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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/18/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding amended claim applicant has argued that Zhang does not teach wherein the annular frame body comprises a first border corresponding to the binding end of the display panel, and at least a part of the first border is the first portion, and wherein the first border comprises the first portion in the middle and second portions at both ends of the first portion along an extension direction of the first border. Applicant has argued:
“amended claim 1, in the annular frame body, the second portions are arranged at both ends of the first portion along an extension direction of the first border. In the outstanding Office Action, the main plastic frame 2 and the sub-plastic frame 3 were cited as correspondence to the annular frame body, the sub-plastic frame 3 was cited as correspondence to the first portion in the annular frame body, and the supporting boss 5 was cited as correspondence to second portions.
However, the main plastic frame 2 is fixed on the inner wall of the back panel 1, and the main plastic frame 2 is provided with the support boss 5 on the inner side of the bend. And the sub-adhesive frame 3 is fixed on the outer panel of the back panel 1, and is not provided with the support boss 5.
Zhang discloses: As shown in FIGS. 1 and 2, and 3 and 4, a double-framed backlight module is composed of a rectangular back plate 1, a main plastic frame 2, and a sub-plastic frame 3. The main plastic frame 2 is three strips of plastic vertically. The sub-adhesive frame 3 is a single strip; the four sides of the backboard 1 are flanged and form a side panel, and the outer panel of the side panel of the back panel 1 is fixedly mounted to the sub-frame 3, the inner wall of the other three sides “ of the back panel 1 respectively corresponding to the three strips of the main plastic frame 2 and fixedly installed; The two ends of the main plastic frame 2 are provided with a 90-degree bend corresponding to the right angles of the two sides of the backlight of the back plate 1. The inner side of the bend is provided with a support boss 5, and the support boss 5 The top surface is flush with the top surface of the support strip 4.
However this relies on a narrower interpretation of the claim second portions at both ends of the first portion along an extension direction of the first border. The second portions of Zhang are still arranged at both ends regardless of how they connect or any interaction with the outer panel and back panels as both ends of the first portion is considered a region in spaced that is defined by the extension direction of the first border. Under that interpretation Zhang would still teach wherein the first border comprises the first portion in the middle and second portions at both ends of the first portion along an extension direction of the first border as there is a support boss 5 disposed at on each end defined by both ends of the first portion along an extension direction of the first border. Therefore applicants arguments regarding claims 1 and 4-9 are not considered persuasive.
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) 1 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang CN109031746 (translation provided).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang teaches a rubber frame (figs 1-4 main rubber frame 2) for supporting a cover plate at a light-exiting side of a display panel (not shown in figs but referenced on page 2 2nd last paragraph – glass panel), wherein a flexible printed circuit board (1st paragraph after invention content heading) is coupled to a binding end of the display panel, the rubber frame comprises an annular frame (main frame 2 and secondary rubber frame 3) body, the annular frame body comprises a first portion (secondary rubber frame 3)corresponding to the flexible printed circuit board, and the first portion is separated from the other portions (main frame 2) of the annular frame body. Zhang does not explicitly recite the rubber frame supporting a cover plate however does teach rubber frame (main frame 2) directly supporting a supporting a cover plate however it is examiners view that this structure would at least indirectly support a cover plate. Applicant’s own figures do not show any cover plate or display panel and therefore this interpretation appears to be consistent in light of applicant’s specification. Zhang teaches the annular frame body comprises a first border corresponding to the binding end of the display panel (FPC edge position in first 3 paragraphs after invention content heading on page 2), and at least a part of the first border is the first portion (fig. 3 secondary rubber frame 3). Zhang also teaches the rubber frame according to claim 2, wherein the first order comprises the first portion (fig. 1 secondary rubber frame 3) in the middle and second portions (supporting boss 5) at both ends of the first portion along an extension direction of the first border.
Regarding claim 9, Xu teaches a backlight module, comprising the rubber frame according to claim 1 (see fig. 1).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang CN109031746 in view of Li WO 2018/210032 (translation provided)
Regarding claim 4, Zhang teaches the rubber frame according to claim 3 but does not each wherein two opposite ends of the first portion are coupled to the second portions respectively in a snap-fit manner along the extension direction of the first border. However Wang teaches rubber snap fit portions used in a display panel frame (see abstract) enabling assembly efficiency and reduce production cost (page 2 paragraphs 1-4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the snap fit portions to provide two opposite ends of the first portion are coupled to the second portions respectively in a snap-fit manner along the extension direction of the first border to enhance assembly efficiency and reduce cost.
