DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
IDS
The IDS document(s) filed on April 22, 2026 has been considered. Copies of the PTO-1449 documents are herewith enclosed with this office action.
Response to Arguments
The previously issued specification objection is hereby maintained because Applicant did not address the objection, i.e. title change, in the most recent response.
The previously issued 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection as to claim 16 is maintained, the rejection as to claim 11 is hereby withdrawn in view of the cancellation of claim 11.
The Applicant’s remarks with respect to claims #1-8, 12, 13, 15-24 in the reply filed on May 11, 2026 have been carefully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. This rejection replaces the Non-Final Rejection previously issued on February 11, 2026.
Specifications
The title is objected to because a more descriptive title is requested.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 2-8, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant, regards as the invention.
As to claim 15, there is a lack of antecedent basis for “the inner member”. The Examiner assumes “the inner plate”.
As to claim 16, there is a lack of antecedent basis for “the inner plate” as parent claim 13 does not recite an inner plate.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-7, 12, 13, 15-18, 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (KR 20190064996A), as cited in the IDS and improved machine translation provided, hereafter “Choi”.
As to claim 12, Choi teaches:
A display panel 110 that displays an image. See Choi, FIG. 2.
A thin plate-shaped heat conduction member 310 adhered to a rear face side of the display panel.
A back cover 600 positioned on a side of the heat conduction member opposite to the display panel.
A fixation member 130 positioned between the heat conduction member and the back cover, wherein the fixation member provides for an air gap between the back cover and the heat conduction member. The manner in which claim 12 is written does not specify how the fixation member “provides” for an air gap. Here, Choi teaches a fixation member 130 that provides for an air gap between the back cover and the heat conduction member merely by being formed on both the back cover and heat conduction member as there is an air gap or space that is formed between part of the housing 410, the back cover 600, and layers 150, 130, 110, 310. Id.
However, Choi does not teach the heat conduction member being formed with a thickness of approximately 0.3 to 1.0 mm.
On the other hand, shape, size, and dimension differences are considered obvious design choices and are not patentable unless unobvious or unexpected results are obtained from these changes. It appears that these changes produce no functional differences and therefore would have been obvious. Note In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
As to claim 17, Choi teaches the display panel 110 includes an OLED. See Choi, ¶¶ [0024]-[0025].
As to claim 18, Choi teaches multiple vibration generators 210, 230 that are disposed on the rear face side of the display panel.
As to claim 13, Choi teaches:
A display panel 110 that displays an image. See Choi, FIG. 2.
A thin plate-shaped heat conduction member 310 adhered to a rear face side of the display panel.
A back cover 600 positioned on a side of the heat conduction member opposite to the display panel.
A fixation member 130 positioned between the heat conduction member and the back cover, wherein the fixation member provides for a buffer layer 150 between the back cover and the heat conduction member.
However, Choi does not teach the heat conduction member being formed with a thickness of approximately 0.3 to 1.0 mm.
On the other hand, shape, size, and dimension differences are considered obvious design choices and are not patentable unless unobvious or unexpected results are obtained from these changes. It appears that these changes produce no functional differences and therefore would have been obvious. Note In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
As to claim 1, Choi teaches the thin plate-shaped heat conduction member 310 is stuck on a rear face side of the display panel through an adhesive member. See Choi, ¶¶ [0037]-[0038].
As to claim 16, Choi teaches the fixation member 130 provides for an air gap between the back cover and the heat conduction member. The manner in which claim 12 is written does not specify how the fixation member “provides” for an air gap. Here, Choi teaches a fixation member 130 that provides for an air gap between the back cover and the heat conduction member merely by being formed on both the back cover and heat conduction member as there is an air gap or space that is formed between part of the housing 410, the back cover 600, and layers 150, 130, 110, 310. Id. at FIG. 2.
As to claim 21, Choi does not teach a thickness of approximately 0.3 to 0.5 mm.
On the other hand, shape, size, and dimension differences are considered obvious design choices and are not patentable unless unobvious or unexpected results are obtained from these changes. It appears that these changes produce no functional differences and therefore would have been obvious. Note In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
As to claim 22, Choi teaches aluminum. See Choi, ¶ [0039].
As to claim 23, Choi does not teach graphite.
On the other hand, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use graphite for a heat conductive material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
As to claim 24, Choi teaches the use of an adhesive member. See Choi, ¶¶ [0037]-[0038]. However, Choi does not teach the claimed thickness of the adhesive member.
On the other hand, shape, size, and dimension differences are considered obvious design choices and are not patentable unless unobvious or unexpected results are obtained from these changes. It appears that these changes produce no functional differences and therefore would have been obvious. Note In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
As to claim 15, Choi teaches:
A display panel 110 that displays an image. See Choi, FIG. 2.
A thin plate-shaped heat conduction member 310 adhered to a rear face side of the display panel.
An inner plate 150 positioned on a side of the heat conduction member opposite to the display panel.
A fixation member 130 positioned between the heat conduction member and the inner plate.
A back chassis 600 positioned such that the inner [plate] is between the back chassis and the fixation member,
However, Choi does not teach the heat conduction member being formed with a thickness of approximately 0.3 to 1.0 mm.
On the other hand, shape, size, and dimension differences are considered obvious design choices and are not patentable unless unobvious or unexpected results are obtained from these changes. It appears that these changes produce no functional differences and therefore would have been obvious. Note In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
As to claims 2 and 5, Choi does not teach a thickness of approximately 0.3 to 0.5 mm or 0.3 mm.
On the other hand, shape, size, and dimension differences are considered obvious design choices and are not patentable unless unobvious or unexpected results are obtained from these changes. It appears that these changes produce no functional differences and therefore would have been obvious. Id.
As to claim 3, Choi teaches aluminum. See Choi, ¶ [0039].
As to claim 4, Choi does not teach graphite.
On the other hand, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use graphite for a heat conductive material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
As to claim 6, Choi teaches the display panel 110 includes an OLED. See Choi, ¶¶ [0024]-[0025].
As to claim 7, Choi teaches multiple vibration generators 210, 230 that are disposed on the rear face side of the display panel and vibrate the display panel. Id. at FIG. 2.
Claims Allowable If Rewritten in Independent Form
Claims 8, 19, 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUBERR CHI whose telephone number is (571)270-3955. The examiner can normally be reached 10am to 6pm.
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, Sue Purvis can be reached on (571) 272-1236. 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.
/SUBERR L CHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights