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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on 03/19/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 12/30/2025. Applicant’s remark filed 03/19/2026 have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 12/30/2025.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 8, line 2 recites the limitation “a heat sink”. As seen in para[0039] of the applicant’s specification, the heat sink 193 of the third thermal-dissipation element 190 can be a fan.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TERAGAWA (US 2020/0096797), and in view of CHUEH (US 2009/0115738).
Regarding claim 1, TERAGAWA discloses a display device comprising
a backlight (3, 4, Fig.6) for providing a light source;
a panel (1, Fig.6) disposed over the backlight for displaying an image; and
a first thermal-dissipation element (as seen in Fig.6, the “first thermal-dissipation element” was considered to be the plate members 6 and the openings 55, 56 because air flows through the cavity of the plate members 6 for heat dissipation) disposed between the backlight and the panel (as seen in Fig.6, the first thermal-dissipation element 6, 55, 56 is between the backlight 3, 4 and the panel 1), wherein the first thermal-dissipation element is a transparent element (as seen in para[0031], the first thermal-dissipation element 6 can be made of transparent acrylic) so that the light source can be provided to the panel,
wherein the first thermal-dissipation element has a cavity, fluid fills into the cavity, and when the display device is in operation, the fluid flows in the cavity (as seen in Fig.6, fluid [or air] fills and flows through the cavity of the first thermal-dissipation element 5, 55, 56).
TERAGAWA fails to disclose a third thermal-dissipation element comprising a guiding plate disposed above a cover plate, wherein the guiding plate is non-linear and gradually approaches the cover plate toward the center of the display device.
However, CHUEH discloses a guiding plate (260, Fig.2) disposed above a cover plate (240, Fig.2), and the guiding plate is non-linear and gradually approaches the cover plate toward the center of a display device (as seen in Fig.2, the guiding plate 260 has a downward angled shape such that the guiding plate 260 was considered to be generally non-linear [i.e. not entirely horizontal]).
Therefore, in view of CHUEH, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a guiding plate as taught by CHUEH to the display device of TERAGAWA in order to support additional panels or plates to the display device.
Regarding claim 2, TERAGAWA as discussed above for claim 1 further discloses wherein the fluid comprises gas [e.g. air].
Regarding claim 3, TERAGAWA as discussed above for claim 2 further discloses wherein the gas comprises atmospheric air.
Regarding claim 13, TERAGAWA further discloses an optical layer (9, 10, Fig.6) disposed between the panel (1, Fig.6) and the first thermal-dissipation element (6, 55, 56, Fig.6), wherein a first thermal-dissipation space is provided between the backlight and the optical layer, a second thermal-dissipation space is provided between the optical layer and the panel, and a height of the first thermal-dissipation space is greater than a height of the second thermal-dissipation space.
Regarding claim 14, TERAGAWA further discloses wherein the first thermal-dissipation element (6, 55, 56, Fig.6) comprises an upper transparent layer (6, Fig.6; as seen in para[0031], the upper transparent layer 6 can be made of transparent acrylic) and a lower transparent layer (6, Fig.6; as seen in para[0031], the lower transparent layer 6 can be made of transparent acrylic) defined the cavity.
Regarding “a thickness of the upper transparent layer is less than the thickness of the lower transparent layer”, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognize to select the thickness of the upper transparent layer and the lower transparent layer for a desired application. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a thickness of an upper transparent layer less than the thickness of a lower transparent layer to the first thermal-dissipation element of TERAGAWA in order to provide a thickness of the upper transparent layer and the lower transparent layer for a desired application.
Regarding claim 15, TERAGAWA further discloses wherein the lower transparent layer extends onto a support (52, Fig.6) covering an integrated circuit element (4, 40, Fig.6).
Regarding claim 16, TERAGAWA further discloses wherein the first thermal-dissipation element (6, 55, 56, Fig.6) comprises a fluid inlet (56, Fig.5) in communication with the cavity, and a thickness of the cavity is greater than a thickness of the fluid inlet.
Regarding claim 17, TERAGAWA modified by CHUEH fails to disclose wherein the thickness of the fluid inlet is in the range of about 2 mm to about 8 mm.
Regarding “the thickness of the fluid inlet is in the range of about 2 mm to about 8 mm”, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognize to select the thickness of the fluid inlet for a desired application. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a thickness of a fluid inlet in the range of about 2-8 mm to the fluid inlet of TERAGAWA modified by CHUEH in order to control the flow of the fluid inlet.
Regarding claim 18, TERAGAWA modified by CHUEH fails to disclose wherein the thickness of the cavity is in the range of about 3 mm to about 13 mm.
Regarding “the thickness of the cavity is in the range of about 3 mm to about 13 mm”, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognize to select the thickness of the cavity for a desired application. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a thickness of a cavity in the range of about 3-13 mm to the cavity of TERAGAWA modified by CHUEH in order to control the flow of the cavity.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TERAGAWA (US 2020/0096797) modified by CHUEH (US 2009/0115738), and in view of MORTON (US 2017/0231121).
Regarding claim 4, TERAGAWA modified by CHUEH fails to disclose wherein the liquid comprises water, ethylene glycol, diethylene glycol, or propylene glycol.
However, MORTON discloses a liquid (140, Figs.1-3) includes water (para[0022]).
Therefore, in view of MORTON, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate water as taught by MORTON to the liquid of TERAGAWA modified by CHUEH in order to provide an alternative cooling fluid.
Claims 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TERAGAWA (US 2020/0096797) modified by CHUEH (US 2009/0115738), and in view of NOTOSHI (US 2018/0088368).
Regarding claim 5, TERAGAWA modified by CHUEH fails to disclose a second thermal-dissipation element disposed on a lower surface of the backlight and comprising a plurality of thermal-dissipation fins, wherein the fluid flows through the plurality of thermal-dissipation fins.
However, NOTOSHI discloses a second thermal-dissipation element (53, Figs.4 and 7) disposed on a lower surface of a backlight (30, 82b, 51, Fig.4) including a plurality of thermal-dissipation fins (53, Figs.4 and 7), and the fluid flows through the plurality of thermal-dissipation fins (Fig.8).
Therefore, in view of NOTOSHI, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate thermal-dissipation fins as taught by NOTOSHI to the backlight of TERAGAWA modified by CHUEH in order to cool the backlight.
Regarding claim 10, TERAGAWA modified by CHUEH fails to disclose a ventilation module in communication with the cavity and configured to drive the fluid to flow in the cavity, wherein the ventilation module comprises a plurality of thermal-dissipation fins.
However, NOTOSHI discloses a ventilation module (40, 60, Figs.4 and 7) in communication with a cavity (R, Fig.4) and configured to drive a fluid to flow in the cavity, and the ventilation module includes a plurality of thermal-dissipation fins (40, Fig.7).
Therefore, in view of NOTOSHI, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a ventilation module including thermal-dissipation fins as taught by NOTOSHI to the display device of TERAGAWA modified by CHUEH in order to dissipate heat.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TERAGAWA (US 2020/0096797) modified by CHUEH (US 2009/0115738), and in view of LEE (KR 20110080896).
Regarding claim 6, TERAGAWA modified by CHUEH fails to disclose wherein the third thermal-dissipation element further comprises an air channel, and the fluid flows through the air channel and covers an upper surface of the panel.
However, LEE discloses a third thermal-dissipation element including an air channel (as seen in Fig.1, the “air channel” was considered to be the channel for the air), and the fluid flows through the air channel and covers an upper surface of a panel (as seen in Fig.1, the fluid cover an upper surface of the panel 23).
Therefore, in view of LEE, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a fluid covering an upper surface of a panel as taught by LEE to the panel of TERAGAWA modified by CHUEH in order to cool the panel.
Regarding claim 7, TERAGAWA modified by CHUEH and LEE as discussed above for claim 6 fails to disclose a flow divider allowing the fluid to flow towards the upper surface of the panel and a lower surface of the backlight, respectively.
However, LEE further discloses a flow divider (51, Fig.1) allowing the fluid to flow towards the upper surface of the panel (23, Fig.1) and a lower surface of the backlight (as seen in para[0017], the backlight is on the rear surface of the panel 23).
Therefore, in view of LEE, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a flow divider as taught by LEE to the display device of TERAGAWA modified by CHUEH and LEE in order to cool the panel and the backlight.
Regarding claim 8, TERAGAWA modified by CHUEH and LEE as discussed above for claim 7 fails to disclose wherein the third thermal-dissipation element further comprises a heat sink, and a center of the heat sink is aligned with a center of the flow divider.
However, LEE discloses a heat sink (30, Fig.1), and a center of the heat sink is aligned with a center of the flow divider (as seen in Fig.1, the center of the heat sink 30 was considered to be generally aligned with a center of the flow divider 51).
Therefore, in view of LEE, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a heat sink as taught by LEE to the flow divider of TERAGAWA modified by CHUEH and LEE in order to provide an active cooling element to drive the fluid [e.g. air].
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TERAGAWA (US 2020/0096797) modified by CHUEH (US 2009/0115738) and LEE (KR 20110080896), and in view of YASUDA (WO 2012/140714).
Regarding claim 9, TERAGAWA modified by CHUEH and LEE fails to disclose wherein the guiding plate is connected to the heat sink.
However, YASUDA discloses a guiding plate (56, Fig.7) is connected to a heat sink (54, Fig.5).
Therefore, in view of YASUDA, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a guiding plate as taught by YASUDA to the display device of TERAGAWA modified by CHUEH and LEE in order to cool the cover plate.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TERAGAWA (US 2020/0096797) modified by CHUEH (US 2009/0115738), and in view of LAI (US 2006/0192750).
Regarding claim 11, TERAGAWA modified by CHUEH fails to disclose wherein when the display device reaches a critical temperature, the fluid flows in the cavity.
However, LAI discloses when a display device reaches a critical temperature, a fluid flows in a cavity (as seen in Fig.1A, if a controller 11 and a sensor 12 detects the display device at a first temperature, the fan 13 turns on to fill the cavity with fluid [air] to cool the display device).
Therefore, in view of LAI, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a fluid flows in a cavity when a display device reaches a critical temperature as taught by LAI to the display device of TERAGAWA modified by CHUEH in order to cool the display device.
Regarding claim 12, TERAGAWA modified by CHUEH and LAI as discussed above for claim 11 further discloses wherein when the display device is below the critical temperature, the fluid stops flowing in the cavity (as seen in para[0030] of LAI, if the controller 11 and the sensor 12 detects the display device below the first temperature, the fan 13 is stationary [off]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TERAGAWA (US 2020/0096797) modified by CHUEH (US 2009/0115738), and in view of EOM (US 2021/0367116).
Regarding claim 19, TERAGAWA further discloses wherein the backlight comprises a plurality of light-emitting elements (3, Fig.6) and a plurality of barrier walls (13, Fig.6) disposed around the light-emitting elements.
TERAGAWA modified by CHUEH fails to disclose the barrier walls have arc-shaped sidewalls.
However, EOM discloses barrier walls (31, Fig.3) have arc-shaped sidewalls.
Therefore, in view of EOM, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate arc-shaped sidewalls as taught by EOM to the barrier walls of TERAGAWA in order to provide an alternative barrier wall to direct light.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TERAGAWA (US 2020/0096797) modified by CHUEH (US 2009/0115738) and EOM (US 2021/0367116), and in view of REN (US 2023/0387364).
Regarding claim 20, TERAGAWA modified by CHUEH and EOM fails to disclose wherein a number of the light-emitting elements disposed between two adjacent outermost barrier walls is greater than the number of the light-emitting elements disposed between two adjacent inner barrier walls.
However, REN discloses a number of the light-emitting elements (200, Fig.10) disposed between two adjacent outermost barrier walls (310C, Fig.10) is greater than a number of the light-emitting elements (200, Fig.10) disposed between two adjacent inner barrier walls (310D, Fig.10).
Therefore, in view of REN, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a number of the light-emitting elements disposed between two adjacent outermost barrier walls is greater than a number of the light-emitting elements disposed between two adjacent inner barrier walls as taught by REN to the light-emitting elements of TERAGAWA modified by CHUEH and EOM in order to control the illumination at portions of the display device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the presented claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to all of the combination of references being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES ENDO whose telephone number is (571)272-2782. The examiner can normally be reached Monday and Thursday 9AM-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, JONG-SUK LEE can be reached at 571-272-7044. 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.
/J.M.E/Examiner, Art Unit 2875
/JONG-SUK (JAMES) LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights