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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 7, 10 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ogura et al (US 2020/0150718).
With regards to claim 1, Ogura teaches an apparatus for manufacturing a display device (Abstract) comprising an application head which applies an adhesive material to a subject (Figure 4 item 100) and a selective curing module which cures a portion of the adhesive material, where the selective curing module cures an edge portion of the adhesive material (Figure 4 items 102A and 102B).
With regards to claim 6, the teachings of Ogura are presented above. Additionally, Ogura teaches that the selective curing module includes a first curing device which irradiates the adhesive material with light (Figure 4 items 102A, paragraph 69) and a light blocking film which blocks a portion of the light (paragraphs 30 and 69) and the light blocking film includes a non-transmissive area which blocks a portion of the light and a transmissive area which transmits a portion of the light therethrough (paragraphs 30 and 69).
With regards to claim 7, the teachings of Ogura are presented above. Additionally, Ogura teaches that the light blocking film is provided with an opening which transmits the light therethrough (paragraphs 30 and 69).
With regards to claim 10, the teachings of Ogura are presented above. Additionally, Ogura teaches that the apparatus comprises a first lamination device which laminates a display panel on the subject to which the adhesive material is applied (paragraph 51).
With regards to claim 15, the teachings of Ogura are presented above. Additionally, Ogura teaches that the adhesive material includes an optical clear resin having a liquid form (paragraphs 35, 47 and 48).
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.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 5, 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogura et al (US 2020/0150718) in view of Strater Jr et al (US 2016/0339717).
With regards to claims 2, the teachings of Ogura are presented above. Ogura fails to explicitly disclose that the apparatus comprises a transfer module.
Strater discloses a method of applying an adhesive to a substrate to bond a foil material to a substrate (Abstract), in the same field of endeavor as Ogura, where Strater discloses a transfer module including a carrier film and a roller group which provides a driving force to the carrier film where the carrier film provides a space where the subject is seated (Figure 2 items 106 and 120).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used Strater’s transfer module in Ogura’s apparatus. The rationale being that one of ordinary skills in the art would appreciate that a transfer module is well known in the art to be able to move a product throughout a manufacturing process and different processing stations in a short period of time.
With regards to claim 3, the teachings of Ogura and Strater Jr. are presented above. Additionally, Ogura teaches that the application head and the selective curing module are respectively positioned on opposite sides with the carrier film interposed therebetween (as seen in Figure 4 items 100, 102A and 102B).
With regards to claim 5, the teachings of Ogura and Strater Jr. are presented above. Additionally, Strater discloses that the roller group includes an unwinding roller which unwinds the carrier film and a winding roller which winds the carrier film (as seen in Figure 2).
With regards to claim 11, the teachings of Ogura and Strater Jr. are presented above. Additionally, Strater discloses a second curing device which entirely cures the adhesive material included in the subject on which the display panel is laminated where the second curing device forms an adhesive member by curing the adhesive material (Figure 2 item 122).
With regards to claim 12, the teachings of Ogura and Strater Jr. are presented above. Additionally, Strater teaches that the apparatus comprises a second lamination device which laminates a window member on the subject including the display panel and the adhesive member (Figure 2 items 120).
Claim(s) 4, 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogura et al (US 2020/0150718) in view of Strater Jr et al (US 2016/0339717) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Lee et al (US 2018/0009211).
With regards to claim 4, the teachings of Ogura and Strater are presented above. Ogura and Strater do not teach or suggest that the carrier film is a light transmitting film.
Lee discloses a system for manufacturing a display unit (Abstract), in the same field of endeavor as Ogura, where Lee states that the carrier film is a light transmitting film (paragraph 54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a light transmitting film, as suggested by Lee, in Ogura’s apparatus as modified by Strater Jr. The rationale being that, as stated by Lee, it allows to detect defects on the product (paragraph 54).
With regards to claim 13, the teachings of Ogura, Strater Jr. and Lee are presented above. Additionally, Lee teaches that the apparatus comprises a cutting device which cuts an edge portion of the subject (Abstract, paragraph 8).
With regards to claim 14, the teachings of Ogura, Strater Jr. and Lee are presented above. Additionally, Lee teaches that the subject includes a release film, and the apparatus further comprises a film removing device which removes the release film disposed on the adhesive member (paragraph 8).
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogura et al (US 2020/0150718) in view of Lee et al (US 2018/0009211).
With regards to claim 8, the teachings of Ogura are presented above. Ogura fails to explicitly disclose that the subject comprises a release film and alignment marks are formed on the release film by the adhesive material applied from the application head.
Lee discloses a system for manufacturing a display unit (Abstract), in the same field of endeavor as Ogura, where Lee discloses that the subject comprises a release film (paragraph 8) and alignment marks are formed on the release film by the adhesive material applied from the application head (paragraphs 14, 15, 23, 24 and 116).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a subject comprises a release film and alignment marks formed on the release film by the adhesive material applied from the application head, as suggested by Lee, in Ogura’s apparatus. The rationale being that one of ordinary skills in the art would appreciate that release films are well known in the art used to protect surfaces during processing and alignment marks are used to properly place layers on top of other surfaces.
With regards to claim 9, the teachings of Ogura and Lee are presented above. Additionally, Lee discloses that the release film is a light transmitting film (paragraph 54).
Claim(s) 16 - 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US 2018/0009211) in view of Ogura et al (US 2020/0150718).
With regards to claim 16, Lee discloses a method for manufacturing a display device (Abstract) comprising applying an adhesive onto a release film (paragraph 120), laminating a display panel on the release film and the adhesive material (paragraph 120), forming an adhesive member by curing an entirety of the adhesive material (paragraph 120) and removing the release film and laminating a window member on the display panel and the adhesive member (paragraph 120). Lee fails to explicitly disclose that the method comprises selectively curing an edge portion of the adhesive material.
Ogura teaches an apparatus for manufacturing a display device (Abstract), in the same field of endeavor as Lee, comprising an application head which applies an adhesive material to a subject (Figure 4 item 100) and a selective curing module which cures a portion of the adhesive material, where the selective curing module cures an edge portion of the adhesive material (Figure 4 items 102A and 102B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selectively cured an edge portion of an adhesive material, as suggested by Ogura, in Lee’s method. The rationale being that, as stated by Ogura, it creates a dam that protects the display’s circuitry from contaminants or from excess adhesive (paragraph 6).
With regards to claim 17, the teachings of Lee and Ogura are presented above. Additionally, Ogura teaches that applying the adhesive material and selectively curing the edge portion of the adhesive material are at least partially simultaneously performed (paragraph 33).
With regards to claim 18, the teachings of Lee and Ogura are presented above. Additionally, Ogura teaches that in the laminating the display panel, portions of the adhesive material except for the selectively cured edge portion of the adhesive material are in a liquid form (paragraph 35).
With regards to claim 19, the teachings of Lee and Ogura are presented above. Additionally, Lee teaches that the release film is removed after the entirety of adhesive material is cured (paragraph 120).
With regards to claim 20, the teachings of Lee and Ogura are presented above. Additionally, Lee teaches that the method further comprises cutting edge portions of the display panel, the adhesive member and the release film (Abstract, paragraph 8).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHEL RIVERA whose telephone number is (571)270-7655. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12pm - 8pm.
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.
/JOSHEL RIVERA/Examiner, Art Unit 1746
/MICHAEL N ORLANDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights