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 . 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of group I, claims 1-14, in the reply filed on 12/18/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claim 15 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Interpretation
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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) 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) 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) 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: a vertical drive part in claim 1, a horizontal drive part in claim 1, a release sheet guide in claim 10, a shock absorber in claim 14, and a sensor detection-aiding part in claim 14.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the vertical and horizontal drive parts are motors, actuators, and gear systems for moving the roller(s), the release sheet guide is a projecting column, the shock absorber is a fluid or magnetic element, and the aiding part is a magnet or electromagnet.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
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 CFR 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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-9, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (KR 10-2020-0139508) in view of Xie (CN 110722786) and Oh (US 2014/0377508).
Cho teaches a film attachment device for attaching a film (11) to an attachment object (12) such as an electronic device, the attachment device comprising: a support table (121) on which the attachment object is supported and fixed, a roller (131) configured to press the film onto the attachment object, a pressurizing part (132) which raises and lowers the roller in a vertical direction, a driving unit (133) which drives the roller in a longitudinal direction (See Figures; [0029]-[0037]; [0053]-[0055]). The film, attachment object/electronic device, support table, roller, pressurizing part, and driving unit of Cho read on the instantly claimed film, housing plate of an electronic apparatus, jig, roller, vertical drive part, and horizontal drive part, respectively.
Regarding the instantly claimed lifting/lowering plate and roller carriage, such elements are present in the disclosure of Cho as shown in the Figure below:
PNG
media_image1.png
461
922
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Cho teaches that the attachment object may include curved panels (See [0032]; [0078]) but does not provide details regarding such an embodiment. Consequently, Cho does not expressly disclose an electronic apparatus plate having a curved edge, wherein the jig is configured to seat and fix the housing plate with such a shape.
Xie teaches a bonding device for applying a film material (240) to a substrate (150) to form part of an electronic device casing, the bonding device comprising: a bonding base (200) having a shape to match a shape of the substrate which includes curved edge portions, and rollers (50,60) which press the film onto the substrate (See Figures; [0004]; [0052]-[0058]). The film material, substrate, and bonding base correspond to the film, attachment object, and support table of Cho, respectively.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the support table of Cho with a curved surface to accommodate an electronic device with curved edges. The rationale to do so would have been the motivation provided by the teaching of Xie that electronic products with curved edges on their casings are conventional in the art and predictably provide improvements in both user comfort and display functionality (See [0004]).
Cho and Xie do not expressly disclose an elastic member which is configured to allow the roller to move in a vertical direction with respect to a surface of the attachment object as claimed.
Oh teaches an apparatus for laminating a film layer (110), a protection layer (130), and a resin layer (120) to form a protective cover window for an electronic device, the apparatus comprising: a first fixing unit (451) which fixes the resin layer on a first moving unit (410) lamination roller (421) which is driven in multiple directions by a second driving unit (442) to apply pressure to the first moving unit and thereby laminate the cover window (See Fig. 4; [0078]-[0083]). The second driving unit corresponds to a roller carriage as claimed. Oh teaches that the second driving unit may include an elastic material or spring which acts on the lamination roller (See [0082]). The elastic material or spring each read on the instantly claimed elastic material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include an elastic material or spring on the roller carriage of Cho to act on the roller. The rationale to do so would have been the motivation provided by the teaching of Oh that to do so would predictably provide a restorative force for the roller (See [0082]).
Regarding claim 2, Xie teaches two rollers (50,60) which act on opposing curved edges (See Fig. 7 and its description). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include multiple rollers in the apparatus of Cho since Xie demonstrates that to do so would predictably allow for multiple curved edges to be laminated simultaneously, thereby improving process efficiency.
Regarding claim 3, Xie teaches that the rollers (50,60) have a radius less than a radius of curvature of a curved edge portion of the substrate (150) (See [0058]). Such a relationship predictably allows for the roller to gradually apply the film toward an edge of the substrate, which encourages smooth application without air inclusions.
Regarding claims 5-6, Examiner is taking official notice that it is well-known and conventional in the art to support a roller by a shaft (i.e. journal part) narrower than a main roller body which extends from each end of a roller with bearings on the shaft to allow for rotation. Such an arrangement is ubiquitous in the art such that it would be immediately obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to mount a roller on a shaft with bearings for rotation.
Regarding claim 8, Xie teaches rollers with a silicone material outer skin on a steel material shaft (See [0050]). The steel material shaft and silicone material outer skin read on the instantly claimed core part and elastic polymer material, respectively. Such an arrangement is known in the art to predictably provide a strong and durable roller with a softer surface which allows for a desired pressing force to be obtained while protecting pressed materials from damage.
Regarding claim 9, it is obvious to make elements of an apparatus separable if it is desirable for any reason to obtain access to such elements (See MPEP 2144.04). In this case, it would be desirable to remove the roller carriage from the lifting/lowering plate in order to perform routine maintenance such as cleaning or replacement of worn or damaged parts. Xie also teaches that rollers may need to be changed to accommodate different size substrates (See [0058]), which provides further motivation to couple the roller carriage to the lifting/lowering plate in a detachable manner as claimed.
Regarding claim 12, Cho teaches that the support table (121) is mounted above a stage moving unit (122) for movement (See Figures; [0033]-[0034]). The stage moving unit reads on the instantly claimed jig base positioned below the jig. Regarding the base and jig being detachable from one another, it is obvious to make elements of an apparatus separable if it is desirable for any reason to obtain access to such elements (See MPEP 2144.04). In this case, it would be desirable to separate the jig and base in order to perform routine maintenance such as cleaning or replacement of worn or damaged parts in addition to using different jigs to accommodate different electronic devices.
Regarding claim 13, Cho teaches that the support table is vertically slidable relative to the stage moving unit (See [0034]) and shows vertical rails between the support table and the stage moving unit in the figures. Such rails allow for vertical sliding motion of the support table into and out of contact with a lower side of the roller as claimed.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (KR 10-2020-0139508) in view of Xie (CN 110722786) and Oh (US 2014/0377508) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jeong (US 2023/0014521).
Cho, Xie, and Oh combine to teach a film attachment device for attaching a film to an attachment object such as an electronic device, as detailed above.
Cho, Xie, and Oh do not expressly disclose a release sheet guide on the support table which fits a corresponding hole and perforated line on a release sheet of the film.
Jeong teaches a display protector attachment apparatus (100) comprising a frame unit (110) which holds an electronic device, wherein the frame unit includes fixing pins (126) which extend upward from the frame unit and correspond to through holes (227) and incision lines (229) of a release film (212) of a protector film assembly (200) to fix the protector film assembly in a desired plane for application (See Figures; [0038]; [0042]-[0046]; [0050]-[0053]; [0065]-[0067]). The frame unit, fixing pins, release film, through holes, and incision lines of Jeong read on the instantly claimed jig, release sheet guide, release sheet, guide hole, and perforated line, respectively.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use fixing pins and corresponding holes in a release sheet in the film attachment device taught by the combination of Cho, Xie, and Oh in order to ensure proper alignment between the film and the attachment object while also preventing wrinkles or bubbles.
Examiner notes that Jeong teaches the release sheet with a guide hole and perforated line as recited in claims 10 and 11. However recitation of such elements in the claim describe a material worked upon by the apparatus rather than any component of the apparatus itself and does not impart patentability to the claims (See MPEP 2115).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 14 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. As of the date of this Office action, the Examiner has not identified any references which anticipate or render obvious all of the limitations of claims 7 and 14.
Regarding claim 7, the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest a film attachment apparatus as claimed, wherein the apparatus includes journal parts at ends of a roller in addition to a journal part positioned at a middle of the roller, wherein the roller also includes bearing cases corresponding to each of the journal parts. This configuration is most clearly shown in Fig. 5C of the instant application.
Regarding claim 14, the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest a film attachment apparatus as claimed, wherein the apparatus includes a shock absorber which absorbs kinetic energy from a sliding jig base, and wherein the apparatus further comprises a jig sensor which detects when the jig is inserted into engagement with the roller by recognizing a sensor detection-aiding part as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARSON GROSS whose telephone number is (571)270-7657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm Eastern.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571)270-5038. 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.
/CARSON GROSS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746