DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 have been considered for patentability.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-7, 13, 16-17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US Publication 2021/0382336).
In re Claim 1, Lee discloses a display device comprising: a display panel (paragraph 0030); a frame 10 located behind the display panel (paragraphs 0033-0035); and a substrate 20 located behind the frame and having a hole 22, wherein the frame comprises: a depressed portion 12 protruding toward the substrate and on which the substrate is located; and a contact portion 12a, 12b (Figure 3) protruding from the depressed portion and inserted into the hole 22 of the substrate 20, and wherein a part of the contact portion of the frame is located on a rear surface of the substrate (Figures 5, 6).
In re Claim 2, Lee discloses wherein the contact portion 12a, 12b of the frame 10 is electrically connected to the substrate 20 (via solder 24, paragraph 0056).
In re Claim 6, Lee discloses wherein the substrate 20 comprises a contact region 24 formed around the hole 22 and electrically connected to the part of the contact portion of the frame (paragraph 0056).
In re Claim 7, Lee discloses wherein the contact portion 12a, 12b of the frame 10 further comprises a pressed portion protruding from the part of the contact portion toward the contact region of the substrate (paragraphs 0038, 0054-0056).
In re Claim 13, Lee discloses wherein the hole 22 of the substrate 20 is elongated along a first direction, wherein the substrate 20 further has a slot 23, 25 elongated in the first direction and spaced apart from the hole, and wherein the frame 10 further comprises a pin 13, 15 protruding from the depressed portion and movably inserted into the slot of the substrate.
In re Claim 16, Lee discloses wherein the depressed portion 12 of the frame 10 comprises a plurality of depressed portions (See Figure 1) spaced apart from each other, and wherein the contact portion 12a, 12b of the frame comprises a plurality of contact portions (See Figure 1) formed at the plurality of depressed portions 12 and coupled to the substrate 20 adjacent to corners of the substrate (See Figure 1).
In re Claim 17, Lee discloses wherein the substrate 20 is slidably coupled to the contact portion 12a, 12b of the frame 10. See Lee, Figures 4-6.
In re Claim 19, Lee discloses a display device comprising: a display panel (paragraph 0030); a frame 10 positioned behind the display panel (paragraphs 0033-0035); and a substrate 20 positioned behind the frame 10 and having a hole 22, wherein the frame comprises: a depressed portion 12 protruding toward the substrate and on which the substrate is positioned; and a contact portion 12a, 12b (Figure 3) protruding from the depressed portion and inserted into the hole 22 of the substrate 20, wherein a portion of the contact portion of the frame presses a rear surface of the substrate forward (Figures 5, 6).
In re Claim 20, Lee discloses a display device comprising: a display panel (paragraph 0030); a frame 10 positioned behind the display panel (paragraphs 0033-0035); and a substrate 20 positioned behind the frame and having a hole 22, wherein the frame comprises: a depressed portion 12 protruding toward the substrate 20 and on which the substrate 20 is positioned; and a contact portion 12a, 12b (Figure 3) protruding from the depressed portion and inserted into the hole 22 of the substrate 20, wherein the substrate 20 is slidably coupled to the contact portion of the frame (Figures 4-6), and releasing of the substrate 20 in a rearward direction is prevented by the contact portion 12a, 12b (Figure 6).
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(s) 11-12 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US Publication 2021/0382336) taken alone.
In re Claim 11, Lee discloses the limitations as noted above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the depressed portion of the frame is formed by pressing a front surface of the frame in a backward direction, and wherein the contact portion is formed by pressing a front surface of the depressed portion in the backward direction. However, the structure of the depressed portion as claimed in Claim 1 is substantially the same as the structure disclosed in Lee and therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art of electronics at a time before applicant’s effective filing date to have formed Lee’s rearward protruding depressed portion 12 by press forming/stamping the frame from the front side toward the rear side. In an apparatus claim it is only the resultant structure that may be patentable. A structure that is the same as applicant's structure, but formed from a different process, may be used to reject applicant's apparatus claim. See In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). It is the patentability of the product claimed and not of the recited process steps which must be established. In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972). It should also be noted that a “[p]roduct-by process claim, although reciting subject matter of the claim in terms of how it is made, is still a product claim; it is the patentability of the product claimed and not the recited process steps that must be established, in spite of the fact that the claim may recite only process limitations”, In re Hirao and Sato, 190 USPQ 15 (Fed. Cir. 1976).
In re Claim 12, Lee discloses wherein the frame 10 has a hole 12a (Figure 3) at the depressed portion 12 or the contact portion adjacent to a boundary between the depressed portion and the contact portion.
In re Claim 18, Lee discloses the limitations as noted above including a substrate 20. Lee does not explicitly disclose a second substrate adjacent to the substrate 20. However, the examiner takes official notice of facts outside the record that merely providing a second substrate anywhere adjacent to the first substrate as otherwise disclosed in Lee was known in the art prior to the effective filing date and would have been an obvious modification to a person having ordinary skill in the art of electronics at that time. The addition of more than one substrate allows for more electronic components related to the display operation to be mounted within the apparatus.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 8-10 and 14-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The specific limitations of “a clip located on the rear surface of the substrate around the hole, wherein the clip comprises: a body located between the part of the contact portion of the frame and the rear surface of the substrate; and a leg extending from a side of the body in a forward direction, inserted into the substrate, and electrically connected to the substrate” in Claim 3 are not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner’s opinion.
The specific limitations of " wherein the contact portion of the frame comprises: a first part forming the part of the contact portion; and a second part connecting the first part to the depressed portion and inserted into the hole of the substrate, wherein the hole of the substrate is elongated along a direction leading from the second part toward the first part, and wherein a width of the hole gradually increases along the direction leading toward the first part” in Claim 8 are not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner's opinion.
The specific limitations of " wherein the contact portion of the frame comprises: a first part comprising an inclined portion extending from the depressed portion so as to be inclined and a horizontal portion extending from the inclined portion to be parallel to the substrate; and a second part extending from the horizontal portion of the first part toward the depressed portion so as to be connected to the depressed portion, and wherein a width of the second part is less than a width of the first part” in Claim 9 are not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner's opinion.
The specific limitations of “wherein the frame further comprises a protrusion protruding from the depressed portion, inserted into the slot of the substrate, and spaced apart from the pin, and wherein the protrusion has: a first surface facing the pin and inclined with respect to the depressed portion; and a second surface opposite the first surface and configured to catch an end of the slot” in Claim 14 are not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner's opinion.
The specific limitations of "wherein the substrate further has an insertion hole spaced apart from the slot, wherein the frame further comprises a protrusion protruding from the depressed portion and inserted into the insertion hole, wherein the protrusion comprises: a first surface inclined with respect to the depressed portion; and a second surface opposite the first surface and configured to catch the insertion hole, and wherein an end of the slot is caught by the pin” in Claim 15 are not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner's opinion.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adrian S Wilson whose telephone number is (571)270-3907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9am to 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, Allen L 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.
/ADRIAN S WILSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights