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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 23, 2026 has been entered.
This Office Action is also in response to applicant’s amendment filed on January 23, 2026, which has been entered into the file.
By this amendment, the applicant has amended claims 1 and 22 and has canceled claim 12.
Claims 1-7, 9-11, 13-16, 18, and 20-23 remain pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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-AIA ) 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.
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) 1-2, 4-7, 9-11, 13-16, and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the patent issued to Dolan et al (PN. 5,797,570) in view of the US patent issued to Grayson (PN. 7,089,696), patent issued to Fukuda (PN. 8,558,965) and US patent application publication by Gioco (US 2021/0317948 A1).
Claim 1 has been amended to necessitate the new grounds of rejections.
Dolan et al teaches, with regard to claim 1, a system for attaching a first article (12, Figure 1) serves as the display overlay to an electronic display (24) wherein the system comprises at least one bracket or holder (10) defined by an outer surface and an inner surface the bracket having an L-shape cross section comprising a first leg and a second leg, (17 and 16, Figure 1). Dolan et al teaches that the inner surface of the first leg (17) comprises an adhesive strip (13) serves as the first layer of adhesive, and a surface of the second leg (16) comprises a first attachment member (14).
This reference has met all the limitations of the claims. It however does not teach explicitly that the first layer of adhesive strip is on the inner surface of the first leg (17). Claim 1 also includes the phrase “at least one second attracting member comprises a second layer of pressure sensitive adhesive configured to adhere the second attracting member to an edge of the electronic display and wherein the first attracting member and the second attracting member are configured to connected to each other”.
Grayson in the same field of endeavor teaches a display system that is comprised of a frame (36/38, Figure 4) that has an L-shape for attaching an optical member (40) with a first leg and a second leg wherein a magnetic coupling member (50) with a first attracting member (52) is coupled to the inner surface of the second leg (36) and a second attracting member (54) that is coupled to the member (22, please see column 3, lines 5-28), wherein the first attracting member and the second attracting member are connected to each other, (please see Figure 4).
It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Grayson to modify the bracket of Dolan et al to alternatively use a pair of magnetic coupling member (52 and 54) that are connected to each other for the benefit of using magnetic arrangement to attach the overlay or cover member. Grayson also teaches that the inner surface of the first leg (38, Figure 4) of the L shape frame is contacting the optical member which means the first adhesive strip may alternatively be arranged at the inner surface of the first leg to attach the optical member alternatively in an arrangement at the inner side of the first leg of the bracket.
These references further fail to teach explicitly that the adhesive strips comprise pressure sensitive adhesive. Pressure sensitive adhesive is commonly known in the art to adhere different optical parts as explicitly demonstrated by Fukuda. Fukuda in Figure 5, teaches a pressure sensitive adhesive (12) is used to adhere a protective cover (12) to a surface of the attachment (10, please see column 12, liens 49-60). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Fukuda to use art well-known pressure sensitive adhesive as the adhesive strips for adhering and attaching the holder to the display.
Claim 1 has been amended to include the phrase “wherein the first attracting member is at least partially embedded in the second leg”. These references do not teach such arrangement explicitly.
Gioco in the same field of endeavor teaches a device of attaching screen protector to an electronic device that is comprised of a bracket having an “L” shape with a first leg and a second legs, (please see Figure 6) wherein a magnet (114) that is at least partially embedded in the second leg, (please see paragraph [0040] and Figures 1 and 6). It would then have been obvious to apply the teachings of Gioco to modify the arrangement of the magnetic attraction members to make one of the magnetic attraction member be at least partially embedded in the leg of the bracket for the benefit of allowing different arrangement and design for the attaching device to achieve the same attraction function.
With regard to claims 2, 4 and 5, Grayson teaches that the attraction means includes magnetic coupling member (50) which implicitly comprises magnet. It is known in the art that a typical magnet comprises ferromagnetic material. With regard to claim 5, although this reference does not teach explicitly to have the first attracting member comprises a rare-earth magnet and the second attracting member comprises ferromagnetic material, such modifications are considered obvious matters of design choices to one skilled in the art since both rare-earth magnet and ferromagnet are well known magnets in the art.
With regard to claims 6 and 7, Dolan et al teaches that the holder with the first and second legs (17 and 16) may comprise plastic, (please see column 3, lines 17-19). In light of the Greyson since the first leg (38, Figure 4) is placed in the front surface of the overlay, one skilled in the art would be motivated to use a clear plastic so that the screen information would not be blocked.
With regard to claim 9, Dolan et al teaches that the length of the second leg (16, Figure 1) is less than the length of the first leg (17).
With regard to claim 10, Dolan et al teaches that the length of the second leg (16) corresponds to the bezel length of a display.
With regard to claim 11, Dolan et al in light of Grayson teaches that the attracting member has a bar shape, (50, Figure 4 of Grayson).
With regard to claim 13, Dolan et al teaches two brackets or holders (10, Figure 1).
With regard to claims 14 and 15, Dolan et al the first article or overlay (12, Figure 1) may comprise a protective cover, (please see column 3, lines 62-63).
With regard to claim 16, Dolan et al in light of Grayson and Fukuda et al teaches that the first adhesive layer may be placed at the front major surface of the display overlay.
With regard to claim 18, Dolan et al in light of Grayson teaches that the second attracting member (54, Figure 4) may be coupled to the member (22) or the edge of the electronic display of Dolan et al. As shown in Figure 1 of Dolan et al the edge of the electronic display may be a top horizontal edge of the display.
With regard to claim 20, Grayson teaches that the first attraction member (52, Figure 4) is attached to the second attraction member (54). In light of Dolan et al, the first article (12, Figure 1) or the overlay has a back major surface adjacent to the viewing area of the display. This is achieved by the holder with the first and second attracting members.
With regard to claim 21, As shown in Figure 1 od Dolan et al, the display is a monitor (11, please see column 3, line 9), which is a desktop display.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dolan et al, Grayson, Fukuda and Gioco as applied to claim 1 and 2 above, and further in view of the US patent application publication by Forster et al (US 2012/0127211 A1).
The system for attaching overlays to an electronic display taught by Dolan et al in combination with the teachings of Grayson, Fukuda and Gioco as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claim.
With regard to claim 3, these references do not teach explicitly that the attracting member is a rare-earth magnet. Forster et al in the same field of endeavor teaches an attracting means for attaching optical member wherein the attracting means comprises rare-earth magnet, (please see Figure 1, paragraph [0024]). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings Forster et al to use an art well known rare-earth magnet as an alternative attracting means for attaching the overlay.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication by Gioco (US 2021/0317948 A1) in view of the patent issued to Fukuda (PN. 8,558,965).
Gioco teaches, with regard to claim 22, a system for attaching overlays or screen protector (28) to an electronic display (30, Figure 4) that is comprised of a display overlay or screen protector (28) and at least one straight bracket or attachment device (10) that the bracket is defined by a first major surface and a second major surface wherein the second surface comprises a magnet (16 or 22, Figure 2), in a portion of the second surface and an adhesive may be used to permanently attach the attachment device (10) to the protector, (please see Figure 3 and paragraph [0037]). This means the adhesive is applied at a different portion of the second major surface of the bracket. Gioco teaches that the adhesive is attached to the top of the front major surface of the display overlay, (please see Figures 3).
This reference has met all the limitations of the claims. It does not teach explicitly that the adhesive is a pressure sensitive adhesive. Pressure sensitive adhesive is commonly known in the art to adhere different optical parts as explicitly demonstrated by Fukuda. Fukuda in Figure 5, teaches a pressure sensitive adhesive (12) is used to adhere a protective cover (12) to a surface of the attachment (10, please see column 12, liens 49-60). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Fukuda to use art well-known pressure sensitive adhesive as the adhesive material for adhering and attaching the bracket to the major surface of the overlay.
Gioco teaches that the magnet and the adhesive are being located at different portions of the second surface of the overlap (28). This reference however do not teach explicitly about the magnet being in an upper half of the second surface of the overlay and the adhesive is being in a lower half of the second surface. But such arrangement is considered to be obvious matters of design choice to one skilled in the art.
Claim 22 has been amended to include the phrase “a magnet at least partially embedded in an upper half of the second major surface”.
Gioco teaches that the magnet may be at least partially embedded in the major surface of the bracket, (please see Figures 2 and 6).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gioco and Fukuda as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of US patent application publication by Aschauer et al (US 2019/0334891 A1).
The system to attaching overlays to an electronic display taught by Gioco in combination with the teachings of Fukuda as described in claim 22 above.
With regard to claim 23, as shown in Figure 4 of Gioco, the magnet may be attached to a front face of the top edge of a display. This reference however does not teach explicitly that the edge is a horizontal edge and the edge comprises a ferromagnet. Aschauer et al in the same field of endeavor teaches magnet (102c) may be attached to a horizontal edge of the display and the magnet comprises ferromagnet, (please see Figure 2 and paragraph [0035]). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Aschauer et al to modify the orientation of the bracket and to use art well known ferromagnet as the magnet.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 23, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The newly amended claims have been fully considered and they are rejected for the reasons set forth above.
The applicant’s arguments are mainly drawn to the newly amended feature that have been fully addressed in the reasons for rejection set forth above.
In response to applicant’s arguments concerning the rejection of claim 22, the applicant is respectfully noted that the location of the magnet is NOT considered to be a novel feature, rather it is considered to be an obvious design feature.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUDREY Y CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2309. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 9:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Stephone B Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
AUDREY Y. CHANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/AUDREY Y CHANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights