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
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Park et al. (EP 3098644 A1).
Re claim 1: Park discloses a display device (see figs 5C-5D) comprising:
a display panel (display panel 20 in fig 5C);
a rear chassis (second chassis 84 in fig 5C) disposed on a rear side of the display panel to support the display panel; the rear chassis including: a rear chassis body; and a reinforcing rib (coupling members 300 in fig 5C) protruding rearwardly from the rear chassis body to increase a strength of the rear chassis;
a rear cover (cover 90 in fig 5C) disposed on a rear side of the rear chassis to cover the rear chassis, the rear cover having a plate shape; and
a frame chassis (coupling member 200 in fig 5C, coupling member 270 in fig 14) positioned corresponding to the reinforcing rib and detachably coupled to the reinforcing rib (300), positioned between the rear chassis and the rear cover and coupled to the rear cover to enable the rear chassis and the rear cover to be detachably coupled (see fig 5D);
wherein the frame chassis includes: a first frame (right side holder 223 of fixing part 220a in fig 14) extending in a first direction (see annotated fig 14) to be attached to the rear cover, and including a first free end (see annotated fig 14) in the first direction, and a second frame (left side holder 223 of fixing part 220a in fig 14), corresponding to the first frame, extending in a second direction (herein, second direction is same as the first direction shown in annotated fig 14) to be attached to the rear cover, and including a second free end (see annotated fig 14) in the second direction, and wherein the second free end of the second frame is separated and spaced apart from the first free end to prevent deformation of the rear cover (see annotated fig 14).
PNG
media_image1.png
584
830
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re claim 2: Park discloses the display device, wherein a deformation opening (i.e., space formed between “first free end” and “second free end” that receives neck 212a of moving part 210a in annotated fig 14 above) is formed between the first free end and the second free end, a through space (i.e., space formed between left and right side holders 223 for receiving main body 230 in fig 14) is formed between the first frame and the second frame, and the through space is formed to extend to the deformation opening.
Re claim 3: Park discloses the display device, wherein the first frame and the second frame are arranged in a third direction (see annotated fig 14) different from the first direction and the second direction, and the frame chassis further includes a third frame (main body 230 of moving part 210a in fig 14; also, see annotated fig 14) extending in the third direction to connect the first frame and the second frame.
Re claim 5: Park discloses the display device, further including a stand (120 in figs 1, 6) couplable to the rear chassis (i.e., coupled to second chassis 84 via stand installation part 85 in fig 6), and the third frame is adjacent (i.e., near) to a position to which the stand is coupled.
Re claim 7: Park discloses the display device, wherein the first frame and the second frame extend in a vertical direction, and the third frame extends in a left-to-right direction (herein, when the display device is placed on a flat surface such that cover 90 is supported on the flat surface, the first and second frames would extend in vertical direction and the third frame would extend in left-to-right direction).
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(s) 8-11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (EP 3098644 A1).
Re claim 8: Park discloses the display device, wherein the rear cover (90) has a plate shape.
Park fails to disclose that the rear cover has a thickness of 1 mm or less.
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the rear cover with a thickness of 1 mm of less in order to reduce overall thickness of the display device and as per the designer’s choice. Also, change in size/thickness is considered obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art and has a little patentable significance unless a new and an unexpected result is produced.
Re claim 9: Park discloses the display device.
Park fails to disclose that the rear cover is manufactured by a rolling press method.
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the rear cover by rolling press method as per the designer’s choice. Also, the examiner herein notes that even though the claims are limited and defined by the recited process, the determination of patentability of the product is based on the product itself, and 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, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Re claim 10: Park discloses the display device.
Park fails to disclose that the frame chassis is manufactured by an injection molding method.
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the frame chassis by an injection molding method as per the designer’s choice. Also, the examiner herein notes that even though the claims are limited and defined by the recited process, the determination of patentability of the product is based on the product itself, and 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, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Re claim 11: Park discloses the display device.
Park fails to disclose that the frame chassis is located at a position corresponding to a center of the rear cover.
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the frame chassis at a position corresponding to a center of the rear cover as per the designer’s choice. Relocation of parts is considered obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art and has a little patentable significance unless a new and an unexpected result is produced.
Re claim 15: Park discloses the display device.
Park fails to disclose that a through hole is formed by passing through the third frame to reduce a weight of the frame chassis.
However, the examiner notes that it is well known in the art of engineering to form thorough holes in a chassis to reduce its weight.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the third frame with a hole therethrough in order to reduce the overall weight of the display device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is 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 best prior art of record, taken alone or in combination thereof, fails to teach a display device including, along with other limitations, the first frame and the second frame are coupled to the rear cover by an adhesive, and no adhesive is placed between the third frame and the rear cover as set forth in the claim.
Claims 6, 12-13 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 best prior art of record, taken alone or in combination thereof, fails to teach a display device including, along with other limitations, a cable located on the rear side of the rear chassis, wherein the through space includes: a first through gap disposed between the first frame and the frame rib to allow the cable to pass through; and a second through gap disposed between the second frame and the frame rib to allow the cable to pass through as set forth in the claim.
Claim 14 is 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 best prior art of record, taken alone or in combination thereof, fails to teach a display device including, along with other limitations, a supporter is detachably arranged between the first frame and the second frame to facilitate a coupling of the frame chassis to the rear cover as set forth in the claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 2/27/2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Park et al. (different species used for rejection).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nidhi Thaker whose telephone number is (571)270-3408. The examiner can normally be reached M, TH, F 10am-6pm.
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, Imani 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.
/NIDHI THAKER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841