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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kenney (US 2011/0290685).
Regarding claim 1 Kenney discloses:
A display device comprising:
a display panel (e.g. 12 FIG.1A); and
a material complexed plate (e.g. 30 FIG.5B) at a rear of the display panel, wherein the material complexed plate comprises:
a front skin (e.g. 42 FIG.5B) forming a front surface;
a rear skin (e.g. 32 FIG.5B) forming a rear surface and facing the front skin;
a core (e.g. 36 FIG.5B) disposed between the front skin and the rear skin, and comprising fibers (e.g. aramid paragraph [0033]);
an accommodating part (e.g. section pointed to by C FIG.5B) formed according to the front skin having been pressed toward the rear skin (e.g. shown FIG.5B); and
a barrier (e.g. walls formed around C FIG.5B) located adjacent to the accommodating part and being shaped to include a cut (e.g. negative section shown FIG.5B) in a portion of the front skin. (note FIG.5B contains both "C" and "c" capitalization signifies the relevant element of the prior art)
Regarding claim 2 Kenney discloses:
the accommodating part includes a step extending downward from the front skin to a lower region of the accommodating part (e.g. shown FIG.5B).
Regarding claim 3 Kenney discloses:
the material complexed plate comprises:
a flat part (e.g. surface along c (between 34 and 26 FIG.5B)); and
the accommodating part formed in a portion of the flat part (e.g. shown FIG.5B), wherein the front skin of the accommodating part includes a step extending downward from the front skin to the flat part (e.g. shown FIG.5B), and wherein the barrier is formed in the step between the flat part and a remaining portion of the accommodating part (e.g. shown FIG.5B).
Regarding claim 4 Kenney discloses:
the barrier is one of a plurality of barriers (e.g. two shown FIG.5B), and wherein each of the plurality of barriers comprises:
a first slit (e.g. left diagonal section about C FIG.5B) formed along a boundary between the flat part and the remaining portion of the accommodating part; and
a second slit (e.g. right diagonal section about C FIG.5B) formed along the boundary between the flat part and the remaining portion of the accommodating part, wherein the second slit is spaced apart from the first slit (e.g. shown FIG.5B).
Regarding claim 5 Kenney discloses:
the first slit forms a first distance from a distal edge of the accommodating part to a first end of the first slit less than a second distance from the distal edge of the accommodating part to a second end of the first slit (e.g. shown FIG.4B), and wherein the second slit forms a third distance from the distal edge of the accommodating part to a first end of the second slit is less than a fourth distance from the distal edge of the accommodating part to a second end of the second slit (e.g. shown FIG.4B).
Regarding claim 6 Kenney discloses:
the first slit is symmetrical to the second slit (e.g. about C FIG.5B).
Regarding claim 7 Kenney discloses:
each of the plurality of barriers comprises:
a third slit (e.g. not shown side into/out of the page shown FIG.5B to accommodate 40 as described paragraph [0042]-[0044]) spaced apart from the first slit and the second slit, the third slit being formed in the flat part (e.g. in the same manner as shown FIG.5B).
Regarding claim 8 Kenney discloses:
the third slit is elongated (e.g. between the inner edges of slanted walls shown FIG.5B), and wherein a length of the third slit is less than a distance between both distal ends of the first slit and the second slit (e.g. the length of the bottom of the accommodating part).
Regarding claim 10 Kenney discloses:
each of the plurality of barriers comprises:
a third slit (e.g. not shown third side to accommodate 40 as described paragraph [0042]-[0044]) spaced apart from the first slit and the second slit, the third slit being formed in the flat part (e.g. in the same manner as shown FIG.5B), a fifth distance between the third slit and the first slit or between the third slit and the second slit is less than the second distance or the fourth distance (e.g. distance between third and second/first slit approaches zero at the vertex of the slits).
Regarding claim 11 Kenney discloses:
the rear skin includes a protrusion
extending away from the core and the front skin (e.g. edges of 32 extending away shown FIG.5B), wherein a location of the protrusion generally corresponds with a location at the front skin of the accommodating part (e.g. above, as shown FIG.5B).
Regarding claim 12 Kenney discloses:
A display device comprising:
a display panel (e.g. 12 FIG.1A); and
a material complexed panel (e.g. 30 FIG.5B) located at a rear of the display panel,
wherein the material complexed panel comprises:
a front skin (e.g. 42 FIG.5B) forming a front surface;
a rear skin (e.g. 32 FIG.5B) forming a rear surface and facing the front skin; and
a core (e.g. 36 FIG.5B) located between the front skin and the rear skin, wherein the material complexed panel is shaped to define an accommodating part (e.g. section pointed to by C FIG.5B) where a portion of the front skin has been pressed toward the rear skin (e.g. shown FIG.5B), wherein the material complexed panel is further shaped to define a barrier (e.g. walls formed around C FIG.5B) located relative to the accommodating part, and wherein the barrier includes an opening in a portion of the front skin (e.g. downward opening shown FIG.5B).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kenney (US 2011/0290685) in view of LEE at al. (US2019/0014670).
Regarding claim 9 Kenney discloses:
a width of the first slit or a width of the second slit (e.g. widths shown FIG.5B)
Kenney does not explicitly disclose:
a width of the third slit is less than a width of a slit
LEE teaches:
a width of the third slit (e.g. ledge above f8 FIG.31) is less than a width of another slit (e.g. ledge below f8 FIG.31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teachings of Lee as pointed out above, in Kenney, as one having ordinary skill in the art would have would have recognized the teaching, suggestion, and motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings (as pointed out above) to arrive at the claimed invention, and would have been motivated to do this with a reasonable expectation of success because such a combination and/or modification would have allowed for: accommodation of attachment devices on angled surfaces with greater support (FIG.31, paragraph [0112]).
Response to Arguments
The previous drawing and claim objections have been overcome.
Regarding argument 1:
This argument is unclear. Paragraph [0033] clearly recites “aramid paper”. An “aramid paper” is a material well known in the art to be a paper formed of aramid fibers, and therefor the fibers that form the core are aramid fibers.
Regarding argument 2:
This argument appears to be misplaced with respect to the current claims of record. Applicant is reminded that the current claims of record are apparatus claims, not method claims, and that: PRODUCT-BY-PROCESS CLAIMS ARE NOT LIMITED TO THE MANIPULATIONS OF THE RECITED STEPS, ONLY THE STRUCTURE IMPLIED BY THE STEPS
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)(MPEP 2113). As Kenney discloses the structure implied by the product-by-process limitations it is read to disclose the claim(s) as recited.
Regarding argument 3:
The premise of argument 3 is unclear. It must be noted that the limitation ”front skin” is a limitation with respect to a material surface, while the limitation “barrier” is a limitation with respect to how material is shaped. There does not appear to be anything mutually exclusive between the limitations “front skin” and “barrier”. Indeed FIG.21 of the present applicant clearly shows front skin 132 and barrier W existing at the same time in the same location, in the same manner as the prior art. Reading the claims in light of the specification (MPEP 2111) and even reading the claims consistent with the specification, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Kenney discloses the argued limitation in the same manner as the present application discloses the argued limitation.
Any/all other arguments are either addressed by the responses above, or addressed in the rejection above, and so will not be repeated here.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 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 THERON S MILLISER whose telephone number is (571)270-1800. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6.
Limited examiner interviews are available.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Imani N. Hayman can be reached at (571) 270-5528. 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.
/THERON S MILLISER/Examiner, Art Unit 2841 /IMANI N HAYMAN/
Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights