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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/30/2024, 3/9/2026, 3/12/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Fig. 5D shows “66, 72 and 74” point to the same structure. Furthermore, T-lock 72 does not look T-shaped. Groove 74 also does not look like a groove. It’s unclear what the drawing is showing.
Fig. 8A shows two “108”. It appears the left “108” was mislabeled.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Specification at [0041] recites “display cable connectors 84 of display cables 38”. However, “84” was designated as “post” throughout the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a midplane”. It is well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art that midplane is a printed circuit board situated in the middle of a chassis. However, based on the specification, midplane 50 and cover 52 are injection molded plastic. From Fig. 2, it looks like 50 is more like a middle or intermediate frame. While applicants can be their own lexicographer, it is confusing to use a well-known term in the art to mean something else. Further clarification is required.
Claims 2-9 depends on claim 1.
Claims 10 and 17 have similar issue as above claim 1.
Claims 11-16 depends on claim 10.
Claims 18-20 depends on claim 17.
Claim 4 recites “T-locks”. Note that T-locks is not a common term in the art. It is assumed that term means T-shaped locks. However, Drawing shows T-locks 72 is not T-shaped. Thus, it’s unclear what T-locks mean. Clarification is required.
Claim 13 recites “unique dimensions”. It’s unclear what is “unique dimensions” since uniqueness is subjective and can’t be objectively determined. Thus, this term is indefinite.
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 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 10-11 and 13-17 of copending Application No. 18/788794 in view of Kim et al. (US 10,234,708; hereinafter “Kim”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Application No. 18/788794 teach everything except the display panel having a back side with plural geometric structures extending out around a perimeter of the back side, the geometric structures slidingly engaging in slots of a midplane to couple the midplane to the back side; one of the geometric structures located in each corner of the perimeter; and an alignment tab coupled at each one of the slots located in each corner of the midplane, the alignment tabs guiding the midplane and back side to a predetermined alignment; wherein the slots at the corners have the alignment tabs; wherein the alignment tabs are T-locks; a snap lock coupled to the midplane and aligned to engage the back side when the midplane slides to a predetermined alignment with the backside. However, Kim teaches a display panel (110, 116, 118, 119, Figs. 25-26; can also see 100, 250 in Fig. 13) having a back side (back side of 100 where 210, 230 locate in Figs. 25, 26) with plural geometric structures (210, 230, Figs. 25, 26; can also see Fig. 13) extending out around a perimeter (250 around the back side perimeter of 100 as shown in Fig. 13; col. 11, lns. 30-40) of the back side, the geometric structures slidingly engaging in slots (slots shown in 310, 330, Figs. 25, 26) of a midplane (portion of 150 where 310, 330 locate and couple to 210, 230 in Figs. 25 and 26, note not consider the back curved portion of 150; can also refer to Fig. 13) to couple the midplane to the back side (as shown in Figs. 25, 26); one of the geometric structures located in each corner of the perimeter (note 230 is considered located at corner in Fig. 13); and an alignment tab (same as 230, Fig. 26) coupled at each one of the slots (330, Fig. 26) located in each corner of the midplane, the alignment tabs guiding the midplane and back side to a predetermined alignment (as shown in Fig. 26); wherein the slots at the corners have the alignment tabs (as shown in Fig. 26); wherein the alignment tabs are T-locks (230 is relatively T-shaped as shown in Fig. 26, so it’s considered as T-locks); a snap lock (339 can be considered as a snap, Fig. 26) coupled to the midplane (portion of 150 where 310, 330 locate and couple to 210, 230 in Figs. 24, 26) and aligned to engage the back side when the midplane slides to a predetermined alignment with the backside (as shown in Figs. 26). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the display panel having a back side with plural geometric structures extending out around a perimeter of the back side, the geometric structures slidingly engaging in slots of a midplane to couple the midplane to the back side; one of the geometric structures located in each corner of the perimeter; and an alignment tab coupled at each one of the slots located in each corner of the midplane, the alignment tabs guiding the midplane and back side to a predetermined alignment; wherein the slots at the corners have the alignment tabs; wherein the alignment tabs are T-locks; a snap lock coupled to the midplane and aligned to engage the back side when the midplane slides to a predetermined alignment with the backside in Application No. 18/788794, as taught by Kim, in order to provide cheap and simple assembly/disassembly of the peripheral display. Application No. 18/788794 in view of Kim does not explicitly teach only the slots at the corners have the alignment tabs. