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 8/10/2026 is acknowledged.
Prior Art of Record
The applicant's attention is directed to additional pertinent prior art cited in the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited, which, however, may not be currently applied as a basis for the following rejections. While these references were considered during the examination of this application and are deemed relevant to the claimed subject matter, they are not presently being applied as a basis for rejection in this Office action. The pertinence of these documents, however, may be revisited, and they may be applied in subsequent Office actions, particularly in light of any amendments or further clarification of the claimed invention.
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) 1-5 and 6-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20210118810 A1).
CLAIM 1. Kim teaches a display device manufacturing apparatus comprising:
a stage 160, on which a display panel (workpiece fig. 1a) including a front surface, which is a light-emitting surface, and a rear surface opposed to the front surface is provided in a way such that the rear surface is exposed (The recited and described work piece does not provide any non-obvious structural distinction over the apparatus.); and
a jig provided on the rear surface of the display panel on the stage, wherein a jig opening corresponding to the display panel (workpiece) is defined in the jig (Kim, Fig. 1a-b),
PNG
media_image1.png
576
682
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
540
598
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the jig includes a jig body in which the jig opening, is defined by an inner side surface thereof, wherein the jig body has a size smaller than a size of the display panel (Kim, Fig. 1a-b), a support part 160 coupled to the jig body, disposed above the jig opening, and crossing the jig opening, and a block 162 coupled to the support part and disposed inside the jig opening (Kim, Fig. 1a-b).
Regarding the recitation of a "display panel" (and the corresponding front light-emitting surface and rear surface thereof), the claimed "display panel" constitutes a workpiece or material worked upon by the apparatus. Under MPEP § 2115 (Material or Article Worked Upon by Apparatus), the inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to an apparatus claim. The structural limitations of the apparatus, specifically the stage, jig body, jig opening, support part, and suspended block, operate in an identical physical manner regardless of the specific composition, functional classification, or intended use of the underlying workpiece (e.g., whether the workpiece is a display panel or a semiconductor substrate/interposer carrying integrated circuits). Kim explicitly discloses an overmolding and manufacturing apparatus comprising a stage, a jig body with an opening, a cross support part, and a suspended block arranged over a workpiece (Kim, Fig. 1a-b).
It would have been obvious to a POSITA at the time the invention was made to utilize Kim’s apparatus to hold, position, and process a display panel as the workpiece on the stage. Overmolding jigs, masking tools, and stencil fixtures are art-independent manufacturing tools routinely employed across the mechanical and microelectronic fabrication arts to selectively apply molded or deposited materials over target surface areas. Under MPEP § 2143(A) (Combining known elements according to known methods to yield predictable results) and MPEP § 2144.04 (Common Knowledge or Well-Known Prior Art), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Kim’s suspended block operates under standard physical masking and damming principles, acting as a physical barrier directly over defined interior regions of the workpiece where material application is to be inhibited, while exposing adjacent regions through the jig opening. Motivation to adapt or apply Kim’s apparatus to a display panel workpiece arises from the well-known manufacturing requirement to selectively mold or apply surface layers over delicate substrates while masking off functional interior zones (such as camera or sensor apertures) to protect them from material coverage, thereby achieving precise localized molding without adding structural complexity to the tooling assembly.
CLAIM 2. Kim teaches the display device manufacturing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the support part crosses the jig opening along a direction in which a width of the jig opening is relatively short (Kim Figs. 1a-d – The limitation is subjective, not providing any further clear structural distinction.).
CLAIM 3. Kim teaches the display device manufacturing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the support part comprises: a support body overlapping the jig opening and crossing the jig opening; and terminal portions extending from opposing ends of the support body, and coupled to the jig body (Kim Figs. 1a-d).
CLAIM 4. Kim teaches the display device manufacturing apparatus of claim 3, however is silent upon wherein a coupling groove is defined in an upper surface of the jig body, and the terminal portions of the support part are detachably coupled to the coupling grooves.
However, providing one or a plurality of coupling/alignment grooves in the upper surface of a frame or jig body to detachably seat and mate structural cross-members (such as the terminal portions of support part 160) was a well-known structural joining technique in the art of mechanical tool and fixture design (MPEP § 2144.04).
One of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) at the time of the invention would have recognized that forming complementary coupling grooves on the jig body to detachably receive the ends of a cross-support member represents a routine design choice among a finite number of known mechanical joining mechanisms (MPEP § 2143.01).
A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate a plurality of such coupling grooves on the upper surface of Kim's jig body in order to:
Facilitate Modular Assembly & Maintenance: Enable easy removal, replacement, or cleaning of the bridge/support part (160) and suspended block (162) without discarding the entire jig body.
Provide Adjustable/Repeatable Positioning: Allow the support member to reliably key or lock into designated alignment positions across the jig opening, ensuring structural stability and precise registration during manufacturing operations.
The modification of Kim to include a plurality of coupling grooves on the upper surface of the jig body for detachable coupling yields nothing more than predictable mechanical alignment and modularity, which represents the predictable result of combining known structural elements according to known mechanical methods (MPEP § 2143(A)).
CLAIM 5. Kim teaches the display device manufacturing apparatus of claim 4, however is silent upon wherein the coupling groove is defined in plurality, and the terminal portions of the support part are detachably coupled to two corresponding coupling grooves among a plurality of coupling grooves.
However, providing one or a plurality of coupling/alignment grooves in the upper surface of a frame or jig body to detachably seat and mate structural cross-members (such as the terminal portions of support part 160) was a well-known structural joining technique in the art of mechanical tool and fixture design (MPEP § 2144.04).
One of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) at the time of the invention would have recognized that forming complementary coupling grooves on the jig body to detachably receive the ends of a cross-support member represents a routine design choice among a finite number of known mechanical joining mechanisms (MPEP § 2143.01).
A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate a plurality of such coupling grooves on the upper surface of Kim's jig body in order to:
Facilitate Modular Assembly & Maintenance: Enable easy removal, replacement, or cleaning of the bridge/support part (160) and suspended block (162) without discarding the entire jig body.
Provide Adjustable/Repeatable Positioning: Allow the support member to reliably key or lock into designated alignment positions across the jig opening, ensuring structural stability and precise registration during manufacturing operations.
The modification of Kim to include a plurality of coupling grooves on the upper surface of the jig body for detachable coupling yields nothing more than predictable mechanical alignment and modularity, which represents the predictable result of combining known structural elements according to known mechanical methods (MPEP § 2143(A)).
CLAIM 7. Kim teaches the display device manufacturing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the support part is provided in plurality, the block is provided in plurality, and at least one of a plurality of blocks is coupled to each of a plurality of support parts (Kim Figs. 1a-d- While Kim may not explicitly show a plurality of individual support and individual blocks, providing a plurality of support pars and blocks across a jig opening to accommodate a specific workpiece layout represents a routine design choice and result-effective variable optimization in mechanical tooling. A PHOSITA at the time of the invention would have recognized that the specific number, size, shape and arrangement of support parts and masking blocks are result-effective variables that are routinely varied depending on the physical geometry and masking requirements of the target workpiece. A PHOSITA would have been motivated to modify Kim to incorporate a plurality of support parts and corresponding blocks in order to simultaneously mask or support multiple discrete interior zones across the surface of a workpiece during molding operations , thereby achieving predictable physical masking across multiple target locations without altering the fundamental operating principle of the jig.).
CLAIM 8. Kim teaches the display device manufacturing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the support part crosses the jig opening along a direction in which a width of the jig opening is relatively long (Kim Figs. 1a-d – The limitation is subjective, not providing any further clear structural distinction.).
CLAIM 9. Kim teaches the display device manufacturing apparatus of claim 1, wherein a lower surface of the jig body and a lower surface of the block are disposed on a same plane (Kim Figs. 1a-d).
CLAIM 10. Kim teaches the display device manufacturing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the support part and the block are detachably coupled to each other (Kim Figs. 1a-d).
CLAIM 11. Kim teaches the display device manufacturing apparatus of claim 10, however may be silent upon wherein a plurality of support coupling grooves are defined in the support part along an extending direction of the support part, and the block is detachably coupled to at least one of the plurality of support coupling grooves (Kim Figs. 1a-d).
However, providing one or a plurality of coupling/alignment grooves in the upper surface of a frame or jig body to detachably seat and mate structural cross-members (such as the terminal portions of support part 160) was a well-known structural joining technique in the art of mechanical tool and fixture design (MPEP § 2144.04).
One of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) at the time of the invention would have recognized that forming complementary coupling grooves on the jig body to detachably receive the ends of a cross-support member represents a routine design choice among a finite number of known mechanical joining mechanisms (MPEP § 2143.01).
A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate a plurality of such coupling grooves on the upper surface of Kim's jig body in order to:
Facilitate Modular Assembly & Maintenance: Enable easy removal, replacement, or cleaning of the bridge/support part (160) and suspended block (162) without discarding the entire jig body.
Provide Adjustable/Repeatable Positioning: Allow the support member to reliably key or lock into designated alignment positions across the jig opening, ensuring structural stability and precise registration during manufacturing operations.
The modification of Kim to include a plurality of coupling grooves on the upper surface of the jig body for detachable coupling yields nothing more than predictable mechanical alignment and modularity, which represents the predictable result of combining known structural elements according to known mechanical methods (MPEP § 2143(A)).
CLAIM 12. Kim teaches the display device manufacturing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the display panel comprises a signal transmission region overlapping an electronic module disposed on the rear surface, and a non-transmission region adjacent to the signal transmission region, and the block is disposed in a position corresponding to the signal transmission region (Details of the workpiece do not provide structural distinction to an apparatus claim. It is a obvious that a PHOSITA may retool overholding jigs to match design constraints of a workpiece.).
CLAIM 13. Kim teaches the display device manufacturing apparatus of claim 1, wherein a thickness of the block is equal to or greater than a thickness of the jig body (Kim Figs. 1a-d – Selecting the relative thickness of the block to be equal to or greater than the thickness of the jig body represents a routine design choice an result effective variable optimization depending on the masking depth required for a specific workpiece, MPEP §2144.04)..
CLAIM 14. Kim teaches the display device manufacturing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the block has a width which is constant along a thickness direction (Kim Figs. 1a-d – Forming the block with a constant width along its thickness direction represents a conventional geometric design choice to ensure uniform structural masking across the depth of the workpiece, MPEP §2144.04).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20210118810 A1) in view of Kasai et al. (US 20160189985 A1)
CLAIM 6. Kim et al. teaches the display device manufacturing apparatus of claim 1, however is silent upon further comprising: a coating layer disposed on the inner side surface of the jig body and on an outer side surface of the block.
While Kim discloses a release layer beneath the workpiece, it is silent regarding a release layer that lines the jig opening to facilitate the easy release of the molding material. However, at the time of the invention, providing release layers on all contacting surfaces of an overmolding tool was well-known and conventional in the art.
This conventional practice is demonstrated in Kasai et al. (see Figs. 6–9), which teaches using a release layer 30 to release molding material from a jig. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Kim’s overmolding tool to include Kasai's lining release layer. This modification represents the mere application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, which is a established rationale for obviousness under KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JARRETT J STARK whose telephone number is (571)272-6005. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4 M-F.
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, Jessica Manno can be reached at 571-272-2339. 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.
JARRETT J. STARK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2822
9/2/2026
/JARRETT J STARK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights