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 .
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- 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suga et al, US Patent Application Publication 2018/0173032
PNG
media_image1.png
604
1114
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1
PNG
media_image2.png
430
724
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2
Regarding claim 1, Suga teaches a display device, comprising:
a frame 530A, 40 having a supporting surface;
a display unit (as labeled in figure 1 above) disposed on the frame and having at least one edge, wherein there is a gap between the edge and the frame (the gap is between 40 and display unit shown in figure 1 above) ;
a cover lens disposed on the display unit and comprising a first portion (labeled “C” in figure 2 above), a second portion (labeled “B” in figure 2 above),and a third portion (labeled “A” in figure 2 above), wherein the first portion overlaps the display unit, the second portion overlaps the gap, and the third portion overlaps the supporting surface of the frame; and
an interlayer 10A, 18 in contact with the surface of the cover lens facing the frame and at least overlapping the gap (figure 16).
Regarding claims 2-6, Suga teaches the interlayer is disposed between the cover lens and the display unit , the interlayer overlaps the display unit and is in contact with the first portion, the interlayer overlaps and contacts the second portion, the interlayer extends across the gap, and the interlayer is in contact with the display unit (figure 16).
Regarding claims 7-11, Suga teaches the interlayer is disposed between the cover lens and the frame 530A, the interlayer 10A overlaps the supporting surface and is in contact with the third portion. the interlayer overlaps and contacts the second portion, the interlayer extends across the gap, wherein the interlayer is in contact with the frame (figure 16).
Regarding claim 12-17, Suga teaches the interlayer is disposed between the cover lens and the display unit and the frame, the interlayer comprises a first interlayer and a second interlayer, the first interlayer overlaps the display unit (shown as space “D” in second figure), the second interlayer overlaps the supporting surface (shown as space “E” in second figure), the interlayer 10A is in contact with the first portion, the second portion and the third portion, the first interlayer has a thickness different from that of the second interlayer, the first interlayer and the second interlayer extend across the gap, the interlayer is in contact with the display unit and the frame, and the interlayer 18, 10A overlaps the first portion, the second portion and the third portion (figure 16).
Regarding claim 18, Suga teaches a circuit board electrically connected to the display unit and overlapping the interlayer (wherein the circuit board is part of the display unit, figure 16).
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) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suga et al, US Patent Application Publication 2018/0173032
Regarding claims 19 and 20m, Suga fails to teach the interlayer has a thickness greater than 0 and less than or equal to 5mm and the interlayer has an elastic coefficient between 0.1Mpa and 2Gpa.
However, given the teaching of the references, it would have been obvious to determine the optimum thickness and the of the layers involved because applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. See In re Aller, Lacey, and Hall (10 USPQ 23 3-237) "It is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. Note that the specification contains no disclosure of ether the critical nature of the claimed ranges or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that tile chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 f.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Any differences in the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091,231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Appellants have the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness. Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992).
An Affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUOVAUNDA JEFFERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5051. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7AM-4PM.
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, Dale E Page can be reached at 571-270-7877. 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.
QVJ
/DALE E PAGE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights