Application No.: 17/549,624
`Reply dated June 1, 2023
`Responseto Office Action of March 6, 2023
`
`REMARKS
`
`The claims have not been amended. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are currently pending in
`
`the Application, of which claim 1 is independent.
`
`In view of the following Remarks, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and
`
`timely withdrawal of the pending rejections for the reasons discussed below.
`
`Rejection of Claims under Double Patenting
`
`Claim 1 wasrejected underthe judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double
`
`patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,201,194 issued to
`
`Noh, et al. (“Noh”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0141450, applied for
`
`by Yoon, et a/. (“Yoon”).
`
`Since claim 1 of the instant application have not yet been indicated as allowable, it is
`
`believed that any submission of a Terminal Disclaimer or arguments as to the non-obvious
`
`nature of the claims would be premature. MPEP § 804(I)(B). As such, Applicant respectfully
`
`requests addressing any obviousness-type double patenting issues be delayed until the
`
`rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. §103 is resolved and that the rejection be reconsidered
`
`in light of the discussion below.
`
`Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`Claims 1-3, 8-10, and 18-20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being
`
`unpatentable over Yoonin view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0033829,
`
`applied for by Chang (“Chang”). Applicant respectfully traverses this rejection for at least the
`
`following reasons.
`
`--6--
`
`
`
`Application No.: 17/549,624
`Reply dated June 1, 2023
`Responseto Office Action of March 6, 2023
`
`The Office Action relies on the “layer from 120b to 310b” of Yoon to teach the claimed
`
`porous layer. (See OA, p. 6).
`
`In particular, the rear surface 310b of the rear cover 310, the layer
`
`between 120b and 310b, and the rear surface 120b of the backlight unit 120 of Yoon arerelied
`
`upon to respectively teach the claimed first coupling layer, intermediate layer, and second
`
`coupling layer. (See id.)
`
`
`
`HBL
`
`<Annotated FIG. 15 of Yoon>
`
`However, each of the alleged intermediate layer (e.g., the layer between 120b and 310)
`
`and the alleged first coupling layer 310b of Yoon overlaps the alleged sound generator 220 ina
`
`thickness direction, as clearly shown above. (Emphasis added).
`
`As such, Yoonfails to disclose or suggest“the first coupling layer and the intermediate
`
`layer do not overlap the sound generator in a thickness direction of the display panel” as
`
`required in claim 1.
`
`Furthermore, while the Office Action concedes that Yoonfails to teach thatits alleged
`
`intermediate layer (e.g., the layer between 120b and 310) includes a plurality of air pockets,
`
`however, Chang is subsequently relied upon to cure these deficiencies. (See OA, p. 7).
`
`Applicant respectfully disagrees.
`
`--7--
`
`
`
`Application No.: 17/549,624
`Reply dated June 1, 2023
`Responseto Office Action of March 6, 2023
`
`The analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 should be madeexplicit, and
`
`should “identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevantfield
`
`to combine the [prior art] elements" in the manner claimed. KSRInt’. Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 127
`
`S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007). The Federal Circuit requires that "rejections on
`
`obviousness cannot be sustained with mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be
`
`some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
`
`obviousness." /n re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
`
`In the present case, neither of Yoon nor Chang provides any motivation or suggestion to
`
`modify the alleged intermediate layer (e.g., the layer between 120b and 310) to include a
`
`plurality of air pockets as claimed. For example, the alleged intermediate layer of Yoon is a part
`
`forming a “rear structure”, which merely supports the vibration generating device 200. (See
`
`paragraph [0072]). Applicant submits that an ordinary skilled artisan would not have been
`
`prompted to modify a part of the rear structure 300 of Yoonto include “a plurality of air pockets”,
`
`especially when the rear structure 300 is to “support” andfix the vibration generating device
`
`200.
`
`Furthermore, it is unclear to Applicant how the motivation for allegedly modifying the rear
`
`structure 300 of Yoon in view of Chang can be“to improve the transmission of the displayed
`
`image” as proffered in the Office Action, since Yoon and Chang aresilent that a configuration of
`
`a part forming the rear structure 300 has anyeffect on transmission of an image. Moreover, the
`
`air pocket briefly touched upon in Chang is positioned between a light diffusion film and a prism
`
`sheet, elements of which would typically be placed on top of the a display module, rather than
`
`on the bottom of the display module 100 nearthe rear structure 300 of Yoon. (See paragraph
`
`[0008]). As such, Applicant submits that the proffered rationale to allegedly support the
`
`suggested combination has actually nothing to do with modifying the rear structure 300 of Yoon.
`
`--8--
`
`
`
`Application No.: 17/549,624
`Reply dated June 1, 2023
`Responseto Office Action of March 6, 2023
`
`Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection
`
`of claim 1. Claims 2, 3, 8-10, and 18-20 depend from claim 1 and are allowable at least for this
`
`reason. Since none of the alleged prior art of record, whether taken alone or in any
`
`combination, discloses or suggests all the features of the claimed subject matter, Applicant
`
`submits that independentclaim 1, and all the claims that depend therefrom, are allowable.
`
`Claims 4-7 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over
`
`Yoonin view of Chang and furtherin view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No.
`
`2017/0242290, applied for by Jenkins, ef a/. (“Jenkins”). Applicant respectfully traverses this
`
`rejection for at least the following reasons.
`
`Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 is allowable over Yoon and Chang, and
`
`Jenkins fails to cure the deficiencies of Yoon and Chang noted abovewith regard to claim 1.
`
`Hence, claims 4-7 are allowable at least because they depend from an allowable claim 1.
`
`Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection
`
`of claims 4-7.
`
`Claim 11 wasrejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Yoon
`
`in view of Chang and furtherin view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0347200,
`
`applied for by Dehn, ef a/. (“Dehn”). Applicant respectfully traverses this rejection for at least
`
`the following reasons.
`
`Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 is allowable over Yoon and Chang, andfails
`
`to cure the deficiencies of Yoon and Chang noted abovewith regard to claim 1. Hence, claim
`
`11 is allowable at least because claim 11 depends from an allowable claim 11.
`
`--9--
`
`
`
`Application No.: 17/549,624
`Reply dated June 1, 2023
`Responseto Office Action of March 6, 2023
`
`Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection
`
`of claim 11.
`
`Claims 12-17 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over
`
`Yoonin view of Chang and furtherin view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No.
`
`2010/0219750, applied for by Hori, ef a/. (“Hori”). Applicant respectfully traverses this rejection
`
`for at least the following reasons.
`
`Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 is allowable over Yoon and Chang, and Hori
`
`fails to cure the deficiencies of Yoon and Chang noted abovewith regard to claim 1. Hence,
`
`claims 12-17 are allowable at least because they depend from an allowable claim 1.
`
`Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection
`
`of claims 12-17.
`
`--10--
`
`
`
`Application No.: 17/549,624
`Reply dated June 1, 2023
`Responseto Office Action of March 6, 2023
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`A full and complete response has been made to the pending Office Action, and all of the
`
`groundsfor rejection have been overcome or rendered moot. Accordingly, all pending claims
`
`are allowable, and the Application is in condition for allowance.
`
`The Examiner is invited to contact Applicant’s undersigned representative at the number
`
`below if it would expedite prosecution. Prompt and favorable consideration of this Reply is
`
`respectfully requested.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`!Jae Hoon Kim/
`
`Jae Hoon Kim
`Reg. No. 77,622
`
`Date: June 1, 2023
`
`CUSTOMER NUMBER: 58027
`H.C. Park & Associates, PLC
`1894 Preston White Drive
`Reston, VA 20191
`Tel: 703-288-5105
`Fax: 703-288-5139
`HCP/JHK/yem
`
`--11--
`
`
