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 . 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites first edges located on two sides of a central area. The claim goes on to recite the limitation “at least part of the first edge area.” It is unclear whether this later recitation refers only to a single one of the two first edge areas previously recited or both. Changing between plural edge areas and a single edge area within the claim creates ambiguity as to which part(s) of the support component is being further limited. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art is not reasonably apprised of the metes and bounds of the claim.
Similar issues are present throughout the claims. For example, claim 2 recites “second edge areas located on two sides of the central area” and “bent areas,” then goes on to recite “the second edge area” and “the bent area.” Again, changing between plural and singular language for the same part(s) creates ambiguity as to the scope of the claims. Additional examples are included below.
Claim 3 recites a singular first edge area and a singular first abutting portion.
Claim 4 recites a singular first edge area.
Claim 5 recites a singular second edge area.
Claim 6 recites a singular bent area and a singular second edge area.
Claim 6 also recites “the two sides of the central area” in line 6. It is unclear which to sides are being recited since two sides of the central area in a second direction and two sides of the central area in a third direction are previously recited.
Claim 7 recites a singular second abutting portion and a singular second edge area.
Claim 7 recites “support protrusions spaced apart from each other in the second direction” but goes on to recite “adjacent two of the support protrusions.” These limitations recite mutually exclusive relationships, with one limitation requiring that the protrusions are spaced apart, while the other requires that they are adjacent (i.e. immediately next to or touching) to one another. Since these terms generally have mutually exclusive definitions, it is unclear what relationship between the support protrusions is required in the claim.
Claims 8-12 each recite a singular first abutting portion and a singular second abutting portion.
Claim 14 recites a singular bent area.
Claim 17 recites “the first abutting portion adjacent to the second abutting portion” in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This limitation also creates ambiguity by using a singular abutting portion where a plurality of such portions is previously recited.
Claim 18 recites “the second abutting portion adjacent to the first abutting portion” in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This limitation also creates ambiguity by using a singular abutting portion where a plurality of such portions is previously recited.
Claim 19 recites a singular first edge area.
Claim 20 refers to claim 1 in its entirety and therefore has the same issues of indefiniteness detailed above with respect to claim 1.
The claims appear to have been translated into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical errors, particularly with regard to alternating singular and plural language when discussing various components. Examiner has made an earnest attempt to list all of the grammatical errors that create issues of indefiniteness. However due to the extensive nature of such errors throughout the claims, Applicant is encouraged to carefully review the claims for any additional issues which may render the claim scope unclear.
For examination purposes, limitations which recite only a single component—even when referring to a part that was previously recited as a plurality of components—will be considered to only require one of such components.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu (CN 110901044 A).
Liu teaches a bonding fixture for laminating a protective glass cover to a display panel, the fixture comprising a flexible pressing block (20) configured to support the display panel and a base (10) arranged below the pressing block, wherein the base includes support blocks (30) at its corners positioned within missing parts (23) of the pressing block (See Figs. 3-4; [0034]-[0040]). The flexible pressing block and support blocks read on the instantly claimed flexible support table and abutting portions, respectively. Edges of the flexible support block which extend between the missing parts read on the instantly claimed edge areas, while a middle portion of the flexible support block in which the recesses are absent is a central area as claimed. The first direction is a Z-axis (i.e. vertical) direction since the base is disposed below the pressing block, while X- and Y-axes read on the instantly claimed second and third directions. The X-, Y-, and Z-axes all intersect. These features are labeled in the figure below. Examiner notes that there are an additional first edge area, second edge area, pair of first abutting portions, and pair of second abutting portions present in the invention of Liu which are not visible due to the angle of the figure.
PNG
media_image1.png
374
667
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Liu teaches second edge areas on two sides of the central area in the third direction and bent areas, as labeled in the figure above.
Regarding claim 3, the first abutting portions extend outward beyond the first edge areas and therefore have a greater extension width as claimed (See Figs. 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 4, the first edge areas and first abutting portions of Liu satisfy the claimed relationships (See Figs. 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 5, the base includes second abutting portions, second edge areas, and a curved area of the surface of the pressing block (See Figs. 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 6, the bent area of the pressing block abuts and extends between the two second abutting portions, the second abutting portions extend outward beyond the second edge areas and therefore have a greater extension width as claimed, and the two second edge areas are arranged on two sides of the central area with a pair of corresponding second abutting portions abutting each of the two second edge areas as claimed (See Figs. 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 8, all of the abutting portions are located at an outer periphery of the flexible pressing block, which satisfies the claim (See Figs. 3 and 4).
Regarding claims 17-18, each pair of adjacent first and second abutting portion which occupy a same corner of the base are integrally formed in a single support block, which satisfies the claims.
Regarding claim 19, Liu teaches that the pressing block has a surface configured to fit edges of a curved screen (See [0008]). Therefore the surface is curved. This feature is also shown clearly in the figures of Liu.
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.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN 110901044 A).
Liu teaches a bonding fixture for laminating a protective glass cover to a display panel, as detailed above.
Regarding claim 9, all of the abutting portions are located at an outer periphery of the flexible pressing block as claimed (See Figs. 3 and 4). Liu does not expressly disclose an extension height value for the abutting portions as claimed. The selection of an extension height is a routine matter of design choice which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing. Absent any showing that such a value materially modifies the operation of the fixture, the mere selection of a particular dimension does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
Regarding claim 10, Liu teaches that the support blocks may have rounded shapes such as truncated cones or cylinders (See [0036]). When such a shape is provided, a smooth transition (i.e. a curve of the cone or cylinder) is present between a stop surfaces of the abutting portions that face the pressing block as claimed.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Liu (CN 110901044 A) in view of Son (US 2017/0050424).
Liu teaches a bonding fixture for laminating a protective glass cover to a display panel, as detailed above. Regarding the instantly claimed body with spaced support protrusions, Liu teaches a fixing groove (11) recessed into the base (See Figures; [0033]-[0034]). Sides of the base surrounding the fixing groove project upwards above the groove and read on the instantly claimed support protrusions spaced in the second direction.
Liu does not expressly disclose stoppers positioned between the support protrusions as claimed.
Son teaches a lamination device comprising a pad (P) disposed on a first plate (S1) and first and second dams (DAM1, DAM2) disposed at edge portions of the pad (See Figures; [0069]-[0070]). The dams read on the instantly claimed stoppers and are located adjacent to edge portions of the pad.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include the dams of Son in the bonding fixture of Liu. The rationale to do so would have been the motivation provided by the teaching of Son that to do so would predictably provide support for side surfaces of the pad (See Figures; [0023]; [0085]).
Claims 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Liu (CN 110901044 A) in view of Wang (CN 111451954 A)
Liu teaches a bonding fixture for laminating a protective glass cover to a display panel, as detailed above.
Liu does not expressly disclose an embodiment including the features of claims 11-16, including a support portion, a mating portion with a recess facing the support portion and having bottom and side surfaces, and a boss on the base received in the recess. The embodiment of claims 11-16 is best shown in Figures 9 to 11 of the instant application and their corresponding description in the specification.
Wang teaches a curved surface bonding fixture comprising a bonding mold (3) having a support portion, a mating portion with a recess facing the support portion and having bottom and side surfaces, and a boss on the base received in the recess (See Figs. 13-14; [0068]-[0072]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a pad and base having the structures of Wang in the bonding fixture of Liu since Wang teaches that such structures were recognized in the prior art as being suitable for such a purpose.
Regarding claim 16, Wang does not expressly disclose a particular value for the recess depth or boss height. The selection of such dimensions is a routine matter of design choice which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing. Absent any showing that the recited values materially modify the operation of the bonding fixture, the mere selection component dimensions for a particular application does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Liu (CN 110901044 A) in view of Kim (US 2021/0323293).
Liu teaches a bonding fixture for laminating a protective glass cover to a display panel, as detailed above.
Liu does not expressly disclose a pressing table comprising a receiving recess configured to receive a curved cover plate, wherein an opening of the recess faces the bonding fixture.
Kim teaches a lamination apparatus (200) for bonding a curved window (110) on a display panel (120), the apparatus comprising a lower jig (230), a pad (220) disposed on an upper surface of the lower jig and configured to support the display panel, and an upper jig (210), wherein the upper jig includes an accommodation groove (210RH) which has an opening facing the lower jig and pad and configured to receive the curved window (See Figures; [0069]-[0072]; [0078]-[0084]). The lamination apparatus, curved window, upper jig, and accommodation groove read on the instantly claimed lamination device, curved cover plate, pressing table, and receiving recess, respectively.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the upper jig taught by Kim with the bonding fixture of Liu in order to provide necessary pressing force during lamination.
Conclusion
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