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 of Species B (claims 1-5, 7-12) in the reply filed on 2/9/26 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)).
Thus, claim 6 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species A, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse dated 2/9/26.
An OA on the merits of claims 1-5, 7-12 as following:
Priority
Since the related parent application under the title ¶ [0001] has been matured into a patent, therefore after the application should be inserted of: --", now US patent No. 11991834 issued on October 26, 2020” --.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: -- “Press Apparatus” --.
Abstract in claim formats and should be updated to reflect the claimed “apparatus”. Applicant should replace the transition term “comprises:” or “includes:” terms with the term –“has”—or-- “having”--, to provide the abstract with proper language. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b). Further, the last line of the abstract directed to method of operation should be deleted.
“guide pine” (see ¶ [0086] of the spec.]) should be changed to: --“guide pin” --.
Further, the lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 1-5, 7-12 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. In this instant application, the scope of the claims clearly directed to an “apparatus” as represented in line 1-2 of claim 1, however claims also directed to the outside elements of a “display device” following each of the press structure elements includes the terms or phrases (e.g., to support, to fix, to press, etc., see lines 2, 3, 5, 7) is/are considered functionally intended use associated with the outside structural elements of the “display device” which do not further limit the claimed apparatus and has not considered at this point of time since the claims directed to an apparatus but not the combination between the apparatus and the outside elements of the display device.
In formulate the rejection on the merits the Examiner presumes that the claims directed solely on the “press apparatus” and its structural elements, and claims will be rejected accordingly.
Claims 2-5, 7-12 also rejected for same rationale as indicated above in claim 1, because above claims directed to the outside elements of the “display device entity” which does not further limit the structure of the claimed “press apparatus” which made scope of the claim unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-12 as best understood is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Choi (20160219695) and/or in an alternatively, above claim(s) as best understood is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Jung et al (KR 20150134848).
Choi discloses the claimed press apparatus (see Figs. 3-6, entirely) comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
351
843
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a stage 210 to support a first substrate and a second substrate of a display device 110 (see Fig. 3);
a guide pin to fix a flexible printed circuit board connected with the first substrate onto the second substrate (see reproduced of Fig. 6 below);
PNG
media_image2.png
319
373
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a press member 221/222 to press first pad electrodes of the flexible printed circuit board and second pad electrodes of the second substrate (see Fig. 3); and
a press jig 220 to press a pad electrode-free area of the flexible printed circuit board 120 (see Figs. 3-6, respectively).
Therefore, the Choi anticipated every aspect structural limitation of the claimed press apparatus.
Limitations of claims 2-5 and 9-12 are also met by the Choi reference since above claims lacking of structure limitations of the claimed “press apparatus” and no inventive structure features when departing from the Choi reference and common general knowledge without exercising any inventive skills.
As Per claim 1, If argued that the Choi does not teach wherein the guide pin configured to fix a flexible printed circuit board connected with the first substrate onto the second substrate. Then applicant(s) refers to Figs. 1-2 of the JUNG et al (see Fig. 2 as marked up below, which depicts such above).
PNG
media_image3.png
289
357
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to employ the JUNG et al’ teaching as noted above onto the Choi invention in order to form the device which meets manufacturing shape requirement with very little effort, facilitate operation would result.
The Choi as relied upon above further discloses, regarding,
Claim 8, wherein the press jig is shiftable in a direction vertical to the stage or is shiftable in a direction parallel to the stage (see Fig. 6 of the Choi for the teaching of press jig 222 is shiftable in a direction vertical to the stage 210).
Claim 9, wherein the press jig is contactable with the pad electrode-free area, and then is shiftable toward the first substrate, is also met by the Choi since no inventive structure existed in this claim.
Limitations of claims 10-12, wherein the stage supports a third substrate disposed under the first substrate, and wherein the third substrate is connected with a fourth substrate including a driving circuit, and that as in claims 11-12 is/are considered to meet or satisfied by the Choi, since no inventive structure existed in these claims (see Figs. 3-6 of the Choi).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MINH N TRINH whose telephone number is (571)272-4569. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH ~5:00-3:30.
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, Thomas J Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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.
/MINH N TRINH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729 mt
Prosecution Insights