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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 11, 14, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong (US 2023/0014521) in view of Zhou (WO 2023/217302) and Lee (US 2021/0252770).
Jeong teaches a display protector attachment apparatus (100) comprising: a protector film assembly (200) including a protector body (220) and a release film (210) comprising a first extension unit (216) and a second extension unit (214); a frame unit (110) which supports an electronic device (300) to which the protector body is to be attached; first end fixing pins (115a,b) which support the first extension unit (216); a fixing unit (120) with second end fixing pins (126) which support the second extension unit (214) at a height greater than the first extension unit; and a squeeze member (150) which applies the protector body to the electronic device starting at the first extension and moving toward the second extension such that a downward force acts on the protector body causing it to descend toward the electronic device (See Figures; [0037]-[0058]; [0081]-[0085]). The display protector attachment apparatus (100), protector film assembly (200), protector body (220), release film (210), first extension unit (216), second extension unit (214), frame unit (110), and electronic device (300) read on the instantly claimed protective sheet application unit, protective sheet unit, protective sheet, positioning sheet peelably applied to the protective sheet, first extension portion, second extension portion, device support portion, and portable electronic device, respectively. The first end fixing pins (115a,b) and second end fixing pins (126) read on the instantly claimed first protrusion that supports the first extension portion and second protrusion that supports the second extension portion, respectively, and have differing heights which form an angle as claimed.
Regarding the instantly claimed slit-shaped openings and their guiding and sliding relationship with the second protrusion to allow for progressive application of the protective sheet, the second end fixing pins (126) of Jeong are inserted into second end through holes (224) which are continuously connected with incision lines (228) running parallel to the protector film assembly, through which the second end fixing pins can slide during progressive application of the protector film assembly (See Figures; [0063]-[0066]; [0087]-[0089]). The incision lines read on the instantly claimed slit-shaped openings and function in the same manner.
Jeong does not expressly disclose the protector body having an adhesive surface to be applied to the portable electronic device. Jeong also does not expressly disclose a release sheet peelably applied to the adhesive surface and a withdrawal sheet formed in a strip shape which has one end connected to the release sheet and another end extending to a front side of the device support unit through an elongated hole to be gripped by a user for manual removal of the release sheet as claimed.
Zhou teaches a screen protector assembly comprising a protective layer (440) with a positioning part (442), a toughened film (201) having an adhesive surface (2011) opposite the protective layer, a release film layer (202) peelably attached to the adhesive surface (2011), and a draw-out part (130) comprising a strip having a first end attached to an end the release film layer and a second end extending through a draw-out opening (6016) which may be formed as a through-hole in an end wall (6012) of a base (601) of a film pasting tool (600) (See Figures; [0082]-[00105]; [00120]-[00124]). The protective layer (440) with a positioning part (442), toughened film (201), adhesive surface (2011), release film layer (202), and draw-out part (130) read on the instantly claimed positioning sheet, protective sheet, adhesive surface, release sheet, and withdrawal sheet, respectively. The draw-out opening (6016) through the base (601) reads on the instantly claimed elongated hole. Zhou teaches that force is applied by a user to pull the draw-out part and thereby remove the release film layer (See Figures; [0024]), which reads on the instantly claimed manual peeling.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to include the adhesive surface, release film layer, draw-out part, and draw-out opening of Zhou to the display protector attachment apparatus of Jeong. The rationale to do so would have been the motivation provided by the teachings of Zhou that the adhesive surface acts to bond the protector body to the electronic device (See [0082]), that the release sheet protects the adhesive surface prior to application and also generates static electricity which removes dust from the electronic device prior to application (See [0082]), and that the draw-out part allows for removal of the release sheet, with the draw-out opening guiding the draw-out part for improved user experience with decreased deviation or jamming (See [00124]).
Regarding the limitations regarding the particular position of the elongated hole which allows for downward withdrawal, the a draw-out opening of Zhou extends widthwise across a front surface of the base. The Zhou reference does not expressly disclose the draw-out opening having the instantly claimed position on an upper surface of the front surface side of the base which allows for downward pulling of the draw-out part by a user.
Lee teaches overlay applicators for electronic devices (See Figures; Abstract). Lee discloses an embodiment in which a cradle (6410) includes a pull slot (6416) located on an upper surface between a device slot (6411) and a front side of the cradle, wherein the pull slot may extend to the bottom and/or side of the cradle (See Figs. 64-66; [0375]-[0378]). The pull slot of Lee reads on the instantly claimed elongated hole and has identical placement which allows for downward pulling of a pull tab.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the pull slot position of Lee in the apparatus taught by the combination of Jeong and Zhou since Lee teaches that such a pull slot position was recognized in the prior art as being suitable for overlay applicator bases, as detailed above.
Regarding claim 2, the first end fixing pins are inserted into first end through holes (226a,b) and the second end fixing pins are inserted into second end through holes (224) which are continuously connected with incision lines (228) (See Figures; [0063]-[0066]; [0087]-[0089]).
Regarding claim 4, Jeong teaches an angle of inclination having a tangent value of 40mm/206.74mm to about 80mm/206.74mm (See [0024]; [0077]-[0080]), which equates to an angle of about 11 to 22 degrees.
Regarding claim 5, the frame unit of Jeong includes a seating space (113) which accommodates the electronic device (See Figures; [0054]), the seating space reading on the instantly claimed receiving cavity.
Regarding claim 6, Jeong teaches a plurality of support protrusions (114a,114b) on a seating surface (114) at the bottom of the seating space of the frame unit (See Fig. 1; [0054]-[0056]). The support protrusions read on the instantly claimed supporting blocks for elevating the portable electronic device. Since the support protrusions lie on the seating surface at the bottom of the seating space and extend only partially up the sides of the seating space as shown in Fig. 1, it is reasonable to conclude that the height of the support protrusions is below the phone screen, which is present at a top portion of the seating space.
Regarding claim 11, Jeong teaches that the first end fixing pins are inserted into the first end through holes and that the second end fixing pins are inserted into the second end through holes (See Figures; [0063]-[0066]; [0087]-[0089]).
Regarding claims 14 and 20, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to make the height difference adjustable in the apparatus of Jeong. Adjustability, where needed, is not a patentable advance (See MPEP 2144.04). In this case, Jeong teaches that the fixing unit may include a vertical extension unit member (122) which is removable and insertable into the frame unit (See Figures; [0047]) and that various angles of inclination may be useful in the invention (See [0024]; [0077]-[0080]). Considering such teachings, the use of different vertical extension unit members to adjust the height and corresponding angle of inclination would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 19, the angle of inclination of Jeong results in a clearance between the protective sheet and the portable electronic device which increases in an application direction as claimed (See Figures).
Claims 3, 7-9, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong (US 2023/0014521) in view of Zhou (WO 2023/217302) and Lee (US 2021/0252770) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Peng (US 2014/0338829).
Jeong, Zhou, and Lee combine to teach a display protector attachment apparatus, as detailed above. The a squeeze member (150) of Jeong includes a blade unit (156) and a handle (152) (See Figs. 5-6; [0083]-[0086]). The squeeze member and handle read on the instantly claimed pressing unit and handle portion, respectively.
Jeong, Zhou, and Lee do not expressly disclose pressing unit comprising a roller support portion and a press roller with the instantly claimed structure.
Peng teaches an apparatus for applying a protective film (46) to a phone (10), the apparatus comprising: a shoe (30) being provided with a slot (35) for accommodating the phone; a head (32) and a foot (36) configured to position an application sheet (40) above the phone; and a pressing device (60) having a roller (62) in rolling contact with the application sheet to attach it to the phone (See Figures; [0027]-[0031]). The pressing device and roller read on the instantly claimed pressing unit and press roller, respectively. The pressing device of Peng (60) includes a handle (64), ears (66), and a roller (62) connected to the ears (See Figs. 2, 3, and 11; [0027]). The pressing device of Peng includes a central portion which spans the gap between the ears and is integral with the handle. Therefore the pressing device of Peng includes all of the claimed features in claims 3, 7-9, and 17, with one exception addressed below.
Regarding the roller shaft rotatably supporting a roller body of the press roller in claim 7, Peng does not expressly disclose a roller shaft fixedly connected to the ears and a roller body on the shaft. However such an arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing. Examiner is taking official notice that the mounting of a rotating roller via a fixed shaft is well-known and conventional in the art such that one of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand the mounted roller of Peng to include such features.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to substitute the pressing device of Peng for the squeeze member in the apparatus taught by the combination of Jeong, Zhou, and Lee. Since both devices were recognized in the prior art as being suitable for progressively applying a protective sheet to an electronic device, as detailed above, the substitution of one known device for the other known device recognized as being suitable for the same purpose would have been obvious.
Claims 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong (US 2023/0014521) in view of Zhou (WO 2023/217302), Lee (US 2021/0252770), and Peng (US 2014/0338829), as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Gerrbo (EP 3789197).
Jeong, Zhou, Lee, and Peng combine to teach a display protector attachment apparatus, the apparatus comprising ears (66) of the pressing device (60) which are guided along the left and right sides of the shoe that serve as limiting portions, as detailed above.
Jeong, Zhou, Lee, and Peng do not expressly disclose limiting portions including grooves in which beam ends (i.e. the ears of Peng) are received and guide ribs to guide the pressing device as claimed.
Gerrbo teaches an apparatus (1) for applying a protective layer (17) on a device (10), the apparatus including a pressure unit (4) which slides along two guide tracks (7,8) comprising slots defined by elevated exterior portions for controlled movement (See Figures; [0028]-[0030]). The slots and elevated exterior portions read on the instantly claimed elongated guide grooves and guide rib, respectively.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use grooves in the sides of the shoe in order to receive and guide the ears of the pressing device in the apparatus of Jeong, Zhou, Lee, and Peng. Since side edges (as taught by Peng) and elongated grooves (as taught by Gerrbo) were both recognized in the prior art as being suitable for guiding a linear movement of a pressing device, the substitution of one known element for another known element recognized as being suitable for the same purpose would have been obvious.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong (US 2023/0014521) in view of Zhou (WO 2023/217302), Lee (US 2021/0252770), and Peng (US 2014/0338829), as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Liu (US 2022/0055362).
Jeong, Zhou, Lee, and Peng combine to teach a display protector attachment apparatus, as detailed above.
Jeong, Zhou, Lee, and Peng do not expressly disclose a press roller made from silicon, urethane, or rubber and configured to press the protective sheet without damaging the surface of the portable electronic device.
Liu teaches an apparatus for applying a screen protector to an electronic device (20), the apparatus comprising a pressing member (13) comprising a roller made of rubber (See Figures; [0118]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to form the press roller of Peng with rubber since Liu teaches that rubber was recognized in the prior art as being suitable for such a purpose. Regarding the absence of damage to the surface of the device, the purpose of the press rollers in the prior art is to apply materials which protect surfaces of electronic devices. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably conclude that such press rollers therefore do not damage such surfaces during application.
Claims 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong (US 2023/0014521) in view of Zhou (WO 2023/217302) and Lee (US 2021/0252770) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sorensen (US 2020/01098222).
Jeong, Zhou, and Lee combine to teach a display protector attachment apparatus, as detailed above.
Jeong, Zhou, and Lee do not expressly disclose transparent materials for the positioning sheet, release sheet, and withdrawal sheet as claimed.
Sorensen teaches a screen protector laminate applicator comprising a screen protector (18), a positioning web (22) and a backing layer (26) (See Figures; [0034]-[0042]). Sorensen teaches that the screen protector may be transparent and that the web and backing are at least translucent such that a user can see through the layers to facilitate use (See Figs. 5-6; [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use transparent materials as the positioning sheet, release sheet, and withdrawal sheet in the combination of Jeong, Zhou, and Lee. The rationale to do so would have been the motivation provided by the teaching of Sorensen that being able to see through the various layers facilitates their use (See [0042]).
Claim 13 is under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong (US 2023/0014521) in view of Zhou (WO 2023/217302) and Lee (US 2021/0252770) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim (KR 10-2162940).
Jeong, Zhou, and Lee combine to teach a display protector attachment apparatus, as detailed above.
Jeong, Zhou, and Lee do not expressly disclose deformation of the section extension portion under applied force to enable the protective sheet to descend toward the electronic device.
Kim teaches an apparatus for applying a protective film (100) comprising a film (101) and upper release paper (102), and a lower release paper (103), wherein the protective film includes first (120) and second (130) non-attachment portions, the second non-attachment portion configured to deform under force to enable the film to descend and be attached to an electronic device (See Figures; [0033]-[0067]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to configure the second extension portion in the apparatus taught by Jeong, Zhou, and Lee to be deformable in order to further enable the protective sheet to descend toward the electronic device and facilitate their attachment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 05/14/2026, with respect to the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claims have been amended to remove indefinite language. These rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the combination of Jeong, Zhou, and Lee fails because the structural role of the release sheet of Jeong is fundamentally different from the release sheet of the claimed invention. To support this position, Applicant provides four arguments (numbered 1-5) detailing important differences between the release film of Jeong and the instantly claimed release sheet and explaining how utilizing the release film of Jeong in the same manner as the instantly claimed release sheet would render the invention of Jeong inoperable. These arguments are not persuasive because they are based on a misinterpretation of the rejection. Specifically, the rejection combining Jeong, Zhou, and Lee does not equate the release film (210) of Jeong with the instantly claimed release sheet. While Jeong calls the component a “release film,” the rejection clearly explains that the release film of Jeong corresponds to the instantly claimed positioning sheet. Therefore Applicant’s arguments which point out any structural and/or functional differences between the release film of Jeong and the instantly claimed release sheet are immaterial to the rejection. Examiner states in the rejection that Jeong does not expressly disclose a release sheet peelably applied to the adhesive surface of the protective sheet, and instead relies upon the Zhou reference to teach such a feature.
Applicant argues that Zhou cannot be combined with the Jeong reference and that two scenarios (i, ii) which arise from such a combination would have no reasonable expectation of success. These arguments again misconstrue the rejection by equating the release film of Jeong with the instantly claimed release sheet. Neither of the scenarios (i, ii) against which the applicant argues are present in the proposed combination of Jeong and Zhou as described in the rejection. Instead, the release film of Jeong corresponds to the instantly claimed positioning sheet, and the release film layer of Zhou is adhered to an opposite surface of the protective sheet from the positioning sheet (i.e. release film) of Jeong.
Applicant argues that Lee fails to remedy the deficiencies of the combination of Jeong and Zhou. Examiner maintains that the alleged deficiencies are based on a misinterpretation of the rejection, as detailed above. Therefore the rejection does not rely on the Lee reference to cure any structural incompatibilities between the Jeong and Zhou reference as argued by the Applicant, rendering the argument moot.
Applicant argues that Lee’s pull slot is on the upper surface of the cradle, not the front surface side. This argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claim because claim 1 has been amended to recite “an elongated hole formed in an upper surface of a front surface side of the device.” Examiner maintains that the pull slot of Lee occupies this same position.
Applicant argues that Lee’s equal height alignment base protrusions are designed for multi-cradle stacking and are incompatible with Jeong’s height differential inclination mechanism. This is not persuasive because the proposed combination does not suggest integrating these components of Jeong and Lee. The Lee reference is introduced because it teaches the instantly claimed pull slot location. The rejection does not rely on the Lee reference protrusions in any way and does not attempt to integrate such protrusions with those of Jeong.
Applicant argues that Zhou teaches away from using Lee’s slot position. A reference does not teach away if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage investigation into the invention claimed. Zhou teaches a particular slot placement and describes its function, but in no way attacks the use of any alternative position, particularly that of Lee. Therefore the Zhou reference does not teach away from using the slot position of Lee.
Applicant argues that repositioning the slot position in the combination of Jeong and Zhou would change the principle of operation of the apparatus by changing the direction in which the release film is pulled for removal and therefore contradicts the teachings of Zhou that the front-facing slot allows film attachment to occur in a controlled manner to reduce bubbles. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner takes the position that adjusting a slot position and slightly altering a direction in which a film is pulled does not change the principle of operation of the apparatus. This is a minor adjustment in the apparatus which substitutes one conventional slot location for another conventional slot location, with both locations being recognized in the prior art as being suitable for the same purpose. When the apparatus taught by Jeong and Zhou utilizes the slot position of Lee, the protective sheet is still applied in a gradual way in order to reduce air inclusions, and the apparatus still functions in the same manner overall.
Applicant argues that the proposed combination fails to teach the claimed slit-shaped opening mechanism, particularly the slit-shaped opening through which the second protrusion is frictionally slidable to allow the application ending side of the protective sheet to descend progressively, asserting that the incision lines of Jeong are structurally and functionally distinct from the instantly claimed slit-shaped opening. Examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains that the incision lines of Jeong are structurally and functionally identical to the instantly claimed slit-shaped openings. Applicant uses different language to describe these parts and their functional relationship, however they operate in an identical fashion in the instantly claimed method and the Jeong reference, with the slits allowing the protrusions to move therethrough during downward application of a protective sheet.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper.
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.
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 CARSON GROSS whose telephone number is (571)270-7657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm Eastern.
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.
/CARSON GROSS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights