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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Kang et. al (KR 20220147364 A) hereafter referred to as Kang.
Regarding claim 1, Kang teaches a display device comprising:
a display panel (110 display panel);
a material complexed panel (130 material complexed panel) positioned at a rear of the display panel (Fig 19);
and a side frame (140 side frame) positioned between the display panel and the material complexed panel (Fig 19), fixed to the material complexed panel (p 7 ¶1), and to which the display panel is coupled (pg 9 ¶9),
wherein the material complexed panel comprises:
a front skin (132 front skin) that defines a front surface of the material complexed panel (Fig 4);
a rear skin (133 rear skin) that defines a rear surface of the material complexed panel (Fig 4), the rear skin facing the front skin (Pg 9 ¶5);
and a core (131 core) positioned between the front skin and the rear skin (Fig 4), the core including fibers (pg 4 ¶3),
wherein the material complexed panel includes:
a flat part (130p flat part) facing the display panel (Fig 6 and 19);
an outer part (135 outer part) that defines a periphery of the flat part (Fig 5), the outer part having a front surface that defines a step (D2 step) descending from a front surface of the flat part, which is formed by the front skin and the core being pressed (Pg 5 ¶4);
and a receiving part (137 receiving part) formed on the outer part along a longitudinal direction of one side of the display panel (Fig 5),
the receiving part having a front surface that defines a step descending from the front surface of the outer part (pg 5 ¶4),
and wherein the outer part includes a plurality of barrier lines (135 outer part) formed in a depressed manner on the front surface of the outer part adjacent to the receiving part (pg 6 ¶1).
Regarding claim 2, Kang teaches the display device of claim 1,
wherein the display panel includes a driver IC (115 source signal substrate)
that is disposed at a rear surface of the display panel (110 display panel, Fig 19)
and electrically connected to the display panel (connected via 113 flexible cable, pg 9 last paragraph – pg 10 ¶1),
and wherein the driver IC is positioned between the display panel and the outer part of the material complexed panel (130 material complexed panel, Fig 19).
Regarding claim 3, Kang teaches the display device of claim 2,
wherein the plurality of barrier lines (135 outer part) are formed in the outer part (Fig 19)
where the outer part is opposite the flat part (130P flat plate part) with respect to the receiving part (137 receiving part, Fig 5),
and wherein the driver IC (115 source signal substrate) faces the outer part where the plurality of barrier lines are formed (Fig 19).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang in view of Shin et. al (US 20150340646 A1) hereafter referred to as Shin.
Regarding claim 4, Kang teaches the display device of claim 3.
Kang fails to teach the side frame includes: a horizontal portion positioned at the outer part where the plurality of barrier lines are formed; and a vertical portion connected to the horizontal portion, the vertical portion covering a side surface of at least one of the display panel or the material complexed panel, wherein the horizontal portion includes: a first edge line adjacent to a boundary between the outer part and the receiving part; a second edge line positioned between the first edge line and the vertical portion; and a third edge line connecting the first edge line and the second edge line, and wherein the outer part facing the driver IC is exposed to an outside by the second edge line and the third edge line.
However, Shin teaches the side frame includes:
a horizontal portion (123 horizontal portion) positioned at the outer part (120 cabinet) where the plurality of barrier lines are formed (edges of 110 OLED panel bordering 118 Printed circuit board, Fig 6A and Fig 3);
and a vertical portion (121 vertical portion) connected to the horizontal portion (Fig 3),
the vertical portion covering a side surface of at least one of the display panel (110 OLED panel) or the material complexed panel (131 horizontal surface of 130 back cover, Fig 6A),
wherein the horizontal portion includes:
a first edge line adjacent to a boundary between the outer part and the receiving part (see annotated Fig 6A below);
a second edge line positioned between the first edge line and the vertical portion (see annotated Fig 6A below);
and a third edge line connecting the first edge line and the second edge line (See annotated Fig 6A below),
and wherein the outer part facing the driver IC (118 printed circuit board) is exposed to an outside by the second edge line and the third edge line (Fig 6A).
PNG
media_image1.png
323
513
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kang and Shin are both in the industry of framed display devices therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Kang to include the barrier line and frame configuration of Kang in order to support the components of the device when assembled while minimizing space needed and spacing the components to minimize damage resulting from heat of the display panel (Shin ¶104 and 64)
Regarding claim 5, Kang in view of Shin teach the display device of claim 4,
wherein each of the plurality of barrier lines (edges of 110 OLED panel bordering 118 Printed circuit board, Fig 6A and Fig 3) is formed adjacent to the third edge line (Fig 6A).
Regarding claim 6, Kang in view of Shin teach the display device of claim 5,
wherein the each of the plurality of barrier lines (edges of 110 OLED panel bordering 118 Printed circuit board, Fig 6A and Fig 3)
is configured as a plurality of barrier lines extending in a direction intersecting the longitudinal direction of the one side of the display panel (110 OLED panel)
and spaced apart from one another in the longitudinal direction of the one side of the display panel (Fig 6A, Fig 3).
Regarding claim 7, Kang in view of Shin teach the display device of claim 5,
wherein a first distance from an end of the driver IC (118 printed circuit board) to the each of the plurality of barrier lines (edges of 110 OLED panel bordering 118 Printed circuit board, Fig 6A and Fig 3) is greater than a second distance from the each of the plurality of barrier lines to the third edge line of the horizontal portion of the side frame (Fig 6A and 6B shows that the 118 printed circuit board is farther away from the horizontal portion than the edge of 110 OLED panel where the barrier lines run).
Regarding claim 8, Kang in view of Shin teach the display device of claim 4,
wherein each of the plurality of barrier lines (edges of 110 OLED panel bordering 118 Printed circuit board, Fig 6A and Fig 3) is adjacent to the second edge line (See annotated Fig 6A above) and is elongated along the second edge line (Fig 3).
Regarding claim 9, Kang in view of Shin teach the display device of claim 8,
wherein a first distance from the driver IC (115 source signal substrate)
to the each of the plurality of barrier lines (135 outer part) is greater than a second distance from the second edge line of the horizontal portion of the side frame to the each of the plurality of barrier lines (115 source signal substrate is housed in the 137 receiving part, the distance from 137 receiving part to the 135b second outer part is greater than the distance from 137 to 135c, Fig 5).
Regarding claim 10, Kang in view of Shin teach the display device of claim 9,
wherein the driver IC (115 source signal substrate)
is elongated along the second edge line of the side frame (142 second part of 140 side frame),
and wherein the each of the plurality of barrier lines (135 outer part ) has a length greater than a length of the driver IC (Fig 19 shows that 115 source signal substrate is a distance from the edge of 143, 135 outer part runs from 143 to 141 and is therefore longer than 115, Fig 19 and Fig 5).
Regarding claim 11, Kang in view of Shin teach the display device of claim 4,
wherein each of the plurality of barrier lines (135 outer part) includes:
a horizontal barrier line (135c third outer part) extending along the second edge line (Fig 5);
and a vertical barrier line (135b second outer part) extending along the third edge line and connected to the horizontal barrier line (Fig 5).
Regarding claim 12, Kang in view of Shin teach the display device of claim 11.
Kang in view of Shin fail to teach wherein the driver IC is elongated along the second edge line of the side frame, and wherein the horizontal barrier line has a length greater than a length of the driver IC in the combination of claim 11.
However, Shin teaches
the driver IC (edges of 110 OLED panel bordering 118 Printed circuit board, Fig 6A and Fig 3) is elongated along the second edge line of the side frame (Fig 3, barrier line runs around the edge of 110 OLED panel),
and wherein the horizontal barrier line has a length greater than a length of the driver IC (118 printed circuit board is attached to the rear surface of 110 OLED panel shown in Fig 3, the 118 printed circuit board only covers a portion of the 110 OLED panel on the left and right sides of the device shown in Fig 3).
Kang and Shin are both in the industry of framed display devices therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Kang to include the different lengths of the barrier line and driver IC in order to allow a space for the driver to be recessed to provide a better fit to minimize the thickness of the display device (Shin ¶104)
Regarding claim 13, Kang in view of Shin teach the display device of claim 12,
wherein a first distance from the driver IC (118 printed circuit board)
to the horizontal barrier line (edges of 110 OLED panel bordering 118 Printed circuit board, Fig 6A and Fig 3) is greater than a second distance from the second edge line of the horizontal portion of the side frame (120 cabinet) to the horizontal barrier line (Fig 6A shows that the distance from 118 to the barrier line on the edge of 110 OLED panel is less than that of the 120 cabinet side frame to the barrier line, Fig 6A).
Regarding claim 14, Kang in view of Shin teach the display device of claim 13,
wherein a third distance from an end of the driver IC to the vertical barrier line (see annotated Fig 6A below, third distance continues to the edge of 110 OLED panel which is greater than shown in Fig 6A full length shown in Fig 3) is greater than a fourth distance (see annotated Fig 6A) from the vertical barrier line to the third edge line of the horizontal portion of the side frame (See annotated Fig 6A and Fig 3).
PNG
media_image2.png
281
506
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Kang in view of Shin teach the display device of claim 1,
wherein the front skin (132 front skin)
and the core (131 core) are pressed (pg 6 ¶4) so that each of the plurality of barrier lines defines a slit (H fastening groove) descending from the front surface of the outer part (pg 6 ¶4).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chang et. al (US 20200233255 A1) teaches a similar display device with frame and accommodating space.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELISA SASSERATH whose telephone number is (703)756-5847. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Allen Parker can be reached at (303) 297-4722. 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.
/ALLEN L PARKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2841
/E.S./ Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights