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
Claims 4, 6-8 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 2025-12-22.
Applicant's election with traverse of group C in the reply filed on 2025-12-22 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “all three species relate to the same subject matter”. This is not found persuasive because applicant appears to be arguing that the species are not patentably distinct, however applicant has submitted no evidence nor identified such evidence already of record showing the species to be obvious variants nor does applicant clearly admit on the record that this is the case. As the species as described in the present specification, in the figures and paragraphs identified in the office action dated 2025-10-23, would require searching of different classes/subclasses, electronic resources, and divergent search strategies and search queries, the current evidence of record supports the position of the Office that the different species present a serious search and/or examination burden.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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(s) 1-3, 5, 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by OKA (US 2019/0258100).
Regarding claim 1 OKA discloses:
A display device comprising:
a display panel (e.g. P1 FIG.3);
a frame (e.g. edge of P1 shown FIG.3) which is disposed at a rear of the display panel, and to which the display panel is coupled;
a substrate (e.g. P2 FIG.3) coupled to a rear of the frame; and
a holder (e.g. 10, 20, P3 FIG.3) coupled to the substrate and disposed between the frame and the substrate, wherein:
the frame and the holder are electrically conductive (e.g. described paragraph [0021]); and
the holder comprises a body (e.g. 13 FIG.3) contacting the substrate, and a leg (e.g. 11, 20 FIG.3) having elasticity and protruding from the body toward the frame to be in contact with the frame (e.g. shown FIG.3).
Regarding claim 2 OKA discloses:
a timing controller board (e.g. two boards P2 shown Fig.2, described paragraph [0023]), wherein the substrate is a source PCB (e.g. described paragraph [0023]) electrically connected to the display panel and the timing controller board (e.g. via a series of P3 FIG.2).
Regarding the limitations "timing controller" and "source": “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987), insofar as the functional limitations of timing control and source impart structure on the claimed device the prior art apparatus would be understood by one of ordinary skill to disclose such structure for the reasons pointed out above(MPEP 2114)
Regarding claim 3 OKA discloses:
the leg has a first end fixed to the body (e.g. at 22 FIG.3) and a second end spaced apart from the body, and is bent at least once between the first end and the second end (e.g. as shown FIG.3).
Regarding claim 5 OKA discloses:
the holder further comprises a contact part at a front surface of the leg and configured to contact the frame (e.g. at least two examples shown FIG.3).
Regarding claim 9 OKA discloses:
the substrate is a single sided PCB having a rear surface on which a circuit is formed (e.g. where P3 contacts P2 FIG.3), wherein the body is disposed at a front surface of the substrate and comprises a bent (e.g. at least one shown FIG.3) portion which is cut from the body to be bent toward and contact the front surface of the substrate (e.g. shown FIG.3).
Regarding the limitation "cut": “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (MPEP 2113)
Regarding claim 10 OKA discloses:
the bent portion is elastically deformed to maintain contact with the front surface of the substrate (e.g. shown maintaining contact FIG.3).
Regarding the limitation "Elastically deformed": “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (MPEP 2113)
Regarding claim 11 OKA discloses:
the holder comprises:
a lower fixing part (e.g. 12 FIG.3) having a hook which protrudes rearward from one side of the body (e.g. shown FIG.3), and which is latched to the rear surface of the substrate (e.g. described paragraph [0029]); and
an upper fixing part (e.g. 11 FIG.3) having a hook which protrudes rearward from another side of the body (e.g. shown FIG.3), and which is latched to the rear surface of the substrate (e.g. described paragraph [0029]).
Regarding claim 12 OKA discloses:
the holder comprises a pair of slits (e.g. between respective P3 FIG.2) formed at the body and disposed opposite each other with respect to the leg (e.g. shown FIG.2), wherein the pair of slits are open toward a side of the body (e.g. shown FIG.2).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional references cited on the PTO-892 teach/disclose similar circuit board display housings as those disclosed in the present application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THERON S MILLISER whose telephone number is (571)270-1800. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6.
Limited examiner interviews are available.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Imani N. Hayman can be reached at (571) 270-5528. 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.
/THERON S MILLISER/Examiner, Art Unit 2841 /IMANI N HAYMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights