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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 14, 19, 27, and 31 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Re. claim 14: “peripheral portion” should be changed to - -peripheral portions- - in line 2.
Re. claim 19: - -pairs of- - should be inserted before “adjacent linear portions” found in line 1.
Re. claim 27: “position” should be changed to - -positioned- - in line 2.
Re. claim 31: “includes” should be removed from line 1.
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.
Claim 17 is 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 17 recites the limitation "the length b" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of this Office Action, it is assumed to mean “the width b” as defined in claim 16.
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.
Claim(s) 12, 14-17, 19, 21-24, 26, 28, and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takahashi (US 2013/0163200 A1).
Re. claim 12: Takahashi discloses a display device comprising:
a display panel (26); and (see fig. 1; para. 0028)
an outer case (20) that surrounds a rear surface (23) of the display panel, sides (22) of the display panel, and a front peripheral edge (22) of the display panel, the outer case comprises a back cover that faces the rear surface of the display panel, (see fig. 1, 3; para. 0028)
wherein the back cover comprises:
a plurality of spaced-apart parallel linear portions (portion 63 of 60) that extend in a first direction (vertical direction) that is parallel to a front plane of the display panel, the linear portions having a back surface (64a-d) and rounded corner portion at both ends of each linear portion that extend in the first directions, and (see fig. 6-10; para. 0041-0045)
a plurality of connecting portions (portions of 62 between adjacent 63) that extend in the first direction, the connecting portions connect to adjacent linear portions of the linear portions, the connection portions are positioned at a depth inward toward the display panel with respect to the back surface of the adjacent linear portions (portions of 62 are closer toward the display panel than back surfaces 64b). (see fig. 6-10; para. 0041-0045)
Re. claim 14: Takahashi discloses wherein the back cover has two outer peripheral portions (outer portions of 33) that bracket the linear portions (60 and 63), (see fig. 3, 13; para. 0030-0033)
the two outer peripheral portions are oriented in the first direction and separated from each other in a second direction, the second direction is perpendicular to the first direction and forms a plane with the first direction that is parallel to the front plane of the display panel (26). (see fig. 3, 13)
Re. claim 15: Takahashi discloses wherein there are a plurality of the connecting portions (portions of 62 between adjacent 63) that connect each adjacent pair of the linear portions (63). (see fig. 6-10; para. 0041-0045)
Re. claim 16: Takahashi discloses wherein the plurality of connecting portions (portions of 62 between adjacent 63) between one pair of adjacent linear portions has a pitch a (vertical distance between adjacent 62 portions) in the first direction (vertical direction) and thickness t2 (material thickness), the connecting portions of the pair of connection portions has a width (horizontal width) b in a second direction and thickness t1 (material thickness), the second direction is perpendicular to the first direction and forms a plane with the first direction that is parallel to the front plane of the display panel, in which a following expression is satisfied:
(t1/t2)3>a/b. (see fig. 6-10)
Re. claim 17: Takahashi discloses wherein the pitch width a (vertical distance between adjacent 62 portions) is larger than the width b (horizontal width between adjacent portions). (see fig. 6)
Re. claim 19: Takahashi discloses wherein the adjacent linear portions (adjacent 63) each have a concave squared indent (see fig. 10) on an interior side of the linear portions that extend in the first direction (into and out of the page in fig. 10) in which the adjacent linear portions each have two opposing walls which form the concave squared indent such that the two opposing walls have a thickness t3. (see fig. 6-10)
Re. claim 21: Takahashi discloses wherein the thickness t2 and the thickness t3 are the same thickness (material thickness is the same throughout). (see fig. 6-10)
Re. claim 22: Takahashi discloses wherein a space surrounded by the linear portions of the linear portions and the connecting portions adjacent to each other in the first direction is formed as an intake and exhaust hole (63a-d). (see fig. 10; para. 0041-0046)
Re. claim 23: Takahashi discloses wherein the back cover comprises a series of exhaust holes (vertically aligned 63 holes can operate as exhaust and inlet holes due to natural convection). (see fig. 6-8)
Re. claim 24: Takahashi discloses wherein the outer casing comprises a bezel (24) that surrounds the display panel and is positioned before the back cover. (see fig. 3; para. 0028)
Re. claim 26: Takahashi discloses an electronic substrate (10) that generates heat, wherein the electronic substrate is positioned between the display panel and the rear cover, and the heat is exhausted through the exhaust holes. (see fig. 3-4; para. 0064-0065)
Re. claim 28: Takahashi discloses wherein the adjacent linear portions (adjacent 63) each have a concave squared indent (see fig. 10) on an interior side of the linear portions that extend in the first direction (into and out of the page in fig. 10) in which the adjacent linear portions each have two opposing walls which form the concave squared indent such that the two opposing walls have a thickness t3. (see fig. 6-10)
Re. claim 31: Takahashi discloses wherein the bezel (24) includes forms a frame shape that is continuous. (see fig. 3; para. 0028)
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.
Claim(s) 13 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (US 2013/01632000 A1) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Shin (US 2007/0127208 A1).
Re. claims 13 and 30: Takahashi fails to disclose:
wherein the linear portions and the connecting portions are integrally formed by injection molding; and
wherein the back cover is formed from molten resin.
Shin discloses:
wherein the linear portions and the connecting portions are integrally formed by injection molding; and
wherein the back cover is formed from molten resin. (see para. 053-0056)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the linear portions and the connecting portions and the back cover of Takahashi by integrally formed injection molding of molten resin as taught by Shin. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do this in order to quickly form the parts of the display device. (Shin para. 0053)
Claim(s) 25, 27, and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Howe et al. (US 2020/0018514 A1).
Re. claim 25: Takahashi fails to disclose:
wherein the bezel includes second exhaust holes.
However, Howe discloses:
A display device (1) comprising a bezel (100),
wherein the bezel includes second exhaust holes. (see fig. 1, 2; para. 0011)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include second exhaust holes in the bezel of Takahashi as taught by Howe. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do this in order to increase the amount of natural convection cooling within the device by increasing the airflow by having additional holes.
Re. claim 27: Takahashi discloses an electronic substrate (10) that generates heat, wherein the electronic substrate is position between the display panel and the rear cover, and the heat is exhausted through the exhaust holes and the second exhaust holes. (see fig. 3-4; para. 0064-0065)
Re. claim 29: Howe discloses wherein the second exhaust holes are elongated and grouped into at least two groups in which each group includes multiple second exhaust holes which are parallel to one another. (see fig. 1, 2)
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 12 and 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,200,879. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent claims include all of the limitations of the instant application claims, respectively. The patent claims also include additional limitations. Hence, the instant application claims are generic to the species of invention covered by the respective patent claims. As such, the instant application claims are anticipated by the patent claims and are therefore not patentably distinct therefrom. (See Eli Lilly and Co. v. Barr Laboratories Inc., 58 USPQ2D 1869, "a later genus claim limitation is anticipated by, and therefore not patentably distinct from, an earlier species claim", In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010, "Thus, the generic invention is 'anticipated' by the species of the patented invention" and the instant “application claims are generic to species of invention covered by the patent claim, and since without terminal disclaimer, extant species claims preclude issuance of generic application claims”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18 and 20 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Re. claim 18: the limitations of “wherein the thickness t1 is larger than the thickness t2” would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Re. claim 20: the limitations of “wherein the thickness t1 is larger than a thickness t3 of the protrusion in the second direction” would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ogura (US 2014/0347816 A1) discloses a display with a plurality of linear cooling portions. Hiradate et al. (US 2010/0271361 A1) discloses a display apparatus with heat producing circuit elements and cooling therefor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM B DRAVININKAS whose telephone number is (571)270-1353. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9a-6p MT.
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, JAYPRAKASH (JP) N GANDHI can be reached at 571-272-3740. 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.
September 30, 2026
/ADAM B DRAVININKAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
