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 .
Response to Arguments
Arguments filed 23 June 2026 have been fully considered, but are moot in view of a new rejection.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “a protrusion protruding downward from one end of the fixing body, and wherein the protrusion is inserted into at least one of the plurality of holes of the back cover to restrict upward movement of the bracket” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 10, the recitation of “a protrusion protruding downward from one end of the fixing body, and wherein the protrusion is inserted into at least one of the plurality of holes of the back cover to restrict upward movement of the bracket” does not appear to be shown or described in the specification. Applicant’s Fig. 16 and [0081] are unclear as to how the claimed restriction of the “upward movement of the bracket” is taught. Clarification is required.
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 –
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Littlewood (GB 2505500)
Regarding claim 1, Littlewood disclose:
A display device comprising: a display panel; a back cover located at a rear of the display panel; a bracket located at a rear of the back cover; and a module cover arranged between the display panel and the back cover, wherein the back cover comprises a plurality of holes formed on an upper surface of the back cover, wherein the bracket comprises (see Fig. 1-8; display panel 12; back cover (rear of display); bracket 10 detachable coupled; bracket has plate 14 parallel to back cover; shelf 16 extending into a forward direction from the plate; back cover comprises mounting hole (pg. 8, ln 7-10); and fastening member fixedly coupled (e.g., bolt/screw)
a plate; and a fixing portion protruding from the plate toward the module cover, wherein the fixing portion comprises: a fixing body; and a protrusion protruding downward from one end of the fixing body, and wherein the protrusion is inserted into at least one of the plurality of holes of the back cover to restrict upward movement of the bracket (see Fig. 1-8, pg. 8, ln. 7-17; bracket 10 has coupling portions 14 with slot 30 to slidable couple to back cover with a downward motion overhead/neck of fastening member where forward/rear movement is restricted).
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Littlewood further disclose:
the bracket protrudes from an inner side of the plate toward the back cover, and faces a rear surface of the back cover, and wherein the slot is opened to; a first surface facing the back cover and a second surface connecting the first surface and the plate and facing downward (see Fig. 1-8; bracket 10 protrudes at 26 from inner side of plate 14 to face rear surface of back cover 22, where slot 30 is open to a first surface at 22, facing back cover and second surface (inside 30) facing downward, connecting first surface to plate (outward surface))
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated herein. Littlewood further disclose:
the coupling portion comprises a guide portion which protrudes along a boundary of the slot, wherein the head of the fastening member overlaps with the guide portion in a forward/rearward direction (see Fig. 6; pg. 8, ln. 7-17; guide portion30 (top of key hole) where fastening member overlaps top of key hole to secure bracket)
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated herein. Littlewood further disclose:
the guide portion includes at least two guide portions, wherein the coupling portion further comprises a third surface connecting the first surface and the plate and facing the second surface, and wherein a distance between the at least two guide portions increases in a direction from the third surface toward the second surface (see Fig. 5-6; two guide portions 30 on left and right posts at 14; third surface (inside 30 at bottom); where keyhole shape of shield portions increase distance in direction from third to second surface (upward)).
Regarding claim 13, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Littlewood further disclose:
the bracket has a smaller area than the display panel, and wherein the bracket faces a central portion of the display panel with respect to the back cover (see Fig. 1).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Littlewood in view of Williamson (US 2013.0162.916).
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated herein. Littlewood is not explicit as to, but Williamson further disclose:
the mounting hole comprises: a pair of first mounting holes spaced apart from each other in a left-right direction, and a pair of second mounting holes spaced apart from each other in a left-right direction, the pair of second mounting holes located below the pair of first mounting holes, and wherein the coupling portion comprises a first coupling portion and a second coupling portion which are respectively coupled to the pair of first mounting holes (see Fig. 1-2; showing two pairs of mounting holes top (first) pair and bottom (second) pair; where first/second (left/right) coupling portions couple to the first mounting hole pair).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to combine the known techniques of Williamson to that of Littlewood to predictably provide multiple points of contact to ensure stability of the bracket to the back of the display device.
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Littlewood in view of Shenzhen (CN 213582941).
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Littlewood disclose:
a plurality of vertical portions which connect the plurality of horizontal portions and are spaced apart from each other (see Fig. 4; plurality of horizontal portions 16 and plurality of vertical portions 40 and 38 spaced a part and connected thereto).
