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 .
This office action is in response to the reply filed on 1/27/2026, wherein claims 1 and 13 were amended. Claims 1-22 are pending.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11, 13 and 15-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (US 2014/0262927) in view of Nakamichi (US 11,279,544).
Regarding claim 1, Guo discloses a package (shown in Fig. 2) for a display device, the package comprising: a body portion (at 1 in Fig. 2) in which the display device (at 4 in Fig. 2) is stored; and a support portion (at 2 in Fig. 2 – shown in detail in Fig. 4) detachably coupled to the body portion and being in contact with at least a portion of the display device (as shown in Fig. 2), wherein the support portion includes: a coupler (See Fig. 4 labeled below) detachably coupled to the body portion; a buffer (portion at 23 in Fig. 4 - See Fig. 4 labeled below) non-detachably disposed on a surface of the coupler.
PNG
media_image1.png
401
732
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Guo discloses the claimed invention except for the contact portion. However, Nakamichi teaches a package (See Fig. 1) for a display device, the package comprising: a body portion (at 10 in Fig. 1) in which the display device (200) is stored; and a support portion (20a) detachably coupled to the body portion and being in contact with at least a portion of the display device (as shown in Fig. 2a), wherein the support portion includes a buffer (at 22a) and a contact portion (at 27a) disposed on a surface of the buffer and having a hardness greater than a hardness of the buffer, for the purpose of being highly abrasion resistant (See column 3, lines 18-20 and column 16, line 42 – column 17, line 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the display device contact surface (at 230 in Fig. 4) of the buffer of Guo with a contact portion as taught by Nakamichi in order to better protect the display device contained therein.
Regarding claims 3 and 15, Guo discloses the buffer is formed from polycarbonate (which has a shore hardness within the range of about 60 to about 72).
Regarding claims 4 and 16, Guo discloses the claimed invention except for the express disclosure of the specific attachment between the buffer and the contact portion. However, Official Notice if taken that it is old and conventional to attach two cushioning elements to one another by adhesive. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made in view of the Official Notice to have attached the contact portion to the buffer of Guo by adhesive in order to allow for convenient manufacturing. Furthermore, it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPO 177, 179.
Regarding claims 5 and 17, Guo-Nakamichi discloses the contact portion is in direct contact with the surface of the buffer.
Regarding claims 6 and 18, Guo-Nakamichi discloses the buffer and the contact portion include different materials.
Regarding claim 7, Guo discloses the coupler further includes: a first connector (See Fig. 4 labeled above); and a first fixing portion (See Fig. 4 labeled above) which protrudes from the first connector and in which the buffer is located.
Regarding claim 8, Guo discloses the coupler further includes a protrusion (at 22 in Fig. 4) protruding from the first connector and inserted into the body portion.
Regarding claims 9 and 11, Guo discloses the coupler includes polycarbonate (See [0025]) which has a shore hardness equal to or greater than 80.
Regarding claim 13, Guo discloses a package (shown in Fig. 2) for a display device, the package comprising: a body portion (at 1 in Fig. 2) in which the display device is stored; and a support portion (at 2 in Fig. 2 – also shown in Fig. 4) detachably coupled to the body portion and being in contact with at least a portion of the display device, wherein the support portion includes: a buffer (See Fig. 4 labeled above) directly disposed on a sidewall surface of the body portion (as shown in Fig. 2). Guo discloses the claimed invention except for the contact portion. However, Nakamichi teaches a package (See Fig. 1) for a display device, the package comprising: a body portion (at 10 in Fig. 1) in which the display device (200) is stored; and a support portion (20a) detachably coupled to the body portion and being in contact with at least a portion of the display device (as shown in Fig. 2a), wherein the support portion includes a buffer (at 22a) and a contact portion (at 27a) disposed on a surface of the buffer and having a hardness greater than a hardness of the buffer, for the purpose of being highly abrasion resistant (See column 3, lines 18-20 and column 16, line 42 – column 17, line 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the display device contact surface (at 230 in Fig. 4) of the buffer of Guo with a contact portion as taught by Nakamichi in order to better protect the display device contained therein.
Regarding claim 19, Guo discloses the coupler further includes: a connector (See Fig. 4 labeled above at “First connector”); and a fixing portion (See Fig. 4 labeled above at “First fixing portion”) which protrudes from the first connector and in which the buffer is located.
Regarding claim 20, Guo discloses a portion of the fixing portion, on which the contact portion is located, protrudes toward the contact portion from the connector.
Regarding claim 21, Guo discloses the claimed invention except for the express disclosure of the shape of the body portion. 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 modified the body portion of Guo to be square in order to hold square items. To modify the body portion as claimed would entail a mere change in shape of the body portion and yield only predictable results. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding claim 22, Nakamichi teaches it is well known in the art to form a buffer from expanded polypropylene for the purpose of cushioning the display device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the buffer of Guo to be formed from expanded polypropylene as taught by Nakamichi in order to better protect the contents. Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claims 2, 10, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (US 2014/0262927) in view of Nakamichi (US 11,279,544) as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Yamauchi (US 5,353,934) and Robin et al. (US 2021/0147116).
Regarding claims 2, 10 and 14, Guo-Nakamichi discloses the contact portion is made from a non-expended plastic material, but does not disclose the specifics of the material. However, Yamauchi teaches a package (at 1 in Fig. 1) for a substrate (5), wherein the package comprises supports (at 6) which include a contact portion (at 7) disposed on a surface thereof, wherein the contact portion is formed from a silicone material for the purpose of restraining dust generation and for its cushioning characteristics (column 2, lines 4-8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the contact portion of Nakamichi to be formed from a silicone material as taught by Yamauchi in order to have sufficient cushioning characteristics. Furthermore, Robin teaches it is well known in the art that a shock absorbing element formed from a silicone material preferably has a shore hardness from 75 to 85 for the purpose of providing sufficient damping ([0099]).
Regarding claim 12, Guo-Nakamichi-Yamauchi-Robin discloses a mixed hardness measured in a state in which the contact portion is located on the buffer is a shore hardness equal to or greater than 75.
Response to Arguments
In view of Applicant's amendment, the search has been updated, and new prior art has been identified and applied. Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 STEVEN A REYNOLDS whose telephone number is (571)272-9959. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached at (571) 272-4561. 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.
/STEVEN A. REYNOLDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735