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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of group 1, namely claims 1-22 in the reply filed on 12/08/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: “The lower surface of the curved portion”, in lines 1-2, is lacking antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: “The lower surface of the outer structure”, and “the lower surface of the curved portion”, in lines 1-2, is lacking antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-6, 9-10, 13-15, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fournier et al (US 20180081481; “Fournier” 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) overlapping the display driving module 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, 768, fig. 12) disposed between the display driving module and the curved portion and surrounding the display driving module (fig. 12),
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_image1.png
608
956
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Fournier discloses the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses:
wherein the outer structure directly contacts the curved portion (fig. 12, ¶[0109]).
Regarding claim 3, Fournier discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further discloses:
PNG
media_image2.png
559
858
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the outer structure is disposed away from an outer edge of the display driving module (see annotated fig. 3 below).
Regarding claim 4, Fournier discloses the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses:
wherein the outer structure does not directly contact the display driving module (annotated fig. 12 above discloses this limitation).
Regarding claim 5, Fournier discloses the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses:
PNG
media_image3.png
464
677
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein a lower surface of the outer structure (762, fig. 12 below) is located on the same plane as a lower surface of the curved portion (annotated as LSCP in annotated fig. 12 below).
Regarding claim 6, Fournier discloses the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses:
wherein the outer structure comprises a first portion (754) contacting (¶[0109]) an inner surface (see annotated fig. 12 below) of the curved portion and a second portion (768) overlapped by a lower surface of the first portion (see annotated fig. 12 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
461
755
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Fournier discloses the limitations of claim 6 and further discloses:
wherein an outermost surface of the curved portion protrudes beyond an outer surface of the second portion (768, fig. 12) adjacent thereto.
Regarding claim 10, Fournier discloses the limitations of claim 9 and further discloses:
further comprising a middle frame (714, fig. 12) located opposite the cover window (704) with the second portion of the outer structure (768, fig. 12) interposed therebetween, wherein the outer surface of the second portion is covered by the cover window or the middle frame (fig. 12).
Regarding claim 13, Fournier discloses the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses:
wherein the lower surface of the outer structure (annotated as LSOS in annotated fig. 12 below, through element 754) is higher than the lower surface of the curved portion (annotated as LSCP in annotated fig. 12 below, through element 754).
PNG
media_image5.png
450
729
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Fournier discloses the limitations of claim 13, and further discloses:
further comprising a middle frame (714, fig. 12) located below the cover window (fig. 12),
wherein the middle frame comprises a step portion (see annotated fig. 12 below ) overlapping the cover window in a horizontal direction (Y plane direction, see annotated fig. 12 below).
PNG
media_image6.png
464
677
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Fournier discloses the limitations of claim 14, and further discloses:
PNG
media_image7.png
464
677
media_image7.png
Greyscale
wherein an upper surface of the step portion is higher than the lower surface of the curved portion (see annotated fig. 12 below).
Regarding claim 18, Fournier discloses: a display device comprising:
a display driving module (102. figs. 3 and 5) comprising a display panel (204, figs. 3 and 5);
a cover window (105, figs. 3 and 5) comprising a central portion (see annotated fig. 5 below) overlapping the display driving module and a curved portion (see annotated fig. 5 below) surrounding the display driving module (as disclosed upon examination of figures 1, 3 and 5); and
an outer structure (154 and 158) disposed between the display driving module and the curved portion and surrounding the display driving module (fig. 5),
wherein the outer structure overlaps the display driving module in a thickness direction of the display panel (fig. 5).
PNG
media_image8.png
589
851
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19, Fournier discloses the limitations of claim 18 and further discloses:
wherein the outer structure directly contacts the display driving module (through 158, and unlabeled adhesive layer, fig. 5, ¶[0096]).
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fournier et al (US 20180081481; “Fournier” hereinafter) in view of embodiment of fig. 8 of Fournier et al (US 20180081481; “Fournier8” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 8, Fournier discloses the limitations of claim 6, but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the second portion contacts the lower surface of the curved portion.
However, Fournier8 does not explicitly disclose:
wherein a second portion (see annotated fig. 12 below) contacts (through element 362) the lower surface of the curved portion (annotated as LSCP in annotated fig. 12 below).
PNG
media_image9.png
475
789
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 combine Fournier8’s teaching with Fournier’s display driving module such that the second portion contacts the lower surface of the curved portion, in order to form a stronger adhesive bond that counters or offsets forces to the electronic device in multiple directions (¶[0102]). The claim would have been obvious because the particular known technique (adhesive as coupling member) was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as evidenced by Fournier8. 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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fournier et al (US 20180081481; “Fournier” hereinafter) in view of Kakuda et al (US 12353241; “Kakuda” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 11, Fournier discloses the limitations of claim 10, and further teaches:
PNG
media_image10.png
358
596
media_image10.png
Greyscale
wherein the middle frame comprises a middle sidewall facing the curved portion of the cover window (see annotated fig. 12 below).
Fournier 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 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 (52, fig. 5), the lower surface of a curved portion the cover window (as disclosed upon examination of fig. 5).
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 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 et al (US 20180081481; “Fournier” hereinafter) in view of Barret et al (US 20210405688; “Barret” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 17, Fournier discloses the limitations of claim 1, and 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 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).
Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fournier et al (US 20180081481; “Fournier” hereinafter), in view of Burke et al (US 20220061166; “Burke” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 20, Fournier discloses the limitations of claim 18 and further discloses:
wherein
the display panel comprises a main area (see annotated fig. 5 below), a bending area (see annotated fig. 5 below) disposed on a first side of the main area and a sub-area (see annotated fig. 5 below) disposed on a second side of the bending area, and
PNG
media_image11.png
519
809
media_image11.png
Greyscale
the outer structure comprises a first portion disposed outside the bending area (see annotated fig. 5 below).
Fournier 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 Fournier’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, Fournier discloses the limitations of claim 20 and Fournier further discloses:
wherein the outer structure further comprises a third portion (158, fig. 5) covering the sub-area of the display panel (clearly shown in fig. 5).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fournier et al (US 20180081481; “Fournier” hereinafter), 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, Fournier 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 Fournier 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).
Fournier in view of Burke and Kakuda does not explicitly disclose:
the fourth portion has a step shape.
However, Kakuda7 teaches:
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 Fournier 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 Fournier et al (US 20180081481; “Fournier” hereinafter), 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, Fournier 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 Fournier 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).
Fournier 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 Fournier 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, 12, and 16 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 7, 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 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 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.
Regarding claim 16, 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, 13 and 14, a combination of limitations that:
further comprising a first coupling member disposed between the cover window and the middle frame,
wherein the first coupling member comprises a first coupling portion disposed on the step portion and a second coupling portion disposed on the lower surface of the curved portion. None of the reference art of record discloses or renders obvious such a combination.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is:
US 20230231302 A1 wearable Device. This invention relates generally to a wearable device including a cover, a screen component, an antenna bracket, a first antenna, a metal middle frame, a circuit board, and a bottom cover.
US 20200205307 A1 Device Enclosure. This invention generally relates to an element for an electronic device that can include a metal exterior portion including a first material, an interior portion including a second, independently selected material, and an engagement feature formed on a surface defined by the exterior and interior portions.
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.
/P.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2841
/SAGAR SHRESTHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841