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 .
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, 4-12 and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller US 3797797 in view of Katz US 8770563.
PNG
media_image1.png
238
476
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Keller discloses a fabrication platform capable of being used for production lines of a display panel, comprising: a jig (see Fig. 2), wherein the jig is capable of carrying a glass substrate (workpiece, P) at a surface (10) of the jig, and a plurality of through-holes (15, 16) are defined in the jig; and an adsorption device (20), wherein the adsorption device comprises a plurality of suction pads (20) configured to be manually operated (via 30, col. 2, lines 25-51), the suction pads (20) are disposed on another surface (bottom of 10) of the jig and are in positional correspondence with the through-holes (15, 16, Fig. 2), wherein another surface of the jig faces away from the glass substrate, and the suction pads (20) are configured to absorb the glass substrate on the jig through the through-holes (col. 2, lines 52-64), and the plurality of suction pads are disposed corresponding with the plurality of through-holes (see Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image2.png
350
480
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Keller discloses suction pads (20) positioned under the plurality of through holes (15, 16) wherein the suction pads are actuated simultaneously by a lever arm assembly (30, Fig. 2-7). Keller does not specify wherein the plurality of suction pads are configured to be operated independently from each other so that internal pressure of each suction pad is controlled independently and wherein the plurality of suction pads are equal in number to the plurality of through-holes. However, it would have been obvious as a mere design consideration through routine engineering to modify the suction pads (20) to be manually operated by independent levers in order to provide suctions at specific spots on the jig surface. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to modify the plurality of through holes (15, 16) to individual through holes (see modified Fig.1 above) disposed above a plurality of suction pad or providing individual suction cups to each through hole as an alternative means of providing suction to the jig surface without departing from the scope of the invention as a mere duplication of parts or change in shape which would have no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In the instant case, the mere changes would produce predictable results of providing a suction force at specific spots on the jig surface by the user independently selecting a specific suction pad to actuate.
PNG
media_image3.png
570
718
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
220
466
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Keller does not further specify wherein the jig has a grooved structure, wherein the grooved structure comprises a recessed section and a protruding section, wherein the glass substrate is disposed in an interior of the grooved section and in contact with a surface of the recessed section. However, Katz teaches a fabrication platform (100, see Fig. 1) for holding a workpiece (108, 120) having a jig (102) with an adsorption device (104) wherein the jig is provided with a grooved structure having a recessed section and a protruding section (peripheral walls 112 forming the grooved structure) and wherein the workpiece (108) is disposed in an interior of the grooved structure and contacting a surface (106) of the recessed section. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the jig of Keller to include a grooved structure as taught by Katz in order to provide for maintaining and positioning the workpiece on the jig while being processed.
As for claim 4, the modified Keller teaches wherein a plurality of via-hole regions are defined on the jig, and the plurality of through-holes are defined in each of the via-hole regions.
PNG
media_image5.png
249
476
media_image5.png
Greyscale
As for claim 5, the modified Keller teaches wherein the plurality of through-holes in the via-hole regions are distributed evenly in the via- hole regions. As previously mentioned in the rejection of claim 1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide at least one through hole positioned above each suction cup and/or provide a suction cup for each through hole.
As for claim 6, the modified Keller teaches wherein the plurality of via-hole regions are distributed along edges of the jig (see Figs. 1 and 2, suction regions are near the edge of the jig 10).
As for claim 7, the modified Keller teaches wherein intervals between the plurality of via-hole regions are same (see Fig. 1 and 2).
As for claim 8, the modified Keller teaches two via-hole regions and further states there can be “any number of sets of openings” (col. 2, lines 12-14) but does not specify wherein a number of the via-hole regions is four, and the via-hole regions are distributed at positions of four corners of the jig. However, Kimble teaches at least 4 via-hole regions (30) distributed at corners of the jig (see Kimble, Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify and/or substitute the number of via-hole regions of Keller to four as taught by Kimble as an alternative to provide additional suction areas.
As for claim 9, the modified Keller teaches wherein a number of the via-hole regions is four (Kimble, 30), and the four via-hole regions are respectively defined at central positions of edges of the jig (see Kimble, Fig. 1). Kimble discloses at least 4 via-hole regions distributed at a central position of the jig (see Kimble, Fig. 1).
As for claim 10, the modified Keller teaches wherein the suction pads (20) are elastic (rubber, col. 2, lines 15-22).
As for claim 11, the modified Keller teaches wherein the suction pads are made of an elastic material (rubber, col. 2, lines 15-22).
As for claim 12, the modified Keller teaches wherein the elastic material is rubber, silica gel, or poly(vinyl fluoride) (rubber, col. 2, lines 15-22).
As for claim 15, the modified Keller teaches all the limitations as recited above and wherein the through-holes have a diameter but does not specify wherein a diameter of each of the via holes ranges from 0.1mm to 25mm. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the size of the diameter of the through-holes of Keller to the claimed sizes as the fabrication platform as claimed as the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and the device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device. (In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
As for claim 16, the modified Keller teaches wherein the suction pads completely cover the through-holes. Keller discloses wherein the suction pads (20) completely cover the through-holes (15, 16). As previously stated in the rejection of claim 1, it would have further been obvious to provide each individual through hole with a suction cup through a mere duplication of parts which would not change the overall function of the invention of providing a suction force to the plurality of through holes.
As for claim 17, the modified Keller teaches wherein areas of the suction pads are greater than or equal to cross sectional areas of the through-holes (see Keller, Fig. 2).
As for claim 18, the modified Keller teaches through-holes but does not specify wherein the plurality of through-holes are different in shape. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the shapes of the different through-holes of Keller through routine engineering to provide suction profiles for gripping different workpieces. Shapes could define different areas for different suction force exerted on a workpiece. Keller has “asterisk” (*) shaped regions that could also be circular regions (see Keller, Figs. 1-2).
As for claim 19, the modified Keller teaches through-holes but does not specify wherein the plurality of through holes are different in size. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the sizes of the through holes of Keller through routine engineering to provide different suction profiles for gripping different workpieces. Larger holes would exert a greater suction force versus a smaller hole as is commonly known.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 4-12 and 15-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYRONE V HALL JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5948. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 7:30am-3:30pm.
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, Monica Carter can be reached at (571) 272-4475. 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.
/TYRONE V HALL JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights