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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
1. In the event that 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 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.
Claim(s) 1-6 & 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu et al. CN205784213 using Espacenet NPL for English translation.
Per claim 1 Wu et al. teaches an electronic device (10; [0062], see fig.3) comprising: a conductive panel (190; [0083]) including a first opening (192); a display (120) to display an image ([0083]); and an electrically insulating spacer (110; [0062]) that is fixed to the panel (see fig.3); wherein the spacer supports the display at a position away from the first opening in an intersecting direction intersecting with the first opening ([0061], see fig.2-6), and electrically isolates the display from the panel ([0062]).
Per claim 2 Wu et al. teaches the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the spacer (110) is in direct contact with each of the panel (190) and the display (120, see fig.3).
Per claim 3 Wu et al. teaches the electronic device according to claim 1, further comprising: a circuit board (181); and a board support portion (182) that supports the circuit board at a position farther from the first opening in the intersecting direction than the display ([0081]), the board support portion being provided on the display (see fig.3); wherein the circuit board is electrically isolated from the panel (see fig.3, “isolated via 110”).
Per claim 4 Wu et al. teaches the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the display has a polygonal shape in plan view from the intersecting direction; and the spacer is in contact with each of two opposite sides of the polygonal shape to support the display (see fig.3 & 7).
Per claim 5 Wu et al. teaches the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the display (120) includes a display region; and the spacer (110) is interposed between an entire inner edge of the panel opposing the first opening and an entire outer periphery of the display region (see fig.3).
Per claim 6 Wu et al. teaches the electronic device according to claim 5, wherein the spacer (110) includes four divided spacers interposed between the entire inner edge and the entire outer periphery (see fig.3, “4 edges of 110”).
Per claim 9 Wu et al. teaches the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the spacer sandwiches and supports the display from two sides in the intersecting direction (see fig.3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. In the event that 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 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.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. CN205784213 using Espacenet NPL for English translation in view of Isaji US2016/0255749.
Per claim 7 Wu et al. teaches the electronic device according to claim 1, further comprising a conductive fixing portion that fixes the spacer (110) to the panel (190), the conductive fixing portion not penetrating the spacer from a first side to a second side in the intersecting direction ([0081]).
Wu et al. does not explicitly teach a conductive fixing portion, the conductive fixing portion not penetrating the spacer from a first side to a second side in the intersecting direction.
Isaji however discloses a conductive fixing portion, the conductive fixing portion not penetrating the spacer from a first side to a second side in the intersecting direction ([0100]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have a conductive screw because they enable reliable electrical grounding, shielding and high mechanical strength, also having the conductive fixing portion not penetrating the spacer ensures that the screw is well secured without protruding the frame.
Per claim 8 Wu et al. teaches the electronic device according to claim 1,
Wu et al. does not explicitly teach further comprising an electrically insulating fixing portion that fixes the spacer to the panel.
Isaji however discloses an electrically insulating fixing portion that fixes the spacer to the panel ([0140]).
It would be obvious to use an electrically insulating fixing portion because of its high corrosion resistance for harsh environment, non-magnetic properties.
Claim(s) 10 & 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. CN205784213 using Espacenet NPL for English translation in view of Isaji US2016/0255749.
Per claim 10 Wu et al. teaches the refrigerant circulation device comprising: the electronic device according to claim 1 (Abstract); a chassis (1)
Wu et al. does not explicitly teach including a flow path of a refrigerant; and a pump assembly to pressure-feed the refrigerant in the flow path.
Boarman et al. however discloses a flow path of a refrigerant (see fig.3 & 6); and a pump assembly to pressure-feed the refrigerant in the flow path ([0021]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have a pump assembly to pressure-feed the refrigerant in the flow path as taught by Boarman et al. in the refrigerant circulation device of Wu et al., because it enables liquid flow through the refrigerator to produce ice or cool water.
Per claim 13 Wu et al. in view of Boarman et al. teaches the refrigerant circulation device according to claim 10, wherein the electronic device further includes a cover that covers the display at a position farther from the first opening in the intersecting direction than the display (see fig.3).
Allowable Subject matter
3. Claims 11-12 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.
Claim 11, includes allowable subject matter because of the refrigerant circulation device according to claim 10, wherein the chassis further includes: a second opening; and a panel support portion that movably supports the panel between a closed position where the panel closes the second opening and an open position where the panel opens the second opening.
Claim 12 depends on claim 11, therefore allowable for the same reason.
Email Communication
4. Applicant is encouraged to authorize the Examiner to communicate via email by filing form PTO/SB/439 either via USPS, Central Fax, or EFS-Web. See MPEP 502.01, 502, 502.05.
Conclusion
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee et al. US2006/0104023 discloses a display apparatus comprising: a display panel to display a picture; a main PCB to operate the display panel; a shield cover coupled to the main PCB; a front cover and a rear cover respectively coupled to the display panel and the shield cover.
Adamik et al. US9709295 discloses an electronic assembly, comprising: a display having a front side for viewing the display, a back side, and two or more side walls extending between the front side and the back side; a display holder having a recess for receiving at least part of the display
Applicants are directed to consider additional pertinent prior are included on the Notice of References Cited (PTOL 892) attached herewith. The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply. Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A MATEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5648. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5 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, JAYPRAKASH GANDHI can be reached at 5712723740. 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.
/MICHAEL A MATEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2835