DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed with the Office on 07/21/2024. Accordingly, the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention was recognized as 07/28/2023.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4 and 18-23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 and 18-23 of U.S. Patent No. 12686270 (Pat 270). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because limitations compared in the table and discussion, below.
Claim 1 of Instant Application
Claim 1 of Pat 207
Claim 1:
A display apparatus, comprising:
a display panel configured to display an image;
a front member on a front surface of the display panel;
a first support member on a rear surface of the display panel; and
a second support member on a rear surface of the first support member,
wherein the display panel and the first support member have a first hole.
Claim 1:
A display apparatus comprising:
a display panel configured to display an image;
a front member on a front surface of the display panel;
a support member on a rear surface of the display panel that is opposite the front surface of the display panel,
a hole in the display panel aligned with a hole in the support member;
an optical module on a rear surface of the support member;
a support body on a portion of the rear surface of the support member and protrudes from the rear surface of the support member, the support body supporting the optical module; and
a fixing member on the rear surface of the support member, the fixing member attaching the optical module to the rear surface of the support member.
Re Claim 1:
Except for the underlined, the limitations in the claim are explicitly disclosed in claim 1 of Pat 207.
With further regard to the support member, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (“PHOSITA”) to recognize Claim 1 in Pat 207 as at least suggesting an equivalent support member (support member) to the claim first support member due to at least the disclosed configuration as compared to the configuration in claim 1 of Pat 207.
With further regard to the hole, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to recognize Claim 1 of Pat 207 as at least suggesting an equivalent hole (hole) to the claimed first hole due to at least the disclosed configuration as compared to the configuration in claim 1 of Pat 207.
With regard to a second support member, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to recognize Claim 1 of Pat 207 as at least suggesting an equivalent second support member (fixing member) to the claimed second support member due to at least the disclosed configuration as compared to the configuration in claim 1 of Pat 207.
Re Claim 2: Claim 2 of Pat 207 further discloses the limitations of the claim.
Re Claim 3: Claim 3 of Pat 207 further discloses the limitations of the claim.
Re Claim 4: Claim 4 of Pat 207 further discloses the limitations of the claim.
Re Claims 18-23: Claims 18-23 of Pat 207, respectively, further disclose the limitations of the claim.
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.
(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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang et al. (US 20220328576 A1; “Huang”).
Re Claim 1:
Huang discloses a display apparatus (shown in Figs 1-6 and 8; described in at least ¶¶ 0062-0066 and 0082-0083 as well as below), comprising:
a display panel (display panel 101) configured to display an image (due to the configuration within the display apparatus);
a front member (shading part 108) on a front surface of the display panel (at least Figs 3-4);
a first support member (grid glue 103) on a rear surface of the display panel (Figs 3-4); and
a second support member (foam 106) on a rear surface of the first support member (Figs 3-4),
wherein the display panel (101) and the first support member (103) have a first hole (though hole H01(a) and opening H11).
Re Claim 2:
The claim depends upon claim 1.
Huang further discloses an optical module (photosensitive module 105) on the rear surface of the first support member (shown indirectly on rear surface of 103, via rigid heat dissipation layer 104, 106, and flexible heart dissipation layer 107), the optical module is disposed to overlap the first hole (overlapping H01(a) and H11).
Re Claim 4:
The claim depends upon claim 2.
Huang further discloses wherein the optical module (105) comprises a camera module or a sensor (the limitations map to both due to the description in at least ¶¶ 0065 of photosensitive module 105 refer to orthographic projection relationships among the three in a same region (the first camera region a, the second camera region b, the function integrating region c or the ambient light sensing region d)).
Re Claim 11:
The claim depends upon claim 1.
Huang further discloses wherein the display panel (101) and the first support member (103) include a second hole () that is different from the first hole (H02(b) and H12).
Re Claim 14:
The claim depends upon claim 1.
Huang further discloses wherein the first hole comprises a (H01(a)) hole in the display panel and a (H11) hole in the first support member, wherein the (H01(a)) hole and the (H11) hole are corresponding to each other (disposition shown in Figs 3-5) and have different sizes (shown in Figs 3-6).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang.
The claim depends upon claim 2.
With further regard to the front member and optical module, drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979); see also MPEP § 2125. Therefore, due to the configurations shown in Figs 2-4, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (“PHOSITA”), to recognize Wang as at least suggesting wherein an edge width of the front member (specifically including both edge widths of 108 on both sides of H51, Fig 5) is smaller than a width of the optical module (105, Figs 5).
Claims 12-13 and 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Kim et al. (US 20220052142 A1; “Kim”).
Re Claim 12:
The claim depends on claim 1.
Huang does not disclose that the display apparatus is on a dashboard of a transportation apparatus.
Kim teaches a display apparatus (display device 1, Fig 1) that is on a dashboard of a transportation apparatus (vehicle dashboard described in ¶ 0081).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to incorporate the display apparatus of Huang into a dashboard as taught (in at least principle) by Kim for the benefit of added utility. Further, a PHOSITA would have had an expectation of success because Cai discloses and Kim teaches display apparatus with a display panel (for Kim: display panel 10, Fig 2A) with a through-hole (for Kim: through-hole 10H) and a camera (for Kim: component 20; described as a camera in ¶ 0076).
Re Claim 13:
Huang further discloses wherein the dashboard includes a first area and a second area that is different from the first area (because it necessarily occurs that dashboards have multiple arbitrary areas of different arbitrary sizes, specifically including a first area and a second area that is different from the first area).
Re Claim 18:
The claim is an independent claim written in independent form and depends upon claim 1.
Huang further discloses the display apparatus of claim 1 (claim 1, above).
Huang does not disclose a transportation apparatus comprising:
an interior space;
and the display apparatus of claim 1 in the interior space.
Kim teaches a display apparatus (display device 1, Fig 1) that is in an interior space of a transportation apparatus (vehicle dashboard described in ¶ 0081).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to incorporate the display apparatus of Huang into an interior space as taught (in at least principle) by Kim for the benefit of added utility. Further, a PHOSITA would have had an expectation of success because Huang discloses and Kim teaches display apparatus with a display panel (for Kim: display panel 10, Fig 2A) with a through-hole (for Kim: through-hole 10H) and a camera (for Kim: component 20; described as a camera in ¶ 0076).
Claims 19-21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Kim as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Palm et al. (US 20200298900 A1; “Palm”).
Re Claim 19:
Huang does not explicitly disclose wherein the interior space comprises a first area corresponding to a driver's seat and a second area corresponding to a passenger seat.
Palm teaches an interior space including a first area corresponding to a driver seat (the space on dashboard 24, wherein the first area is shown in Fig 1 of Palm with the Examiner’s annotations, below; the Examiner notes that the first area is annotated to be bigger than the second area, and the second area bigger than the third area) and a second area corresponding to a passenger seat (the space on dashboard 24, wherein the second area is shown in Fig 1 of Palm, below).
Figure 1 of Palm with the Examiner's annotation
PNG
media_image1.png
352
536
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to incorporate the indoor space of Huang (as modified in view of Kim) with a first and second area as taught (in at least principle) by Palm for the benefit of obtaining a more definitive configuration. Further, a PHOSITA would have had an expectation of success because Huang discloses a vehicular dashboard (Kim: vehicular dashboard) and Palm teaches a vehicular dashboard (dashboard 18).
Re Claim 20:
The claim depends upon claim 19.
Huang further discloses wherein the first area and the second area have different sizes (shown in Fig 1 of Palm, above).
Re Claim 21:
The claim depends upon claim 19.
The combination in claim 19 does not necessitate Huang further discloses wherein the interior space further comprises a third area between the first area and the second area.
Palm teaches an interior space comprising a third area between a first area and the a second area (area on 24, wherein the third space is shown in Fig 1 of Palm with the Examiner’s annotations, above; the Examiner notes that the third area was shown annotated for claim 19, above, but the limitation had not yet been incorporated until this claim).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to incorporate the interior space of Huang (as modified in view of Kim and Palm) with a third area as taught (in at least principle) by Palm for the benefit of obtaining a more definitive configuration.
Re Claim 23:
The claim depends upon claim 21.
Huang further discloses wherein at least any one of the first area or the second area has a size different from that of the third area (shown in Fig 1 of Palm with the Examiner’s annotations, above).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Kim and Palm as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Cope et al. (US 20080211652 A1; “Cope”).
Huang does not disclose wherein the interior space further comprises a fourth area on a rear surface of a headrest of any one of the driver's seat or the passenger seat.
Cope teaches an interior space comprising a fourth area on a rear surface of a headrest of any one of the driver's seat or the passenger seat (area shown corresponding to the flexible displays 1602 on the headrests of both the driver and passenger, Fig 16).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to modify the indoor space of Huang (as modified in view of Kim and Palm) by including the fourth area as taught (in at least principle) by Cope for the benefit of screen viewing for backseat passengers.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-10 and 15-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim (including double patenting rejection(s)) but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Below is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Re Claim 5:
The closest prior art of record (Huang) fails to any one of disclose, teach, suggest, or render obvious the combined structure and functionality of the rib as set forth in the claim.
Re Claims 6-10:
The claims contain allowable subject matter due to their dependence on intervening claim 5.
Re Claim 15:
The closest prior art of record (Huang) fails to any one of disclose, teach, suggest, or render obvious the combined structure and functionality of the second support member as set forth in the claim.
Re Claim 16:
The claim contains allowable subject matter due to its dependence on intervening claim 15.
Re Claim 17:
The closest prior art of record (Huang) fails to any one of disclose, teach, suggest, or render obvious the combined structure and functionality of the width of an area of the optical module as set forth in the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wang et al. (US 20240324421 A1) discloses a display apparatus with a first hole.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH G DELAHOUSSAYE whose telephone number is (469)295-9088. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9:00 am-5:00 pm CST.
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, James Greece can be reached at (571) 272-3711. 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.
KEITH G. DELAHOUSSAYE JR.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2875
/KEITH G. DELAHOUSSAYE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights