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 .
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, 9-11 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis (US 2023/0305597) in view of Valliere (US 2022/0053899).
As to claim 1, Davis discloses in figures 1-3, a display device (portable computer monitor 100) comprising: a display module (monitor 102a) comprising a display panel; a bottom case (shell 106a) to which the display module is mounted; and a top case (shell 106b) hinge-connected (hinge 132) to the bottom case. See paragraphs [0005] and [0024].
Davis does not disclose movably coupling the display module to the bottom case. However, movably coupling the display to the case increases the positions in which the monitor can be placed. Valliere discloses the usage of an articulating arm which is movable connected to a case in paragraphs [0033] and [0255]. Valliere teaches that using an articulated arm movably connected to a case allows a display to move in general directions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Davis by using an articulating arm to movably couple the display module to the bottom case as disclosed by Valliere in order to increase the positions in which the monitor can be placed.
As to claim 9, Davis in view of Valliere discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claim 1. David further discloses an arm having a second side that is pivotally connected to the display module (Davis discloses the inclusion of a monitor arm pivotally connected to the monitor in paragraph [0036]). Davis also implies storing the monitor in the bottom case as in the preferred embodiments, there are two monitors each stored in the top or bottom case. Davis does not disclose the monitor arm being pivotally connected to the case. Pivotally connecting the monitor arm to the case allows a user to adjust the monitor’s position with more degrees of freedom compared to a monitor connected to an arm fixedly connected to the case. Valliere discloses an articulating arm movably connected to the base in paragraph [0255]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Davis wherein the monitor arm is pivotally connected to the case in order to allow a user to adjust the monitor’s position with more degrees of freedom compared to a monitor connected to an arm fixedly connected to the case.
As to claim 10, Davis in view of Valliere discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claim 1. David further discloses an outer shell providing an accommodation space; a bottom frame in the accommodation space, the bottom frame coupled to the outer shell (paragraph [0019], “For cases made of soft materials, additional framing may be required for mounting the monitors inside the case”); a top plate disposed opposite the outer shell with respect to the bottom frame, the top plate covering the accommodation space of the outer shell (paragraphs [0034]-[0035], “Due to the monitor stand a gap is created between the bottom of the monitor and the bottom-side wall. This gap can be used to house other components related to the monitor…In some embodiments, the cap can be covered with a shield to hide these components for a cleaner look”). Davis does not disclose the positioning of the monitor as recited in the claim. Valliere discloses in paragraph [0255], using an articulating monitor arm which can be locked in certain positions. The articulating arm which can be locked in position allows the monitor to be stored in such a way that upon opening the case, the monitor is facing the user. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Davis wherein the display module is configured to be stored while facing the top plate between the top plate and the top case in response to the bottom case being closed by the top case, and stand upright from the top plate while facing the top case in response to the bottom case being opened by the top case, by using an articulating monitor arm which can be locked in certain positions as disclosed by Valliere, in order to allow the monitor to be stored in such a way that upon opening the case, the monitor is facing the user.
As to claim 11, Davis in view of Valliere discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claim 10. Davis discloses in paragraph [0024], the usage of various closing mechanisms (“One or more closures placed adjacent and/or along the free edges can be used to keep the case in the closed configuration, such as latches, magnets, zippers, and other closures typical of briefcases, suitcases, backpacks, and the like”). A latching mechanism would comprise: a lower body disposed at an outside of the outer shell, the lower body being coupled to the outer shell; an upper body coupled to the top case, the upper body facing the lower body; and a lock lever pivotally connected to the lower body, the lock lever being configured to be engaged with the upper body in response to the upper body contacting the lower body.
As to claim 14, Davis in view of Valliere discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claim 10. Davis further discloses the addition of a handle to the case in paragraph [0031]: “The case can further comprise a handle along the top side of the case. A handle can be placed on each shell or on one of the shells. In some embodiments, the handle may be fixed to the case”.
As to claim 15, Davis in view of Valliere discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claim 14, but does not disclose a core coupled to the pair of fixing segments, and a skin to cover the core, wherein the core has a higher tensile strength than the skin. However, making a handle out of two different materials each fulfilling a requirement such as strength or tactile feel is commonly done in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Davis wherein the handle comprises a core coupled to the pair of fixing segments, and a skin to cover the core, wherein the core has a higher tensile strength than the skin, in order to allow the handle to be strong while providing tactile feel to a user.
Claims 2-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis (US 2023/0305597) in view of Valliere (US 2022/0053899) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoo et al. (US 2012/0050635) and Teramoto (US 2017/0261803).
As to claims 2-3, Davis in view of Valliere discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claim 1, but does not disclose the additional features recited in claims 2 and 3. However, these features describe a conventional display assembly as evidenced by Yoo and Teramoto. Yoo discloses in figure 2: a panel frame 74 at a rear of the display panel 10, the display panel is coupled with the panel frame; a control board 33 mounted on a rear surface of the panel frame; a back cover 80 at a rear of the panel frame, and the back cover coving the control board, wherein the control board is a drive board of a light source 31 providing light to the display panel. Teramoto discloses in figure 3, a light shielding member 5 between the back cover 3 and the control board 4, the light shielding member overlapping at least a portion of the control board. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Davis by providing the features recited by claims 2 and 3 as disclosed by Yoo and Teramoto because conventional structures were known to be cost-effective and reliable.
As to claim 4, Davis in view of Valliere, Yoo and Teramoto discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claim 2. Davis further discloses an outer shell providing an accommodation space (paragraph [0034], “due to the monitor stand a gap is created between the bottom of the monitor and the bottom-side wall”); a bottom frame in the accommodation space of the outer shell, the bottom frame coupled to the outer shell (paragraph [0019], “For cases made of soft materials, additional framing may be required for mounting the monitors inside the case”); a top plate covering the accommodation space, the top plate disposed opposite the outer shell with respect to the bottom frame (paragraph [0035], “In some embodiments, the gap can be covered with a shield to hide these components for a cleaner look”); a power supply unit between the bottom frame and the top plate; a main board between the bottom frame and the top plate, the main board disposed adjacent to the power supply unit (paragraph [0034], “For example, the gap can be used to house components such as the central processing unit, cables, power packs, batteries…and many other computer accessories that may be used with a computer or monitor”). Davis does not disclose the coupling of objects to the case’s framing. Coupling devices to a structural element of a case ensures the devices stay in place while the case is being transported. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Davis by coupling the power supply and main board to the bottom frame in order to ensure they stay in place while the case is being transported. Davis does not disclose a second shield member between the top plate and the main board, the second shield member overlapping at least a portion of the main board. However, adding shielding to substrates or printed circuit boards was well known for preventing or at least reducing electromagnetic interference. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Davis by providing a second shield member between the top plate and the main board, the second shield member overlapping at least a portion of the main board, in order to prevent or at least reduce electromagnetic interference.
As to claim 5, Davis in view of Valliere, Yoo and Teramoto discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claim 4, but does not disclose wherein the second shield member includes a graphite sheet covering at least a portion of the main board, the second shield member being inclined with respect to a plane of the outer shell. However, graphite is known for its thermal, chemical, and conductive properties and is commonly used to construct shields. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Davis by constructing the second shield with graphite because of its well known thermal, chemical, and conductive properties. Furthermore, installing the shielding in an inclined position allows condensation drops to flow off of it. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Davis by installing the shielding in an inclined position in order to allow condensation drops to flow off of it.
As to claims 6-7, Davis in view of Valliere, Yoo and Teramoto discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claim 4, but does not disclose wherein the power supply unit does not overlap the control board and the first shield member of the display module, and wherein the first shield member does not overlap the second shield member that covers the main board. However, positioning different heat generating elements in a case and ensuring that the airflow is not obstructed is a common practice in the field. Determining the location of elements in order to manage heat and provide cooling was an obvious choice to one skilled in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Davis wherein the power supply unit does not overlap the control board and the first shield member of the display module, and wherein the first shield member does not overlap the second shield member that covers the main board, in order to position different heat generating elements in a case and ensure that the airflow is not obstructed.
As to claim 8, Davis in view of Valliere, Yoo and Teramoto discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claim 7, but does not disclose wherein the first shield member includes a graphite sheet. However, for similar reasons as discussed above regarding claim 5, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Davis wherein the first shield member includes a graphite sheet because of graphite’s well known thermal, chemical, and conductive properties.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-13 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: none of the prior art taught or fairly suggested a display device comprising the combination required by claim 12, wherein the lower body comprises: a fixing portion in contact with an outer surface of the outer shell, the fixing portion being fixed to the bottom frame; and a lower rib protruding from a top surface of the fixing portion of the lower body and facing the upper body, wherein the upper body comprises: a fixing portion fixed to the top case; and an upper hook elongated from the fixing portion of the upper body and bent such that the upper hook is configured to come into contact with the lower rib, and wherein the lock lever comprises: a pivot shaft movably coupled to the fixing portion of the lower body; a lever body connected to the pivot shaft, the lever body being elongated to seesaw about the pivot shaft; and a locking hook provided at one end of the lever body, the locking hook being configured to be engaged with the upper hook of the upper body. Claim 13 is objected to by virtue of its dependency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David Chung whose telephone number is (571)272-2288. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 am - 5:00 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, Michael Caley can be reached at (571)272-2286. 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.
/DAVID Y CHUNG/Examiner, Art Unit 2871