www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and TrademarkOffice
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`17/549,624
`
`12/13/2021
`
`Jung Hun NOH
`
`P8161USC1
`
`7938
`
`H.C. PARK & ASSOCIATES, PLC
`1894 PRESTON WHITE DRIVE
`RESTON, VA 20191
`
`GANMAVO, KUASSI A
`
`ART UNIT
`
`2651
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`09/29/2023
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`Thetime period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e-mail address(es):
`PATENT @PARK-LAW.COM
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`1-20 is/are pending in the application.
`)
`Claim(s)
`5a) Of the above claim(s) ___ is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`Cj} Claim(s)
`is/are allowed.
`Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected.
`S)
`) © Claim(s)___is/are objected to.
`Cj) Claim(s
`are subjectto restriction and/or election requirement
`)
`S)
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you maybeeligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`http://Awww.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPHfeedback@uspto.gov.
`
`) )
`
`Application Papers
`10) The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)0) The drawing(s) filedon__ is/are: a)(J accepted or b)( objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12)1) Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`c)Z None ofthe:
`b)() Some**
`a)C All
`1... Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.1) Certified copies of the priority documents have beenreceived in Application No.
`3.1.) Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been receivedin this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`* See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1)
`
`Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`2) (J Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3)
`
`(LJ Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`4) (J Other:
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20230909
`
`Application No.
`Applicant(s)
`17/549,624
`NOH etal.
`
`Office Action Summary Art Unit|AIA (FITF) StatusExaminer
`KUASSI A GANMAVO
`2651
`Yes
`
`
`
`-- The MAILING DATEof this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLYIS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available underthe provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply betimely filed after SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing
`date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, evenif timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1) Responsive to communication(s) filed on 06/01/2023.
`C} A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/werefiled on
`
`2a)() This action is FINAL. 2b)¥)This action is non-final.
`3)02 An election was madeby the applicant in responseto a restriction requirement set forth during the interview
`on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`4)\0) Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/549,624
`Art Unit: 2651
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Notice of Pre-AlA or AIA Status
`
`1.
`
`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 Arguments
`
`2.
`
`Applicant's arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 filed 06/01/2023 have been
`
`considered but are moot because the new groundof rejection does not rely on any
`
`reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically
`
`challenged in the argument.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`3.
`
`In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103)is incorrect, any
`
`correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AlA) for the rejection will
`
`not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale
`
`supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
`
`4.
`
`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 effectivefiling 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.
`
`5.
`
`Claims 1, 3, 8-9, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
`
`unpatentable over Seoet al (US 2015/0078604 A1) in view of Uetabira (US
`
`2015/0034413 A1).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/549,624
`Art Unit: 2651
`
`Page 3
`
`6.
`
`Regarding claim 1, Seo et al disclose a display device (Seoetal; Fig 11)
`
`comprising: a display panel (Seo et al; Fig 1; display 70); a sound generator disposed
`
`on one surface of the display panel (Seo et al; Fig 1; sound generator 27); and a porous
`
`layer disposed adjacent to the sound generator (Seo et al; Fig 1; Para [0074]; porous
`
`layer 75-1 to 75-2), wherein the porous layer includesa first coupling layer (Seo etal;
`
`Fig 1; coupling layer 75-1), a second coupling layer (Seo et al; Fig 1; coupling layer 75-
`
`2), and an intermediate layer interposed between the first and second coupling layers
`
`(Seo et al; Fig 1; Para [0106]; resonator 76), and wherein the first coupling layer and the
`
`intermediate layer do not overlap the sound generator in a thicknessdirection of the
`
`display panel (Seoet al; Fig 1; 75-2 and 76 do not overlap sound generator 27 ina
`
`thickness direction of the display panel); but do not expressly disclose and including a
`
`plurality of air pockets. However, in the same field of endeavor, Uetabira discloses a
`
`display device comprising a porous layer including a plurality of air pockets (Uetabira;
`
`Para [0072]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before
`
`the effective filing date of the invention to use the layer of taught by Uetabira as porous
`
`layer in the display device taught by Seo et al because both disclosures teach vibration
`
`damping devices within display device. The motivation to do so would have been for
`
`controlling the resonance of reproduction sound (Uetabira; Para [0072]).
`
`7.
`
`Regarding claim 3, Seo et al in view of Uetabira disclose the display device of
`
`claim 1, wherein a thicknessof the first coupling layer is smaller than a thickness of the
`
`sound generator (Seo et al; Fig 15; Para [0106)]).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/549,624
`Art Unit: 2651
`
`Page 4
`
`8.
`
`Regarding claim 8, Seo et al in view of Uetabira disclose the display device of
`
`claim 1, wherein one surface of the second coupling layer is in contact with the sound
`
`generator and the intermediate layer (Seo et al et al; Para [0161]).
`
`9.
`
`Regarding claim 9, Seo et al in view of Uetabira disclose the display device of
`
`claim 1, wherein the second coupling layer does not overlap the sound generator in the
`
`thickness direction of the display panel (Seoet al; Fig 1; layer 75-2 does not overlap the
`
`sound generator 27).
`
`10.
`
`Regarding claim 18, Seo et al in view of Uetabira disclose the display device of
`
`claim 1, further comprising a frame disposed on the second coupling layer (Seoet al;
`
`Para [0158]; frame 28).
`
`11.|Regarding claim 19, Seo et al in view of Uetabira disclose the display device of
`
`claim 18, wherein the second coupling layer is disposed between the sound generator
`
`and the frame (Seoet al; Para [00]; layer 75-2 is disposed between sound generator
`
`and frame 28).
`
`12.
`
`Regarding claim 20, Seo et al in view of Uetabira disclose the display device of
`
`claim 18, wherein the frame is in contact with the sound generator (Seo et al; Fig 13;
`
`Para [0158]).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/549,624
`Art Unit: 2651
`
`Page 5
`
`13.
`
`Claim 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seoet al
`
`(US 2015/0078604 A1) in view of Uetabira (US 2015/0034413 A1) and further in view of
`
`Park et al (US 2018/0288202 A1).
`
`14.
`
`Regarding claim 2, Seo et al in view of Uetabira disclose the display device of
`
`claim 1, but do not expressly disclose wherein the second coupling layer overlaps the
`
`sound generator in the thickness direction of the display panel. However, in the same
`
`field of endeavor, Park et al disclose a display device wherein the second coupling layer
`
`overlaps the sound generator in the thicknessdirection of the display panel (Parketal;
`
`Fig 3; layer 330 overlaps sound generator 310 in the thickness direction). It would have
`
`been obvious to one of the ordinaryskills in the art before the effectivefiling date of the
`
`invention to use the layer of taught by Park as layer in the display device taught by Seo
`
`et al because both disclosures teach vibration damping devices within display device.
`
`The motivation to do so would have been to output a sound having an excellent high
`
`sound characteristic (Park et al; Para [0055)).
`
`15.
`
`Claims 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo
`
`et al (US 2015/0078604 A1) in view of Uetabira (US 2015/0034413 A1) and further in
`
`view of Jenkins et al (US 2017/0242290 A1).
`
`16.
`
`Regarding claim 4, Seo et al in view of Uetabira disclose the display device of
`
`claim 1, but do not expressly disclose wherein the porous layer further comprisesa third
`
`coupling layer between the sound generator and the second coupling layer. However, in
`
`the same field of endeavor, Jenkins et al disclose a display device wherein the porous
`
`layer further comprises a third coupling layer between the sound generator and the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/549,624
`Art Unit: 2651
`
`Page 6
`
`second coupling layer (Jenkins et al; Fig 2; adhesive layer 126 is interpreted as third
`
`coupling layer). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before
`
`the effective filing date of the invention to use the layer of taught by Jenkins aslayer in
`
`the display device taught by Seo et al because both disclosures teach vibration
`
`damping devices within display device. The motivation to do so would have been to
`
`improve the transmission of the display panel.
`
`17.
`
`Regarding claim 5, Seo et al in view of Uetabira disclose the display device of
`
`claim 4, but do not expressly disclose wherein the third coupling layer does not overlap
`
`the sound generator in the thicknessdirection of the display panel. However, in the
`
`same field of endeavor, Jenkins et al disclose a display device wherein the third
`
`coupling layer does not overlap the sound generator in the thickness direction of the
`
`display panel (Jenkins et al; Fig 2; adhesive layer 126 is interpreted as third coupling
`
`layer). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the
`
`effectivefiling date of the invention to use the layer of taught by Jenkins as layer in the
`
`display device taught by Seo et al. The motivation to do so would have been to improve
`
`the utilization rate of the light of the of the display panel.
`
`18.
`
`Regarding claim 6, Seo et al in view of Uetabira disclose the display device of
`
`claim 4, but do not expressly disclose wherein a thicknessof the third coupling layer is
`
`smaller than a thickness of the intermediate layer. However, in the same field of
`
`endeavor, Jenkins et al disclose a display device wherein a thicknessof the third
`
`coupling layer is smaller than a thickness of the intermediate layer (Jenkins et al; Fig 2;
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/549,624
`Art Unit: 2651
`
`Page 7
`
`thickness of adhesive layer 126 is smaller than thickness of 114). It would have been
`
`obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the
`
`invention to use the layer of taught by Jenkins aslayer in the display device taught by
`
`Seo et al. The motivation to do so would have been to improve the reflection of the
`
`display panel.
`
`19.
`
`Regarding claim 7, Seo et al in view of Uetabira disclose the display device of
`
`claim 1, but do not expressly disclose wherein a sum of a thicknessof the first coupling
`
`layer and a thicknessof the intermediate layer is smaller than a thickness of the sound
`
`generator. However, in the same field of endeavor, Jenkins et al disclose a display
`
`device wherein a sum of a thicknessof the first coupling layer and a thicknessof the
`
`intermediate layer is smaller than a thickness of the sound generator (Jenkins etal; Fig
`
`2; thickness of adhesive layer 126 is smaller than thickness of 114). It would have been
`
`obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effectivefiling date of the
`
`invention to use the layer of taught by Jenkins as layer in the display device taught by
`
`Seo et al. The motivation to do so would have been to reduce the energy consumption
`
`of the display panel.
`
`20.
`
`Claim 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seoet
`
`al (US 2015/0078604 A1) in view of Uetabira (US 2015/0034413 A1) and further in view
`
`of Yoon et al (US 2019/0141450 A1).
`
`21.
`
`Regarding claim 10, Seo et al in view of Uetabira display device of claim 1,
`
`wherein a sum of a thickness of the porous layer is smaller than a thicknessof the
`
`sound generator. However, in the same field of endeavor, Yoon et al disclose a display
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/549,624
`Art Unit: 2651
`
`Page 8
`
`device wherein a sum of a thicknessof the first coupling layer and a thicknessof the
`
`intermediate layer is smaller than a thickness of the sound generator (Yoon etal; Fig
`
`15; sum of thickness of layer 120b and intermediate layer and layer 310b is smaller than
`
`thickness sound generator 220). It would have been obvious to one ofthe ordinary skills
`
`in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the layer of taught by
`
`Yoon aslayer in the display device taught by Seo et al. The motivation to do so would
`
`have been to reduce the energy consumption of the display panel.
`
`22.
`
`Claims 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo et
`
`al (US 2015/0078604 A1) in view of Uetabira (US 2015/0034413 A1) and further in view
`
`of Dehn et al (US 2020/0347200 A1)
`
`23.
`
`Regarding claim 11, Seo et al in view of Uetabira disclose the display device of
`
`claim 1, but do not expressly disclose wherein the porous layer has a porosity of 90%or
`
`more. However, Dehn et al disclose a cushion device comprising porous layer having a
`
`plurality of air pockets (Dehn et al; Para [0066]) wherein the porous layer has a porosity
`
`of 90% or more (Dehn et al; Para [0155]). It would have been obvious to one of the
`
`ordinaryskills in the art before the effectivefiling date of the invention to use the
`
`cushion gel taught by Dehn as cushion tapein the display device taught by Seo etal
`
`because both disclosures teach cushion devices device. The motivation to do so would
`
`have been to improve the attachment of the sounding unit to the other surfaces
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/549,624
`Art Unit: 2651
`
`Page 9
`
`24.
`
`Claims 12-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`Seo et al (US 2015/0078604 A1) in view of Uetabira (US 2015/0034413 A1) and further
`
`in view of Hori et al (US 2010/0219750 A1).
`
`25.
`
`Regarding claim 12, Seo et al in view of Uetabira disclose the display device of
`
`claim 1, but do not expressly disclose further comprising a shock-absorbing layer
`
`between the display panel and the porous layer. However, Hori et al disclose a display
`
`device further comprising a shock-absorbing layer between the display panel and the
`
`porous layer (Hori et al; Para [0041]; impact absorbing layer). It would have been
`
`obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effectivefiling date of the
`
`invention to use the porous layer taught by Hori as porous layer in the display device
`
`taught by Seoet al because both disclosures teach porous layers for display device.
`
`The motivation to do so would have been to improve the reduction of vibration
`
`transmission through the impact absorbing member.
`
`26.
`
`Regarding claim 13, Seo et al in view of Uetabira and further in view of Hori
`
`disclose the display device of claim 12, but do not expressly disclose wherein the
`
`shock-absorbing layer does not overlap the sound generator. Although, Hori et al
`
`disclose a shock absorbing layer, one of the ordinarysills in the art before the effective
`
`filing date of the application would not overlap the sound generator with shock
`
`absorbing layer because overlapping the sound generator with a shock absorbing layer
`
`would damp the vibration of the sound generator.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/549,624
`Art Unit: 2651
`
`Page 10
`
`27.
`
`Regarding claim 14, Seo et al in view of Uetabira and further in view of Hori
`
`disclose the display device of claim 12, wherein the shock-absorbing layer,the first
`
`coupling layer, and the intermediate layer surround side surfaces of the sound
`
`generator (Seoet al; Para [0074)).
`
`28.
`
`Regarding claim 15, Seo et al in view of Uetabira and further in view of Hori
`
`disclose the display device of claim 14, wherein the second coupling layer surrounds
`
`the side surfaces of the sound generator (Seoet al; Fig 15; layer 75-2 surround sound
`
`generator 27).
`
`29.
`
`Regarding claim 16, Seo et al in view of Uetabira and further in view of Hori
`
`disclose the display device of claim 14, but do not expressly disclose wherein a
`
`thickness of the sound generator is smaller than a sum of a thickness of the porous
`
`layer and a thickness of the shock-absorbing layer. However, Hori et al disclose a
`
`display device wherein a thickness of the sound generator is smaller than a sum of a
`
`thickness of the porous layer and a thickness of the shock-absorbing layer (Hori et al;
`
`Para [0041]; impact absorbing layer). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary
`
`skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the porous layer
`
`taught by Hori as porous layerin the display device taught by Seo et al because both
`
`disclosures teach porous layers for display device. The motivation to do so would have
`
`been to improve the reduction of vibration transmission through the impact absorbing
`
`member.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/549,624
`Art Unit: 2651
`
`Page 11
`
`30.
`
`Regarding claim 17, Seo et al in view of Uetabira and further in view of Hori
`
`disclose the display device of claim 14, wherein a thickness of the sound generator is
`
`substantially same as a sum of a thickness of the porous layer and a thickness of the
`
`shock-absorbing layer (Seo etal; Para [0106]).
`
`Conclusion
`
`31.—Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to KUASSI A GANMAVOwhosetelephone number is
`
`(571)270-5761. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM-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:/Awww.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
`
`If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's
`
`supervisor, Carolyn R Edwards can be reached on (571) 270-7136. 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:/Awww.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-
`
`center for more information about Patent Center and
`
`https:/Awww.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information aboutfiling in DOCX format. For
`
`additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/549,624
`Art Unit: 2651
`
`Page 12
`
`(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.
`
`/KUASSI A GANMAVO/
`Examiner, Art Unit 2651
`
`/CAROLYN R EDWARDS/
`Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2651
`
`