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. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. 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 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20010022571 A1 to Nakano et al. Regarding Claim 1. Nakano discloses a display device comprising: a circuit board (Fig. 11A flexible printed wiring board FPC2 ) on which a plurality of electronic components (Fig. 11A parts EP , para 129 “ such as resistors, capacitors and so on ”) are arranged; a light guide plate (Fig. 11A light guide GLB ) arranged to face the plurality of electronic components (as shown in Fig. 11A) ; a display portion arranged on an opposite side to the circuit board of the light guide plate in such a manner as to face the light guide plate (See Fig. 11A liquid crystal display module described in para 121) ; a light-transmitting plate having light transmissivity, arranged between the light guide plate and the display portion, and configured to be in contact with a front surface of the light guide plate and a back surface of the display portion (Fig. 11A diffusion sheet SPS ) ; and a spacer provided on a front surface of the circuit board and configured to regulate a distance between the circuit board and the light guide plate (Fig. 11A mold case ML , para 130 “ ensuring a spacer for chips and parts EP ”) . Regarding Claim 2 . Nakano further discloses the display portion is an LCD (para 121) . Regarding Claim 3 . Nakano further discloses a housing (See Fig. 11A an outer case including at least shield case SHD, drain spacer DSPC , and frame spacer WSPC ) including a first surface arranged to face a front side of an outer periphery portion of the LCD (See Fig. 11 drain spacer DSPC ) and a second surface facing a front side of an outer periphery portion of the light guide plate (See Fig. 11 drain spacer DSPC ) , the housing supporting the outer peripheries of the LCD and the light guide plate (as shown in Fig. 11A) . Regarding Claim 7 . Nakano further discloses the second surface faces a front surface of a peripheral edge of the light guide plate with a gap interposed between the second surface and the front surface of the peripheral edge (as shown in Fig. 11A) . Regarding Claim 8 . Nakano further discloses the LCD includes a panel at an outer peripheral portion (See Fig. 11A) , and has a visible region formed closer to a center side than the panel (Fig. 11A where visible region is at least a region from the center excluding an outer peripheral area including the light shielding film BM ) . 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 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 4 - 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano as applied to claim 3 in view of US 20200026135 A1 to Ki et al . Regarding Claim 4 . As stated above, Nakano discloses all the limitations of base claim 3. Nakano further discloses the LCD includes a first electrode board (Fig. 11A substrate SUB 2, para 120 “ SUB2 is a substrate on which color filters and a common electrode are formed ”) , a second electrode board (Fig. 11A substrate SUB1 , para 120 “ SUB1 is a substrate on which thin film transistors TFT and pixel electrodes ITO1 are formed ”) , a first polarizing plate overlapping a front surface of the first electrode board (Fig. 11A polarizing plate POL1 ) , and a second polarizing plate arranged to overlap a back surface of the second electrode board in a laminated manner (Fig. 11A polarizing plate POL2 ) . Nakano does not specifically disclose an optical sheet overlapping a front surface of the first polarizing plate , but does disclose an optical sheet (Fig. 11A film VINC2 ) overlapping a front surface of the substrate SUB2 and polarizing plate overlapping a front surface of the optical sheet. However, Ki discloses a display panel an optical sheet overlapping a front surface of the first polarizing plate (Fig. 11A optical film 700 ), to improve a contrast ratio and luminance uniformity at the viewing side of the display device (para 101) . Therefore , it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s effective filing date to include an optical sheet overlapping a front surface of the first polarizing plate . Regarding Claim 5 . Nakano further discloses the optical sheet and the first polarizing plate of the LCD each have an outer peripheral edge arranged inside a support portion of the housing (See Fig. 11A) . Regarding Claim 6 . Nakano further discloses the front surface of the first electrode board is arranged in contact with a lower surface of the support portion of the housing (See Fig. 12A shield SHD in contact with substrate SUB2) . Claim s 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano as applied to claim 8 in view of US 20150009783 A1 Hanzawa et al. Regarding Claim 9 . As stated above, Nakano discloses all the limitations of base claim 8. Nakano does not specifically disclose the spacer is arranged in a region outside of the visible region. However, Hanzawa discloses the spacer is arranged in a region outside of the visible region (Fig. 3 support member 13 arranged at the periphery of the panel, or outside of a center and visible region), to support the light guide plate on the circuit board . Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s effective filing date to include the spacer is arranged in a region outside of the visible region . Claim s 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano as applied to claim 1 in view of US 20150009783 A1 Hanzawa et al. Regarding Claim 10 . As stated above, Nakano discloses all the limitations of base claim 1. Nakano does not specifically disclose a watch comprising: the display device according to claim 1; a watch case; and a watch module provided inside the watch case . However, Hanzawa discloses a watch comprising: the display device; a watch case; and a watch module provided inside the watch case (para 15, describing a timepiece), to apply to the display to a specific commercial application . Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s effective filing date to include a watch comprising: the display device according to claim 1; a watch case; and a watch module provided inside the watch case . Claim s 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano as applied to claim 2 in view of US 20150009783 A1 Hanzawa et al. Regarding Claim 11 . As stated above, Nakano discloses all the limitations of base claim 2. Nakano does not specifically disclose a watch comprising: the display device according to claim 2 ; a watch case; and a watch module provided inside the watch case . However, Hanzawa discloses a watch comprising: the display device; a watch case; and a watch module provided inside the watch case (para 15, describing a timepiece), to apply to the display to a specific commercial application . Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s effective filing date to include a watch comprising: the display device according to claim 2 ; a watch case; and a watch module provided inside the watch case . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT EDMOND C LAU whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-5859 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-Th 8am-6pm 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Jennifer Carruth can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-9791 . 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. /EDMOND C LAU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871