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 June 28, 2023 and October 23, 2025 have been considered. Copies of the PTO-1449 documents are herewith enclosed with this office action.
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 11-13, 16-20 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 11, there is a lack of antecedent basis for “the back cover” as parent claim 1 does not recite a back cover structure. Did Applicant intend dependence from claim 10?
As to claim 16, there is a lack of antecedent basis for “the inner plate” as neither parent claims 9 and 11 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 1-11, 14, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Masuda et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0028787 A1), as cited in the IDS and hereafter “Masuda”, and further in view of Kong et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0209168 A1), hereafter “Kong”.
As to claim 1, Masuda teaches:
A plate-shaped display cell 11 that displays an image. See Masuda, FIG. 21.
However, Masuda does not teach inter alia a thin plate-shaped heat conduction member.
On the other hand, Kong teaches a thin plate-shaped heat conduction member 500 stuck on a rear face side of a display cell 100, corresponding to Masuda’s display cell 11. See Kong, FIG. 1. Kong further teaches a thickness of approximately 0.3 to 0.5 mm. Id. at ¶ [0064].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the heat conduction member as taught by Kong with the display cell as taught by Masuda, in order to yield the predictable benefit of rapidly discharging heat to the outside. Id. at ¶ [0066].
As to claims 2 and 5, Kong teaches a thickness of approximately 0.3 to 0.5 mm. Id.
As to claim 3, Kong teaches aluminum. Id.
As to claim 4, neither Masuda nor Kong teaches graphite.
On the other hand, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select graphite for a heat conducting 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, Kong teaches an OLED. See Kong, ¶ [0057].
As to claim 7, Masuda teaches multiple vibration generators 16 on the rear face side of the display cell and vibrate the display cell. See Masuda, FIG. 21.
As to claim 8, Masuda teaches the vibration generators 16 are disposed avoiding a location at which vibration is most likely to occur and another location at which vibration is least likely to occur. Id. at ¶ [0067].
As to claim 9, Masuda teaches:
A display panel 11 that displays an image. Id.
However, Masuda does not teach inter alia a thin plate-shaped heat conduction member.
On the other hand, Kong teaches a thin plate-shaped heat conduction member 500 adhered to a rear face side of a display panel 100, corresponding to Masuda’s display cell 11. See Kong, FIG. 1. Kong further teaches a thickness of approximately 0.3 to 0.5 mm. Id. at ¶ [0064].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the heat conduction member as taught by Kong with the display panel as taught by Masuda, in order to yield the predictable benefit of rapidly discharging heat to the outside. Id. at ¶ [0066].
As to claim 10, Masuda teaches a back cover 13 positioned on a side of the heat conduction member opposite to the display panel. See Masuda, FIG. 21.
As to claim 11, the combination of Masuda and Kong teaches a fixation member 12 positioned between Kong’s heat conduction member and Masuda’s back cover 13.
As to claim 14, Masuda teaches an inner plate 13 positioned on a side of the heat conduction member opposite to the display panel.
As to claim 18, Masuda teaches multiple vibration generators 16 that are disposed on the rear face of the display panel. Id.
As to claim 19, Masuda teaches the vibration generators are disposed at locations spaced apart from a location at which vibration amplitudes are at maximum. Id. at FIG. 21, ¶ [0109].
As to claim 20, Masuda teaches the vibration generators are disposed at locations spaced apart from a location at which vibration amplitudes are at maximum for audio frequencies between 20 Hz and 20 kHz. Id. at FIG. 21, ¶¶ [0067], [0071], [0072], [0109].
Claims Allowable If Rewritten in Independent Form
As to claim 12, the combination of Masuda and King does not necessarily teach an air gap between the back cover and the heat conduction member.
As to claim 13, the combination of Masuda and King does not teach a buffer layer between the back cover and the heat conduction member.
As to claim 15, neither Masuda nor Kong teaches the limitations of the fixation member and back chassis.
As to claims 16 and 17, neither Masuda nor Kong teaches the limitations of the air gap between the inner plate and the heat conduction member.
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