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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of election of species in the reply filed on 8/15/25 is acknowledged. Therefore, Examiner will exam elected claims and embodiment shown in fig 12.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and dependent claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, “the display layer has a first surface and an opposing second surface; and a molded polymer member coupled to the first surface of the display layer and coupled to the second surface of the display layer” are not supported by SPEC/drawing. The limitation lacks antecedent basis and/or is not supported by SPEC/drawings. Further clarification is required. Examiner request applicant to further point out, on the figure, for “first and 2nd surface” and ‘coupled to the second surface of the display layer”. In addition, there is no label shown in the figure for the claimed limitations.
In claim 2, “a display cover layer in the housing and overlapping the display layer, wherein the first surface of the display layer faces the display cover layer, and the first portion of the molded polymer member is coupled to the second surface of the display layer” are not supported by SPEC/drawing. The limitation lacks antecedent basis and/or is not supported by SPEC/drawings. Further clarification is required. Examiner request Applicant to determine the location of the cover layer, 1st and 2nd portions of the molded polymer member, and 2nd surface as discussed above.
In claims 3, 9, “the second portion of the molded polymer member is interposed between the first surface of the display layer and the housing”, ‘the first surface of the display layer is coupled to the display cover layer, and the second portion of the molded polymer member is coupled to the display cover layer” are not supported by SPEC/drawing. The limitation lacks antecedent basis and/or is not supported by SPEC/drawings. Further clarification is required. Examiner request Applicant to determine the 1st and 2nd surfaces as discussed above. (at least 4 surface areas are qualified the claimed limitations)
The Examiner respectfully requests that the Applicant(s) review all claims for any such similar issues.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) 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.
Claims 4 and dependent claims are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In claims 4, “the second portion of the molded polymer member is coupled to the first surface of the display layer” are not supported by SPEC/drawing. The limitation lacks antecedent basis and/or is not supported by SPEC/drawings. Further clarification is required. Examiner request Applicant to determine the 1st and 2nd surfaces as discussed above. (at least 4 surface areas are qualified the claimed limitations). Because there are more than 4 ways to interpret the claim limitations with too many variation (started from claim 1), therefore the 112 rejection is applied in this claim. If Applicant can’t clarify the previous claims in the next response, these claims will be in 112 rejections in the next office action.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 limitations, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, and/or discussed in the above claim objections (see above objections and 112 rejections) 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 § 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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 20190340959) in view of Choi (US 20170287990)
Regarding claim 1, Park disclosed An electronic device, (abstract, see also fig 1-30) comprising: a housing; a display in the housing comprising a display layer with a bent tail (the housing shown in fig 1, including NDA portion; display on top of the housing; at least 210), wherein the display layer has a first surface and an opposing second surface (at least fig 8, there are more than two surfaces can be a first and 2nd surface); and a molded polymer member coupled to the first surface of the display layer and coupled to the second surface of the display layer (at least fig 8, the member couple to the 210; see also paragraph [257]-[269], [156-167]; see also abstract and claims 1-2), wherein the molded polymer member comprises first and second portions (at least fig 8, there are, at last, 3 portions), the first portion has a first modulus of elasticity, and the second portion has a second modulus of elasticity that is different from the first modulus of elasticity (paragraph [184-189], [156-160]). Examiner’s note: the cited materials are more than 2 and some of them are height-compensating and some of them are bending with the display, Examiner consider the modulus of elasticity for these materials are different.
Park lacks teaching: molded polymer member.
Choi teaches a display device comprising molded polymer member to support or attach the display (paragraph [250-258], [137-139], [151-153]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, or at the time of the invention was made, to include this feature (injection molded polymer) and modify to previous discussed structure (modified to the primary art’s member) so as to further improve the modified structure and/or reduce the cost by using the known materials/method.
Regarding claim 2, modified Park further disclosed a display cover layer in the housing and overlapping the display layer (at last fig 1, fig 8, at least top view), wherein the first surface of the display layer faces the display cover layer (at last fig 1, fig 8, at least top view), and the first portion of the molded polymer member is coupled to the second surface of the display layer (at last fig 1, fig 8; see claim 1 rejections).
Regarding claim 3, modified Park further disclosed the second portion of the molded polymer member is interposed between the first surface of the display layer and the housing (at last fig 1, fig 8.
Regarding claim 4, modified Park further disclosed the second portion of the molded polymer member is coupled to the first surface of the display layer (at last fig 1, fig 8.
With regard claims 5, 6, the primary art and/or the modified structure discussed in the preceding claim disclosed all the subject matter except for the first modulus of elasticity is less than the second modulus of elasticity; the first modulus of elasticity is greater than the second modulus of elasticity.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time and/or before the effective filing date the invention was made to have the first modulus of elasticity is less than the second modulus of elasticity or the first modulus of elasticity is greater than the second modulus of elasticity, 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. The motivation to modify the previous discussed structure with the current feature is to provide more flexibility for the materials applied to the device. Examiner’s note: Changing the modulus of elasticity is well know in the art to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time and/or before the effective filing date the invention was made. If Applicant further argues the obviousness of the case law, Applicant will need to elect one of these two claims as they are mutually exclusive.
With regard claim 7, the primary art and/or the modified structure discussed in the preceding claim disclosed all the subject matter except for the first and second portions of the molded polymer member are attached with a layer of adhesive.
The primary clearly disclose: using a layer of adhesive to connect/bond two parts or structure/layers (paragraph [21], [77-81], [90-98], [144-155]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, or at the time of the invention was made, to include this feature (a layer of adhesive) and modify to previous discussed structure (modified to the portions of the molded polymer members) so as to further support/adapt or attach the structure of the modified structure.
With regard claim 8, the primary art and/or the modified structure discussed in the preceding claim disclosed all the subject matter except for the molded polymer member is an injection-molded polymer member, and the first and second portions of the molded polymer member are respective first and second shots of the injection- molded polymer member.
In product-by-process claims, “once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference.” MPEP 2113. This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 is proper because the “patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.” In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, or at the time of the invention was made, to include this feature (the molded polymer member is an injection-molded polymer member, and the first and second portions of the molded polymer member are respective first and second shots of the injection- molded polymer member) and modify to previous discussed structure (modified to the design process of the device) so as to further support/adapt the modified structure. The motivation to modify the previous discussed structure with the current feature is to improved the molded members and/or reduce the cost by using the known process.
Regarding claim 9, modified Park further disclosed the first surface of the display layer is coupled to the display cover layer, and the second portion of the molded polymer member is coupled to the display cover layer (see also fig 1-30; at least fig 8 shows both portions of the molded polymer member is coupled to the display cover layer; and the first surface of the display layer is coupled to the display cover layer).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERRY WU whose telephone number is (571)270-5420. The examiner can normally be reached on PHP: M-Th: 8:30-12:30; 2:30-8:30pm.
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, Imani Hayman can be reached on 571.270.5528. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JERRY WU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights