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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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) 1-9, 16-17 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An US 20140346946 in view of Cha US 20230209890.
Regarding claim 1, An US 20140346946 discloses a display device, comprising:
a plurality of plates (402/404 in Fig. 4 and 5) having different thermal expansion coefficients (see [0015] and [0086]),
each of the plurality of plates (402/404) having a curved shape (as depicted in Fig. 4 and 5); and
a display panel (500 in Fig. 4) disposed on (the plurality of plates 402/404).
An does not explicitly disclose an adhesive layer disposed on the plurality of plates; and
the display panel disposed on the adhesive layer.
However, Cha US 20230209890 discloses (in Fig. 3) an adhesive layer (320) disposed on a plurality of plates (510/520); and
a display panel (400) disposed on the adhesive layer (320).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have an adhesive layer disposed on the plurality of plates; and the display panel disposed on the adhesive layer, as taught by Cha see [0057], in order to adhere the display panel to the plurality of plates with transferring heat generated from the display panel to the plurality of plates.
Regarding claim 2, An in view of Cha discloses the display device according to claim 1, wherein a center portion of the display device (500 of An) has a concave shape (as depicted in Fig. 4 of An).
Regarding claim 3, An in view of Cha discloses the display device according to claim 2, wherein a plate (404 of An) disposed at the bottom, among the plurality of plates (404/402 of An), has (one of the largest and smallest) thermal expansion coefficient among the different thermal expansion coefficients of the plurality of plates (see [0015] of An).
An in view of Cha does not explicitly disclose that the bottom, among the plurality of plates, has the largest thermal expansion coefficient among the different thermal expansion coefficients of the plurality of plates.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the desired material and have the bottom, among the plurality of plates, has the largest thermal expansion coefficient among the different thermal expansion coefficients of the plurality of plates, in order to have it expand more than the other plate, since it has been held by the courts that selection of a prior art material on the basis of its suitability for its intended purpose is within the level of ordinary skill. In re Leshing, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Regarding claim 4, An in view of Cha discloses the display device according to claim 1, wherein a center portion of the display device (500 of An) has a convex shape (as depicted in Fig. 5 of An).
Regarding claim 5, An in view of Cha discloses the display device according to claim 4, wherein a plate (404 of An) disposed at the bottom, among the plurality of plates (402/404 of An), has (one of the largest and smallest) thermal expansion coefficient among the different thermal expansion coefficients of the plurality of plates (see [0015] of An).
An in view of Cha does not explicitly disclose that the bottom, among the plurality of plates, has the smallest thermal expansion coefficient among the different thermal expansion coefficients of the plurality of plates.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the desired material and have the bottom, among the plurality of plates, has the smallest thermal expansion coefficient among the different thermal expansion coefficients of the plurality of plates, in order to have it expand less than the other plate, since it has been held by the courts that selection of a prior art material on the basis of its suitability for its intended purpose is within the level of ordinary skill. In re Leshing, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Regarding claim 6, An in view of Cha discloses the display device according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of plates (402/404) are metal plates (see [0086-0087]).
Regarding claim 7, An in view of Cha discloses the display device according to claim 1.
An in view of Cha do not explicitly disclose wherein an end of the adhesive layer is disposed inside more than ends of the plurality of plates.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the size of the adhesive layer of An in view of Cha and have an end of the adhesive layer disposed inside more than ends of the plurality of plates, in order to reduce the amount of material used, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 8, An in view of Cha discloses the display device according to claim 1.
An in view of Cha do not explicitly disclose wherein an area of a top surface of the plate disposed at the top, among the plurality of plates, is larger than an area of a bottom surface of the adhesive layer.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the size of the adhesive layer of An in view of Cha and have an area of a top surface of the plate disposed at the top, among the plurality of plates, is larger than an area of a bottom surface of the adhesive layer, in order to reduce the amount of material used, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 9, An in view of Cha discloses the display device according to claim 1, wherein ends of the plurality of plates (402/404 of An) and an end of the display panel (500 of An) are spaced apart from an end of the adhesive layer (320 of Cha) by at least a thickness of the adhesive layer (320 of Cha).
Regarding claim 16, An in view of Cha discloses the display device according to claim 1, wherein a planar shape of a bottom surface of the adhesive layer (320 of Cha) is the same as a planar shape of a top surface of the plate (402 of An) located at a top of the plurality of plates (402/404 of An).
Regarding claim 17, An in view of Cha discloses the display device according to claim 1, wherein a center portion of the adhesive layer (320 of Cha) has a concave shape or a convex shape (as would be depicted in modified Fig. 4 and 5 of An).
Regarding claim 21, An in view of Cha discloses the display device according to claim1.
An in view of Cha do not explicitly disclose wherein the adhesive layer is not disposed at an edge area of a top surface of the plurality of plates and an edge area of a bottom surface of the display panel.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the size of the adhesive layer of An in view of Cha and have the adhesive layer is not disposed at an edge area of a top surface of the plurality of plates and an edge area of a bottom surface of the display panel, in order to reduce the amount of material used, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Claim(s) 13 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An in view of Cha as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee US 20250212652.
Regarding claim 13, An in view of Cha discloses the display device according to claim 1.
An in view of Cha do not explicitly disclose further comprising: a polarization plate disposed on the display panel; and a cover member disposed on the polarization plate.
However, Lee US 20250212652 discloses (in Fig. 8) a polarization plate (POL) disposed on the display panel (PNL); and a cover member (CW) disposed on the polarization plate (POL).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the device of An in view of Cha further comprising: a polarization plate disposed on the display panel; and a cover member disposed on the polarization plate, as taught by Lee, in order to polarize and protect the display panel.
Regarding claim 18, An in view of Cha in view of Lee discloses the display device according to claim 13, wherein a shape of the polarization plate (POL of Lee) corresponds to a shape of the display panel (PNL as depicted in Fig. 8 of Lee).
Regarding claim 19, An in view of Cha in view of Lee discloses the display device according to claim 13, wherein a shape of the cover member (CW of Lee) corresponds to a shape of the polarization plate (POL of Lee), a shape of the display panel (PNL as depicted in Fig. 8 of Lee), or a shape of the plurality of plates (402/404 of An) disposed below the cover member (CW of Lee).
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An in view of Cha as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Furukawa US 20200028100.
Regarding claim 14, An in view of Cha discloses the display device according to claim 1.
An in view of Cha do not explicitly disclose wherein each of the plurality of plates is bonded to another of the plurality of plates by a plate adhesive layer.
However, Furukawa US 20200028100 discloses (in Fig. 2) each of a plurality of plates (14/16/18/20) is bonded to another of the plurality of plates (14/16/18/20) by a plate adhesive layer (22/24/26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have each of the plurality of plates is bonded to another of the plurality of plates by a plate adhesive layer, as taught by Furukawa, in order to secure the plates together.
Regarding claim 15, An in view of Cha in view of Furukawa discloses the display device according to claim 14, wherein the plate adhesive layer (22/24/26 of Furukawa) is a pressure sensitive adhesive (see [0044] of Furukawa).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-12 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:
Regarding claim 10, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest, in combining with other limitations recited in claim 1, a combination of limitations that “wherein the adhesive layer includes a plurality of sub adhesive layers that are spaced apart from each other”.
None of the reference art of record discloses or renders obvious such a combination.
Claims 11-12 and 20 depending from claim 10 would therefore also be allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Park US 20200051881 discloses a plurality of display layers with adhesive layers disposed in between.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER L AUGUSTIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 3 pm.
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.
/CHRISTOPHER L AUGUSTIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2841
/JAMES WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights