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 § 102
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 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jarvis et al (US 20180084680; “Jarvis” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 18, Jarvis discloses: a display device comprising:
a display driving module (1302, fig. 21, equivalent to 102, figs. 3 and 5) comprising a display panel (204, figs. 3 and 5);
a cover window (1304, fig. 21) comprising a central portion (see annotated fig. 21 below) disposed above and overlapping the display driving module (fig. 21) and a curved portion (see annotated fig. 21 below) surrounding the display driving module (as disclosed upon examination of figures 1, 3 and 21); and
an outer structure (1354) disposed between the display driving module and the curved portion and surrounding the display driving module (see ‘B’ in annotated fig. 21, below),
wherein the outer structure overlaps the display driving module in a thickness direction of the display panel (fig. 21), and
wherein the curved portion surrounds an uppermost outer surface of the outer structure (see annotated fig. 21 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
444
773
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
430
639
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 1-4, 6, 9-10, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fournier et al (US 20180081481; “Fournier” hereinafter), in view of Jarvis et al (US 20180084680; “Jarvis” hereinafter)
Regarding claim 1, Fournier discloses: a display device (100) comprising:
a display driving module (702, fig. 12) comprising a display panel (unnumbered, annotated as ‘DP’ in annotated fig. 12 below);
a cover window (704, fig. 12) comprising a central portion (see annotated fig. 12 below) disposed above and overlapping the display driving module (as shown in annotated fig. 12 below) and a curved portion (see annotated fig. 12 below) surrounding the display driving module (as disclosed upon examination of figs. 3 and 12); and
an outer structure (754, 762, fig. 12) disposed between the display driving module and the curved portion and surrounding the display driving module (see ‘B’ in annotated fig. 12 below),
PNG
media_image3.png
608
956
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein the outer structure is spaced apart from the display driving module (as disclosed upon examination of annotated fig. 12 below, where element 754 is an independent element and with an accommodation space that allows for placement of the display driving module, while at the same time an adhesive member, annotated below as “A” maintains a spaced apart stance with respect to element 754, in similar way as in element 158 of fig. 5, ¶[0058]).
PNG
media_image4.png
484
610
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fournier does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the curved portion surrounds an uppermost outer surface of the outer structure.
However, Jarvis teaches:
PNG
media_image5.png
514
773
media_image5.png
Greyscale
a curved portion (see annotated fig. 21 below) of a cover window (1304) surrounds an uppermost outer surface of an outer structure (1354, fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to apply Jarvis teaching and modify the cover window and horizontally extend the curved portion, and modify the outer structure of Fournier, such that the curved portion surrounds an uppermost outer surface of the outer structure, since the claim would have been obvious because the particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as evidenced by Jarvis. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of a plurality of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity (§MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 2, Fournier in view of Jarvis discloses the limitations of claim 1 and the combination further discloses:
wherein the outer structure directly contacts the curved portion (figs. 12, ¶[0109], Fournier, and fig. 21, Jarvis).
Regarding claim 3, Fournier in view of Jarvis discloses the limitations of claim 1 and Fournier further discloses:
PNG
media_image6.png
559
858
media_image6.png
Greyscale
wherein the outer structure is disposed away from an outer edge of the display driving module (see annotated fig. 13 below).
Regarding claim 4, Fournier in view of Jarvis discloses the limitations of claim 1 and Fournier further discloses:
wherein the outer structure does not directly contact the display driving module (annotated fig. 12 above discloses this limitation).
Regarding claim 6, Fournier in view of Jarvis discloses the limitations of claim 1 and the combination further discloses:
wherein the outer structure comprises
a first portion (equivalent to 762 from Fournier) contacting (¶[0109]) an inner surface (see annotated fig. 21 below, Jarvis) of the curved portion and
a second portion (1354) overlapped by a lower surface of the first portion (see annotated fig. 12 below).
PNG
media_image7.png
588
758
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Fournier in view of Jarvis discloses the limitations of claim 6 and the combination further discloses:
PNG
media_image7.png
588
758
media_image7.png
Greyscale
wherein an outermost surface of the curved portion (as modified by Jarvis, see annotated fig. 21 below, Jarvis) protrudes beyond an outer surface of the second portion (see annotated fig. 21 below, Jarvis) adjacent thereto.
Regarding claim 10, Fournier in view of Jarvis discloses the limitations of claim 9 and the combination further discloses:
further comprising a middle frame (714, fig. 12, Fournier) located opposite the cover window (1304, Jarvis) with the second portion of the outer structure interposed therebetween (see annotated fig. 21 above, Jarvis),
wherein the outer surface of the second portion is covered by the cover window or the middle frame (fig. 21, Jarvis).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fournier in view of Jarvis, and further in view of Kakuda et al (US 12353241; “Kakuda” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 11, Fournier in view of Jarvis discloses the limitations of claim 10, and the combination further teaches:
PNG
media_image8.png
328
447
media_image8.png
Greyscale
wherein the middle frame comprises a middle sidewall facing the curved portion of the cover window (see annotated fig. 21 below, Jarvis).
Fournier in view of Jarvis does not explicitly teach:
further comprising a first coupling member disposed between the cover window and the middle frame, and the first coupling member contacts a lower surface of the second portion, the lower surface of the curved portion, and an upper surface of the middle sidewall.
However Kakuda teaches:
a first coupling member (50, 52 and 54, fig. 5) disposed between a cover window (20, fig. 5) and a middle frame (12, fig. 5), and the coupling member contacts a lower surface of a second portion (see annotated fig. 5 below), the lower surface of a curved portion the cover window (as disclosed upon examination of fig. 5), and an upper surface of a middle sidewall (see annotated fig. 5 below).
PNG
media_image9.png
441
713
media_image9.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include Kakuda’s teaching of a coupling member configured architecturally into Fournier as modified by Jarvis, such that a first coupling member disposed between the cover window and the middle frame, and the first coupling member contacts a lower surface of the second portion, the lower surface of the curved portion, and an upper surface of the middle sidewall, in order to ensure that mechanical stresses on the cover window are transferred to the middle frame, and not the display panel (col. 10, lines 39-42). The claim would have been obvious because the particular known technique (coupling member) was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as evidenced by Kakuda. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity (MPEP 2143).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fournier in view of Jarvis, and further in view of Barret et al (US 20210405688; “Barret” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 17, Fournier in view of Jarvis discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Fournier further discloses:
wherein the display driving module further comprises a driving board (212, fig. 5) disposed on an end of the display panel (210, ¶[0083]).
Fournier in view of Jarvis does not explicitly disclose:
the display driving module further comprises a driving chip.
However, Barret discloses:
a driving board (26 and 26’, fig. 2) and a driving chip (18, fig. 2, ¶[0022], [0033]) disposed on an end of a display panel (14T, fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Barret’s driving chip with Fournier’s display driving module such that the display driving module further comprises a driving chip, since the claim would have been obvious because the particular known technique (electronic component for driving displays) was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as evidenced by Barret. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity (MPEP 2143).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarvis, in view of Kakuda et al (US 12353241; “Kakuda” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 19, Jarvis discloses the limitations of claim 18, but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the outer structure directly contacts the display driving module.
However, Kakuda teaches:
an outer structure (38, fig. 4) directly contacts a display driving module (14, fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the outer structure of Jarvis, Kakuda’s teaching such that wherein the outer structure directly contacts the display driving module, in order to provide mechanical robustness, protection from moisture and other environmental contaminants, heat sinking, and/or electrical insulation to the display module (col. 7, lines 16-22), as well as to enhance internal space utilization of the display device. The claim would have been obvious because the particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as evidenced by Kakuda. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity (MPEP 2143).
Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarvis, in view of Burke et al (US 20220061166; “Burke” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 20, Jarvis discloses the limitations of claim 18 and further discloses:
wherein
the display panel comprises a main area (see annotated fig. 21 below), a bending area (see annotated fig. 21 below) disposed on a first side of the main area and a sub-area (see annotated fig. 21 below) disposed on a second side of the bending area, and
PNG
media_image10.png
551
935
media_image10.png
Greyscale
the outer structure comprises a first portion disposed outside the bending area (see annotated fig. 21 below).
Jarvis does not explicitly disclose:
a second portion disposed inside the bending area.
However, Burke teaches:
an outer structure (821 and 823, fig. 8A) comprising a first portion (a portion of 823, fig. 8A) and a second portion (821, fig. 8A) disposed inside a bending area (811, fig. 8A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Jarvis’s outer structure, with Burke’s teaching such that the outer structure comprises a second portion disposed inside the bending area, in order to reinforce or bolster the bending area of the display panel, against external forces or stresses (¶[0073]).
Regarding claim 21, Jarvis in view of Burke discloses the limitations of claim 20 and Jarvis further discloses:
wherein the outer structure further comprises a third portion (158, fig. 5, equivalent to the same unnumbered structure in fig. 21) covering the sub-area of the display panel (clearly shown in figs. 5 and 21).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarvis in view of Burke et al (US 20220061166; “Burke” hereinafter) as applied to claim 21, and further in view of Kakuda et al (US 12353241; “Kakuda” hereinafter) and embodiment of fig. 7 of Kakuda et al (US 12353241; “Kakuda7” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 22, Jarvis in view of Burke discloses the limitations of claim 21, but does not explicitly disclose: wherein
the outer structure comprises a fourth portion disposed on a lower surface of the third portion, and
the fourth portion has a step shape.
However, Kakuda teaches:
an outer structure (38, 40, 64, 68, fig. 9) comprising a first portion (38-1) a second portion (40), a third portion (38-2) and a fourth portion (64-2, 68) disposed on a lower surface of the third portion (fig. 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Jarvis in view of Burke’s outer structure, with Kakuda’s teaching such that the outer structure comprises a fourth portion disposed on a lower surface of the third portion, in order to reduce mechanical stresses of the cover window, and therefore also of the display panel. (col.15, lines 30-34).
Jarvis in view of Burke and Kakuda does not explicitly disclose:
the fourth portion has a step shape.
However, Kakuda7 teaches:
PNG
media_image11.png
287
459
media_image11.png
Greyscale
an outer structure (38, fig. 7) comprising a lower portion (see annotated fig. 7 below) with a step shape.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Jarvis in view of Burke and Kakuda’s outer structure, with Kakuda7’s teaching such that the outer structure comprises a fourth portion with a step shape disposed on a lower surface of the third portion, in order to reduce mechanical stresses of the cover window, and therefore also of the display panel (col. 11, lines 20-25; col.15, lines 30-34). Furthermore, such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Note MPEP 2144.05-II-A and MPEP 2144.05-III-A which states:
In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) (“It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.”).
Claim 22 is alternately rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarvis in view of Burke et al (US 20220061166; “Burke” hereinafter) as applied to claim 21, and further in view of Kakuda et al (US 12353241; “Kakuda” hereinafter) and Choi et al (US 20220336772; “Choi” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 22, Jarvis in view of Burke discloses the limitations of claim 21, but does not explicitly disclose The display device of claim 21, wherein
the outer structure comprises a fourth portion disposed on a lower surface of the third portion, and
the fourth portion has a step shape.
However, Kakuda teaches:
an outer structure (38, 40, 64, 68, fig. 9) comprising a first portion (38-1) a second portion (40), a third portion (38-2) and a fourth portion (64-2, 68) disposed on a lower surface of the third portion (fig. 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Jarvis in view of Burke’s outer structure, with Kakuda’s teaching such that the outer structure comprises a fourth portion disposed on a lower surface of the third portion, in order to reduce mechanical stresses of the cover window, and therefore also of the display panel. (col.15, lines 30-34).
Jarvis in view of Burke and Kakuda does not explicitly disclose:
the fourth portion has a step shape.
However, Choi teaches:
PNG
media_image12.png
329
542
media_image12.png
Greyscale
an outer structure (401 fig. 4F) comprising a lower portion (see annotated fig. 4F below) with a step shape.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Jarvis in view of Burke and Kakuda’s outer structure, with Choi’s teaching such that the outer structure comprises a fourth portion with a step shape disposed on a lower surface of the third portion, in order to reduce damage of the rear surface of the display panel, and the cover window as well (¶[0093,][0095]). Furthermore, such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Note MPEP 2144.05-II-A and MPEP 2144.05-III-A which states:
In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) (“It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 13 allowed.
Regarding claim 7, the prior art of record taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest,
in combination with other limitations recited in the claim, a combination of limitations that:
wherein the second portion overlaps the first portion and the curved portion in a thickness direction of the display device. None of the reference art of record discloses or renders obvious such a combination.
Regarding claim 13, the prior art of record taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest,
in combination with other limitations recited in the claim, a combination of limitations that:
wherein a lower surface of the outer structure is higher than a lower surface of the curved portion. None of the reference art of record discloses or renders obvious such a combination.
Claims 14-16 are allowed by virtue of dependency to claim 13.
Claims 5, 8, 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.
Regarding claim 5, the prior art of record taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest,
in combination with other limitations recited in claim 1, a combination of limitations that:
wherein a lower surface of the outer structure is located on the same plane as a lower surface of the curved portion. None of the reference art of record discloses or renders obvious such a combination.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art of record taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest,
in combination with other limitations recited in claims 1 and 6, a combination of limitations that: wherein the second portion contacts the lower surface of the curved portion. None of the reference art of record discloses or renders obvious such a combination.
Regarding claim 12, the prior art of record taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest,
in combination with other limitations recited in claims 1, 6, 9-11 a combination of limitations that:
wherein the first coupling member comprises a first coupling portion contacting the second portion, a second coupling portion contacting the curved portion, and a step portion between the first coupling portion and the second coupling portion. None of the reference art of record discloses or renders obvious such a combination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER KRIM whose telephone number is (703)756-1246. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am -4:30pm.
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, Allen L Parker can be reached at (303) 297-4722. 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.
/ALLEN L PARKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2841
/P.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights