DETAILED ACTION
Response to Remarks and Amendments
The response submitted on October 8th, 2025 has been fully considered.
Withdrawn Objections: The previously raised comments, concerning the quality of the reproductions and the inclusion of detail circles in the reference views, have been sufficiently addressed by the amendments. The previously raised comments concerning the specification (figure descriptions and broken line statement) have been adequately addressed by the amendments.
Objections: While the previously raised issues concerning the specification have been addressed, the descriptive statement should be placed after the descriptions of the reproductions and before the broken line statements. Additionally, in Reproduction 1.6, the top front edge of the display appears to be drawn in a location that is inconsistent with the rest of the disclosure. Accordingly, comments on the specification and reproductions are presented.
Rejection: Upon clarification of the configuration of the design and due to the results of an updated search (as required per MPEP 719.05), prior art references were found which pose issues of obviousness relative to Applicant’s claim. Accordingly, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is presented, but is made NON-FINAL.
Reproductions
The following comments are presented concerning the reproductions:
When inconsistencies are found among the views, the examiner should object to the drawings and request that the views be made consistent. See MPEP 1503.02. Ex parte Asano, 201 USPQ 315, 317 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1978); Hadco Products, Inc. v. Lighting Corp. of America Inc., 312 F. Supp. 1173, 1182, 165 USPQ 496, 503 (E.D. Pa. 1970), vacated on other grounds, 462 F.2d 1265, 174 USPQ 358 (3d Cir. 1972).
In amended reproductions 1.6 and 2.6, the location of the front edge of the display is inconsistent with the location shown in the rest of the disclosure. Reproduction 1.6 shows the solid line of the front edge further down in the display panel then what is shown in Reproductions 1.3-1.5, 1.7, 2.3-2.5 and 2.7. Along the corners, it would be understood that the solid line starts further down on the display panel, but along the midsection of the display panel, the top front edge would likely be seen parallel to - and slightly inset from - the top rear edge. See the annotated images below for comparison:
PNG
media_image1.png
1300
1327
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1300
1327
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image1.png
1300
1327
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Specification
The following comments are presented concerning the specification:
The following order or arrangement should be observed in framing a design patent specification:
(1) Preamble, stating name of the applicant, title of the design, and a brief description of the nature and intended use of the article in which the design is embodied.
(2) Cross-reference to related applications.
(3) Statement regarding federally sponsored research or development.
(4) Description of the figure or figures of the drawing.
(5) Feature description.
(6) A single claim.
See the example below:
-- The screen of the portable computer is transparent.
The broken lines shown in the drawings illustrate portions of the portable computer and form no part of the claimed design. The dot-dash broken lines in the drawings define the boundaries of the claimed design and form no part thereof.
The dot-dot-dash broken lines represent the limits of the enlarged detail views and form no part of the claimed design. --
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.
The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN-201330385773.2 (Yang Run) (published 06/04/2014) (cited in this action) in view of Foreign Reference #6: JP-D1553008 (Hiroko, et. al.) (published 07/04/2016) (cited in this action).
PNG
media_image3.png
1300
1327
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Although the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 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 designer having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, the invention is not patentable.
The primary reference, CN-201330385773.2 (Yang Run), has design characteristics that are visually similar to those of the claimed design, by showing a frameless portable computer with a transparent display screen. See the images below for comparison:
PNG
media_image4.png
1300
1327
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
628
1270
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The claimed design consists of a portable computer with a frameless, transparent, display screen.
Primary reference, CN-201330385773.2 (Yang Run), consists of notebook computer with a frameless, transparent, display screen.
The claimed design differs from primary reference, CN-201330385773.2 (Yang Run) by (1) the full extension of the display screen along the height of the upper display panel (without a bottom trim piece).
PNG
media_image6.png
1149
1246
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Secondary reference, JP-D1553008 (Hiroko, et. al.), teaches (1) the large border along the bottom of the display screen.
It would have been obvious to a designer of ordinary skill not later than the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify Yang Run with (1) the full extension of the display panel, as seen in Hiroko, since the larger bottom border is commonplace in the field of designing portable computers and notebook computers and would, therefore, be an obvious design choice.
A designer skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since the designs are all portable computing devices with transparent display panels.
Reply Reminder to all Refusals
Applicant is reminded that any reply to this Refusal must be signed either by a patent practitioner (i.e., a patent attorney or agent registered to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office) or by the applicant. If the applicant is a juristic entity, the reply must be signed by a patent practitioner. See 37 CFR 1.33(b).
Discussion of the Merits of the Application
All discussions between the applicant and the examiner regarding the merits of a pending application will be considered an interview and are to be made of record. See MPEP 713. The examiner will not discuss the merits of the application with applicant’s representative if the representative is not registered to practice before the USPTO. Appointment as applicant’s representative before the International Bureau pursuant to Rule 3 of the Common Regulations under the Hague Agreement does NOT entitle such representative to represent the applicant before the USPTO. Furthermore, an applicant that is a juristic entity must be represented by a patent attorney or agent registered to practice before the USPTO. Additional information regarding interviews is set forth below.
Telephonic or in person interviews
A telephonic or in person interview may only be conducted with an attorney or agent registered to practice before the USPTO (“registered practitioner”) or with a pro se applicant (an applicant who is the inventor and who is not represented by a registered practitioner).
The registered practitioner may either be of record or not of record. To become “of record”, a power of attorney (POA) in accordance with 37 CFR 1.32 must be filed in the application. Form PTO/AIA /80 “Power of Attorney to Prosecute Applications Before the USPTO”, available at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms-patent-applications-filed-or-after-september-16-2012, may be used for this purpose. See MPEP 402.02(a) for further information. Interviews may also be conducted with a registered practitioner not of record provided the registered practitioner can show authorization to conduct an interview by completing, signing and filing an “Applicant Initiated Interview Request Form” (PTOL-413A) (available at the USPTO web page indicated above). See MPEP 405. For acceptable ways to submit forms to the USPTO, see “When Responding to Official USPTO Correspondence” below.
If a pro se applicant or registered practitioner located outside of the United States wishes to communicate by telephone, it is suggested that such person email the examiner at altaira.swangin@uspto.gov to arrange a time and date for the telephone interview. Please include proposed days and times for the proposed call. When proposing a day/time for the interview, please take into account the examiner’s work schedule indicated in the last paragraph of this communication. The email should also be used to determine who will initiate the telephone call.
Email Communications
The merits of the application will not be discussed via email (or other electronic medium) unless appropriate authorization for internet communication is filed in the application. Form PTO/SB/439 “Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application or Request to Withdraw Authorization for Internet Communications” may be used to provide such authorization and is available at the USPTO web page indicated above. The authorization may not be sent by email to the USPTO. For acceptable ways to submit the authorization form to the USPTO, see “When Responding to Official USPTO Correspondence” below. See MPEP 502.03 II for further information.
When Responding to Official USPTO Correspondence
When responding to official correspondence issued by the USPTO, including a notification of refusal, please note the following:
The USPTO transacts business in writing. All replies must be signed in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33(b). Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.33(b)(3), a reply submitted on behalf of a juristic applicant must be signed by an attorney or agent registered to practice before the USPTO. Applicants may submit replies to Office actions only by:
Online via the USPTO's Patent Center https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/ see https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply
Mail: Commissioner For Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA, 22313-1450
Facsimile to the USPTO's Official Fax Number (571-273-8300). It is noted that faxing might result in loss of details in drawing disclosure.
Hand-carry to USPTO's Alexandria, Virginia Customer Service Window
https://www.uspto.gov/patents-maintaining-patent/responding-office-actions
Conclusion
The claim stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references are relevant for establishing the techniques and conventions known in the art at the time that Applicant’s claim was filed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALTAIRA J SWANGIN whose telephone number is (571)272-2463. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30 A.M. - 5:30 P.M.
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, Erich Herbermann, can be reached on (571) 272-6390. 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.
/A. S./
Examiner, Art Unit 2916
/ERICH G HERBERMANN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2916