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 without traverse of claims 1-15 in the reply filed on 5/14/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/14/206.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHANG U.S. Pub. 2019/0327843 (hereinafter D1).
PNG
media_image1.png
701
646
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, D1 teaches an electronic device, comprising:
an electronic panel (20; figure 1);
a reinforcement plate (13; figure 2), having a first surface (upper surface of 13; figure 2) and a second surface (under surface of 13; figure 2) that are opposite to each other, wherein the electronic panel (20) is disposed on the first surface of the reinforcement plate; and
at least three adjustment members (T1; figure 2), disposed on the second surface (see figure 2), wherein the electronic panel (20) has an upper surface (upper surface of 20; figure 2), and there is a distance (see figure 2) between a bottom surface (bottom of T1; figure 2) of each of the at least three adjustment members (see figure 2) and the upper surface (upper surface of 20).
Even though, D1 does not specifically teach a difference between the distances is greater than or equal to 0 and less than or equal to 0.1 millimeter, however, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to derive such range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 2, D1 teaches the electronic device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the second surface has at least three accommodating slots (131; see figure 2), and the at least three adjustment members (T1; figure 3) are respectively disposed in the at least three accommodating slots.
PNG
media_image1.png
701
646
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, D1 teaches the electronic device as claimed in claim 2, wherein the reinforcement plate (13) has an edge (see above annotated figure 2), and the at least three accommodating slots are disposed along (see above annotated figure 2) the edge.
Claims 4-12, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHANG U.S. Pub. 2019/0327843 (hereinafter D1) in view of Kim U.S. Patent 10,653,021 (hereinafter D2).
Regarding claim 4, D1 teaches the electronic device as claimed in claim 2, wherein each of the at least three adjustment members comprises a protruding block (see below annotated figure 5).
PNG
media_image2.png
387
513
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, D1 does not specifically teach each of the at least three adjustment members comprises an elastic body and a protruding block, and the elastic body is disposed between the protruding block and the reinforcement plate.
D2, teaches a similar adjustment member, which comprises an elastic body (186; figure 6) and a protruding block (154; figure 6), and the elastic body is disposed between the protruding block (154) and a reinforcement plate (rear side of 110; figure 6).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further equip each of the three adjustment members of D1 with an elastic body, such that the elastic body would be disposed between the protruding block and the reinforcement plate, as suggested by D2, in order to prevent loosening from vibration and to maintain constant clamping force.
Regarding claim 6, the modification of D1/D2 would result in the electronic device as claimed in claim 4, wherein the elastic body comprises a spring (186; figure 6 of D2) or a sponge.
Regarding claim 7, the modification of D1/D2 would result in the electronic device as claimed in claim 4, wherein the protruding blocks (see above annotated figure 5 of D1) protrude from the second surface.
Regarding claim 8, D1 teaches an electronic device comprises:
an electronic panel (20; figure 1);
a reinforcement plate (13; figure 2), having a first surface (upper surface of 13; figure 2) and a second surface (under surface of 13; figure 2) that are opposite to each other, wherein the electronic panel (20) is disposed on the first surface of the reinforcement plate; and
at least three adjustment members (T1; figure 2), disposed on the second surface (see figure 2), wherein the electronic panel (20) has an upper surface (upper surface of 20; figure 2), and there is a distance (see figure 2) between a bottom surface (bottom of T1; figure 2) of each of the at least three adjustment members (see figure 2) and the upper surface (upper surface of 20).
Even though, D1 does not specifically teach a difference between the distances is greater than or equal to 0 and less than or equal to 0.1 millimeter, however, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to derive such range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
However, D1 does not specifically teach a splice electronic apparatus, comprising:
a supporting frame, having a supporting surface; and
a plurality of the above electronic device(s), disposed on the supporting surface in a spliced manner.
D2, in the same field of endeavor, also teaches a splice electronic apparatus (see figure 1), comprising:
a supporting frame (150; figure 1), having a supporting surface (front surface of 150); and
a plurality of electronic devices (110; figure 1), disposed on the supporting surface in a spliced manner (see figure 1).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further provide a plurality of the above electronic device of D1 to be disposed on a support surface in a spliced manner of a support frame of a splice electronic apparatus, as suggested by D2, to achieve a larger screen/display panel joined by multiple display panels.
Regarding claim 9, D1/D2 teaches the splice electronic apparatus as claimed in claim 8, wherein the bottom surfaces of the at least three adjustment members (T1, figure 3 of D1) are in contact (see figure 3 of D1) with the supporting surface.
Regarding claim 10, D1/D2 teaches the splice electronic apparatus as claimed in claim 8, wherein the second surface has at least three accommodating slots (131; see figure 2), and the at least three adjustment members (T1; figure 3) are respectively disposed in the at least three accommodating slots.
Regarding claim 11, D1/D2 teaches the splice electronic apparatus as claimed in claim 8, wherein the reinforcement plate has an edge (see above annotated figure 2 of D1), and the at least three accommodating slots are disposed along (see above annotated figure 2 of D1) the edge.
Regarding claim 12, D1/D2 teaches the splice electronic apparatus of claim 12 for the same reason stated in the above rejection of claim 4.
Regarding claim 14, the modification of D1/D2 would result in the splice electronic apparatus as claimed in claim 12, wherein the elastic body comprises a spring (186; figure 6 of D2) or a sponge.
PNG
media_image2.png
387
513
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, the modification of D1/D2 would result in the splice electronic apparatus as claimed in claim 12, wherein the protruding blocks protrude (see above annotated figure 5 of D1) from the second surface.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is 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.
Regarding claim 5, the prior art of record fails to teach, disclose or fairly suggest the electronic device as claimed in claim 4, further comprising an adhesive member, disposed between the protruding block and a lateral wall of the accommodating slot.
Regarding claim 13, the prior art of record fails to teach, disclose or fairly suggest the splice electronic apparatus as claimed in claim 12, further comprising an adhesive member, disposed between the protruding block and a lateral wall of the accommodating slot.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNG Q DANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3069. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6PM..
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, Imani N Hayman can be reached at 571-270-5528. 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.
/HUNG Q DANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2841
/ANTHONY M HAUGHTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights