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 § 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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rao (CN 216980026 U).
Rao teaches a support component for bonding a flexible inner screen and a curved outer screen, the support component comprising: a base (2) and an elastic body (1) arranged on an upper side of the base and configured to support the flexible inner screen (See Figures; [n0035]-[n0036]). The base and elastic body read on the instantly claimed base and flexible support table arranged on one side of the base in a first direction, respectively. The elastic body includes the instantly claimed components as labeled in the figure below:
PNG
media_image1.png
266
531
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 2-3, the recessed portion of Rao includes two steps, with the step closer to the main body portion having a lesser distance from the abutting surface (See Figures).
Regarding claim 4, a portion of the arc-shaped surface of Rao which has the greatest curvature extends over an outermost step as shown in Fig. 4, which meets the claim.
Regarding claim 5, the outermost step is connected to an edge of the arc-shaped support surface (See Figures).
Regarding claim 6, Rao teaches that the supporting component is utilized for a four-curved screen such that each of four edges of the elastic body includes an arc-shaped surface with bent corner portions connecting the arc-shaped edges (See Figures; [n0006]).
Claims 1, 7, and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang (US 2022/0063179).
Zhang teaches a supporting component comprising a base (10) on a supporting platform (70) and a flexible pressing mold (40) arranged on an upper side of the base and configured to support a flexible inner screen (See Figures; [0020]-[0021]). The base and supporting platform of Zhang collectively read on the instantly claimed base. The flexible pressing mold reads on the instantly claimed flexible support table arranged on one side of the base in a first direction. The flexible pressing mold comprises the instantly claimed components as labeled in the figure below:
PNG
media_image2.png
197
393
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 7 and 9, the recessed portion of the abutting surface includes a groove with an opening in which a protrusion of the base is positioned (See Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 10, either of the arc-shaped portions and its corresponding groove may be considered a first arc-shaped portion and first groove, respectively, which satisfies the claim.
Regarding claim 11, the grooves taught by Zhang extend along a longitudinal direction of the flexible pressing mold, which may be considered a third direction as claimed.
Regarding claim 12, Zhang teaches a second arc-shaped portion and a corresponding second groove disposed therein, wherein the groove extends in the form of a strip (See Figures). The side of the main body on which the second groove is positioned is considered to meet the third direction, while the direction of extension of the second groove corresponds to the claimed second direction.
Regarding claims 13-14, the arc-shaped portion taught by Zhang may be divided into first and second support surfaces which are arranged side-by-side and have different curvatures such that the groove has a width greater than that of the first support surface as labeled in the figure below:
PNG
media_image3.png
250
307
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 2022/0063179).
Zhang teaches a support component, as detailed above. Regarding claim 8, the groove of Zhang is spaced apart from the arc-shaped portion (See Figures).
Zhang does not expressly disclose a depth of the groove. The selection of a groove dimension 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 depth materially modifies the operation of the support component, the mere selection of a particular dimension does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 2022/0063179) in view of Rao (CN 216980026 U).
Zhang teaches a support component, as detailed above. The base (10,70) of Zhang comprises first and second bearing surfaces which support the main body portion and the arc-shaped portion, respectively (See Fig. 4).
Zhang does not expressly disclose the second bearing surface in the form of a step which gradually increases as in a direction away from the first bearing surface as claimed.
Rao teaches a support component, as detailed above. The base of Rao comprises first and second bearing surfaces which support the main body portion and the arc-shaped portion, respectively, wherein the second bearing surface is stepped and gradually increases in a direction away from the first bearing surface (See Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a stepped second bearing surface in the support component of Zhang since Rao teaches that such a structure was recognized in the prior art as being suitable for such a purpose.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over either one of Zhang (US 2022/0063179) or Rao (CN 216980026 U) in view of Kim (US 2021/0323293).
Zhang and Rao each anticipate the support component of claim 1, as detailed above.
Neither Zhang nor Rao expressly discloses a pressing table comprising a receiving recess configured to receive a curved cover plate, wherein an opening of the recess faces the support component.
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 support component taught by Zhang or Rao in order to provide necessary pressing force during lamination.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. As of the date of this Office action, Examiner has not identified any reference or combination of references which would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the invention of Zhang or Rao to include the features of claims 16-19.
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