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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
1. Applicant's election, without traverse, of claims 1 and 15-25 in the “Response to Restriction Requirement” filed on 07/27/2026 is acknowledged and entered by the Examiner.
This office action consider claims 1-32 pending for prosecution, wherein claims 2-14 and 26-32 are withdrawn from further consideration, and claims 1 and 15-25 are presented for examination.
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)(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
Notes: when present, semicolon separated fields within the parenthesis (; ;) represent, for example, as (114; Fig 6; [0092]) = (element 114; Figure No. 6; Paragraph No. [0092]). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. These conventions are used throughout this document.
2. Claims 1 and 15-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cheng et al. (US 20260023410 A1; hereinafter Cheng, using foreign priority date 09/27/2023, a machine translation is attached).
Regarding claim 1, Cheng teaches a display device (see the entire document, specifically Fig. 1+; [0002+], and as cited below), comprising:
a display panel (1; Fig. 39; see [0084, 0087]);
a plate arranged (312; Fig. 39; see [0105]) on a back surface of the display panel (1; Fig. 39; see [0084, 0087]);
a substrate (P; Fig. 39; see [0220]) and a support member (4; Fig. 39; see [0117, 0133]), both arranged on a back surface of the plate (312; Fig. 39; see [0105]); and
a flexible film (7; Fig. 39; see [0211-0212]) connecting the display panel (1; Fig. 39; see [0084, 0087]) and the substrate (P; Fig. 39; see [0220]) to each other,
wherein the flexible film (7; Fig. 39; see [0211-0212]) is attached to a back surface of the support member (4; Fig. 39; see [0117, 0133]) by a first adhesive member (5; Fig. 39 in view of Fig. 35; see [0211]).
Regarding claim 15, Cheng teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Cheng further teaches wherein the support member (4; Fig. 39 in view of Figs. 13, 23, 24; see [0117, 0133-0136, 0158-0159]) includes a plurality of grooves (41; Fig. 39 in view of Figs. 13, 23, 24; see [0133-0136, 0158-0159]) that are formed in such a manner as to be spaced apart from each other in a second direction, and wherein the plurality of grooves (41; Fig. 39 in view of Figs. 13, 23, 24; see [0133-0136, 0158-0159]) are formed to be elongated in a first direction that is different from the second direction.
Regarding claim 16, Cheng teaches all of the features of claim 15.
Cheng further teaches wherein the plurality of grooves (41; Fig. 39 in view of Figs. 13, 23, 24; see [0133-0136, 0158-0159]) are formed to be spaced the same distance apart from each other.
Regarding claim 17, Cheng teaches all of the features of claim 15.
Cheng further teaches wherein the plurality of grooves (41; Fig. 39 in view of Figs. 13, 23, 24; see [0133-0136, 0158-0159]) have the same width and the support member (4; Fig. 39 in view of Figs. 13, 23, 24; see [0117, 0133-0136, 0158-0159]) has the same thickness at the plurality of grooves (41; Fig. 39 in view of Figs. 13, 23, 24; see [0133-0136, 0158-0159]).
Regarding claim 18, Cheng teaches all of the features of claim 15.
Cheng further teaches wherein the plurality of grooves (41; Fig. 39 in view of Figs. 13, 23, 24; see [0133-0136, 0158-0159]) has an arc-shaped cross-section with a predetermined curvature.
Regarding claim 19, Cheng teaches all of the features of claim 15.
Cheng further teaches wherein each of the plurality of grooves (41; Fig. 39 in view of Figs. 13, 23, 24; see [0133-0136, 0158-0159]) has a U-shaped cross-section or a cross-section similar to a dish with a bottom.
Regarding claim 20, Cheng teaches all of the features of claim 15.
Cheng further teaches wherein one of the plurality of grooves (41; Fig. 39 in view of Figs. 13, 23, 24; see [0133-0136, 0158-0159]) is formed along an imaginary line that passes through the center of the support member (4; Fig. 39 in view of Figs. 13, 23, 24; see [0117, 0133-0136, 0158-0159]) in the first 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 of this title, 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.
Notes: when present, semicolon separated fields within the parenthesis (; ;) represent, for example, as (30A; Fig 2B; [0128]) = (element 30A; Figure No. 2B; Paragraph No. [0128]). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. These conventions are used throughout this document.
3. Claims 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (US 20260023410 A1; hereinafter Cheng, using foreign priority date 09/27/2023, a machine translation is attached), in view of the following statement.
Regarding claim 21, Cheng teaches all of the features of claim 20.
But, Cheng does not expressly disclose wherein the farther a respective one of the plurality of grooves is positioned from the imaginary line, the greater the distance between the respective one and an adjacent one of the plurality of grooves becomes.
However, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed “wherein the farther a respective one of the plurality of grooves is positioned from the imaginary line, the greater the distance between the respective one and an adjacent one of the plurality of grooves becomes” is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e. the invention would not work without wherein the farther a respective one of the plurality of grooves is positioned from the imaginary line, the greater the distance between the respective one and an adjacent one of the plurality of grooves becomes). Also, the Applicant has not shown that “wherein the farther a respective one of the plurality of grooves is positioned from the imaginary line, the greater the distance between the respective one and an adjacent one of the plurality of grooves becomes” produces a result that was new or unexpected enough to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the cited prior art. Instead, Claim 22 of the instant disclosure discloses other possible options such as “wherein the farther a respective one of the plurality of grooves is positioned from the imaginary line, the greater the depth of the respective one of the plurality of grooves becomes”. Therefore, no rationale is given that the invention will not function without “wherein the farther a respective one of the plurality of grooves is positioned from the imaginary line, the greater the distance between the respective one and an adjacent one of the plurality of grooves becomes”. Thus, the claimed “wherein the farther a respective one of the plurality of grooves is positioned from the imaginary line, the greater the distance between the respective one and an adjacent one of the plurality of grooves becomes” is not critical to the invention.
Examiner would like to note that MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline, where change of shape is a Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In view of the above, as there is no persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of “wherein the farther a respective one of the plurality of grooves is positioned from the imaginary line, the greater the distance between the respective one and an adjacent one of the plurality of grooves becomes” is significant. Thus, the claimed limitation of “wherein the farther a respective one of the plurality of grooves is positioned from the imaginary line, the greater the distance between the respective one and an adjacent one of the plurality of grooves becomes” is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious as per MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline. Therefore, the claimed limitation of “wherein the farther a respective one of the plurality of grooves is positioned from the imaginary line, the greater the distance between the respective one and an adjacent one of the plurality of grooves becomes” is not patentable over Cheng.
Regarding claim 22, Cheng teaches all of the features of claim 20.
But, Cheng does not expressly disclose wherein the farther a respective one of the plurality of grooves is positioned from the imaginary line, the greater the depth of the respective one of the plurality of grooves becomes.
However, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed “wherein the farther a respective one of the plurality of grooves is positioned from the imaginary line, the greater the depth of the respective one of the plurality of grooves becomes” is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e. the invention would not work without wherein the farther a respective one of the plurality of grooves is positioned from the imaginary line, the greater the depth of the respective one of the plurality of grooves becomes). Also, the Applicant has not shown that “wherein the farther a respective one of the plurality of grooves is positioned from the imaginary line, the greater the depth of the respective one of the plurality of grooves becomes” produces a result that was new or unexpected enough to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the cited prior art. Instead, Claim 21 of the instant disclosure discloses other possible options such as “wherein the farther a respective one of the plurality of grooves is positioned from the imaginary line, the greater the distance between the respective one and an adjacent one of the plurality of grooves becomes”. Therefore, no rationale is given that the invention will not function without “wherein the farther a respective one of the plurality of grooves is positioned from the imaginary line, the greater the depth of the respective one of the plurality of grooves becomes”. Thus, the claimed “wherein the farther a respective one of the plurality of grooves is positioned from the imaginary line, the greater the depth of the respective one of the plurality of grooves becomes” is not critical to the invention.
Examiner would like to note that MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline, where change of shape is a Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In view of the above, as there is no persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of “wherein the farther a respective one of the plurality of grooves is positioned from the imaginary line, the greater the depth of the respective one of the plurality of grooves becomes” is significant. Thus, the claimed limitation of “wherein the farther a respective one of the plurality of grooves is positioned from the imaginary line, the greater the depth of the respective one of the plurality of grooves becomes” is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious as per MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline. Therefore, the claimed limitation of “wherein the farther a respective one of the plurality of grooves is positioned from the imaginary line, the greater the depth of the respective one of the plurality of grooves becomes” is not patentable over Cheng.
Regarding claim 23, Cheng teaches all of the features of claim 20.
Cheng further teaches wherein each of the plurality of grooves (41; Fig. 39 in view of Figs. 13, 23, 24; see [0133-0136, 0158-0159]) has an arc-shaped cross-section with a predetermined curvature
But, Cheng does not expressly disclose and wherein the farther a respective one of the plurality of grooves is positioned from the imaginary line, the greater a curvature radius of the respective one of the plurality of grooves becomes.
However, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed “and wherein the farther a respective one of the plurality of grooves is positioned from the imaginary line, the greater a curvature radius of the respective one of the plurality of grooves becomes” is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e. the invention would not work without and wherein the farther a respective one of the plurality of grooves is positioned from the imaginary line, the greater a curvature radius of the respective one of the plurality of grooves becomes). Also, the Applicant has not shown that “and wherein the farther a respective one of the plurality of grooves is positioned from the imaginary line, the greater a curvature radius of the respective one of the plurality of grooves becomes” produces a result that was new or unexpected enough to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the cited prior art. Instead, Claim 21 of the instant disclosure discloses other possible options such as “wherein the farther a respective one of the plurality of grooves is positioned from the imaginary line, the greater the distance between the respective one and an adjacent one of the plurality of grooves becomes”. Therefore, no rationale is given that the invention will not function without “and wherein the farther a respective one of the plurality of grooves is positioned from the imaginary line, the greater a curvature radius of the respective one of the plurality of grooves becomes”. Thus, the claimed “and wherein the farther a respective one of the plurality of grooves is positioned from the imaginary line, the greater a curvature radius of the respective one of the plurality of grooves becomes” is not critical to the invention.
Examiner would like to note that MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline, where change of shape is a Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In view of the above, as there is no persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of “and wherein the farther a respective one of the plurality of grooves is positioned from the imaginary line, the greater a curvature radius of the respective one of the plurality of grooves becomes” is significant. Thus, the claimed limitation of “and wherein the farther a respective one of the plurality of grooves is positioned from the imaginary line, the greater a curvature radius of the respective one of the plurality of grooves becomes” is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious as per MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline. Therefore, the claimed limitation of “and wherein the farther a respective one of the plurality of grooves is positioned from the imaginary line, the greater a curvature radius of the respective one of the plurality of grooves becomes” is not patentable over Cheng.
Regarding claim 24, Cheng teaches all of the features of claim 20.
But, Cheng does not expressly disclose wherein the plurality of grooves are formed in such a manner as to be symmetrical with respect to the imaginary line.
However, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed “wherein the plurality of grooves are formed in such a manner as to be symmetrical with respect to the imaginary line” is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e. the invention would not work without wherein the plurality of grooves are formed in such a manner as to be symmetrical with respect to the imaginary line). Also, the Applicant has not shown that “wherein the plurality of grooves are formed in such a manner as to be symmetrical with respect to the imaginary line” produces a result that was new or unexpected enough to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the cited prior art. Instead, Claim 25 of the instant disclosure discloses other possible options such as “wherein the plurality of grooves are formed in such a manner as to be asymmetrical with respect to the imaginary line”. Therefore, no rationale is given that the invention will not function without “wherein the plurality of grooves are formed in such a manner as to be symmetrical with respect to the imaginary line”. Thus, the claimed “wherein the plurality of grooves are formed in such a manner as to be symmetrical with respect to the imaginary line” is not critical to the invention.
Examiner would like to note that MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline, where change of shape is a Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In view of the above, as there is no persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of “wherein the plurality of grooves are formed in such a manner as to be symmetrical with respect to the imaginary line” is significant. Thus, the claimed limitation of “wherein the plurality of grooves are formed in such a manner as to be symmetrical with respect to the imaginary line” is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious as per MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline. Therefore, the claimed limitation of “wherein the plurality of grooves are formed in such a manner as to be symmetrical with respect to the imaginary line” is not patentable over Cheng.
Regarding claim 25, Cheng teaches all of the features of claim 20.
But, Cheng does not expressly disclose wherein the plurality of grooves are formed in such a manner as to be asymmetrical with respect to the imaginary line.
However, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed “wherein the plurality of grooves are formed in such a manner as to be asymmetrical with respect to the imaginary line” is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e. the invention would not work without wherein the plurality of grooves are formed in such a manner as to be asymmetrical with respect to the imaginary line). Also, the Applicant has not shown that “wherein the plurality of grooves are formed in such a manner as to be asymmetrical with respect to the imaginary line” produces a result that was new or unexpected enough to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the cited prior art. Instead, Claim 24 of the instant disclosure discloses other possible options such as “wherein the plurality of grooves are formed in such a manner as to be symmetrical with respect to the imaginary line”. Therefore, no rationale is given that the invention will not function without “wherein the plurality of grooves are formed in such a manner as to be asymmetrical with respect to the imaginary line”. Thus, the claimed “wherein the plurality of grooves are formed in such a manner as to be asymmetrical with respect to the imaginary line” is not critical to the invention.
Examiner would like to note that MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline, where change of shape is a Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In view of the above, as there is no persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of “wherein the plurality of grooves are formed in such a manner as to be asymmetrical with respect to the imaginary line” is significant. Thus, the claimed limitation of “wherein the plurality of grooves are formed in such a manner as to be asymmetrical with respect to the imaginary line” is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious as per MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline. Therefore, the claimed limitation of “wherein the plurality of grooves are formed in such a manner as to be asymmetrical with respect to the imaginary line” is not patentable over Cheng.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Omar Mojaddedi whose telephone number is 313-446-6582. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m..
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, Julio J. Maldonado, can be reached on 571-272-1864. 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.
/OMAR F MOJADDEDI/Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights