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 of Species I (Figs. 3-6), claims 1 and 3-19 in the reply filed on 06/09/2026 is acknowledged. Because Applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Furthermore, the Office would like to direct the Applicant’s attention to the fact that elected claims 6 and 8 do not read on the elected Species I, since they recite “at least two heat dissipation members”. However, in the elected Species I, there is only a “single heat dissipation member” (60) present as can be clearly seen on Figs. 2 and 3.
Accordingly, claims 2, 6, and 8 are withdrawn from further consideration on the merits as drawn to the non-elected Species. The Office action on elected claims 1, 3-5, 7, and 9-19 follows.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “first plate on a front surface of the display panel; and a second plate on a rear surface of the first plate, and wherein the second plate is spaced apart from the printed circuit board” recited in claim 4 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Furthermore, the drawings in the instant application are presented as the photographs (i.e., Fig. 1). Photographs, including photocopies of photographs, are not ordinarily permitted in utility and design patent applications. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(1).
Also, the drawings are objected because of the use of the solid black shadings (i.e., Fig. 1). Solid black shading areas are not permitted. See 37 CFR 1.84(m).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification in par. [0204] recites: “According to one or more embodiments of the present disclosure, the working fluid may be vaporized in the first portion to change the phase into vapor, and the vapor may be moved to the third portion through the second portion due to the pressure difference”.
However, according to the earlier teachings of the disclosure (i.e., see pars. [0071]-[0077] and Fig. 3) it’s clear that the vapor is moving from the first portion (60a) to the second portion (60b) through the third portion (60c). Accordingly, it appears that said par. [0204] should read: “According to one or more embodiments of the present disclosure, the working fluid may be vaporized in the first portion to change the phase into vapor, and the vapor may be moved to the [second-- portion through the [third-- portion due to the pressure difference”.
Appropriate correction is required. The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which Applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 5 and 14, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites the limitations: “the working fluid is vaporized in the first portion to change a phase into vapor, and the vapor is moved to the third portion through the second portion due to a pressure difference”. These limitations lack support in the original disclosure. According to the disclosure (i.e., see pars. [0071]-[0077] and Figs. 3, 14) it’s clear that the vapor is moving from the first portion (60a) to the second portion (60b) through the third portion (60c). Accordingly, it appears that the claim should read: “the working fluid is vaporized in the first portion to change a phase into vapor, and the vapor is moved to the [second-- portion through the [third-- portion due to a pressure difference”. Therefore, as best understood, the Office will interpret the claim as explained above.
Claim 14 recites the limitations: “a first plate on a front surface of the display panel; and a second plate on a rear surface of the first plate, and wherein the second plate is spaced apart from the printed circuit board”.
There is no support in the original disclosure of any plate(s) that are “on a front surface of the display panel”. Any disclosed “plate(s)” are disposed only on the rear surface of the display panel (i.e., see the plate (30) disposed on the rear surface of the display panel (10) on Figs. 2 and 4).
Therefore, as best understood, the Office will interpret the claim accordingly, i.e., “a first plate on a rear surface of the display panel; and a second plate on a rear surface of the first plate, and wherein the second plate is spaced apart from the printed circuit board”.
Claims 4 and 5, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitations: “wherein an inside portion of the heat dissipation member is in a vacuum and contains a working fluid.”
It impossible to implement the claimed structure, since if said “inside portion of the heat dissipation member…contains a working fluid” it cannot be “in a vacuum”. The claim is contradictory and lacks enablement.
After considering all of the Wands factors (and specifically, that there is no adequate direction provided by the Inventor/Applicant, no existence of the working examples (as per the current record), and that there is low predictability of the claimed functions in the relevant arts), the Office has concluded that the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the instant disclosure will be high and undue to a person of the ordinary skill, and therefore, such a person will not be able to make and use the claimed invention without resorting to undue experimentation. See In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 8 USPQ2d 1400 (Fed. Cir. 1988); In re Brown, 477 F.2d 946, 177 USPQ 691 (CCPA 1973), and In re Ghiron, 442 F.2d 985, 169 USPQ 723 (CCPA 1971).
Claim 5 has been also rejected, since it depends from claim 4.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 19 introduces “a second plate” (l. 2), while the “first plate” has never been previously positively set forth in the claim or in the parent claim 16. This creates ambiguity and awkwardness.
Furthermore, the Office reminds Applicant that uniform terminology should be used throughout the claims. The claimed terminology should be consistent with the terminology of the specification and should follow the nomenclature of the specification. The terms and phrases used in claims must have a clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o).
Appropriate corrections are required. The Office requests Applicant’s cooperation with reviewing the claims and correcting all remaining problems and informalities present in the claims, but not made of record above.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9, 10, and 12-14, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2022/ 0093890 to Park et al. (hereafter “Park”).
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Park discloses (Fig. 10) a display apparatus (1) comprising: a display panel (11) configured to display images and including a light emitting element that includes an inorganic material (pars. [0054], [0094], [0095], etc.); a heat dissipation member (30) disposed on at least one side of the display panel; and a printed circuit board (21) disposed on at least one side of the heat dissipation member, wherein the heat dissipation member includes a first portion (31) overlapping the printed circuit board and a second portion (33) disposed in an area spaced apart from the printed circuit board at an interval.
Regarding claim 3, Park discloses that the heat dissipation member (30) further includes: a third portion (32) between the first portion (31) and the second portion (33), wherein the first portion is a high-temperature region of the display apparatus, and the second portion is a low-temperature region of the display apparatus (Fig. 10).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, as best understood, Park discloses that an inside portion of the heat dissipation member (30) is in a vacuum and contains a working fluid (pars. [0153]-[0156]; see “a plate-type vapor chamber or a pipe-type heat pipe” in par. [0155]), wherein in operation, the working fluid is vaporized in the first portion (31) to change a phase into vapor, and the vapor is moved to the second portion (33) through the third portion (32) due to a pressure difference (pars. [0071]-[0077] and Figs. 3, 14).
Regarding claim 7, Park discloses that the heat dissipation member (30) has a “U” shape (Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 10, Park discloses (Fig. 10) a plate ((12) or (13)) disposed between the display panel (11) and the heat dissipation member (30).
Regarding claim 12, Park discloses (Fig. 10) that the heat dissipation member (30) is disposed on a rear surface of the plate (12).
Regarding claim 13, Park discloses (Fig. 10) that the heat dissipation member (30, 31) is disposed between the plate ((12) or (13)) and the printed circuit board (21).
Regarding claim 14, as best understood, Park discloses (Fig. 10) that the plate includes: a first plate (13) on a rear surface of the display panel (11); and a second plate (12) on a rear surface of the first plate (13), and wherein the second plate (12) is spaced apart from the printed circuit board (21).
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.
Claims 11 and 15-19, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park taken alone.
Regarding claim 11, does not disclose that the plate includes a bead or a rib.
The Official notice is taken of the fact(s) outside of the current record that bids and ribs have been notoriously known and used before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as components to enhance alignment during assembly, prevent buckling and vibration and increase stiffness and strength.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided bead(s) or rib(s) for the plate of Park, in order to predictably enhance alignment during assembly, prevent buckling and vibration and increase stiffness and strength. All claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined/modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination/modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 15, Park discloses (Fig. 10) a shield member ((22) or (RC)) disposed on the printed circuit board, but does not explicitly teach that the shield member includes a hole.
The Official notice is taken of the fact(s) outside of the current record that holes/openings have been notoriously known and used before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for forming air vents to enable circulation of cooling air.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided vent hole(s)/air vent(s) in the shield member of Park, in order to predictably augment circulation of cooling air, thus enhancing overall cooling efficiency. All claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined/modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination/modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 16, Park discloses a display apparatus (Fig. 10) comprising: a display module (1) arranged on a plane (inherently), wherein the display module includes: a display panel (11) having a front surface (FS) on which a plurality of light emitting elements are disposed (pars. [0054], [0094], [0095], etc.) and a rear surface opposite to the front surface; a printed circuit board (21) disposed on the rear surface of the display panel; and a heat exchange tube (30) (pars. [0153]-[0156]; see “a plate-type vapor chamber or a pipe-type heat pipe” in par. [0155]) that at least partially overlaps the printed circuit board.
Park does not disclose: a plurality of display modules arranged on a same plane.
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a plurality of display modules of Park arranged on a same plane, in order to form a multi-display array for a display/video wall by using a tiled display system, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960); St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Also, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined/modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination/ modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 17, Park discloses (Fig. 10) that the heat exchange tube (30) includes: a first portion (31) overlapping the printed circuit board (21); a second portion (33) disposed in an area spaced apart from the printed circuit board at an interval; and a third portion (32) between the first portion and the second portion.
Regarding claim 18, Park discloses (Fig. 10) a first plate ((12) or (13)) disposed on the rear surface of the display panel (11), wherein at least a portion (31) of the heat exchange tube (30) is disposed between the first plate and the printed circuit board (21).
Regarding claim 19, as best understood, Park discloses (Fig. 10) a second plate ((12) or (13)) disposed on the rear surface of the display panel (11), so that at least a portion of the second plate is disposed between the printed circuit board (21) and the display panel (11), wherein the at least a portion (31) of the heat exchange tube (30) overlaps the printed circuit board (21) between the second plate ((12) or (13)) and the printed circuit board (21).
Conclusion
The additional prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure, because of the teachings of various display assemblies with cooling arrangements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anatoly Vortman whose telephone number is (571)272-2047. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, between 10 am and 8:30 pm.
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, Jayprakash N. Gandhi can be reached at 571-272-3740. 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.
/Anatoly Vortman/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2841
/A.V/
6/17/2026
Prosecution Insights