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have only the slots at the corners have the alignment tabs, since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, only have alignment tabs in the corners provide simplification of coupling and decoupling the midplane and the back side, and this yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Application No. 18/788794 in view of Kim also does not teach wherein the back side comprises metal and the midplane comprises plastic; wherein the slots of the back side comprise chamfered punched metal. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the back side comprises metal and the midplane comprises plastic; wherein the slots of the back side comprise chamfered punched metal since it has been held that a selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. Selecting a known compound to meet requirements is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (citing Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)). In this case, selecting either metal or plastic for back side and the midplane can be easily determined by one of ordinary skill in the art depending on factors such as cost, heat dissipation, and structural integrity of the peripheral display, and this can be easily determined by one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation without yielding any unexpected result.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 10-11 and 15-17 of copending Application No. 18/788794 in view of Kim et al. (US 10,234,708; hereinafter “Kim”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Application No. 18/788794 teaches everything except the display panel having a back side with plural geometric structures extending out around a perimeter of the back side, the geometric structures slidingly engaging in slots of a midplane to couple the midplane to the back side; one of the geometric structures located in each corner of the perimeter; and an alignment tab coupled at each one of the slots located in each corner of the midplane, the alignment tabs guiding the midplane and back side to a predetermined alignment; wherein the slots at the corners have the alignment tabs; wherein the alignment tabs are T-locks; a snap lock coupled to the midplane and aligned to engage the back side when the midplane slides to a predetermined alignment with the backside. However, Kim teaches a display panel (110, 116, 118, 119, Figs. 25-26; can also see 100, 250 in Fig. 13) having a back side (back side of 100 where 210, 230 locate in Figs. 25, 26) with plural geometric structures (210, 230, Figs. 25, 26; can also see Fig. 13) extending out around a perimeter (250 around the back side perimeter of 100 as shown in Fig. 13; col. 11, lns. 30-40) of the back side, the geometric structures slidingly engaging in slots (slots shown in 310, 330, Figs. 25, 26) of a midplane (portion of 150 where 310, 330 locate and couple to 210, 230 in Figs. 25 and 26, note not consider the back curved portion of 150; can also refer to Fig. 13) to couple the midplane to the back side (as shown in Figs. 25, 26); one of the geometric structures located in each corner of the perimeter (note 230 is considered located at corner in Fig. 13); and an alignment tab (same as 230, Fig. 26) coupled at each one of the slots (330, Fig. 26) located in each corner of the midplane, the alignment tabs guiding the midplane and back side to a predetermined alignment (as shown in Fig. 26); wherein the slots at the corners have the alignment tabs (as shown in Fig. 26); wherein the alignment tabs are T-locks (230 is relatively T-shaped as shown in Fig. 26, so it’s considered as T-locks); a snap lock (339 can be considered as a snap, Fig. 26) coupled to the midplane (portion of 150 where 310, 330 locate and couple to 210, 230 in Figs. 24, 26) and aligned to engage the back side when the midplane slides to a predetermined alignment with the backside (as shown in Figs. 26). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the display panel having a back side with plural geometric structures extending out around a perimeter of the back side, the geometric structures slidingly engaging in slots of a midplane to couple the midplane to the back side; one of the geometric structures located in each corner of the perimeter; and an alignment tab coupled at each one of the slots located in each corner of the midplane, the alignment tabs guiding the midplane and back side to a predetermined alignment; wherein the slots at the corners have the alignment tabs; wherein the alignment tabs are T-locks; a snap lock coupled to the midplane and aligned to engage the back side when the midplane slides to a predetermined alignment with the backside in Application No. 18/788794, as taught by Kim, in order to provide cheap and simple assembly/disassembly of the peripheral display. Application No. 18/788794 in view of Kim does not explicitly teach only the slots at the corners have the alignment tabs. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have only the slots at the corners have the alignment tabs, since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, only have alignment tabs in the corners provide simplification of coupling and decoupling the midplane and the back side, and this yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Application No. 18/788794 in view of Kim also does not teach wherein the back side comprises metal and the midplane comprises plastic; wherein the slots of the back side comprise chamfered punched metal. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the back side comprises metal and the midplane comprises plastic; wherein the slots of the back side comprise chamfered punched metal since it has been held that a selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. Selecting a known compound to meet requirements is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (citing Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)). In this case, selecting either metal or plastic for back side and the midplane can be easily determined by one of ordinary skill in the art depending on factors such as cost, heat dissipation, and structural integrity of the peripheral display, and this can be easily determined by one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation without yielding any unexpected result.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 and 10-15 of copending Application No. 18/788789 in view of Kim et al. (US 10,234,708; hereinafter “Kim”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Application No. 18/788789 does not teach the display panel having a back side with plural geometric structures extending out around a perimeter of the back side, the geometric structures slidingly engaging in slots of a midplane to couple the midplane to the back side; one of the geometric structures located in each corner of the perimeter; and an alignment tab coupled at each one of the slots located in each corner of the midplane, the alignment tabs guiding the midplane and back side to a predetermined alignment; wherein the slots at the corners have the alignment tabs; wherein the alignment tabs are T-locks. However, Kim teaches a display panel (110, 116, 118, 119, Figs. 25-26; can also see 100, 250 in Fig. 13) having a back side (back side of 100 where 210, 230 locate in Figs. 25, 26) with plural geometric structures (210, 230, Figs. 25, 26; can also see Fig. 13) extending out around a perimeter (250 around the back side perimeter of 100 as shown in Fig. 13; col. 11, lns. 30-40) of the back side, the geometric structures slidingly engaging in slots (slots shown in 310, 330, Figs. 25, 26) of a midplane (portion of 150 where 310, 330 locate and couple to 210, 230 in Figs. 25 and 26, note not consider the back curved portion of 150; can also refer to Fig. 13) to couple the midplane to the back side (as shown in Figs. 25, 26); one of the geometric structures located in each corner of the perimeter (note 230 is considered located at corner in Fig. 13); and an alignment tab (same as 230, Fig. 26) coupled at each one of the slots (330, Fig. 26) located in each corner of the midplane, the alignment tabs guiding the midplane and back side to a predetermined alignment (as shown in Fig. 26); wherein the slots at the corners have the alignment tabs (as shown in Fig. 26); wherein the alignment tabs are T-locks (230 is relatively T-shaped as shown in Fig. 26, so it’s considered as T-locks). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the display panel having a back side with plural geometric structures extending out around a perimeter of the back side, the geometric structures slidingly engaging in slots of a midplane to couple the midplane to the back side; one of the geometric structures located in each corner of the perimeter; and an alignment tab coupled at each one of the slots located in each corner of the midplane, the alignment tabs guiding the midplane and back side to a predetermined alignment; wherein the slots at the corners have the alignment tabs; wherein the alignment tabs are T-locks in Application No. 18/788789, as taught by Kim, in order to provide cheap and simple assembly/disassembly of the peripheral display. Application No. 18/788794 in view of Kim does not explicitly teach only the slots at the corners have the alignment tabs. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have only the slots at the corners have the alignment tabs, since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, only have alignment tabs in the corners provide simplification of coupling and decoupling the midplane and the back side, and this yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Application No. 18/788794 in view of Kim also does not teach wherein the back side comprises metal and the midplane comprises plastic; wherein the slots of the back side comprise chamfered punched metal. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the back side comprises metal and the midplane comprises plastic; wherein the slots of the back side comprise chamfered punched metal since it has been held that a selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. Selecting a known compound to meet requirements is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (citing Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)). In this case, selecting either metal or plastic for back side and the midplane can be easily determined by one of ordinary skill in the art depending on factors such as cost, heat dissipation, and structural integrity of the peripheral display, and this can be easily determined by one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation without yielding any unexpected result.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 10-11, 13 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 10,234,708; hereinafter “Kim”).
Regarding claim 10 as best understood, Kim discloses a method for assembly of a peripheral display (100, Figs. 1-26), the method comprising:
extending plural geometric structures (210, 230, Figs. 25, 26; can also see in Fig. 13) out the back side of a display panel (110, 116, 118, 119, Figs. 25-26; can also see 100, 250 in Fig. 13);
forming plural slots (slots shown in 310, 330, Figs. 25, 26) in a midplane (portion of 150 where 310, 330 locate and couple to 210, 230 in Figs. 25 and 26; note not consider the back curved portion of 150; can also refer to Fig. 13); and
sliding the midplane relative to the back side to engage each of the plural geometric structures in each of the plural slots thereby coupling the midplane to the back side (see Figs. 13, 25, 26).
Regarding claim 11, Kim discloses the method of Claim 10, and Kim further discloses locating one of the plural geometric structures in each corner (note 230 is considered located at corner in Fig. 13) of the back side; and
aligning the midplane and the back side with a predetermined alignment by engaging an alignment tab (same as 230, Fig. 26) coupled at each one of the slots (330, Fig. 26) located in each corner of the midplane with the geometric structure in each corner of the back side to guide the midplane and the back side to the predetermined alignment (as shown in Fig. 26).
Regarding claim 13 as best understood, Kim discloses the method of Claim 11, and Kim further discloses forming at least one of the plural geometric structures to have unique dimensions (210, 230 have unique dimension as shown in Figs. 25, 26); and
forming at least one of the plural slots to have the unique dimensions (310, 330 have unique dimension as shown in Figs. 25, 26) so that the midplane only couples to the back side in one placement having the at least one geometric structure of the unique dimensions inserted into the at least one slot of the unique dimensions (as shown in Figs. 25, 26).
Regarding claim 17 as best understood, Kim discloses a peripheral display (100, Figs. 1-26) comprising:
a display panel (110, 116, 118, 119, Figs. 25-26; can also see 100, 250 in Fig. 13), the display panel having a back side (back side of 100 where 210, 230 locate in Figs. 25, 26);
plural geometric structures (210, 230, Figs. 25, 26; can also see Fig. 13) extending out around a perimeter of the back side (250 around the back side perimeter of 100 as shown in Fig. 13; col. 11, lns. 30-40);
a midplane (portion of 150 where 310, 330 locate and couple to 210, 230 in Figs. 25 and 26, note not consider the back curved portion of 150; can also refer to Fig. 13) having plural slots (slots shown 310, 330, Figs. 25, 26) around a midplane perimeter (see perimeter of 350 in Fig. 13; col. 11, lns. 30-40), the midplane sliding the geometric structures into the slots to couple to the back side with a predetermined alignment (see Figs. 25, 26).
Regarding claim 18, Kim discloses the peripheral display of Claim 17, and Kim further discloses one of the geometric structures located in each corner (note 230 is considered located at corner in Fig. 13) of the back side perimeter;
an alignment tab (same as 230, Fig. 26) coupled at each one of the slots (330, Fig. 26) located in each corner of the midplane, the alignment tabs guiding the midplane and back side to the predetermined alignment (as shown in Fig. 26); and
a snap (339 can be considered as a snap, Fig. 26) included in the midplane engaged with the back side when the midplane and back side slide to the predetermined alignment.
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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim.
Regarding claim 12, Kim teaches the method of Claim 11, and Kim further teaches wherein the slots at the corners have the alignment tabs (as shown in Fig. 26). Kim does not explicitly teach only the slots at the corners have the alignment tabs. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have only the slots at the corners have the alignment tabs in Kim, since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, only have alignment tabs in the corners provide simplification of coupling and decoupling the midplane and the back side, and this yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. (US 2023/0152844; hereinafter “Oh”) in view of Kim et al. (US 10,234,708; hereinafter “Kim”).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches an information handling system (10, Fig. 1) comprising:
a housing (12, Fig. 1);
a processor (16, Fig. 1) coupled in the housing and operable to execute instructions that process information;
a memory (18, Fig. 1) coupled in the housing and interfaced with the processor, the memory operable to store the instructions and information; and
a peripheral display (30, Fig. 1) external the housing and interfaced with the processor to present the information as visual images at a display panel (34, Fig. 1).
Oh does not explicitly teach the display panel having a back side with plural geometric structures extending out around a perimeter of the back side, the geometric structures slidingly engaging in slots of a midplane to couple the midplane to the back side. However, Kim teaches a display panel (110, 116, 118, 119, Figs. 25-26; can also see 100, 250 in Fig. 13) having a back side (back side of 100 where 210, 230 locate in Figs. 25, 26) with plural geometric structures (210, 230, Figs. 25, 26; can also see Fig. 13) extending out around a perimeter (250 around the back side perimeter of 100 as shown in Fig. 13; col. 11, lns. 30-40) of the back side, the geometric structures slidingly engaging in slots (slots shown in 310, 330, Figs. 25, 26) of a midplane (portion of 150 where 310, 330 locate and couple to 210, 230 in Figs. 25 and 26, note not consider the back curved portion of 150; can also refer to Fig. 13) to couple the midplane to the back side (as shown in Figs. 25, 26). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the display panel having a back side with plural geometric structures extending out around a perimeter of the back side, the geometric structures slidingly engaging in slots of a midplane to couple the midplane to the back side in Oh, as taught by Kim, in order to provide cheap and simple assembly/disassembly of the peripheral display.
Regarding claims 2-4 as best understood, Oh in view of Kim teaches the information handling system of Claim 1. Oh does not teach one of the geometric structures located in each corner of the perimeter; and an alignment tab coupled at each one of the slots located in each corner of the midplane, the alignment tabs guiding the midplane and back side to a predetermined alignment; wherein only the slots at the corners have the alignment tabs; wherein the alignment tabs are T-locks. However, Kim further teaches one of the geometric structures located in each corner of the perimeter (note 230 is considered located at corner in Fig. 13); and an alignment tab (same as 230, Fig. 26) coupled at each one of the slots (330, Fig. 26) located in each corner of the midplane, the alignment tabs guiding the midplane and back side to a predetermined alignment (as shown in Fig. 26); wherein the slots at the corners have the alignment tabs (as shown in Fig. 26); wherein the alignment tabs are T-locks (230 is relatively T-shaped as shown in Fig. 26, so it’s considered as T-locks). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have one of the geometric structures located in each corner of the perimeter; and an alignment tab coupled at each one of the slots located in each corner of the midplane, the alignment tabs guiding the midplane and back side to a predetermined alignment; wherein only the slots at the corners have the alignment tabs; wherein the alignment tabs are T-locks in Oh in view of Kim, as taught by Kim, in order to provide reliable assembly/disassembly of the peripheral display.
The modified Oh above does not explicitly teach only the slots at the corners have the alignment tabs. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have only the slots at the corners have the alignment tabs in Oh in view of Kim, since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, only have alignment tabs in the corners provide simplification of coupling and decoupling the midplane and the back side, and this yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 5, Oh in view of Kim teaches the information handling system of Claim 2. Oh does not teach a snap lock coupled to the midplane and aligned to engage the back side when the midplane slides to a predetermined alignment with the backside. However, Kim further teaches a snap lock (339 can be considered as a snap, Fig. 26) coupled to the midplane (portion of 150 where 310, 330 locate and couple to 210, 230 in Figs. 24, 26) and aligned to engage the back side when the midplane slides to a predetermined alignment with the backside (as shown in Figs. 26). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a snap lock coupled to the midplane and aligned to engage the back side when the midplane slides to a predetermined alignment with the backside in Oh in view of Kim, as taught by Kim, in order to provide simple and snappy assembly/disassembly of the peripheral display.
Regarding claims 6-7, Oh in view of Kim teaches the information handling system of Claim 5. Oh does not explicitly teach wherein the back side comprises metal and the midplane comprises plastic; wherein the slots of the back side comprise chamfered punched metal. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the back side comprises metal and the midplane comprises plastic; wherein the slots of the back side comprise chamfered punched metal in Oh in view of Kim, since it has been held that a selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. Selecting a known compound to meet requirements is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (citing Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)). In this case, selecting either metal or plastic for back side and the midplane can be easily determined by one of ordinary skill in the art depending on factors such as cost, heat dissipation, and structural integrity of the peripheral display, and this can be easily determined by one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation without yielding any unexpected result.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES WU whose telephone number is (571)270-7974. 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.
/JAMES WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights