Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/229,064

ELASTIC MOLD FRAME, BACKLIGHT UNIT AND DISPLAY DEVICE HAVING SAME

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jun 05, 2025
Examiner
SONG, ZHENG B
Art Unit
2875
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Tovis Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
70%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 1m
To Grant
85%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 70% — above average
70%
Career Allow Rate
528 granted / 754 resolved
+2.0% vs TC avg
Strong +15% interview lift
Without
With
+15.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 1m
Avg Prosecution
33 currently pending
Career history
787
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
57.9%
+17.9% vs TC avg
§102
22.1%
-17.9% vs TC avg
§112
16.0%
-24.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 754 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 6/05/2025 is/are being considered by the examiner. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. 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) 1-6, 8-12, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al. (US 9,958,716) (hereinafter Matsumoto) in view of Yu et al. (US 2013/0258240) (hereinafter Yu). Claim 1: Matsumoto teaches an mold frame provided in a display device including a liquid crystal panel (1, fig. 3), an optical sheet (3, fig. 3) disposed at a rear of the liquid crystal panel (see fig. 3), a light guide plate (52, fig. 3) or a diffusion plate (diffusion sheet, see Col. 4 lines 31-38) disposed at a rear of the optical sheet (see fig. 3), and a light source module (51, fig. 3) configured to irradiate light to the light guide plate (52) or the diffusion plate, and disposed at an outer periphery of the liquid crystal panel and the optical sheet (see fig. 3), the mold frame comprising: a bumper portion (44, fig. 3) formed to surround an outer periphery (see fig. 3) of the liquid crystal panel (1); and a mounting portion (40, fig. 3) extending from the bumper portion (44) to an inside of the optical sheet (3) to allow a portion of a rear surface of the liquid crystal panel to be mounted thereon (rear surface of 1 mounted on 43a, fig. 3), and forming a gap (gap between 1 and 3 in fig. 3) between the liquid crystal panel and the optical sheet (see fig. 3), However, Matsumoto is silent about an elastic mold frame, the elastic mold frame is made of an elastic material. Yu teaches an elastic mold frame (150, fig. 1), wherein the elastic mold frame (150) is made of an elastic material (rubber frame, see para [0003]) Therefore, in view of Yu, 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 material of the mold frame of Matsumoto to a rubber material, in order to provide a frame with improve shock absorbance. Claim 2: Matsumoto fails to teach the material is silicone or rubber. However, Matsumoto is silent about the material is silicone or rubber. Yu teaches the material is silicone or rubber (rubber frame, see para [0003]) Therefore, in view of Yu, 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 material of the mold frame of Matsumoto to a rubber material, in order to provide a frame with improve shock absorbance. Claim 3: Matsumoto teaches a chassis-receiving groove (groove of 4 receiving 6, fig. 3) into which a portion of an end of a bottom chassis (protruding portion of 6 into 4, fig. 3), which is formed in a box shape with an open front and accommodates the light source module therein, is inserted and fastened (see figs. 3 and 5). Claim 4: Matsumoto teaches the elastic mold frame comprises a first mold, a second mold, a third mold, and a fourth mold (top bottom left and right sections of 4, fig. 2) respectively corresponding to four sides of the liquid crystal panel (1, fig. 2) having a rectangular shape (see fig. 2), (note: the examiner is interpreting the term mold as a frame on or around which an object is constructed since the claims do not specify the material for the first to fourth molds) and However, Matsumoto fails to teach the elastic mold frame. Yu teaches an elastic mold frame (150, fig. 1). Therefore, in view of Yu, 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 material of the mold frame of Matsumoto to a rubber material, in order to provide a frame with improve shock absorbance. Matusmoto in view of Yu discloses the claimed invention except for the first mold, the second mold, the third mold, and the fourth mold are separately injection-molded. It has been held that “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966. Claim 5: Matsumoto teaches one of the first mold, second mold, third mold, and fourth mold includes the chassis-receiving groove (see fig. 3) recessed in a frontward direction of the light guide plate (left direction of 52, fig. 3), so that a portion of a non-light emitting substrate region (areas of 52 blocked by 40, fig. 3) of the light source module (51), which irradiates light toward the light guide plate (52) from a side of the light guide plate, is insertable into the chassis-receiving groove (see fig. 3). Claim 6: Matsumoto teaches the chassis-receiving groove (groove of 4 receiving 6, fig. 3) is formed in the first mold and the third mold facing each other (see figs. 2 and 3) among the first mold, the second mold, the third mold, and the fourth mold (see fig. 2). Claim 8: Matsumoto teaches the bumper portion (44, fig. 3) has a rounded corner where the front and side surfaces are connected (see figs. 3-4). Claim 9: Matsumoto teaches a backlight unit comprising: an optical sheet (3, fig. 3); a bottom chassis (6, fig. 3) including a back plate (bottom plate of 6, fig. 3) and a side wall (protruding sidewalls of 6, fig. 3) and having an accommodating space (space accommodating 51 in 6, fig. 3) therein; a light source module (51, fig. 3) accommodated in the accommodating space and disposed between the optical sheet (3) and the back plate (6) to irradiate light; and an mold frame (4, fig. 3) including a mounting portion (40, fig. 3) coupled to the side wall (see fig. 3) of the bottom chassis and extending from an outer side of the optical sheet toward an inner side of the optical sheet (see fig. 3), and a bumper portion (44, fig. 3) protruded in a stepped manner from an outer side of the mounting portion toward a front side (see fig. 3), However, Matsumoto is silent about an elastic mold frame, the elastic mold frame is made of an elastic material. Yu teaches an elastic mold frame (150, fig. 1), wherein the elastic mold frame (150) including silicone or rubber (rubber frame, see para [0003]) Therefore, in view of Yu, 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 material of the mold frame of Matsumoto to a rubber material, in order to provide a frame with improve shock absorbance. Claim 10: Matsumoto teaches the light source module (51) disposed on the side wall (see fig. 3), a light guide plate (52, fig. 3) disposed between the back plate (6) and the optical sheet (3) so that the light source module (51) is positioned at a side thereof (see fig. 3), and a reflective film (53, fig. 3) disposed on a rear surface of the light guide plate (bottom surface of 52, fig. 3). Claim 11: Matsumoto teaches the mold frame comprises: a chassis-receiving groove (groove of 4 receiving 6, fig. 3) into which an end portion of the side wall (sidewall of 6, fig. 3) and a portion of a non-light emitting substrate region of the light source module are inserted (see fig. 3). However, Matsumoto is silent about an elastic mold frame. Yu teaches an elastic mold frame (150, fig. 1). Therefore, in view of Yu, 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 material of the mold frame of Matsumoto to a rubber material, in order to provide a frame with improve shock absorbance. Claim 12: Matsumoto teaches the light source module (51, fig. 3) is disposed on one of four sides of the optical sheet having a rectangular shape (see fig. 2), and wherein one of a first mold, a second mold, a third mold, and a fourth mold of the mold frame, each corresponding to one of four sides of the optical sheet, may be provided with a chassis-receiving groove (groove of 4 receiving 6, fig. 3). However, Matsumoto is silent about an elastic mold frame. Yu teaches an elastic mold frame (150, fig. 1). Therefore, in view of Yu, 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 material of the mold frame of Matsumoto to a rubber material, in order to provide a frame with improve shock absorbance. Claim 16: Matsumoto teaches the bumper portion (44, fig. 3) has a rounded corner where the front and side surfaces are connected (see figs. 3-4). Claim 17: Matsumoto teaches a display device comprising: a liquid crystal panel (1, fig. 3); a backlight unit according to claim 9 (see claim 9) disposed at a rear side of the liquid crystal panel (1) to provide light to the liquid crystal panel; and a top chassis (2, fig. 3) covering a portion of a front outer periphery of the liquid crystal panel (1) and front and side surfaces of an mold frame (4) included in the backlight unit and coupled to a bottom chassis (6) included in the backlight unit. However, Matsumoto is silent about an elastic mold frame. Yu teaches an elastic mold frame (150, fig. 1). Therefore, in view of Yu, 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 material of the mold frame of Matsumoto to a rubber material, in order to provide a frame with improve shock absorbance. Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al. (US 9,958,716) in view of Yu et al. (US 2013/0258240) as applied to claim(s) 6 above, and further in view of Fan (US 2021/0011326). Claim 7: Matsumoto in view of Yu fails to teach the first mold and the third mold include the chassis-receiving groove recessed in a lateral direction of the optical sheet, so that an outer edge of the optical sheet and the diffusion plate is insertable into the chassis-receiving groove. Fan teaches a first mold (11, fig. 3-4) and a third mold (13, fig. 3-4) include a chassis-receiving groove (groove between a and b, fig. 4) recessed in a lateral direction of the optical sheet (see fig. 3-4), so that an outer edge of the optical sheet is insertable into the chassis-receiving groove (see fig. 3-4). Therefore, in view of Fan, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the shape of the chassis-receiving groove to be recessed in a lateral direction of the optical sheet, so that an outer edge of the optical sheet and the diffusion plate is insertable into the chassis-receiving groove, in order to further secure the components together. Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al. (US 9,958,716) in view of Yu et al. (US 2013/0258240) as applied to claim(s) 9 above, and further in view of Han (US 2023/0176409). Claim 13: Matsumoto teaches the backlight unit comprising: a diffusion plate (diffusion sheet, see Col. 4 lines 31-38) disposed between the light source module (51) and the optical sheet (3); and a reflective plate (53, fig. 3) provided to surround a periphery of a light-irradiation gap (gap between 53 and 3, fig. 3) between the light source module and the optical sheet (see fig. 3). However, Matsumoto fails to teach the light source module is disposed on the back plate and is configured to irradiate light toward the optical sheet. Han teaches a light source module (51, fig. 4) is disposed on the back plate (31, fig. 4) and is configured to irradiate light toward the optical sheet (61, 62, fig. 4). Therefore, in view of Han, 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 orientation of the light source module of Matsumoto where the light source module is disposed on the back plate and is configured to irradiate light toward the optical sheet, in order to configure the backlight unit in a direct lit configuration improving light uniformity. Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al. (US 9,958,716) in view of Yu et al. (US 2013/0258240) in view of Han (US 2023/0176409) as applied to claim(s) 13 above, and further in view of Fan (US 2021/0011326). Claim 14: Matsumoto teaches the elastic mold frame comprises a chassis-receiving groove (groove of 4 receiving 6, fig. 3) into which an end portion of the side wall, an outer edge of the optical sheet, and an outer edge of the diffusion plate are inserted (see fig. 2). However, Matsumoto fails to teach an mold frame; and the chassis-receiving groove into which an end portion of the side wall. Fan teaches the chassis-receiving groove (into which an end portion of the side wall, an outer edge of the optical sheet, and an outer edge of the diffusion plate are inserted (see fig. 3-4). Therefore, in view of Fan, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the shape of the chassis-receiving groove to be recessed in a lateral direction of the optical sheet, so that an outer edge of the optical sheet and the diffusion plate is insertable into the chassis-receiving groove, in order to further secure the components together. Claim 15: Matsumoto teaches the mold frame comprises the chassis-receiving groove (groove of 4 receiving 6, fig. 3) in the first mold and the third mold facing each other (see fig. 2) among a first mold, a second mold, a third mold, and a fourth mold corresponding to each of four sides of the optical sheet formed in a rectangular shape (see fig. 2). However, Matsumoto is silent about an elastic mold frame. Yu teaches an elastic mold frame (150, fig. 1). Therefore, in view of Yu, 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 material of the mold frame of Matsumoto to a rubber material, in order to provide a frame with improve shock absorbance. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ha (US 2014/0176852), Isobe (US 2012/0188790), Yuan et al. (US 2015/0362787), Yoon et al. (US 2016/0223739), and Zheng et al. (US 2021/0116738) disclose a similar mold frame. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHENG B SONG whose telephone number is (571)272-9402. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 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 (James) 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. /ZHENG SONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 05, 2025
Application Filed
Jan 23, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604772
LED ELECTRICAL CONTACT FOR 3D LEDS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12586947
CONNECTOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583383
VEHICLE CABIN ILLUMINATION DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12578081
LIGHTING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12565986
HEIGHT ADJUSTABLE LAMP
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
70%
Grant Probability
85%
With Interview (+15.1%)
2y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 754 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month