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 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) 1-5, 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cho et al. (US 2015/0102293).
In regard to claim 1, Cho et al. teach a display apparatus (fig. 2) comprising: a display panel (elements 111, 113, 115, 118, 119, 311, 313, 315, 318 and paragraph 111. The bonding layer 390 is formed of the same material and in the same layer as the display insulating layers. It is part of the display panel) and provided with an accommodation groove defined in an outer portion thereof (fig. 4B element 390a); a cover member disposed on the display panel (element 500); and a reinforcement layer accommodated in at least a portion of the accommodation groove and attached to the cover member (fig. 3 element 310).
In regard to claim 2, Cho et al. teach wherein a planar shape of the accommodation groove is polygonal or a U-like shaped (fig. 4B shows element 390a as U-like).
In regard to claim 3, Cho et al. teach wherein a planar shape of the display panel is rectangular (fig. 2), and the accommodation groove is defined on a short side of the planar shape of the display panel (fig. 2, the groove is over the entire perimeter of the display).
In regard to claim 4, Cho et al. teach wherein the reinforcement layer comprises: a first reinforcement layer disposed inside the accommodation groove; and a second reinforcement layer disposed outside of the accommodation groove (see fig. 3, Cho et al. show parts of element 310 in the groove which is the first layer. The parts outside of the groove are the second layer).
In regard to claim 5, Cho et al. teach wherein a sum of a width of the first reinforcement layer and a width of the second reinforcement layer is about 1 mm or less (paragraph 75. Cho et al. show the entire reinforcement layer being the entire width of element 310. Cho et al. show elements 320 and 330, below element 310, can be 100 micrometers each. The distance between them is 200-500 micrometers. Looking at figs. 3 and 4, Cho et al. show the entire width of element 310 being 310+320+the distance between them plus a small overhang. This distance is less than 1mm).
In regard to claim 8, Cho et al. teach wherein the display panel comprises an organic light-emitting element (paragraph 59).
In regard to claim 10, Cho et al. teach wherein the accommodation groove is provided in plurality, and one of a plurality of accommodation grooves and another of the plurality of accommodation grooves are arranged to be symmetrical to each other with respect to an imaginary straight line perpendicular to one side of the display panel (see fig. 3, the grooves are provided in plurality and are arranged around the entire periphery of the device. The grooves would have a symmetrical arrangement to a line down the middle of the device in the I-I’ direction, as shown in fig. 2.).
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) 6, 7, 11-17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. in view of Zhang et al. (US 2024/0147770).
In regard to claim 6, Cho et al. teach all the elements of claim 6 except a support on which the cover member is seated.
Zhang et al. teach a support on which the cover member is seated (figs. 2, 3 elements 300, 310 and paragraph 27).
The two are analogous art because they both deal with the same field of invention of displays.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of Cho et al. with the extra supports of Zhang et al. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus of Cho et al. with the extra supports of Zhang et al. because the supports of Zhang et al. would prevent the cover layer from deforming.
In regard to claim 7, Cho et al. teach the reinforcement layer on the periphery of the display (fig. 2).
Zhang et al. teach wherein an inner side surface of the support and the periphery are apart from each other (fig. 2).
In regard to claim 11, Cho et al. teach a display apparatus (fig. 2) comprising: a display pane (elements 111, 113, 115, 118, 119, 311, 313, 315, 318 and paragraph 111. The bonding layer 390 is formed of the same material and in the same layer as the display insulating layers. It is part of the display panel); a cover member disposed on the display panel (element 500); a reinforcement layer inserted into the display panel (fig. 3 element 310).
Zhang et al. teach a support disposed apart from the reinforcement layer and supporting the cover member (element 310).
In regard to claim 12, Cho et al. teach wherein a planar shape of the reinforcement layer is polygonal (fig. 2, Cho et al. show the area being a rectangle), partially circular, or partially elliptical.
In regard to claim 13, Cho et al. teach wherein the reinforcement layer is in contact with the cover member (fig. 3, element 310 contact elements 500).
In regard to claim 14, Cho et al. teach wherein a portion of the reinforcement layer is inserted into the display panel (fig. 4B, a portion of 4B is inserted into holes 390a), and another portion of the reinforcement layer protrudes outward from the display panel in a plan view (figs. 4A and 4B, the reinforcement layer 310 extends beyond the edge of 390).
In regard to claim 15, Cho et al. teach wherein the display panel has a rectangular shape (fig. 2), and the reinforcement layer is arranged on a short side of the display panel (fig. 2, the reinforcement layer is arranged around the entire periphery).
In regard to claim 16, Cho et al. teach wherein the reinforcement layer is provided in plurality, and one of a plurality of reinforcement layers and another reinforcement layer are arranged to be symmetrical to each other with respect to one side of the display panel (see fig. 2, the reinforcement layer is provided on each side of the display).
In regard to claim 17, Cho et al. teach wherein the reinforcement layer is in contact with an edge of the display panel on at least two sides (see fig. 2, the reinforcement layer is provided on each side of the display).
In regard to claim 19, Cho et al. teach wherein an edge of the reinforcement layer and an edge of the display panel form a straight line (figs. 4A and 4B).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. in view of Wang et al. (US 2016/0254482).
In regard to claim 9, Cho et al. teach all the elements of claim 9 except wherein a width of a planar shape of the accommodation groove is gradually reduced from one point to an end of a planar shape of the accommodation groove.
Wang et al. teach wherein a width of a planar shape of the accommodation groove is gradually reduced from one point to an end of a planar shape of the accommodation groove (fig. 5. Wang et al. show a trapezoidal groove for use when mating two surfaces in a display).
The two are analogous art because they both deal with the same field of invention of displays.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of Cho et al. with the groove shape of Wang et al. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus Cho et al. with the groove shape of Wang et al. because the trapezoidal groove of Wang et al. would work equally as well as the rectangular groove of Cho et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the trapezoid would provide predictable results and would provide excellent sealing properties versus water intrusion.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. in view of Zhang et al. further considered with Kato et al.
In regard to claim 18, Cho et al. and Zhang et al. teach all the elements of claim 18 except wherein a width of the reinforcement layer is gradually reduced from one point to an end of the reinforcement layer.
Kato et al. teach wherein a width of the reinforcement layer is gradually reduced from one point to an end of the reinforcement layer (fig. 5).
The three are analogous art because they all deal with the same field of invention of displays.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of Cho et al. and Zhang et al. with the groove shape of Wang et al. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus Cho et al. and Zhang et al. with the groove shape of Wang et al. because the trapezoidal groove of Wang et al. would work equally as well as the rectangular groove of Cho et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the trapezoid would provide predictable results and would provide excellent sealing properties versus water intrusion
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. in view of Zhang et al. further considered with Kato et al. (US 2013/0222298).
In regard to claim 20, Cho et al. and Zhang et al. teach all the elements of claim 20 except a bracket on which the support is seated.
Kato et al. teach a bracket on which the support is seated (see fig. 8 element 1. The entire device is seated on bracket element 1).
The three are analogous art because they all deal with the same field of invention of displays.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of Cho et al. and Zhang et al. with the support of Kato et al. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus of Cho et al. and Zhang et al. with the support of Kato et al. because the support under the device, as shown in Kato et al., would provide structure to the device and prevent the device from breaking.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH R HALEY whose telephone number is (571)272-0574. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am-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, 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.
/JOSEPH R HALEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
Prosecution Insights