Littlewood is not explicit as to, but Shenzhen disclose:
the shelf comprises: a plurality of horizontal portions spaced apart from each other, and a plurality of holes formed between the plurality of horizontal portion and the plurality of vertical portions (see Fig. 1-2; horizontal/vertical spaced portion at 22).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of applicant’s invention, to combine the known techniques of Shenzhen to that of Littlewood to predictably block items from falling off the shelf portion.
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated herein. Shenzhen further disclose:
the bracket further comprises: a support frame located below the shelf on the plate, and extending in a direction intersecting with the plate and the back cover; and a rib located between the shelf and the support frame, and supporting a bottom surface of the shelf (see Fig. 2; support frame 10 below shelf on plate 1; in direction intersecting plate and back cover; where the ‘rib’ is considered the vertical portion of support 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of applicant’s invention, to combine the known techniques of Shenzhen to that of Littlewood to predictably add additional support to the shelf portion.
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated herein. Shenzhen further disclose:
the rib comprises a first rib and a second rib supporting vertical portions located at opposite ends of the shelf among the plurality of vertical portions, wherein the bracket further comprises a connection frame connecting the first rib, the coupling portion, and the first rib (see Fig. 2; where the first rib (left portion); second rib (right portion); and connecting frame (center portion) of 10 connecting the left and right ribs).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Littlewood in view of Kang (US 2018.0027671).
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Littlewood is not explicit as to, but Kang disclose:
a module cover arranged between the display panel and the back cover, wherein the back cover covers at least a portion of the module cover, and wherein the shelf overlaps with an upper surface of the back cover in an up-down direction (see Fig. 3, 18; [0046-0049]; module cover 20; display 10; back cover 30; where attachment holes on back cover 30 to attach shelf (see Littlewood) in an up/down direction)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of applicant’s invention, to combine the known techniques of Kang to that of Littlewood to predictably provide a display, module cover, and back cover arrangement to protect electronic components of the device ([0091]).
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Littlewood in view of Huang (2016.0143160).
Regarding claim 11, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Littlewood is not explicit as to, but Huang disclose:
a stand which is coupled to a rear surface of the back cover and supports the display panel, wherein the stand comprises: a body coupled to the rear surface of the back cover; a first leg extending obliquely from the body, and is located in front of the display panel; and a second leg extending obliquely from the body but extends in a direction different from an extension direction of the first leg, the second leg being located at a rear of the back cover, and wherein the bracket is located within a horizontal distance between the rear surface of the back cover and a distal end of the second leg (see Fig. 2, 4-5; display 1 with stand 3 coupled to rear surface via 36; stand has body 34 coupled via 36; Fig. 3 shows first leg (left) obliquely extending to front of display and second leg (right) extending obliquely from 34 in different direction; where bracket (see Littlewood) attaches to display between the rear surface and end of second leg)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of applicant’s invention, to combine the known techniques of Kim to that of Littlewood to predictably to provide stability and support for the display if placed on a surface and further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to place the shelf between the back cover and distal end of the second leg such that the display can be stabilized as close to a wall or object behind the display, 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 12, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated herein. Huang further disclose:
the body comprises a first surface in contact with the back cover and a second surface located in an opposite side of the first surface in a thickness direction of the display panel, wherein the stand comprises: a groove recessed from the second surface toward the first surface, and extending to the second leg, and a cover member coupled to the second leg, and covering at least a portion of the groove (see Fig. 4; cover member at 321; groove in leg at 32 below cover member and extends through body 34 ending at 342).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Littlewood in view of Cho (US 2013.0285953).
Regarding claim 14, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. While Littlewood is not explicit as to, but Cho disclose:
digital printing is applied to a rear surface of the bracket and a rear surface of the back cover (see [0137]; digital printing)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of applicant’s invention, to combine the known techniques of Kim to that of Littlewood to predictably allowing color designs or logos to be implemented on surfaces ([0137]).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Littlewood in view of Kim’788 (US 2021.0072788).
Regarding claim 15, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Littlewood is not explicit as to, but Kim’788 disclose:
comprising a repeater located on a lower side of the back cover (see Fig. 7; [0121]; repeater)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of applicant’s invention, to combine the known techniques of Kim’788 to that of Littlewood to predictably allow for communication with an auxiliary device to control the display, further more, placement of the repeater on the lower side of the back cover would have been obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing, since there are a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions (e.g., placement for best signal) to be pursued by one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH BUKOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-7913. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday // 0730-1530.
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, Amr Awad can be reached at 571.272.7764. 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.
/kenneth bukowski/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
Prosecution Insights