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 .
Summary
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-20 are rejected herein. This is a First Action on the Merits.
Claim Suggestions
Regarding claims 3, 13, and 20: Each of these claims recites “a rotating member including a first rotating member and a second rotating member” and then goes on to further specify the structure of the first rotating member and the second rotating member. The Examiner recommends removing “a rotating member including” because the only structure that is recited as a part of the rotating member is the first rotating member and the second rotating member. Therefore the first and second rotating members can more simply be introduced as stand-alone structures instead of both being recited as part of the rotating member.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 11 and 14 objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 11: Change “position of the apparatus” to --position on the apparatus-- because the hit body is being dropped onto some location on the surface of the display apparatus.
Regarding claim 14: On line 3, change “third direction” to --third axis--.
Regarding claim 20: In the last two lines, change “guide a hit body on a desired position of the display apparatus” to --guide a hit body to a desired position on the display apparatus--.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 12 is/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 2: Claim 2 recites “wherein the display apparatus includes a flat area and curved area.” The display apparatus is not within the scope of claim 1 and this geometric limitation is so broad, that it is unclear what structural limitations this language places on the testing apparatus of claim 1.
Regarding claims 2 and 12: Claim 2 recites “the second axis rotates around the first axis.” This does not make sense. When a coordinate system is defined as it is in claim 1, the axes are fixed. Components may rotate around an axis, but it does not make sense to speak of an axis rotating around another axis. This language appears in claim 12 as well.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection I, a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Regarding claim 2: The scope of claim 2 is indefinite (see 112b rejection above), however, as best understood, it only appears to contain a limitation on a structure (display apparatus) that is not within the scope of the parent claim and then specify a geometric property of the coordinate system used to describe the apparatus in the claims. Therefore claim 2 does not appear to further limit the subject matter of claim 1. Therefore claim 2 appears to be in improper dependent form.
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, 7-15, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM (US 20230204453) in view of CHOI et al. (KR 20080031081) and ZHANG et al. (CN 103728190). Please note that machine translations of CHOI and ZHANG have been provided with this office action. All references to text in CHOI and ZHANG are to the attached machine translations.
Regarding claims 1, 4, 7, 8, and 10: KIM discloses: A testing apparatus (TD in FIG. 2) for a display apparatus, the testing apparatus comprising: a base (the unnamed base that SP1 and SP2 are sitting on in FIG. 2); a hit unit (all of the structure of SPV as well as all the structure that supports it including HG1, HG2 and HZG) mounted on the base (FIG. 2) to translate in a first direction, a second direction, and a third direction perpendicular to each other (As discussed in para. 69-71, the structures supporting SPV can move it in three perpendicular directions designated DR1, DR2, and DR3 in FIG. 2.); and a pad unit (stage ST) mounted on the base (FIG. 2), wherein the display apparatus (TO) is disposed on the pad unit (FIG. 2). Please note that the display apparatus is not within the scope of claim 1. It is only “a testing apparatus for a display apparatus.”
KIM does not disclose a pad unit that can be rotated.
CHOI however does teach a pad unit (adjusting unit 40 in FIG. 2) that can rotate around a first axis and a second axis (using ball joint 41), wherein the first axis is perpendicular to an upper surface of the base, and the second axis is perpendicular to the first axis (Ball 412 freely rotates in socket 411 as shown in FIG. 2 and discussed on page 3 lines 1-16.). CHOI also teaches an angle fixing unit in the form of a securing screw (413 in FIG. 2), thus meeting the limitations of claim 7. CHOI also teaches a fixing unit mounted on the pad unit to fixedly attach the display apparatus to the pad unit together (specimen fixing clamp 424 in FIG. 3; page 3 lines 20-30), thus meeting the limitations of claim 8. CHOI also shows in FIGS. 2 and 3 that the clamps 424 make a concave portion between them (best seen in FIG. 2) such they overlap an edge of the specimen being tested, thus meeting the limitations of claim 10.
It is recognized in the art of impact drop tests that objects may need to be tested at multiple tilt angles instead of the object being tested just sitting directly under the dropped weight as discussed on page 1 lines 19-41 of ZHANG. However the solution of ZHANG only tilts the object-under-test in one dimension. Therefore one skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to use the more sophisticated adjusting unit of CHOI (40 in FIG. 2 of CHOI) so that the object being tested can be accurately positioned at different rotational angles about all three axes (Ball 412 freely rotates in socket 411 as shown in FIG. 2 and discussed on page 3 lines 1-16 of CHOI.) with means to confirm accurate positioning (page 3 lines 24-44 of CHOI), and then lock the adjusting unit in place (page 3 lines 20-40 of CHOI), thus allowing for more precise and repeatable impact drop tests. Please note that this combination will allow the pad unit that is mounted on the base to be rotatable around the first axis, the second axis, and a third axis and, the third axis is perpendicular to the second axis and extends in a different direction than the first axis, thus meeting the limitations of claim 4.
