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
Applicant's election with traverse of Species I in the reply filed on 01/14/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that rejoinder of claim 20 is requested as claims 1-7 and 20 all include the common feature of magnetic attachments, and thus there is not an undue burden to examine claim 20 with claims 1-7. This is found persuasive.
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.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 112365800 A (translation submitted in IDS filed 08/28/2025).
Regarding claim 20, CN 112365800 A discloses an apparatus, comprising: a bare light-emitting diode (LED) panel [a flexible display panel, figure 1, paragraph 0037] comprising a front, display side, and an opposing back [figures 1-3]; and a plurality of magnets [first and second magnetic structures 21 and 31] surface-mounted to the back without fasteners (abstract, translation paragraph 0040, figures 1-3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim [US 2023/0297137 A1] in view of Shi [US 2017/0146851 A1].
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses an apparatus [a display device 100, see figure 2], comprising: a frame [a frame 150] having a back and an opposing front; a light-emitting diode (LED) panel [a display panel 120] attached to the front of the frame [see figures 2 and 4]; and one or more magnets [a plurality of panel magnets MG, a plurality of panel materials MS] attached to the back of the frame (figures 2-4, paragraphs 0041-0048).
However, Kim does not clearly show the panel being flexible and the first and second opposing sides of the frame comprise beveled edges.
Shi teaches a display unit 251 being a flexible display (paragraph 0057); and the first and second opposing sides of the frame [a middle frame 140] comprise beveled edges [1421] (abstract, figures 1-2, paragraphs 0016, 0028-0029).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine the display and the frame of Kim
with the flexibility and the beveled edges as taught by Shi for purpose of providing an advantageous way of that. Hence, from the perspective of a front of the transparent cover plate in direction perpendicular to the transparent cover plate, the area in the extension direction of the entire transparent cover plate is a visible area, i.e., the display range of the display screen extends to the edge of the display screen of the mobile terminal, thereby achieving the effect of displaying and improving the user experience.
Regarding claim 2, Shi teaches the middle frame [140] comprise beveled edges [1421] (abstract, figure 2, paragraph 0016). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine the frame of Kim with the beveled edges as taught by Shi for the third and fourth opposing sides of the frame. Hence, from the perspective of a front of the transparent cover plate in direction perpendicular to the transparent cover plate, the area in the extension direction of the entire transparent cover plate is a visible area, i.e., the display range of the display screen extends to the edge of the display screen of the mobile terminal, thereby achieving the effect of displaying and improving the user experience.
Regarding claim 3, Kim shows the one or more magnets [MG and MS] are adjacent to the edges of the frame 150 (figure 2); since Shi teaches the beveled edges, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have the one or more magnets [MG and MS] being adjacent to the beveled edges.
Regarding claim 4, Kim discloses the frame [150], but does not clearly show the flexible material. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to use the flexible material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basic of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 5, Kim discloses a mounting structure [a cover shield 160] to which the frame [150] is attached (figures 2 and 4). However, Kim does not clearly show the mounting structure [160] comprises a ferromagnetic metal. Kim teaches a plurality of panel ferromagnetic materials MS (paragraphs 0049-0050). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine the mounting structure with the ferromagnetic materials. Since, using any known material is considered to be within the general skill of a worker in the art on the basic of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 7 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: claims 6 and 7, each recites further details of the apparatus, which are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim et al. US 2020/0194539 A1 discloses a display panel 110, a metal plate 120, a plurality of panel magnets 130, and a plurality of panel ferromagnetic materials 140 (figures 2-4).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAO Q TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-2383. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 am - 3 pm.
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, ABDULMAJEED AZIZ can be reached at 571 272 5046. 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.
BAO Q. TRUONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2875
/BAO Q TRUONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875