DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the application filed 11 July 2023. Claims 1-18 are currently pending.
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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the circuit board unit “curved to be rounded in a first direction and a second direction” (as in claim 1, emphasis added) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the outside” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and/or it is unclear to what object or direction this limitation refers to (i.e., the claim refers to the outside of what?). For the purposes of examination, it Is assumed the above limitation is intended to refer to the direction toward the contact surface portion.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the support portion" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, it is assumed the above limitation was intended to refer to a part of the “gasket portion” as recited in claim 15. Claim 18 depends from claim 17 and thus also contains the above indefinite limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 12, 14-15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2021/0274661 A1 to Zhang et al. (hereinafter “Zhang”).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang (Figs. 1-5) discloses a display module comprising: a circuit board unit 12 (¶ 0084; Fig. 4) on which a plurality of light-emitting diode (LED) units are arranged (¶ 0084); and a plurality of holder units 131 (¶ 0087; Fig. 3) configured to support the circuit board unit, and arranged to be spaced apart from each other (Fig. 5 - note space between units 131; ¶ 0083) so that the circuit board unit is curved to be rounded in a first direction and a second direction (Figs. 17-18; ¶¶ 0047-48).
Regarding claim 2, Zhang (Figs. 1-5) discloses the display module of claim 1, wherein the circuit board unit 12 includes: a circuit board body portion on which the plurality of LED units are arranged (Fig. 4; ¶ 0084); and a plurality of coupling portions 121 (¶ 0089; Fig. 4) arranged to form a plurality of rows on a rear surface portion of the circuit board body portion 12 (Fig. 4), and to which the holder units 131 are coupled (Figs. 4, 5).
Regarding claim 3, Zhang (Figs. 1-5) discloses the display module of claim 2, wherein the plurality of holder units 131 are arranged on the circuit board body portion in a matrix form (Fig. 2 - top).
Regarding claim 4, Zhang (Figs. 1-5) discloses the display module of claim 3, wherein each of the holder units 131 includes: a holder body portion; a contact surface portion formed in the holder body portion to come into contact with the circuit board body portion 12 (Fig. 5 - portions of 131 in contact with 12; ¶ 0097); and a separation surface portion (stop piece 14 formed thereon; ¶¶ 0086-87) formed in a perimeter portion of the holder body portion to be spaced apart from the circuit board body portion 12 (Fig. 5 - “separation surface portion” spaced apart from “circuit body portion” by 14).
Regarding claim 5, Zhang (Figs. 1-5) discloses the display module of claim 4, wherein the contact surface portion (Fig. 5; ¶ 0097) is formed in a flat shape (e.g., top of Fig. 5, where flat contact surface portion 131a contacts 12).
Regarding claim 12, Zhang (Figs. 1-5) discloses the display module of claim 3, wherein an opening 1311 (¶ 0088) is formed in the holder unit 131 to dissipate heat from the circuit board unit 12 (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 14, Zhang (Figs. 1-5) discloses the display module of claim 3, further comprising a position alignment portion 15 (¶¶ 0088-89) installed in the holder unit 131 to correct an installation position of the circuit board unit 12.
Regarding claim 15, Zhang (Figs. 1-5) discloses the display module of claim 1, further comprising a gasket portion 14 (¶ 0083) installed between the circuit board unit 12 and the plurality of holder units 131 (Fig. 5; ¶¶ 086-87).
Regarding claim 17, as best understood, Zhang (Figs. 1-5) discloses the display module of claim 15, wherein a communication hole portion 141 (¶ 0094) is formed in the support portion (portion of 14) to dissipate heat from the circuit board unit 12.
Regarding claim 18, Zhang (Figs. 1-5) discloses the display module of claim 17, wherein the communication hole portion 141 communicates with an opening of the holder unit 131 (Fig. 5; ¶ 0094-95).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
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.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang.
Regarding claim 6, Zhang (Figs. 1-5) discloses the display module of claim 4, however fails to expressly disclose wherein the separation surface portion is formed to be rounded. Where the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement, the particular arrangement is deemed to have been a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). Here, the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to the claimed rounded shape, thus for this reason and in view of the disclosure of Zhang, the recited particular shape is deemed to have been a design consideration within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 7, Zhang (Figs. 1-5) discloses the display module of claim 6, wherein the separation surface portion (stop piece 14 formed thereon; ¶¶ 0086-87) is formed in the perimeter portion of the holder body portion 131 in each of the second direction (extending left) and the first direction (extending right) (Figs. 4, 5).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Zhang (Figs. 1-5) discloses the display module of claim 6, however fails to expressly disclose: wherein an interval between the separation surface portion and the circuit board body portion increases toward the outside from the contact surface portion. Where the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement, the particular arrangement is deemed to have been a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). Here, the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to the claimed shape, thus for this reason and in view of the disclosure of Zhang, the recited particular shape is deemed to have been a design consideration within the skill of the art.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of US 2016/0195902 A1 to Huh et al. (hereinafter “Huh”).
Regarding claim 9, Zhang (Figs. 1-5) discloses the display module of claim 3, however fails to expressly disclose: further comprising connection portions configured to connect the plurality of holder units in a row. In the same field of endeavor, Huh (Fig. 23) discloses a display module including connection portions 1542 (¶ 0181) configured to connect the plurality of holder units 1541 (¶ 0180) in a row. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display module of Zhang to include connection portions as taught by Zhang to provide a flexible display module that may be flexibly bent by an external force applied by a user (Huh, ¶ 0184).
Regarding claim 10, Zhang (Figs. 1-5) and Huh disclose the display module of claim 9, Huh (Fig. 23) discloses further wherein the connection portions 1542 are formed in a band shape (Fig. 23).
Regarding claim 11, Zhang (Figs. 1-5) and Huh disclose the display module of claim 9, however do not expressly disclose: wherein the connection portions are formed in a rounded shape. Where the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement, the particular arrangement is deemed to have been a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). Here, the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to the claimed rounded shape, thus for this reason and in view of the disclosure of Zhang and Huh, the recited particular shape is deemed to have been a design consideration within the skill of the art.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of US 2021/0112670 A1 to Artsis et al. (hereinafter “Artsis”).
Regarding claim 13, Zhang (Figs. 1-5) discloses the display module of claim 3, however fails to expressly disclose: further comprising a magnet portion fastened to the holder unit. In the same field of endeavor, Artsis (Figs. 1A-1B) discloses a display module 10 (¶ 0027) including a magnet portion 14 (¶ 0029) fastened to a holder unit 12 (¶ 0028). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display module of Zhang to include a magnet portion fastened to the holder unit as taught by Artsis to allow easy attachment of the display module without requiring the use of tools (Artsis, ¶ 0029).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of US 2016/0025286 A1 to Wang et al. (hereinafter “Wang”).
Regarding claim 16, Zhang (Figs. 1-5) discloses the display module of claim 15, wherein the gasket portion 14 includes: support portions 14 arranged in a matrix form to respectively support the plurality of holder units 131 (note Figs. 4-5 depict a representative row of the array shown in Fig. 1); however fails to expressly disclose: insertion portions formed between the support portions to protrude to be fitted between the plurality of holder units. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display module of Zhang to include gasket portions as recited above for the purpose of providing environmental protection to the display module (see, e.g., Wang at ¶ 0147, discussing sealing a circuit board and plurality of LEDs for environmental protection).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Candice Y. Chan whose telephone number is (571)272-9013. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5 pm ET.
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, Steven B. Gauthier can be reached at 571-270-0373. 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.
CANDICE Y. CHAN
Examiner
Art Unit 2813
15 September 2025
/STEVEN B GAUTHIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2813