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang CN109031746 in view of Wang CN 104777656A (translation provided)
Regarding claim 5, Zhang teaches the rubber frame according to claim 3 but does not each wherein the first portion is provided with a first boss at each of the two opposite ends, and the corresponding second portion is provided with a first groove for receiving the first boss.
Wang teaches a boss (figs. 4&6 405 convex structure) and groove (404 groove structure) connection structure applied to a frame element of a display allowing for convenient detachment and saving time (page 4 paragraph 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Zhang in view of Wang to provide a convenient detachment and save time.
Regarding claims 6, Zhang as modified by Wang teaches the rubber frame according to claim 5 but does not explicitly state wherein a gap E between a first side surface of the first boss and a first side wall of the corresponding first groove in a direction perpendicular to the extension direction of the first border is calculated through E = square root (Atolerance2 + Btolerance2+ Ctolerance2 +Dtolerance2) where Atolerance is a tolerance of a distance from a side of the first border adjacent to the first side wall to the first side wall, Btolerance is a tolerance of a width of the first groove in the direction perpendicular to the extension direction of the first border, Ctolerance is a tolerance of a distance from a side of the first portion adjacent to the first side surface to the first side surface, and Dtolerance is a tolerance of a width of the first boss in the direction perpendicular to the extension direction of the first border. However basing a gap on physical tolerance dimensions would be considered routine experimentation as this technique is frequently applied to framing structures similar to Zhang. Alternatively the claim does not define the tolerances A-D therefore these values can be arbitrarily defined such that E = square root (Atolerance2 + Btolerance2+ Ctolerance2 +Dtolerance2) is met.
Regarding claim 7, Zhang as modified by Wang teaches the rubber frame according to claim 6 however does not explicitly teach wherein the gap E between the first side surface of the first boss and the first side wall of the corresponding first groove is 0.18 mm to 0.22 mm. However this gap E is considered achievable through routine experimentation as Zhang teaches a frame for a display panel and given one of ordinary skill in the art could easily achieve gap E between the first side surface of the first boss and the first side wall of the corresponding first groove is 0.18 mm to 0.22 mm through routine experimentation.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang CN109031746 in view of Xu CN 204348262 (translation provided).
Regarding claim 8, Zhang teaches the rubber frame according to claim 1 except a surface of the annular frame body coupled to the display panel is provided with a slot for receiving a shock-absorbing material. Xu teaches a display frame body (fig. 2 frame 4) coupled to a display panel (display panel 6) with a slot (slot 43) for receiving shock-absorbing material (elastic cushion 3) enabling narrower frame design (see abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Zhang in view of Xu to enable a narrower frame design.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang CN109031746 in view of Nishi US 2015/0277179.
Regarding Zhang teaches a display device, comprising the backlight module according to claim 9 but does not teach a display panel, wherein a flexible printed circuit board is coupled to a binding end of the display panel, and the flexible printed circuit board is bent to be coupled to a main circuit board at a backlight side of the display panel. Nishi teaches a display panel (figs 1-2 liquid crystal panel 2), wherein a flexible printed circuit board (flexible board F) is coupled to a binding end of the display panel, and the flexible printed circuit board is bent to be coupled to a main circuit board (power board P) at a backlight side of the display panel for space saving (bezel size). Therefore it would have been obvious to modify Zhang in view of Nishi to reduce space.
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang CN109031746 in view of Watanabe US 2015/0211707.
Regarding claim 16, Zhang teaches he rubber frame according to claim 1, wherein the annular frame body comprises a second border (fig. 1 top border connected to 5 – not labeled) and a third border (fig. 1 bottom board connected to 5) adjacent to the first border but does no teach a portion where the second border is coupled to the first border is chamfered, and a portion where the third border is coupled to the first border is chamfered. Watanabe teaches chamfering each corner for a frame area (fig. 1(b) frame area RF) for reducing frame visibility [0091]. This could be applied to each corner of Zhang. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Zhang in view of Watanabe to reduce frame visibility.
Regarding claim 17, Zhang as modified by Watanabe teaches the rubber frame according to claim 16, this would also meet wherein a width of the second border in a direction perpendicular to the second border increases gradually in a direction close to the first border as the chamfering of all corners of the frame elements would result in a width of the second border in a direction perpendicular to the second border increases gradually in a direction close to the first border.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 11-13, 15 and 18-20 are allowed.
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 PHU VU whose telephone number is (571)272-1562. The examiner can normally be reached 11:00 - 7:00 M-F.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at 571-272-9791. 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.
/PHU VU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights