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 .
Request for Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 11/11/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims, the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Hara in view of Nam
Claims 1 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 5282420 A (“Hara”) in view of JP 6882563 B2 (“Nam”) (citations are to the machine translation filed 04/03/2025).
Hara pertains to a cleaning tool for cleaning surfaces (Abstr.; Figs. 1-6). Nam pertains to an apparatus for manufacturing electronic components (Fig. 1; ¶¶ 0002-0007). These references are in the same field of endeavor, which includes cleaning tools for electronic display surfaces (Spec. ¶¶ 0004-0005).
Regarding claim 1, Hara discloses an apparatus for manufacturing a display device comprising a cover window including a first area curved with a first curvature and extending in a first direction from a center area of the cover window and located at an edge of the cover window (Figs. 1-5, apparatus 1 is a cleaning tool, and is capable of cleaning a display device with a curved cover window as recited during a manufacturing process; Examiner notes that “display device” is not positively claimed and this limitation includes a recitation of intended use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“It is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable.”); MPEP § 2111.02(II)),
the apparatus comprising:
a pad comprising a first portion of a curved region on a lower side, wherein the first portion of the pad has a curvature identical to the first curvature of the first area of the cover window of the display device (Figs. 1-5, pad 4 (embodiment of Fig. 5) with a first portion of the curved region on the lower side (at reference C), which has a curvature, and is capable of cleaning a surface with the same curvature, including a curved edge of a display cover window (4:42-56); Examiner notes that the display device and its features (as recited in the preamble, including “a first area curved with a first curvature and extending in a first direction from a center area of the cover window and located at an edge of the cover window”) are not positively claimed and that this limitation includes a recitation of intended use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“It is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable.”); MPEP § 2111.02(II)).
Hara does not explicitly disclose a stage. However, the Hara/Nam combination makes obvious this claim.
Nam discloses an apparatus for manufacturing a display device (Fig. 1; ¶¶ 0002-0007), the apparatus comprising:
a stage (Fig. 1, stage 110);
a pad comprising a first portion of a curved region on a lower side, wherein the first portion has a curvature (Fig. 1, pad 130 has a first portion of the curved region on a lower side (at reference 133), which has a curvature),
a first curvature of a first area of a cover window of the display device extending in a first direction from a center area of the cover window (Fig. 1, cover window W has a first area W1 with a first curvature that extends in a first direction from a center area W2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Nam with Hara by adding a stage to the apparatus of Hara. This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because a stage is useful for holding a workpiece (e.g., a display device) in place while performing an operation (e.g., cleaning) with the Hara apparatus 1) (Nam ¶ 0040, “The stage 110 is configured to support the cover window W...The stage 110 may include a vacuum suction hole (not shown) for vacuum-sucking and fixing the cover window W.”).
Examiner notes that Applicant has not positively claimed the display device and its features (as recited in the preamble, including “a first area curved with a first curvature and extending in a first direction from a center area of the cover window and located at an edge of the cover window”), and the curvature of the first portion of the pad is based on an unspecified “first curvature” of “a first area” of “a cover window” of an unspecified “display device”. This limitation is very broad and would depend on the reference display device (nevertheless, Nam discloses a display device having a curved cover window). Other than being identical to this “first curvature”, Applicant has provided no dimensions or measurements for the curvature of the first portion of the pad. Accordingly, this pad curvature arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 7, the Hara/Nam combination makes obvious the apparatus of claim 1 as applied above. Hara further discloses a pushing driver which moves the pad toward the cover window disposed on the stage (Figs. 1-5; 3:20-32, the cleaning apparatus is moved towards a workpiece to be cleaned by an actuator (movement in the directions a, b), which would be located on the stage as modified by Nam; Examiner notes that this limitation includes a recitation of intended use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“It is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable.”); MPEP § 2111.02(II)).
Regarding claim 8, the Hara/Nam combination makes obvious the apparatus of claim 7 as applied above. Hara discloses a microfiber between the pad and the stage (Figs. 1-5; microfiber cloth 40, which in use would be located between pad 4 and the stage as modified by Nam).
Hara in view of Nam and Bushaw
Claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 5282420 A (“Hara”) in view of JP 6882563 B2 (“Nam”) (citations are to the machine translation filed 04/03/2025) and US 20190217343 A1 (“Bushaw”).
Hara pertains to a cleaning tool for cleaning surfaces (Abstr.; Figs. 1-6). Nam pertains to an apparatus for manufacturing electronic components (Fig. 1; ¶¶ 0002-0007). Bushaw pertains to a cleaning tool for electronic components (Abstr.; Figs. 1A-D; ¶ 0003). These references are in the same field of endeavor, which includes cleaning tools for electronic display surfaces (Spec. ¶¶ 0004-0005).
Regarding claim 2, the Hara/Nam combination makes obvious the apparatus of claim 1 as applied above. Hara and Nam do not explicitly disclose wherein the pad further comprises a second portion of the curved region on the lower side, and the second portion has a curvature identical to a second curvature of a second area of the cover window extending in a second direction crossing with the first direction from the center area of the cover window and located at the edge of the cover window. However, the Hara/Nam/Bushaw combination makes obvious this claim.
Bushaw discloses:
a pad comprising a first portion of a curved region on a lower side, wherein the first portion has a curvature (Figs. 1A-D, pad 106 with a first portion of the curved region on a lower side, which has a curvature (curvature of lower left and lower right corners of pad 112 in Fig. 1C)),
wherein the pad further comprises a second portion of the curved region on the lower side, and the second portion has a curvature identical to a second curvature of a second area of the cover window extending in a second direction crossing with the first direction from the center area of the cover window and located at the edge of the cover window (Figs. 1A-D, pad 106 with a second portion of the curved region on a lower side, which has a curvature (curvature of lower left and lower right corners of pad 112 in Fig. 1D), and is capable of cleaning a surface with the same curvature, including a curved edge of a display cover window, where the direction of the first portion’s curvature is perpendicular to (and crosses with) the direction of the second portion’s curvature; Examiner interprets the limitation “the second portion has a curvature” to not require the “curvature” to be the same as the “curvature” of the first portion (of claim 1). Examiner notes that the limitation “a second curvature of a second area of a cover window”) is not positively claimed and that this limitation includes a recitation of intended use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“It is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable.”); MPEP § 2111.02(II)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Bushaw with the Hara/Nam combination by modifying the pad 4 of Hara to have the shape (with the dual-directional curvatures) as taught by Bushaw. This would have been obvious because this curved shape is more efficient in cleaning different surfaces, such as different curved surfaces of a display device (Bushaw ¶ 0201, “The rounded edge 208 may be advantageous to wipe larger surface areas, such as a computer screen, a smart phone screen, other large surfaces, and the like.”).
Examiner notes that Applicant has not positively claimed the display device and its features (including “a second curvature of a second area of the cover window extending in a second direction crossing with the first direction from the center area of the cover window and located at the edge of the cover window”), but the curvature of the second portion of the pad is based on an unspecified “second curvature” of “a second area of the cover window”. This limitation is very broad and would depend on the reference display device. Other than being identical to this “second curvature”, Applicant has provided no dimensions or measurements for the curvature of the second portion of the pad. Accordingly, this pad curvature arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 3, the Hara/Nam/Bushaw combination makes obvious the apparatus of claim 2 as applied above. Bushaw further discloses wherein the pad has a first width in the first direction and a second width in the second direction (Figs. 1A-D, pad 112 has a first width in the first direction (as shown in Fig. 1C) and a second width in the second direction (as shown in Fig. 1D).
The obviousness rationale is the same as for claim 2.
Regarding claim 4, the Hara/Nam/Bushaw combination makes obvious the apparatus of claim 3 as applied above. Bushaw further discloses wherein the first width is twice a radius of curvature of the first curvature of the first area of the cover window (Figs. 1A-D, 37G; ¶ 0285, the first width of pad 112 (left-right direction as shown) is twice a radius of curvature of the first curvature of the first area of the cover window (e.g., where the radius of the spherical pad 106 is identical to the radius of curvature of the first curvature); Examiner notes that the limitation “a radius of curvature of the first curvature of the first area of the cover window” is not positively claimed and that this limitation includes a recitation of intended use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“It is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable.”); MPEP § 2111.02(II)).
The obviousness rationale is the same as for claim 3, with the addition that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to further modify the Hara/Nam/Bushaw combination by modifying the pad to have the claimed geometry as taught by Bushaw. This would have been obvious because this curved shape is more efficient in cleaning different surfaces, such as different curved surfaces of a display device (Bushaw ¶ 0201, “The rounded edge 208 may be advantageous to wipe larger surface areas, such as a computer screen, a smart phone screen, other large surfaces, and the like.”).
Examiner notes that Applicant has not positively claimed the display device and its features (including “a radius of curvature of the first curvature of the first area of the cover window”), but the first width of the pad is based on an unspecified “radius of curvature” of the “first area of the cover window”. This limitation is very broad and would depend on the reference display device. Further, absent a teaching as to criticality of this pad geometry as claimed, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to this particular arrangement (see Spec. ¶ 0075). In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 5, the Hara/Nam/Bushaw combination makes obvious the apparatus of claim 4 as applied above. Bushaw further discloses wherein the cover window has a first length in the second direction, and the second width is identical to the first length (Figs. 1A-D, 37G; ¶ 0285, the second width of pad 112 (in-out direction as shown) has a first length; Examiner notes that the limitation “wherein the cover window has a first length in the second direction” is not positively claimed and that this limitation includes a recitation of intended use (pertaining to the display device). A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“It is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable.”); MPEP § 2111.02(II)).
The obviousness rationale is the same as for claim 4.
Regarding claim 6, the Hara/Nam/Bushaw combination makes obvious the apparatus of claim 2 as applied above. Bushaw further discloses wherein the first curvature and the second curvature are different from each other (Figs. 1A-D, pad 112 has first portion’s curvature (curvature of lower left and lower right corners of pad 112 in Fig. 1C) that is different from the second portion’s curvature (curvature of lower left and lower right corners of pad 112 in Fig. 1D). Examiner notes that this limitation is not positively claimed and that this limitation includes a recitation of intended use (pertaining to the display device). A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“It is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable.”); MPEP § 2111.02(II)).
The obviousness rationale is the same as for claim 4.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendment and remarks have been considered. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 9-20 have been withdrawn from further consideration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention. Claims 1-8 are rejected.
Specification – The objection to the specification is hereby withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the proposed Hara/Nam combination does not render obvious claim 1 (Reply at 7-8), Applicant relies on the recitation of intended use in the preamble relating to the target display device’s curved cover window. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“It is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable.”); MPEP § 2111.02(II). As discussed above, the Hara/Nam combination meets all of the elements of claim 1, and the proposed Hara/Nam combination is capable of cleaning a display device having a curved cover window as recited during a manufacturing process.
Further, Applicant mischaracterizes Nam and improperly emphasizes the lack of a teaching, suggestion, or motivation pertaining to cleaning a display device having a curved cover window as recited (Reply at 7-8). First, Applicant should note that Nam discloses the use of a stage 110 for the manufacturing of a display device having a curved cover window W as recited (Nam Fig. 1; ¶ 0040). Second, the Hara device discloses the remaining elements recited in claim 1 and is capable of cleaning a curved cover window as recited (which has unspecified dimensions). Finally, the combination of the Hara cleaning device (e.g., as shown in Fig. 5) with the Nam stage 110 would have been an obvious combination to clean a display device having a cover curved window (i.e., the Nam stage serves as a workholder during the cleaning process). Applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references relies on an incorrect understanding of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by overemphasis on the explicit content of the cited references. The question is not whether a combination was obvious to the inventor or Applicant but whether the combination was obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application. Applicant’s argument fails because Applicant confounds the question of obviousness and neglects the KSR standard for a person of ordinary skill, which is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007). Under the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at that time and addressed by the application can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed. KSR, 550 U.S. at 420-21; MPEP § 2145(X)(C).
Applicant does not present any further arguments concerning the remaining claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENT N SHUM whose telephone number is (703)756-1435. The examiner can normally be reached 1230-2230 EASTERN TIME M-TH.
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 S 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.
/KENT N SHUM/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723