Application No.: 17/549 ,624
`Reply dated December 25, 2023
`Responseto Office Action of September 29, 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.
`
`Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`Claims 1, 3, 8, 9, and 18-20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being
`
`unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0078604, applied for by Seo, et
`
`al. (“Seo”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0034413, applied for by
`
`Uetabira (“Uetabira’). Applicant respectfully traverses this rejection for at least the following
`
`reasons.
`
`Thefollowing table lists the elements of Seo that are alleged as corresponding to the
`
`claimed elements. (See OA, p, 3).
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 1
`Seo
`
`
`Display device
`
`Display panel 70
`
`Sound generator
`Sound element 27
`
`
`First coupling layer
`
`First cushion tape 75-1
`
`Intermediate layer
`
`Resonator 76
`
`Second coupling layer
`Second cushion tape 75-2
`
`
`
`
`Seo discloses that each of the first cushion tape 75-1 and the second cushion tape 75-2
`
`includes a groove,in which the sound element 27 and the resonator 76 are formed,
`
`respectively. (See paragraph [0096]). This is clearly shown in FIG. 1 of Seo reproduced below,
`
`--5--
`
`
`Reply dated December 25, 2023
`Responseto Office Action of September 29, 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.
`
`Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`Claims 1, 3, 8, 9, and 18-20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being
`
`unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0078604, applied for by Seo, et
`
`al. (“Seo”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0034413, applied for by
`
`Uetabira (“Uetabira’). Applicant respectfully traverses this rejection for at least the following
`
`reasons.
`
`Thefollowing table lists the elements of Seo that are alleged as corresponding to the
`
`claimed elements. (See OA, p, 3).
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 1
`Seo
`
`
`Display device
`
`Display panel 70
`
`Sound generator
`Sound element 27
`
`
`First coupling layer
`
`First cushion tape 75-1
`
`Intermediate layer
`
`Resonator 76
`
`Second coupling layer
`Second cushion tape 75-2
`
`
`
`
`Seo discloses that each of the first cushion tape 75-1 and the second cushion tape 75-2
`
`includes a groove,in which the sound element 27 and the resonator 76 are formed,
`
`respectively. (See paragraph [0096]). This is clearly shown in FIG. 1 of Seo reproduced below,
`
`--5--
`
`
`
`Application No.: 17/549 ,624
`Reply dated December 25, 2023
`Responseto Office Action of September 29, 2023
`
`whereapartial area of the first cushion tape 75-1 of Seo is interposed between the sound
`
`element 27 and the display panel 70.
`
`
`
`<FIG. 1 of Seo>
`
`Assuch, Seofails to disclose or suggest that the alleged first coupling layer 75-1 does
`
`“not overlap the sound generatorin a thicknessdirection of the display panel” as required in
`
`claim 1, becausethefirst cushion tape 75-1 of Seo overlaps the sound element 27 ina
`
`thickness direction as necessarily being positioned between the sound element 27 and the
`
`display panel 70. (Emphasis added).
`
`In addition, as clearly shown in FIG. 2 of Seo, the entire resonator 76 overlaps the sound
`
`element 27. (See also FIG. 1) . As such, Seo also fails to disclose or suggest that the alleged
`
`intermediate layer 76 does “not overlap the sound generatorin a thickness direction of the
`
`display panel’ as required in claim 1, because the resonator 76 overlaps the sound element 27
`
`in a thickness direction as necessarily being positioned below the sound element27in its
`
`entirety. (Emphasis added).
`
`At least for these reasons, Seofail to disclose or suggest“the first coupling layer and the
`
`intermediate layer do not overlap the sound generator in a thicknessdirection of the display
`
`panel’, much less in the manner claimed. Uetabira fails to cure these deficiencies.
`
`--6--
`
`
`
`Application No.: 17/549 ,624
`Reply dated December 25, 2023
`Responseto Office Action of September 29, 2023
`
`Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`rejection of claim 1. Claims 3, 8, 9 and 18-20 dependfrom 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.
`
`Claim 2 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Seoin
`
`view of Uetabira and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0288202,
`
`applied for by Park, ef a/. (“Park”). Applicant respectfully traverses this rejection for at least the
`
`following reasons.
`
`Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 is allowable over Seo and Uetabira, and Park
`
`fails to cure the deficiencies of Seo and Uetabira noted above with regard to claim 1. Hence,
`
`claim 2 is allowable at least because claim 2 depends from an allowable claim 1.
`
`Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection
`
`of claim 2.
`
`Claims 4-7 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over
`
`Seoin view of Uetabira and further in 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 Seo and Uetabira, and
`
`Jenkins fails to cure the deficiencies of Seo and Uetabira noted above with 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.
`
`--7--
`
`
`
`Application No.: 17/549 ,624
`Reply dated December 25, 2023
`Responseto Office Action of September 29, 2023
`
`Claim 10 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Seo
`
`in view of Uetabira and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0141450,
`
`applied for by Yoon, et a/. (“Yoon”). Applicant respectfully traverses this rejection for at least the
`
`following reasons.
`
`Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 is allowable over Seo and Uetabira, and Yoon
`
`fails to cure the deficiencies of Seo and Uetabira noted above with regard to claim 1. Hence,
`
`claim 10 is allowable at least because claim 10 depends from an allowable claim 1.
`
`Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection
`
`of claim 10.
`
`Claim 11 wasrejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Seo
`
`in view of Uetabira and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0347200,
`
`applied for by Dehn, et al. (“Dehn”). Applicant respectfully traverses this rejection for at least
`
`the following reasons.
`
`Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 is allowable over Seo and Uetabira, and Dehn
`
`fails to cure the deficiencies of Seo and Uetabira noted above with regard to claim 1. Hence,
`
`claim 11 is allowable at least because claim 11 depends from an allowable claim 1.
`
`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
`
`Seoin view of Uetabira and further in 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.
`
`--8--
`
`
`
`Application No.: 17/549 ,624
`Reply dated December 25, 2023
`Responseto Office Action of September 29, 2023
`
`Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 is allowable over Seo and Uetabira, and Hori
`
`fails to cure the deficiencies of Seo and Uetabira noted above with 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.
`
`--9.-
`
`
`
`Application No.: 17/549 ,624
`Reply dated December 25, 2023
`Responseto Office Action of September 29, 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: December 25, 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
`
`--10--
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
