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 .
Response to Amendment
This is a response to the amendment filed 8/28/2026. Claims 1 and 2 have been amended. Claim 21 has been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments are moot because the new grounds of rejection to address the amendments do not rely on the prior rejection of record. Since all arguments are based on the amendments, all arguments are addressed in the rejections below.
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.
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) 1-11 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2022/0161536) in view of Sim et al. (US 2020/0350509).
Regarding Claim 1, Liu et al. teaches an apparatus for manufacturing a display device (See Abstract), the apparatus comprising:
a pressing pad [30] comprising a first fixing portion [302] and a pressing portion [301] on the first fixing portion [302] (See Fig. 5 and page 3, paragraphs [0043] and [0045] wherein suppering portion [302] is for fixing to a surface and is thus a fixing portion and bearing portion [301] is for pressing and thus is a pressing portion), the pressing portion [301] comprising: a first surface [31] on an opposite side with respect to the first fixing portion [302]; a second surface [35] between the first surface [31] and the first fixing portion [302]; and a third surface [34] extending between the first surface [31] and the second surface [35], and wherein the second surface [35] is a circular curved surface that is inwardly depressed (See Fig. 5, page 3, paragraph [0041] and page 4, paragraph [0049], wherein the third cambered surface [35], i.e. the second surface as claimed, is recessed inward with a curved surface having a radius, the curve thus being a circular curved surface that is inwardly depressed as claimed).
Liu et al. teaches a rectangular shape of the pad for the first surface and does not teach a circular shape in the plan view. However, it is well-known in similar displays the pad shape is configured to the shape of desired display and although rectangular are common, using alternative shapes such as circular pads is well-known to make circular displays (See, for example, Sim et al., page 1, paragraphs [0002]-[0008], page 4, paragraph [0076], and page 5, paragraph [0093], teaching a similar pressing rectangular pressing pad for curved displays as in Liu et al. and indicating the pad may also be other shapes such as a circle to match the desired display shape). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize a circular shape for the first surface in Liu et al. while otherwise maintaining the relationships between he first, second, and third surface. Doing so would have predictably implemented all the advantages of Liu et al. while making displays of varying shapes as desired, such as circular displays, which are known to be form via similar processes and pads as rectangular displays, except adapted to the circular shape.
Regarding Claim 2, the first surface [31] is shown with an outwardly convex circular curved surface (See Fig. 5).
Regarding Claims 3-5, Examiner notes the claim is only directed to a pressing pad, not a cover window or display panel, which are materials worked on that are distinct from the pressing pad claimed. Note that “[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). An apparatus need merely be capable of performing the claimed functions on the claimed material worked on. The press pad in Liu et al. is for pressing a cover window/plate and display panel (See page 1, paragraph [0006]) and thus is configured to do so. Further, there is no reason the press pad [30] in Liu et al. could not be smaller and have a radius of curvature 0.5 times or more than a 3D cover window it presses. Therefore, the pressing pad of Liu et al. has all structural features as required in Claims 3-5.
Regarding Claim 6, the second chamber surface [34], i.e. third surface as claimed, has an outward curve with a radius R2, thus making it an outwardly convex circular curved surface (See page 4, paragraph [0048]).
Regarding Claims 7-10, as described above in Claims 1, 2 and 6, each of the first [31], second surface [35], and the third surface [34] are circular arcs with a radius, wherein the circle of the first surface [31] is tangentially connected to the third surface [31], thus making the third surface circle inscribed (inside and touching) within the first surface circle as claimed (See page 3, paragraph [0038] and Fig. 5). Likewise, the third surface [31] is tangential to the second surface [35], thus making the third circle circumscribed (outside and touching) to a second circle from by the second surface (See page 3, paragraph [0041] and Fig. 5). It can be easily observed the third circle from third surface [34] is smallest and has the smallest radius of curvature and the first circle from first surface [31] is largest with the largest radius of curvature (See Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 11, Liu et al. teaches a stage [50] with a second fixing portion [51] as claimed for the pressing pad [30] See Figs. 1-2 and page 4, paragraph [0052]).
Regarding Claim 21, Examiner submits nothing indicates the first fixing portion of the pressing pad must be integral with the pressing portion of the pressing pad. Although the bottom portion of the same structure [302] was interpreted as the fixing portion, the base [50], which is wider than the first pressing portion (See Fig. 2), may equally serve as the fixing portion, since the elastic lamination seat [30] is on the base [50] just as the pressing portion is claimed as being on the first fixing portion. Any base would predictably be adapted to the shape of the pressing portion of the pad (and note this is at least obvious since matched shapes predictably provide precision) and thus when wider as in Fig. 2 as a rectangle, a similarly formed base will have a larger diameter as a circle. Note a rigid base and elastic portion of a pressing pad are reasonably referred to as a first fixing portion and a first pressing portion unless the claims structurally exclude such an interpretation.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT W DODDS whose telephone number is (571)270-7653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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 5712705038. 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.
/SCOTT W DODDS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights