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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-14, in the reply filed on 08 June 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claims 2-3, it is noted that the term “controller” is not being used in accordance with its conventional meaning. This does not create any issues of clarity, but rather is only discussed here for emphasis of the claim interpretation. A controller is normally interpreted as a device which can be programmed or otherwise configured to interact with sensors and/or apparatus structural components to perform various functions. However, that is not how the claimed term “controller” is described in the specification. As described in paragraphs 45, 62 and 217-218 of Applicant’s published application, the claimed controller is acting as a translation stage. While not explicitly used in Applicant’s disclosure, the term “translation stage” is generally known in the art as the name for a broad class of movable stage structures which allow translation of the stage in one or more directions. A translation stage (or table) may also be called an X stage (or table), an XY stage (or table), or an XYZ stage (or table), respectively corresponding to directions in which the stage may move. When read in light of the disclosure, the person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood the “controller” to be a translation stage. Accordingly, “controller” is interpreted in the claims as a translation stage.
Regarding claims 10 and 12, it is noted that the alignment camera of claim 1, the first camera part of claim 10 and the second camera part of claim 12 are disclosed as distinct camera structures. See Applicant’s Figures 1, 3 and 11B which illustrate the alignment camera ACM, the first camera part CMP1 and the second camera part CMP2. In light of the disclosure, there is no issue of clarity with respect to the use of these terms. They have been interpreted as distinct camera structures.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
i. Claims 1, 9 and 11-12, “pressing part”, which has been interpreted as a pick and place head, or equivalents thereof. See Applicant’s published application (paragraph 135; Figures 11A-F). While “pick and place head” is not explicitly recited in the disclosure, the disclosed pressing part is illustrated and described as a structural member which absorbs, translates and disposes a component in a desired location. Such a structure is commonly called a pick and place head in the related art.
ii. Claim 4, “spectrum part”, which has been interpreted as the combination of a light emitter and a prism lens, or equivalents thereof. The examiner’s position here is that “spectrum” indicates the function of providing a spectrum of light and “part” is a generic placeholder. See Applicant’s published application (paragraph 112).
iii. Claim 4, “adjusting part”, which has been interpreted as the combination of a shaft and gears, or equivalents thereof. See Applicant’s published application (paragraphs 87 and 90; Figure 3).
iv. Claims 5-8, “transmission part”, which has been interpreted as a light transmissive structure. See Applicant’s published application (paragraphs 206 and 215-216; Figures 11E,F).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Additional claim limitations not interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) may be listed here for clarity of the claim interpretation. Such claim limitations are:
v. Claims 2, 6, 9 and 11-12, “data driver”, which has not been interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) because, in this art, a driver is understood as the name for a broad class of structures which drive a display panel.
vi. Claim 4, “barrel part”, which has not been interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) in view of the structural modifier “barrel”.
vii. Claims 5 and 8, “adsorption part”, which has not been interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) in view of the recited adsorption hole structure.
viii. Claims 10 and 12, “first camera part” and “second camera part”, which have not been interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) in view of the structural modifier “camera”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Objections
Claims 13-14 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claims 13-14, “align camera” should be --alignment camera-- to use consistent claim terminology and thereby improve claim readability.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 4, line 5, it is unclear if the recited camera is referencing the previously recited alignment camera of parent claim 1. Similarly, in lines 8-9, it is unclear if “the camera” is referencing the alignment camera of parent claim 1 or the camera of claim 4. The examiner suggests more clearly referencing the previously recited alignment camera.
Regarding claim 5, it is unclear what is meant by the transmission part being disposed on the alignment camera. As seen in Applicant’s Figures 1 and 11A, transmission part TRT is disposed on first flat plate portion FR1 which is disposed on second flat plate portion FR2 which is disposed on second cover CV2. The second cover CV2 is not disclosed as being part of alignment camera AGM (having imaging parts CHP). Accordingly, the transmission part is not disclosed as being disposed on the alignment camera, rather it is disposed over the alignment camera.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Onitsuka (US 5501004).
Regarding claim 1, Onitsuka teaches a bonding apparatus (Abstract) comprising a first stage 1 on which a display panel comprising a first mark may be disposed (Figure 1; column 3, lines 31-50); a pressing part (40) disposed above the first stage and capable of providing a data driver comprising a second mark on the display panel (Figure 1; column 4, lines 33-44; column 1, lines 9-20); and an alignment camera (120, 121, 122) disposed below the first stage (Figures 1 and 8-13), wherein, when the data driver is provided on the display panel such that the data driver and the display panel are connected to each other, the alignment camera is configured to capture images of the first mark and the second mark at a same temporal instance (Figures 14-16; column 7, lines 22-31). It is noted that the claimed apparatus is not limited to recited functions or method steps, nor is the claimed apparatus limited to recited material worked upon, but rather is only limited to structure implied by such limitations. See MPEP 2114, 2115. Accordingly, claim 1 does not require the claimed first and second marks, since these are provided on the material worked upon. Alternatively, the electrodes 9 and the conductive leads L satisfy the respective first and second marks and are capable of being captured in images at the same time as clearly seen in Figures 14-16 and described at column 7, lines 11-43.
Regarding claim 2, Onitsuka teaches a controller (2,3) disposed below the first stage, wherein a plane of the first stage is defined by a first direction and a second direction crossing the first direction, and when the data driver and the display panel are connected to each other, the controller is configured to move the first stage in at least one direction of the first direction, the second direction, or a third direction crossing the plane (Figures 1 and 11-16; column 3, lines 31-44; column 7, lines 11-31; column 8, lines 1-8). As noted above in the claim interpretation section, the controller has been interpreted as a translation stage.
Regarding claim 3, Onitsuka teaches the controller is configured to move the first stage based on a position of the first mark, which is imaged by the alignment camera, and a position of the second mark, which is imaged by the alignment camera. This limitation is only directed to the controller. The recited functions of basing movement on positions of the first and second marks does not distinguish the controller structure over Onitsuka since the controller structure of Onitsuka is clearly capable of movement to align a data driver and display panel. As noted above in the claim interpretation section, the controller has been interpreted as a translation stage, not a programable or otherwise configurable “controller”, i.e. the claimed “controller” is not being used in accordance with the typical meaning of this term.
Regarding claim 13, Onitsuka teaches the align camera is provided in plurality, and wherein each of the plurality of alignment cameras overlaps a corresponding edge of edges of the display panel (Figures 1, 8-9 and 13).
Regarding claim 14, Onitsuka teaches the align camera is provided in plurality, and wherein each of the plurality of alignment cameras overlaps a corresponding side of sides of the display panel (Figures 1, 8-9 and 13).
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.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onitsuka as applied to claims 1-3 and 13-14 above, and further in view of Sato (US 5205460) and Hida (US 2012/0320290 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Onitsuka recites the first stage may comprise holding means such as vacuum suction equipment to hold the display panel (column 6, lines 50-54), but does not recite the claimed adsorption holes. However, such adsorption holes, satisfied by vacuum holes, are known for providing the desired suction force for holding on a stage. See Sato (column 2, line 67 to column 3, line 3). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide this limitation in Onitsuka because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide suitable known structure of vacuum holding, as suggested by the teachings of Sato. Onitsuka also does not teach a transmission part arranged with the adsorption part in a first direction and disposed on (or over) the alignment camera. As noted above, it is unclear what is meant by disposed on the alignment camera. Here, this limitation has been interpreted as disposed over the alignment camera in the event this was Applicant’s intention. In the related art of alignment and bonding, Hida suggests transparent transmission part 50 disposed over an alignment camera and arranged in a first direction with a supporting stage part for holding a substrate (Figure 3; paragraphs 84-90). The transmission part supports the substrate while allowing the alignment camera to image the bonded substrates to provide desired alignment. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide this limitation in Onitsuka because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to suitably support the display panel substrate of Onitsuka while still allowing the alignment camera to perform its function, as evidenced by the teachings of Hida.
Regarding claim 6, this intended method of using the apparatus does not distinguish over the modified apparatus of Onitsuka. In any event, Hida, as applied above, clearly suggests viewing the overlapped substrates through the transmission part to provide both support and alignment. In such an arrangement, aligning marks would naturally overlap the transmission part.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onitsuka in view of Sato and Hida as applied to claims 5-6 above, and further in view of Kim (KR 2010-0070814 A, referencing attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 7, Onitsuka does not teach the alignment camera is configured to transmit near-infrared rays toward the transmission part and capture images of the first mark and the second mark based on the transmitted near-infrared rays. In particular, Onitsuka does not recite a near-IR camera as the alignment camera. In the art of using a camera for aligning a display panel and driver for bonding, Kim suggests the use of such a near-IR camera for providing the desired alignment (page 2, lines 1-22; page 3, lines 1-4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide this limitation in the modified apparatus of Onitsuka because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a known suitable alignment camera, as suggested by the teachings of Kim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 9-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claims 4, 8 and 9, the closest prior art of record has been applied above. In combination with the claimed limitations, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest the additional combined limitations of claim 4, claim 8 or claim 9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A TOLIN whose telephone number is (571)272-8633. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 am - 6 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, Phillip C. Tucker can be reached at (571) 272-1095. 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.
/MICHAEL A TOLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights