the core side portion are integrally formed.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Furthermore, the phrase “integrally formed” is does not overcome the prior art of record employed by Examiner. Further specificity of structural or element relation would be highly encouraged.
For the reasons stated above, the rejection of the claims is deemed proper.
America Invents Act
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
1. Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mathew et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0085563 A1) as previously stated by Examiner.
Regarding Claim 1, Mathew et al., teaches a display device comprising: a display panel (206, “LCD cell,” ¶ [0036]-¶ [0050]; see at least Figs. 2A-2G); a cover member (202, “cover glass layer”) positioned on the display panel (206); a back cover (204) positioned on an underside of the display panel (206); and a first sealing member (220) positioned between the back cover (204) and the cover member (202), wherein the first sealing member (220) comprises a molding member or foam member (220 [Wingdings font/0xE0] “foam adhesive,” ¶ [0048]), wherein the back cover (204) comprises a back cover (204) supporting portion and a back cover (204) side portion bent and extending in a thickness direction from the back cover (204) supporting member, wherein the first sealing member (220) positioned between an upper surface of the back cover (204) side portion and the cover member (202), and wherein the first sealing member (220) contacts the upper surface of the back cover side portion (204).
Regarding Claim 2, Mathew et al., teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein each of the cover member (202) and the back cover (204) extends outward from a side of the display panel (206), the display panel (206) comprises a display area including a plurality of pixels and a non-display area adjacent to the display area, and the first sealing member (220) is positioned on the non-display area (via a side-view, Fig. 2B).
Regarding Claim 4, Mathew et al., teaches the display device of claim 3, further comprising: a light-blocking pattern (216, formed of metal, ¶ [0048]) positioned on a lower surface of the cover member (202) in the non-display area, wherein the first sealing member (220) is interposed between the back cover (204) side portion and the light-blocking pattern (216).
Regarding Claim 16, Mathew et al., teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the molding member of the first sealing member (220) comprises a rubber material or silicon material (¶ [0040]), or the foam member of the first sealing member (220) comprises polyethylene, acrylic, or polyurethane.
Regarding Claim 17, Mathew et al., teaches a display device comprising: a display panel (206); a cover member (202) positioned on the display panel (206); a back cover (204) positioned on an underside of the display panel (206); and a sealing member (220) positioned between the back cover (204) and the cover member (202), wherein the sealing member (220) is configured to not have adhesive strength with respect to the back cover (204) and the cover member (202); wherein the back cover (204) comprises a back cover (204) supporting portion and a back cover (204) side portion bent and extending in a thickness direction from the back cover (204) supporting member, wherein the sealing member (220) positioned between an upper surface of the back cover (204) side portion and the cover member (202), and wherein the sealing member (220) contacts the upper surface of the back cover side portion (204).
Examiner notes that the phrase “the sealing member is configured to not have adhesive strength” does not recite a positive limitation and instead attempts to claim the disclosed invention by excluding what the applicants did not disclose or invent, rather than distinctly and particularly pointing out what the applicants did disclose or invent. Essentially this claim language fails to provide any structural element or concrete component.
Regarding Claim 18, Mathew et al., teaches the display device of claim 17, wherein the sealing member (220) comprises a molding member or a foam member (220 [Wingdings font/0xE0] “foam adhesive,” ¶ [0048]).
Regarding Claim 19, Mathew et al., teaches the display device of claim 18, wherein each of the cover member (202) and the back cover (204) extends outward from a side of the display panel (206), the display panel (206) comprises a display area including a plurality of pixels and a non-display area adjacent to the display area, and the sealing member (220) is positioned on the non-display area (as clearly depicted in Fig. 2B).
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 of this title, 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.
2. Claim(s) 5-7, 9, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Mathew et al., in view of in view of Min et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0218491 A1) as previously cited in further view of Jin et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0152930 A1).
Regarding Claim(s) 5, 20, Mathew et al., teaches the invention set forth above (see rejection in the corresponding claim(s) above) and further teaches a polarizing member (“polarizers,” ¶ [0034]) disposed between the display panel and the cover member, a support member (212, “support frame,” ¶ [0041]) disposed between the display panel (206) and the back cover (204) and a core plate (of 214) and a light-blocking pattern (216 [Wingdings font/0xE0] formed of metal, ¶ [0048]) positioned on a lower surface of the cover member (202) in the non-display area and the sealing member (220) positioned between the back cover (204) side portion and the cover member (202) and interposed between the back cover (204) side portion and the light-blocking pattern (216).
Mathew et al., is silent regarding a metal plate positioned between the support member and the back cover.
In the same field of endeavor, Min et al., teaches a display device including a metal plate (135, “reflective plate,” ¶ [0042], see at least Fig. 5) positioned between the display panel (110) and the back cover (300) including a guided holder (in order to keep the metal plate in place) between the metal plate and the back cover in order to reduce back-scatter or loss of light that would otherwise occur without the presence of the metal plate reflecting back escaped light beams from light source, hence improving overall viewing angle (¶ [0007]) and additionally, the presence of the metal plate would further act as a thermal heat sink, reducing temperature away from the display panel.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add the metal plate, as disclosed by Min et al., in the display device of Mathew et al., in order to reduce back-scatter or loss of light that would otherwise occur without the presence of the metal plate reflecting back escaped light beams from light source, hence improving overall viewing angle (¶ [0007]) and additionally, the presence of the metal plate would further act as a thermal heat sink, reducing temperature away from the display panel.
Mathew et al., as modified by Min et al., are silent regarding a viewing angle control member.
In the same field of endeavor, Jin et al., teaches a display device including a viewing angle control member (“viewing control layer,” ¶ [0019] [Wingdings font/0xE0] controlling a viewing angle as taught) in order to prevent personal information from being exposed to other persons by creating greater privacy via angle of viewing (¶ [0019]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add the viewing angle control member, as disclosed by Jin et al., in the device of Mathew et al., as modified by Min et al., in order to prevent personal information from being exposed to other persons by creating greater privacy via angle of viewing (¶ [0019]).
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to using a viewing angle control member as a matter of choice. Applicant(s) has not disclosed that the materials is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected or significant result, or are otherwise critical and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another configuration (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
It should be noted that the superposition of Mathew et al., as modified by Min et al., as further modified by Jin et al., would result in the viewing angle control member being disposed between the polarizing member and the cover member.
Regarding Claim 6, Mathew et al., teaches the display device of claim 5, further comprising: a second sealing member (222) positioned between the core plate (214 + 212) and the cover member (202), wherein the core plate (214 + 212) comprises a core supporting portion and a core side portion bent and extending in the thickness direction from the core supporting portion (supporting and bend portions, as depicted in Fig. 2B), wherein the core supporting portion and the core side portion are integrally formed.
Regarding Claim 7, Mathew et al., teaches the display device of claim 6, wherein the second sealing member (222) is positioned between the core side portion (of 214+212) and the cover member (202), and the second sealing member (222) is interposed (via side-view), in the non-display area, between the core side portion and the light-blocking pattern (216).
Regarding Claim 9, Mathew et al., teaches the display device of claim 5, wherein the core plate (of 214) is fastened (via 256) to the back cover (204).
3. Claim(s) 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Mathew et al., in view of Min et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0218491 A1) as previously cited.
Regarding Claim 10, Mathew et al., teaches the invention set forth above (see rejection in the corresponding claim(s) above). Mathew et al., is silent regarding a metal plate positioned between the display panel and the back cover.
In the same field of endeavor, Min et al., teaches a display device including a metal plate (135, “reflective plate,” ¶ [0042], see at least Fig. 5) positioned between the display panel (110) and the back cover (300) in order to reduce back-scatter or loss of light that would otherwise occur without the presence of the metal plate reflecting back escaped light beams from light source, hence improving overall viewing angle (¶ [0007]) and additionally, the presence of the metal plate would further act as a thermal heat sink, reducing temperature away from the display panel.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add the metal plate, as disclosed by Min et al., in the display device of Mathew et al., in order to reduce back-scatter or loss of light that would otherwise occur without the presence of the metal plate reflecting back escaped light beams from light source, hence improving overall viewing angle (¶ [0007]) and additionally, the presence of the metal plate would further act as a thermal heat sink, reducing temperature away from the display panel.
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to using a metal plate as a matter of choice. Applicant(s) has not disclosed that the materials is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected or significant result, or are otherwise critical and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another configuration (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
Regarding Claim 10, Mathew et al., as modified by Min et al., teaches the display device of claim 4, further comprising: a metal plate (135 of Min et al.,) positioned between the display panel (110) and the back cover (300).
Motivation to combine would be the same as stated above.
Regarding Claim 11, Mathew et al., as modified by Min et al., teaches the display device of claim 10, wherein the metal plate (135 of Min et al.,) is fastened to the back cover (300).
Motivation to combine would be the same as stated above.
Regarding Claim 12, Mathew et al., as modified by Min et al., teaches the display device of claim 10, further comprising: a core plate (214 + 212 of Mathew et al.,) positioned between the metal plate (135 of Min et al.,) and the back cover (204), wherein the core plate (214 + 212) is fastened to the back cover (204).
It should be noted that the superimposition of the two references would result in the combined structure of Claim 12.
Motivation to combine would be the same as stated above.
Regarding Claim 13, Mathew et al., as modified by Min et al., teaches the display device of claim 10, wherein the metal plate (136) extends outward from the side of the display panel (110, Fig. 4 of Min et al.,).
Motivation to combine would be the same as stated above.
Regarding Claim 14, Mathew et al., as modified by Min et al., teaches the display device of claim 13, wherein the first sealing member (220 of Mathew et al.,) is positioned between the metal plate (135 of Min et al.,) and the cover member (202), and is positioned on side and bottom surfaces of the metal plate (135).
It should be noted that the superimposition of the two references would result in the combined structure of Claim 14.
Motivation to combine would be the same as stated above.
Regarding Claim 15, Mathew et al., as modified by Min et al., teaches the display device of claim 13, further comprising: a second sealing member (222 of Mathew et al.,) positioned between the metal plate (135 of Min et al.,) and the cover member (202).
It should be noted that the superimposition of the two references would result in the combined structure of Claim 14.
Motivation to combine would be the same as stated above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment does not overcome the current prior art of record, therefore:
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner H. Featherly whose telephone number is 571-272-8654. The examiner can normally be reached on M-. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James R. Greece can be reached on 571-272-3711.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-272-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/H. Featherly/
Examiner Featherly
Art Unit 2875 Patent Examiner
/JAMES R GREECE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights