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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I Claims 1-10 and 16-20 in the reply filed on 01/06/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 11-15 are withdrawn as non-elected invention.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2016/0033996 A1) in view of Liu et al. (US 2019/0189959 A1).
Claim 1: Lee teaches a mobile terminal 100 comprising a rear case 102 and rear cover 103, and the rear case 102 and rear cover 103 are coupled to each other (Fig. 3 and [0057]). The rear case 102 meets the claimed side walls of the front housing assembly, and the rear cover 103 meets the claimed base plate of the front housing assembly. Lee teaches the mobile terminal 100 comprises a display unit 151 combined with a front case 101 and a window 151’ (Fig. 3 and [0092]), and an adhesive may be used for combining the layers [0106]. The display unit 151 meets the claimed display screen and the window 151’ meets the claimed touch screen cover plate. Lee teaches in order not to expose a circumstance part of the display unit 151 to external except a part on which image information of the display unit 151 is outputted, bezel can be printed on a rear side circumstance of the window 151’ [0092]. The bezel meets the claimed touch screen decoration part. Lee teaches the mobile terminal can be glasses-type [0054] but does not teach the window 151’ is a 2.5D glass. However, Liu teaches a cover plate 100 constructed using 2.5D glass to prevent permeation of outside moisture and oxygen and reduce the permeability of moisture and oxygen [0041]. The cover plate 100 meets the claimed touch screen cover plate. Lee and Liu are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor that is the display device art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the cover plate 100 with the invention of Lee, and the motivation for combining would be, as Liu suggested, to prevent permeation of outside moisture and oxygen [0041].
With respect to the thickness of the window 151’, the experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fails to render applicants’ claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the thickness of the window 151’ and the motivation would be to control strength and image visibility. A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted, however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
Claim 2: Lee teaches the window 151’ is larger than display unit 151 [0092].
Claim 3: Lee teaches the window 151’ is positioned on the display unit 151 (Fig. 3 and [0092]). Since Lee fails to disclose there is an element or a layer between the window 151’ and the display unit 151, it is interpreted that the distance between the window 151’ and the display unit 151 on each side is zero which meets the claimed 0mm.
Claim 4: Lee teaches the display unit 151 of the front side is combined with the front case 101 using adhesive or an adhesive tape, since the display unit 151 does not have hardness, a middle part of the case may be estranged from each other in the left and the right direction due to an external impact [0106].
Claim 10: With respect to the thickness of the window 151’, the experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fails to render applicants’ claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the thickness of the window 151’ and the motivation would be to control strength and image visibility. A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted, however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2016/0033996 A1) and Liu et al. (US 2019/0189959 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2012/0086669 A1).
Lee and Liu teach the claimed invention as set forth above.
Claim 9: Lee teaches use of adhesive but does not teach all the claimed adhesive layers. However, Kim teaches use of one or more layers of Optically Clear Adhesive (OCA) to laminate elements or layers in a mobile terminal 100, wherein the adhesive layer can be a solid adhesive such as a transparent hot-melt adhesive to provide a more solid adhesive function [0030]. See also [0030], [0033], [0034], [0036], [0050], [0053] and [0055]. Lee and Kim are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor that is the mobile terminal art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to combine the teaching of Kim, (i.e., use of OCA hot-melt adhesive to laminate elements or layers in a mobile terminal) with the invention of Lee, and the motivation would be, as Kim suggested, to provide a more solid adhesive function [0030] which results in high-cohesive strength.
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2016/0033996 A1) in view of Liu et al. (US 2019/0189959 A1).
Claim 16: Lee teaches a mobile terminal 100 comprising a rear case 102 and rear cover 103, and the rear case 102 and rear cover 103 are coupled to each other (Fig. 3 and [0057]). The rear case 102 meets the claimed side walls of the front housing assembly, and the rear cover 103 meets the claimed base plate of the front housing assembly. Lee teaches the mobile terminal 100 comprises a display unit 151 combined with a front case 101 and a window 151’ (Fig. 3 and [0092]), and an adhesive may be used for combining the layers [0106]. The display unit 151 meets the claimed display screen and the window 151’ meets the claimed touch screen cover plate. Lee teaches in order not to expose a circumstance part of the display unit 151 to external except a part on which image information of the display unit 151 is outputted, bezel can be printed on a rear side circumstance of the window 151’ [0092]. The bezel meets the claimed touch screen decoration part. Lee teaches the window 151’ is larger than display unit 151 [0092].
Lee teaches the mobile terminal can be glasses-type [0054] but does not teach the window 151’ is a 2.5D glass. However, Liu teaches a cover plate 100 constructed using 2.5D glass to prevent permeation of outside moisture and oxygen and reduce the permeability of moisture and oxygen [0041]. The cover plate 100 meets the claimed touch screen cover plate. Lee and Liu are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor that is the display device art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the cover plate 100 with the invention of Lee, and the motivation for combining would be, as Liu suggested, to prevent permeation of outside moisture and oxygen [0041].
With respect to the thickness of the window 151’, the experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fails to render applicants’ claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the thickness of the window 151’ and the motivation would be to control strength and image visibility. A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted, however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
Claim 17: With respect to the thickness of the window 151’, the experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fails to render applicants’ claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the thickness of the window 151’ and the motivation would be to control strength and image visibility. A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted, however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
Claim 18: Lee teaches the window 151’ is positioned on the display unit 151 (Fig. 3 and [0092]). Since Lee fails to disclose there is an element or a layer between the window 151’ and the display unit 151, it is interpreted that the distance between the window 151’ and the display unit 151 on each side is zero which meets the claimed 0mm.
Claim 19: Lee teaches the display unit 151 of the front side is combined with the front case 101 using adhesive or an adhesive tape, since the display unit 151 does not have hardness, a middle part of the case may be estranged from each other in the left and the right direction due to an external impact [0106].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 and 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. Lee, Liu and Kim either singly or as a combination do not teach or suggest the upper end and a lower end of the touch screen decoration part have a first step surface and a second step surface respectively, and the touch screen cover plate is bonded to the first step surface and the second step surface by a fourth adhesive layer and a fifth adhesive layer, respectively as recited in current claims 5 and 20.
Pertinent Prior Arts
Kim et al. (US 2019/0339746 A1) and Chang (US 9,671,823 B2).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BETELHEM SHEWAREGED whose telephone number is (571)272-1529. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 7am-4:30pm.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 571-272-1291. 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.
BS
April 23, 2026
/BETELHEM SHEWAREGED/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights