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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) submitted on 6/16/2023, 9/09/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are directed towards newly amended claim language, and furthermore, are not persuasive.
Regarding Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103,
Applicant contends that the cited prior art fails to disclose newly amended limitations of independent claim 1, including: “in a state in which the display device is fixed to the fixing target, when an impactor moves on a center line that passes through a center of a display region of the display and that is perpendicular to the display region, and impacts the display surface on the center line, a rigidity to impact of the display device is asymmetrical.”
Applicant contends:
“…according to FIG. 5b of Nemeth, the impact force 150 (alleged impactor) impacts the display screen 130 (alleged display surface) from a direction inclined with respect to the center line perpendicular to the display region of the display screen. That is, the impact force 150 neither moves on the center line that passes through the center of the display region and that is perpendicular to the display region, nor impacts the display surface on the centerline. Furthermore, the cited portions of Nemeth merely describe energy absorbing support members 140 that can absorb a portion of the impact force. However, the cited portions of Nemeth are silent as to a rigidity to impact of the display device being asymmetrical.” (Remarks of 2/19/2026; pg. 7)
While Applicant’s points are understood, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First of all, Nemeth’s Fig. 5b is a single example illustration of an impact force vector (150) of an impacting object making contact with display screen 130a. One of ordinary skill would clearly understand that this is intended to serve merely as a visualization of one of any number of possible force vectors, and could easily conceive of a force vector being perpendicular to the screen 130a.
As further described in col. 3 line 61 – col. 4 line 37 of Nemeth:
“when subjected to impact force 150, energy absorbing support members 140 can absorb a portion of impact force 152 such that the remainder 154 of impact force 150 is less than the shatter threshold of display screen 130.
Thus, Applicant’s argument that “the impact force 150 neither moves on the center line that passes through the center of the display region and that is perpendicular to the display region, nor impacts the display surface on the centerline” is respectfully not found to be persuasive.
Secondly, Applicant’s instant claim language requires that a rigidity to impact of the display device is asymmetrical (emphasis added). Hence, the claim does not necessitate that the rigidity to impact of the display itself to be asymmetrical. (emphasis added).
Once again, per col. 3 line 61 – col. 4 line 37 of Nemeth:
Support members 140 can be configured to absorb a predetermined amount 152 of impact force (ex.—breakaway threshold) less than the shatter threshold of display screen 130, e.g., 75 percent, 85 percent, or any desired percentage of the shatter threshold. In some embodiments, one or more support members 140 can deform, compress, or collapse upon reaching the breakaway threshold 152 (140a), the remainder 154 of impact force 150 being dispersed or dissipated by directing display screen 130 to move in the general direction of the impact force, shifting display screen 130 into a second position (130a). In embodiments, the motion of display screen 130 while dissipating the remainder 154 of impact force 150 may include movement in the general direction of impact force 150 as well as rotation, twisting, turning, angular movement, or tilting along a predetermined compression axis of one or more support members 140. In some embodiments, energy absorbing brackets 140 can be spring-loaded or otherwise actuated and, upon absorption of a predetermined amount of impact force or reaching a breakaway threshold 152, can be configured to subsequently reset (along with display screen 130) to their original pre-impact position. In some embodiments, the interior of assembly 110 or housing 120 may be configured with grooves, channels, recesses, or other means of directing display screen 130 along a predetermined path to a second position inside the assembly or housing once display screen 130 has been dislodged by absorbed impact force.
Nemeth thus makes explicitly clear that one or more of the support members (140) which make up “the display device” may be configured to deform/compress/collapse in response to a given impact force vector. Since each support may be selectively configured to absorb a given amount of impact force, one of ordinary skill would understand an “asymmetric” distribution of an impact force load (as corresponding with a “rigidity to impact”) as being associated with the given deformation/compression/collapse degrees of each support member.
See the rejection below for how the cited art in light of new/existing references reads on the newly amended language as well as the examiner’s interpretation of the cited art in view of the presented claim set.
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)(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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nemeth et al. (US 9979923 B1) (hereinafter Nemeth).
Regarding claim 1, Nemeth discloses:
A display device, comprising:
a display including a display surface; and [See Nemeth, Fig. 1a illustrates a display with display surface (130).]
a holder that is provided on a surface of a side opposite the display surface of the display, and that fixes the display to a fixing target, wherein [See Nemeth, Fig. 1b illustrates an “energy absorbing support member” (140) which is observably on a surface of a side opposite the display surface and fixes the display to assembly 110/120.]
in a state in which the display device is fixed to the fixing target, when an impactor moves on a center line that passes through a center of a display region of the display and that is perpendicular to the display region, and impacts the display surface on a center line, a rigidity to impact of the display device is asymmetrical. [See Nemeth, Figs. 5a and 5b as well as col. 3 line 61 – col. 4 line 37 illustrate aspects of the energy absorbing member. When subjected to impact force 150, energy absorbing support members 140 can absorb a portion of impact force 152 such that the remainder 154 of impact force 150 is less than the shatter threshold of display screen 130; See Nemeth, 3a-3b and col. 3 lines 27-60 discloses one or more of the support members (140) which make up “the display device” may be configured to deform/compress/collapse in response to a given impact force vector. Since each support may be selectively configured to absorb a given amount of impact force, one of ordinary skill would understand an “asymmetric” distribution of an impact force load (as corresponding with a “rigidity to impact”) as being associated with the given deformation/compression/collapse degrees of each support member.]
