DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/13/2025 has been entered.
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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 7-9, 11-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas et al. (US 2004/0246386) in view of Hager (US 4,979,619) and Chou et al. (US 2021/0229339).
Regarding claim 1, Thomas teaches an apparatus and a method for protecting an information display screen from scratches and damaging contaminants, such as oils, dirt and grime (“a protector”) (Paragraph [0002]). The apparatus, which may be formed from any electronic device or display screen, includes an assembly formed from a transparent removable backing (“a substrate”) and a transparent overlay sheet (“a first sheet of a first material supported by the substrate, the first sheet of a material configured to be removed from the substrate and to be coupled to a casing for a collectable”) (Paragraph [0033]-[0034]; [0048]; Fig. 2B). Thomas further teaches the information display screens, while being mostly electronic devices, as being any screen which displays graphic images or text for viewing by a user (Paragraph [0004]).
Thomas is silent with respect to the protecting means being configured to be coupled to a casing for a trading card.
Hager teaches cases for protective long-term storage of sports cards which may be stacked and interlocked (Col. 3, Line 4-Col. 4, Line 20). The cases are designed to be able to be provided in a reviewable display (Col. 4, Lines 18-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to configure the protective apparatus of Thomas to be designed to protect the trading card cases of Hager such that the apparatus of Thomas is designed to protect graphics or text displays and Hager teaches a display system for trading cards.
The backing sheet may further include a sizing grid allows for the assembly to be sized to the appropriate screen and figure 3D illustrates the cutting of the assembly (“wherein the first sheet includes at least one of a first perforation or a first cut.”) (Paragraph [0035]-[0036]-Fig. 3A-3D).
Thomas is silent with respect to the transparent overlay sheet further including a tab configured to facilitate removal of the transparent overlay sheet from the transparent backing.
Chou teaches a method for applying a screen protector to a mobile device (Paragraph [0002]). The application method includes tabs attached to the screen protector which assist in removal of a film from a respective surface of the screen protector (Paragraph [0023]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the transparent overlay sheet to further include a tab allowing for removal of the overlay sheet from the backing as taught by Chou.
Regarding claim 2, Thomas teaches the assembly as discussed above with respect to claim 1. The transparent overlay sheet may be formed from a plastic (Paragraph [0034]).
Regarding claim 3, Thomas teaches the assembly as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, the assembly may be applied to any known electronic device or screen, including the casings of Hager (“wherein the first sheet has a first length and a first width that corresponds to a length and a width of the casing”) (Fig. 3A).
Regarding claim 7, Thomas teaches the assemblies as discussed above with respect to claim 3. The backing sheet may further include a sizing grid allows for the assembly to be sized to the appropriate screen and figure 3D illustrates the cutting of the assembly (“wherein the first sheet includes at least one of a first perforation or a first cut, the at least one of the first perforation or the first cut at least partially enclosing a first protective area having a second length and a second width.”) (Paragraph [0035]-[0036]-Fig. 3A-3D).
Regarding claim 8, Thomas teaches the assemblies as discussed above with respect to claim 3. As discussed above, the backing sheet may further include a sizing grid allows for the assembly to be sized to the appropriate display and figure 3D illustrates the cutting of the assembly which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as resulting in a second length and width being less than the first length and width.
Regarding claim 9, Thomas teaches the assemblies as discussed above with respect to claim 7. As discussed above, the backing sheet may further include a sizing grid allows for the assembly to be sized to the appropriate display and figure 3D illustrates the cutting of the assembly which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as resulting in a second length and width being less than the first length and width and the second lengths and width resulting in a slab.
Regarding claims 11-12, Thomas teaches the assemblies as discussed above with respect to claim 7. Thomas further teaches the assemblies being sized in order to accommodate varying electronic device sizes such as portable DVD players and cell phones which one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate as resulting in a third length and width (DVD players) which is different from the second length and width (cell phones).
Regarding claim 14, Thomas teaches the assembly as discussed above with respect to claim 1. The transparent overlay sheet may be formed from a plastic (Paragraph [0034]).
Claims 16-18, 21-23 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas et al. (US 2004/0246386) in view of Hager (US 4,979,619), Chou et al. (US 2021/0229339) and Mase (US 2015/0218419).
Regarding claim 16, Thomas teaches an apparatus and a method for protecting an information display screen from scratches and damaging contaminants, such as oils, dirt and grime (“a protector”) (Paragraph [0002]). The apparatus, which may be formed from any electronic device or display screen, includes an assembly formed from a transparent removable backing (“a substrate”) and a transparent overlay sheet (“a first sheet of a first material supported by the substrate, the first sheet of a material configured to be removed from the substrate and to be coupled to a casing for a collectable”) (Paragraph [0033]-[0034]; [0048]; Fig. 2B). The backing sheet may include a sizing grid allows for the assembly to be sized to the appropriate screen (“a first template having a body including at least one surface configured to guide an instrument to facilitate cutting the protector”) (Paragraph [0035]-[0036]-Fig. 3A-3D).
Thomas is silent with respect to the protecting means being configured to be coupled to a casing for a trading card.
Hager teaches cases for protective long-term storage of sports cards which may be stacked and interlocked (Col. 3, Line 4-Col. 4, Line 20). The cases are designed to be able to be provided in a reviewable display (Col. 4, Lines 18-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to configure the protective apparatus of Thomas to be designed to protect the trading card cases of Hager such that the apparatus of Thomas is designed to protect graphics or text displays and Hager teaches a display system for trading cards.
As discussed above, the removable backing includes a sizing grid allowing for the materials to be cut to the appropriate size for the screen wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the gridlines would be a guide extending through the body from one side to the other (“wherein the body of the template defines a first guide extending through the body from a first side to a second side, the guide including the at least one surface”) (Fig. 1; Fig. 3).
Thomas is silent with respect to the transparent overlay sheet further including a tab configured to facilitate removal of the transparent overlay sheet from the transparent backing.
Chou teaches a method for applying a screen protector to a mobile device (Paragraph [0002]). The application method includes tabs attached to the screen protector which assist in removal of a film from a respective surface of the screen protector (Paragraph [0023]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the transparent overlay sheet to further include a tab allowing for removal of the overlay sheet from the backing as taught by Chou.
Thomas is silent with respect to the transparent backing layer further including one or more interruptions, the one or more interruptions coupling together an inner wall and an outer wall of the transparent backing layer.
Mase teaches a protective film including an adhesive layer equipped film and a separator attached to the film which has a guide groove serving as a guide for separating the separator (Paragraph [0009]). The guide grooves allow for easy cutting and separating of the separator from the film (Paragraphs [0009]-[0012]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the transparent backing with guide grooves for easy cutting of the shape of the transparent backing and overlay layers and for easy removal of the transparent backing layer from the transparent overlay layer as taught by Mase. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the grooves would be characterized as an interruption which couples an inner wall and the outer wall as required by the claim.
Regarding claim 17, Thomas teaches the assembly as discussed above with respect to claim 16. As discussed above, the removable backing includes a sizing grid allowing for the materials to be cut to the appropriate size for the screen wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the outermost areas of the grid are the outer periphery and the gridlines allowing the assembly to be cut to size is an inner periphery corresponding to the protection area (“wherein the body of the template includes an outer periphery and an inner periphery, at least one of the outer periphery and the inner periphery including the at least one surface and having dimensions corresponding to a dimension of an area to be protected on a casing”).
Regarding claim 18, Thomas teaches the assembly as discussed above with respect to claim 17. As discussed above, the assemblies are used to protect the cases as taught by Hager, which includes a slab area as shown in figure 1.
Regarding claim 21, Thomas teaches the assembly as discussed above with respect to claim 16. The gridlines are used to cut the assembly to the appropriate size (“wherein the guide at least partially encloses a first protective area having a first length and a first width”).
Regarding claim 22, Thomas teaches the assembly as discussed above with respect to claim 21. The gridlines are used to cut the assembly to the appropriate size (“wherein the first length corresponds to a length of a first area of the casing to be protected and the first width corresponds to a width of the first area of the casing to be protected”).
Regarding claim 23, Thomas teaches the assemblies as discussed above with respect to claim 22. As discussed above, the backing sheet may further include a sizing grid allows for the assembly to be sized to the appropriate screen and figure 3D illustrates the cutting of the assembly which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as resulting in a second length and width being less than the first length and width and the second lengths and width resulting in a slab.
Regarding claims 25-26, Thomas teaches the assemblies as discussed above with respect to claim 21. Thomas further teaches the assemblies being sized in order to accommodate varying electronic device sizes such as portable DVD players and cell phones which one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate as resulting in a second protective area (DVD players) which is different from the first (cell phones).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-8, filed 11/13/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
On pages 6-8, applicant argues that Thomas fails to teach the transparent backing layer having a first perforation as required by the claim. Instead, Thomas only teaches the transparent backing layer having a grid which is printed facilitating sizing the transparent overlay layer and the cutting along these grid lines extends fully through the transparent overlay sheet and not partially.
The examiner is unpersuaded by applicant’s arguments such that in the operation of cutting the transparent overlay and transparent backing layers, the cutting operation may be done with scissors or a knife (Paragraph [0042]). In this operation, the scissors must first partially trim the overlay to the desired size resulting in the perforation partially extending through the transparent overlay sheet. Furthermore, the end use of the transparent overlay sheet is to be fully trimmed in order to be applied to the device which is to be protected, similar to that of applicant’s invention. As such, the examiner contends that Thomas ultimately teaches the transparent overlay sheet including at least one perforation partially extending through the sheet.
Applicant further argues that the amendment requiring a tab configured for removal of the first sheet from the substrate is not taught by any of the references.
The examiner concedes that neither Thomas nor Hager teaches a tab configured for removal of the first sheet from the substrate as now required by the claim. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in further view of Chou as discussed above with respect to the 35 U.S.C 103 rejection of claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-9, filed 11/13/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
On pages 8-9, applicant argues that the amendments to claim 16 including requiring a tab configured for removal of the first sheet from the substrate and wherein the first guide defines one or more interruptions, the one or more interruptions coupling together an inner wall and an outer wall of the first guide is not taught by any of the cited references. Specifically, Thomas fails to teach the tab and Pederson fails to teach the interruptions coupling together an inner wall and an outer wall.
The examiner concedes in that none of the cited references teaches the amendments to claim 16. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in further view of Chou and Mase as discussed above with respect to the 35 U.S.C 103 rejection of claim 16.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL P DILLON whose telephone number is (571)270-5657. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 8 AM to 5 PM.
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, MARIA V EWALD can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/DANIEL P DILLON/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783