DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 1/28/25, 6/5/25, and 9/25/25 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “H” in fig. 7. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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: in paragraph [0097], “rear plate 15” should be --rear plate 150--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (US 2022/0346287) in view of Jeong (US 2025/0142750) and Rambow (US 2023/0208309).
As to claim 1, Kang teaches a display device (100, figs. 1, 5, and 6) comprising:
a display panel (110, [0019]);
a frame (130) to which the display panel is coupled ([0026]);
a rear plate (150) disposed opposite the display panel with respect to the frame, the rear plate being coupled to the frame ([0048]);
Kang doesn’t explicitly teach a power supply unit fixed to the rear plate and comprising a line filter. However, a display panel having a power supply with a line filter is known in the art in order to power the device properly and without interference. Further, Jeong teaches such a display device (fig. 2) having a power supply with a line filter on the PCB board between the frame and the back cover (fig. 7, [0059] – [0060]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the power supply and line filter in the configuration taught by Jeong for the reasons stated above.
Neither Kang nor Jeong does not teach the rear plate has an opening aligned with the line filter of the power supply unit. However, Kang does teach fastening groove H (figs. 6 and 7, [0046]) that penetrates the rear plate. Rambow teaches exposing a line filter through a fastening groove 13 (fig. 1, [0168]). That screw serves as a ground connection, which serves the ground the line filter ([0049]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to expose the line filter through the fastening hole as taught by Rambow so as to properly ground the line filter.
As to claim 2, Kang does not explicitly teach the rear plate comprises iron. However, iron is a known frame material and its use would have been obvious for robustness.
As to claim 12, Kang further teaches the frame comprises: a front skin (132) facing the display panel; a rear skin (133) facing the front skin; and a core (131) comprising a fiber ([0028]), the core being disposed between the front skin and the rear skin (fig. 2), wherein the rear skin comprises aluminum ([0027]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-11 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: The prior art taken either singularly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the limitations of the claims listed above in such a manner that a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 would be proper.
The prior art fails to teach a combination of all of the features in the claims. As to claim 3, the prior art fails to teach a size of the opening is greater than a size of the line filter. Rambow teaches “electrical contact surfaces of the EMI filter are exposed on the outer walls of the holes in the electrical capacitor. The metallic screws are thus in electrical contact with the EMI filter.” ([0049]). Thus, only the electrical contacts of the filter are in the hole.
As to claim 4, the prior art teaches a heat dissipation sheet (HA, fig. 15) disposed between the line filter and the rear plate (fig. 9, [0048] – [0049], the line filter would be on the PCB board, to which the heat sink would be attached, and would be on the rear plate). Kang does not teach the heat dissipation sheet covering the opening and being supported on the rear plate.
As to claims 5-11, these claims are allowable at least because they depend from allowable claims 3 or 4.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any response to this Office Action should be faxed to (571) 273-8300 or mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Hand-Delivered responses should be brought to:
Customer Service Window
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22313
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREN M KUSUMAKAR whose telephone number is (571)270-3520. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday from 7:30a – 4:30p EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fernando Toledo can be reached on 571-272-1867. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KAREN KUSUMAKAR/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897
8/3/26
Prosecution Insights