Regarding claim 5, Nemeth discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Nemeth discloses:
further comprising:
a plurality of the holders, wherein when viewed from above, the plurality of holders is disposed asymmetrical to the center line that passes through the center of the display region and that is perpendicular to the display region, and [See Nemeth, Figs. 5a-5b illustrates a plurality of energy absorbing support members, which are arranged asymmetrically to a center line of a display region.]
a distance from an end of each of the holders to the center of the display region is less than half a maximum width of the impactor. [See Nemeth, Figs. 2, 5a, 5b illustrate the relative distances of the support members to the display region 130.]
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2-4, 6, and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nemeth (US9979923B1) (hereinafter Nemeth) in view of Tuccinardi et al. (US 7597393 B1) (hereinafter Tuccinardi).
Regarding claim 2, Nemeth discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Nemeth does not appear to explicitly disclose:
wherein the holder includes an open section, and when viewed from above, a position of the center of the display region is offset from a position of a center of an opening, on a side of the display, of the open section, and a minimum width in one direction of the open section is less than a maximum width in the one direction of the impactor.
However, Tuccinardi discloses:
wherein the holder includes an open section, and when viewed from above, a position of the center of the display region is offset from a position of a center of an opening, on a side of the display, of the open section, and a minimum width in one direction of the open section is less than a maximum width in the one direction of the impactor. [See Tuccinardi, Fig. 15a, 15b element 550 illustrates an opening, and Figs. 16a, 16b illustrate an opening with respect to the dimensions of “impactor” and display regions.]
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention disclosed by Nemeth to add the teachings of Tuccinardi in order to provide a dedicated open space into which a deforming force may be absorbed by one or more energy dissipating members.
Regarding claim 3, Nemeth discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Tuccinardi discloses:
wherein the holder includes a recess on a surface opposing the display, and when viewed from above, a position of the center of the display region is offset from a position of a center of an opening of the recess, and a minimum width in one direction of the recess is less than a maximum width in the one direction of the impactor. [See Tuccinardi, Figs. 15a-b and 16a-b illustrate opening (550) or “recess”, wherein the opening defines an offset between the display region and the center of the recess.]
The reasons to combine the cited prior art are applicable to those presented for previously rejected claim 2.
Regarding claim 4, Nemeth discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Tuccinardi discloses:
wherein the holder includes an open section, and when viewed from above, the holder includes a first portion and a second portion that oppose each other with the open section therebetween and that are formed from materials having mutually different rigidities, and a minimum width in one direction of the open section is less than a maximum width in the one direction of the impactor. [See Tuccinardi, Figs. 16a, 16b illustrate a first portion 542 and second portion 544 separated by an open section 550; See Tuccinardi, col. 6 lines 37 – 50 discloses that a variety of materials may be used to form a screen cover.]
The reasons to combine the cited prior art are applicable to those presented for previously rejected claim 2.
Regarding claim 6, Nemeth discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Nemeth discloses:
further comprising:
a plurality of the holders, wherein an area of a surface, holding the display, of at least one of the holders differs from an area of a surface, holding the display, of the other holders, [See Nemeth, Figs. 2, 5a, 5b illustrate support members 140 corresponding to different areas/regions behind a display, and thus the areas of a surface holding the display of a first support members differs from an area of a second member.]
and when viewed from above, a distance from an end of each of the holders to the center of the display region is less than half a maximum width of the impactor. [See Nemeth, Figs. 2, 5a, 5b illustrate the relative distances of the support members to the display region 130.]
The reasons to combine the cited prior art are applicable to those presented for previously rejected claim 2.
Regarding claim 8, Nemeth discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Tuccinardi discloses:
wherein the display includes a display panel, a housing that accommodates the display panel, and a cover that is provided on the housing via an adhesive member and that protects the display panel, and [See Tuccinardi, col. 6 lines 27-50 and col. 16 lines 50-55 discloses a screen cover 140 on a display housing, wherein energy dissipating members 550 can be coupled to the support member 544 in any number of ways, including but not limited to, screws, clips, retainers, adhesive, and the like.]
when viewed from above, thicknesses of portions of the adhesive member that oppose each other with the display panel therebetween differ. [See Tuccinardi, Figs. 15a and 15b each illustrate a difference in thickness of the open space separating portions 542 and 544.]
The reasons to combine the cited prior art are applicable to those presented for previously rejected claim 2.
Regarding claim 9, Nemeth discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Tuccinardi discloses:
wherein the fixing target is supported, via the holder, from a side opposite a direction in which the impactor impacts the display, and a rigidity of the fixing target is greater than the rigidity of the holder. [See Tuccinardi, Fig. 15b illustrates a display 542 supported from a side opposite from impactor 552 impacting said display. See Tuccinardi, col. 6 lines 45-50 discloses materials of varying rigidity comprising a screen cover.]
The reasons to combine the cited prior art are applicable to those presented for previously rejected claim 2.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is 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. The reasons to combine the cited prior art are applicable to those presented for previously rejected claim 1.
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 PATRICK E DEMOSKY whose telephone number is (571)272-8799. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7-4 EST.
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, Jamie Atala can be reached at 5712727384. 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.
/PATRICK E DEMOSKY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights