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 .
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 8 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 8 line 4 recite “target element”, while claim 15 line 9 also recites “target element”. Appropriate correction to update “target element” to “target component” is required.
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, 10, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng (CN110120990; “Cheng” hereinafter), in view of Nguyen Van et al (US 20220053076; “Van” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Cheng discloses: an electronic device, comprising:
a display output component including a display region (22, figs. 9-12) ;
a display protection component (21, figs. 9-11);
a through-hole (211 and 221, figs. 9-12) with the display output component and the display protection component arranged along a target direction (vertical direction of 26, fig. 12) of the through-hole, the through-hole being used to expose a target component (26, fig. 12) along the target direction (fig. 12); and a protection member (28 and 27, fig. 7) arranged in the through-hole (fig. 7);
Cheng does not explicitly teach:
wherein, in the target direction, the protection member protrude beyond the display protection component.
However, Van teaches:
wherein, in a target direction (Z- axis, fig. 5), a protection member (31 and 50, figs) protrude beyond a cover (111, i.e. display protection component, fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the protection member and display protection component of Chen with teaching of Van, such that in the target direction, the protection member protrude beyond the display protection component, since the claim would have been obvious because the particular known technique (protruding protection member) was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as evidenced by Van. Moreover, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 2, Cheng in view of Van discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Cheng further discloses:
the display output component comprising a first hole (221, figs. 9-10); the display protection component comprising a second hole (211, figs. 9-10); the first hole corresponds to the second hole; the through-hole comprising the first hole and the second hole (figs. 9-10).
Regarding claim 3, Cheng in view of Van discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Cheng further discloses:
Wherein the protection member is conductive (¶[0066]), and the protection member protects at least one of the display output component or the target component based on its conductivity (¶[0066]).
Regarding claim 4, Cheng in view of Van discloses the limitations of claim 3, and further discloses: the first protection member comprising:
a first sub-member (28, fig. 7) comprising a first surface (see annotated fig. 12 below),
a second sub-member (27, fig. 7) comprising a second surface (see annotated fig. 12 below), the second surface corresponding to the first surface (see annotated fig. 12 below); and
PNG
media_image1.png
424
762
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a protruding structure formed on the first surface or the second surface (see annotated fig. 12 below).
Regarding claim 10, Cheng in view of Van discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Cheng further discloses:
further comprising:
an image acquisition device (26) being arranged in the through-hole (fig. 12).
Regarding claim 13, Cheng in view of Van discloses the limitations of claim 1, and the combination further discloses:
wherein a projection of the display protection component (i.e. cover, Van) and a projection of the display output component along a direction (X- Axis, fig. 5, Van) perpendicular to the target direction (Z-Axis, Van) are located within the protection member (annotated fig. 5 below discloses this limitation).
PNG
media_image2.png
354
821
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 5-8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng (CN110120990; “Cheng” hereinafter), in view of Nguyen Van et al (US 20220053076; “Van” hereinafter), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Xue et al (CN107231765; “Xue” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 5, Cheng in view of Van discloses the limitations of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
Wherein the protection member is configured to change a stress direction and protect at least one of the display output component or the target component.
However, Xue discloses:
a protection member (4, 5, 32, 33, 34) arranged in a through-hole (fig. 4), the protection member configured to change a stress direction (as understood by placement of rubber component 33 and ¶[0080]) and protect at least one of a display output component or a target component (31, ¶[0065]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include Xue’s second protection member into the electronic device of Cheng as modified by Van, such that the protection member is configured to change a stress direction and protect at least one of the display output component or the target component, in order to provide vibration reduction to the target component and prevent moisture and foreign matter from entering the electronic device (¶[0040]).
Regarding claim 6, Cheng in view of Van and Xue discloses the limitations of claim 5, and Xue further discloses: the protection member comprising:
an annular member (32, fig. 1 and 2) at the display protection component (i.e. 1) along the target direction (vertical direction of 31, fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Cheng in view of Van and Xue discloses the limitations of claim 5, and Xue further discloses: the protection member comprising:
an annular member (32) located at the display protection component along the target direction (as per the resulting combination of Cheng and Xue); and
an assembly member (4, 5, 33, 34) positioned at the display output component along the target direction (as per the resulting combination of Cheng and Xue), and the annular member (32) and the assembly member (4, 5, 33, 34) limiting the display output component and the protection component along the target direction (as disclosed upon examination of fig. 4, Xue, ¶ [0065]).
Regarding claim 8, Cheng in view of Van discloses the limitations of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
further comprising:
wherein the protection member is conductive and has a structural shape, the protection member protecting at least one of the display output component or the target element.
However, Xue discloses:
a protection member (4, 5, 32, 33, 34, fig. 45) being conductive (¶[0060]) and has a structural shape (figs. 1-2), the protection member protecting at least one of a display output component or a target element (31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include Xue’s protection member teaching into the electronic device of Cheng in view of Van, such that the protection member is conductive and has a structural shape, the protection member protecting at least one of the display output component or the target element, in order to provide vibration protection to the target component (¶[0065]), prevent moisture and foreign matter from entering the electronic device (¶[0040]), and providing grounding connection as well.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng (CN110120990; “Cheng” hereinafter), in view of Van, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Park et al (US 20220009213; “Park” hereinafter), and Mei et al (US 20220279097; “Mei” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 11, Cheng in view of Van discloses the limitations of claim 10, but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the display protection component has a first protective coating film, and the image acquisition device has a second protective coating film.
However, Park teaches:
a display protection component (220, fig. 3) has a first protective coating film (220, fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include Park’s first protective coating film into Cheng in view of Van display protection component, in order to provide improved wear resistance and chemical resistance to prevent fingerprints from being stained even in repeated usage (¶[0006]).
Cheng in view of Van and Park does not explicitly teach:
the image acquisition device has a second protective coating film.
However, Mei teaches:
an image acquisition device (fig. 5, ¶[0068]) has a protective coating film (121, fig. 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include Mei’s protective coating film into Cheng’s image acquisition device, in order to provide a light-shielding portion, thereby avoiding or inhibiting stray light from entering the optical system of the optical lens. (¶[0133]).
Regarding claim 12, Cheng in view of Van, Park and Mei teaches the limitations of claim 11, and the combination further teaches:
wherein the first protective coating film is different from the second protective coating film (the combination of Park and Mei into Cheng teaches this limitation).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng (CN110120990; “Cheng” hereinafter), in view of Xue et al (CN107231765; “Xue” hereinafter)
Regarding claim 14, Cheng teaches: an electronic device, comprising:
a display output component including a display region (22, figs. 9-12);
a display protection component (21, figs. 9-12);
a through-hole (211 and 221, figs. 9-12) with the display output component and the display protection component arranged along a target direction of the through-hole (vertical direction of 26, fig. 12), the through-hole being used to expose a target component (26, fig. 12) along the target direction (fig. 12); and
a second protection member (28 and 27, fig. 7) arranged in the through-hole.
Cheng does not explicitly teach:
the second protection member being configured to change a stress direction and protect at least one of the display output component or the target component from impact generated by an external object.
However, Xue discloses:
a second protection member (4, 5, 32, 33, 34) arranged in a through-hole (fig. 4), the protection member configured to change a stress direction (as understood by placement of rubber component 33 and ¶[0080]) and protect at least one of a display output component or a target component (31, ¶[0065]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include Xue’s second protection member into the electronic device of Cheng, such that the second protection member being configured to change a stress direction and protect at least one of the display output component or the target component from impact generated by an external object, in order to provide vibration reduction to the target component and prevent moisture and foreign matter from entering the electronic device (¶[0040]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 allowed.
Regarding claim 15, the prior art of record taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest, a combination of limitations that teaches: An electronic device, comprising:
a display output component including a display region; a display protection component;
a through-hole with the display output component and the display protection component arranged along a target direction of the through-hole, the through-hole being used to expose a target component along the target direction; and a third protection member being conductive and having a structural shape, the protection member being arranged in the through-hole and protecting at least one of the display output component or the target element, and the third protection member comprising:
a first part comprising an annular member and a first connecting member, the annular member being positioned at the display protection component along the target direction, one end of the first connecting member being connected with the annular member, and the other end of the first connecting member stretching into the through- hole; and a second part comprising an assembly piece and a second connecting member, the assembly piece being positioned at the display output component along the target direction, one end of the second connecting member being connected with the assembly piece, the other end of the second connecting member stretching into the through-hole, and the first connecting member being in contact with the second connecting member. None of the reference art of record discloses or renders obvious such a combination.
Claim 9 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.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art of record taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest,
in combination with other limitations recited in claims 1 and 5, a combination of limitations that: the protection member comprising:
a first part comprising an annular member and a first connecting member, the annular member being positioned at the display protection component along the target direction, one end of the first connecting member being connected with the annular member, and the other end of the first connecting member stretching into the through-hole; and
a second part comprising an assembly piece and a second connecting member, the assembly piece being positioned at the display output component along the target direction, one end of the second connecting member being connected with the assembly piece, the other end of the second connecting member stretching into the through-hole, and the first connecting member being in contact with the second connecting member. None of the reference art of record discloses or renders obvious such a combination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Specifically, Van was brought it to teach the amended portion of claim 1, and teach the limitation of claim 13 presented in this office action.
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 PETER KRIM whose telephone number is (703)756-1246. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am -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, Allen L Parker can be reached at (303) 297-4722. 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.
/P.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2841
/SAGAR SHRESTHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841