Regarding claims 2 and 12: As best understood, KIM discloses: the display apparatus includes a flat area and a curved area, and the second axis rotates around the first axis (This is a statement of intended use and does not appear to limit the apparatus because the display apparatus is not within the scope of claim 1. Please note however that FIG. 1B shows a foldable display device with a curved area where reference character AR2 is pointing and flat areas elsewhere.).
Regarding claims 3 and 13: CHOI further teaches a support member attached to the base (socket 411 in FIG. 2); and a rotating member (ball 412 in FIG. 2), the rotating member is rotatable with respect to the base (Ball 412 freely rotates in socket 411 as shown in FIG. 2 and discussed on page 3 lines 1-16 of CHOI.), and wherein the pad unit is disposed on the rotating member (specimen fixing part 42 in FIGS. 2 and 4). Please note that CHOI does not teach a first and second rotating member because a ball and socket joint is capable of rotating around all three axes with only a single moving component. Similar motion is possible with multiple moving links (e.g. a universal joint) and one skilled in the art would be capable of using any available mechanical linkage to get the desired freedom of movement from the assembly.
Regarding claims 5 and 15: As discussed in the rejection of claim 1, CHOI teaches a socket unit (411 in FIG. 2); and a sphere unit (412 in FIG. 2) partially arranged in the socket unit and rotating around the second axis and the third axis (page 3 lines 1-16 of CHOI), wherein the pad unit (specimen fixing part 42 in FIGS. 2 and 4) is disposed on the sphere unit (FIGS. 2 and 4). Please note that the socket 411 does not rotate with respect to the base as component 127-2 does in FIG. 11 of the present application. That is because a ball and socket joint already has freedom of rotation about all three axes. Furthermore, the ball and socket joint in FIGS. 2 and 4 of CHOI has completely unconstrained rotation about the vertical axis (DR3 in FIG. 11 of the present application) just as 127-3 does in the present application, and the ability of 127-2 to rotate about DR3 (“socket unit rotating around the first axis with respect to the base”) provides no additional freedom of movement or positioning ability for the pad unit. Therefore this additional rotational joint constitutes an Obvious Duplication of Parts (see MPEP 2144.04 VI B), unless it can be shown that this extra rotational joint provides any benefit, functionality, or new and unexpected result to the invention.
Regarding claims 9 and 19: KIM discloses: a hit body arranged to drop toward the display apparatus along a gravity direction (falling body SC in FIG. 8B; para. 79).
Regarding claim 11, 14, 17, and 18: KIM discloses: A testing method for a display apparatus (abstract; para. 3), the testing method comprising: mounting the display apparatus (display device DD in FIG. 1A, which is test object TO in FIG. 2) on a testing apparatus (TD in FIG. 2) for the display apparatus; and dropping a hit body (SC in FIG. 8B; para. 79) on a desired position of the display apparatus (careful positioning is discussed in para. 73-76), wherein the testing apparatus includes: a base (the unnamed base that SP1 and SP2 are sitting on in FIG. 2); a hit unit mounted on the base (all of the structure of SPV as well as all the structure that supports it including HG1, HG2 and HZG) to translate in a first direction, a second direction, and a third direction perpendicular to each other (As discussed in para. 69-71, the structures supporting SPV can move it in three perpendicular directions designated DR1, DR2, and DR3 in FIG. 2.); and a pad unit (stage ST) mounted on the base (FIG. 2), and wherein the display apparatus is disposed on the pad unit (FIG. 2).
KIM does not disclose a pad unit that can be rotated.
CHOI however does teach a pad unit (adjusting unit 40 in FIG. 2) that can rotate around a first axis and a second axis (using ball joint 41), wherein the first axis is perpendicular to an upper surface of the base, and the second axis is perpendicular to the first axis (Ball 412 freely rotates in socket 411 as shown in FIG. 2 and discussed on page 3 lines 1-16.). CHOI also teaches an angle fixing unit in the form of a securing screw (413 in FIG. 2), thus meeting the limitations of claims 17. CHOI also teaches a fixing unit mounted on the pad unit to fixedly attach the display apparatus to the pad unit together (specimen fixing clamp 424 in FIG. 3; page 3 lines 20-30), thus meeting the limitations of claim 18.
It is recognized in the art of impact drop tests that objects may need to be tested at multiple tilt angles instead of the object being tested just sitting directly under the dropped weight as discussed on page 1 lines 19-41 of ZHANG. However the solution of ZHANG only tilts the object being tested in one dimension. Therefore one skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to use the more sophisticated adjusting unit of CHOI (40 in FIG. 2 of CHOI) so that the object being tested can be accurately positioned at different rotational angles about all three axes (Ball 412 freely rotates in socket 411 as shown in FIG. 2 and discussed on page 3 lines 1-16 of CHOI.) with means to confirm accurate positioning (page 3 lines 24-44), and then lock the adjusting unit in place (page 3 lines 20-40), thus allowing for more precise and repeatable impact drop tests. Please note that this combination will allow the pad unit is mounted on the base to be rotatable around the first axis, the second axis, and a third axis and, the third axis being perpendicular to the second axis and extends in a different direction than the first axis, thus meeting the limitations of claim 14.
Regarding claim 20: KIM discloses: A testing apparatus (TD in FIG. 2) for a display apparatus, the testing apparatus comprising: a base (the unnamed base that SP1 and SP2 are sitting on in FIG. 2); first support members (SP1 and SP2) fixedly attached to the base (FIG. 2); second support members (HG1 and HG2) movably attached to the first support members (FIG. 2) to translate along a first direction (para. 81); a hit unit (all of the structure of SPV as well as all the structure that supports it including HG1, HG2 and HZG) movably attached to the second support members to translate along a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (para. 67-69); and a pad unit (stage ST), and the hit unit is configured to guide a hit body (SC in FIG. 8B) on a desired position of the display apparatus along a third direction which is perpendicular to the first and second directions (positioning is discussed in para. 77-79).
KIM does not disclose a pad unit that can be rotated.
CHOI however does teach a pad unit (adjusting unit 40 in FIG. 2) that can rotate around a first axis and a second axis (using ball joint 41), wherein the first axis is perpendicular to an upper surface of the base, and the second axis is perpendicular to the first axis (Ball 412 freely rotates in socket 411 as shown in FIG. 2 and discussed on page 3 lines 1-16.).
It is recognized in the art of impact drop tests that objects may need to be tested at multiple tilt angles instead of the object being tested just sitting directly under the dropped weight as discussed on page 1 lines 19-41 of ZHANG. However the solution of ZHANG only tilts the object being tested in one dimension. Therefore one skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to use the more sophisticated adjusting unit of CHOI (40 in FIG. 2 of CHOI) so that the object being tested can be accurately positioned at different rotational angles about all three axes (Ball 412 freely rotates in socket 411 as shown in FIG. 2 and discussed on page 3 lines 1-16 of CHOI.) with means to confirm accurate positioning (page 3 lines 24-44), and then lock the adjusting unit in place (page 3 lines 20-40), thus allowing for more precise and repeatable impact drop tests. Please note that this combination will allow the pad unit being mounted on the base to be rotatable around the first axis, the second axis, and a third axis and, the third axis being perpendicular to the second axis and extends in a different direction than the first axis.
Claim(s) 6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM, CHOI, and ZHANG in view of LAMBERG (US 654010)
Regarding claims 6 and 16: KIM discloses a scale ruler for the vertical movement (CDM-V in FIG. 2; para. 77), and a scale ruler for the horizontal movement (CMD-H; para. 78) but KIM as modified by CHOI does not teach an angle indicating unit.
LAMBERG however does teach an angle indicating unit (K in FIG. 6; page 2 lines 6-19) for a ball joint (FIGS. 1, 4), that is used for setting an apparatus at any desired angle (page 1 lines 27-34).
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to use an angle indicating unit in the same way as the distance indicating scales of KIM so that it is easy for users to set up the correct positions for the drop tests and for repeatability of the measurements (para. 79 of KIM).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. LE et al. (US 20120017664) teaches a platform for holding an object undergoing a drop test, and shows how objects sometimes need to be held at an angle, instead of just flat. CHANG et al. (CN 204027946) teaches an impact drop test that has the ability to change the angle of the objected being impacted. ZHANG et al. (CN 107356486) teaches an apparatus for clamping an object for an impact test and has precise linear and angular displacement mechanisms.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL J KOLB whose telephone number is (571)270-7601. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 EST.
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, Laura M Sweeney can be reached at 571-272-2160. 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.
/NATHANIEL J KOLB/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights