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 .
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains more than 150 words (it has 193). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The specification and claims filed 10/30/23 have multiple instances of words grouped together without a space in between. Below are examples of each. The applicant should carefully check the specification and correct any other grammatical errors that exist. Appropriate correction is required.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 12 of page 3; “amain” should be –a main--. On line 3 of page 5; “isprovided” should be –is provided--. On line 11 of page 11; “andmay” should be –and may--.
Claims 4 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities: ”therebelow” should be –there below—in both claims 4 and 5. The applicant should carefully check the claims and correct any other grammatical errors that exist. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 21, “the ground” on line 4 lacks antecedent basis.
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, 9, 12, 13/1, 13/12, 16, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by JP 2017-510065 (hereafter Samsung)
Regarding Claim 1, Samsung teaches a foldable-display (Fig1) type portable terminal provided with a flexible display (4) mounted to be folded and unfolded by external force, comprising: a main body which includes a first panel (1), a second panel (2) disposed adjacent to the first panel, and a hinge part (3) disposed between the first panel and the second panel to rotatably connect the first panel and the second panel to each other; a flexible display (4) disposed on a top surface of the main body, which is folded when the first panel and the second panel are folded around the hinge part; and a support member (elastic arms 61,62) disposed under the flexible display while covering an upper portion of the hinge part, so as to support the bottom of the flexible display.
Regarding claim 2, Samsung teaches wherein the support member includes a leaf spring disposed at the upper portion of the hinge part, in which one end is connected to the first panel and the other end is connected to the second panel. (see discussion of 61 and 62 in Fig 16)
Regarding Claim 3, Samsung teaches wherein the leaf spring supports the bottom of the flexible display when the flexible display is pressed. (See discussion of 61 and 62 in Fig 16.)
Regarding Claim 4, Samsung teaches, wherein the hinge part includes a rotary space to rotate the first panel and the second panel, the leaf spring is arranged to cover an upper portion of the rotary space, and the flexible display is supported by the leaf spring disposed there below when pressed on the upper portion of the rotary space. (See space in Fig 20a when the device is closed)
Regarding Claim 5, Samsung teaches, wherein the hinge part includes at least two shafts, the leaf spring is arranged to cover a spaced portion formed between the plural shafts, and the flexible display is supported by the leaf spring disposed there below when pressed on top of the spaced portion. (see two shafts in Fig 20a which connects the two parts in the manner claimed)
Regarding Claim 6, Samsung teaches wherein, when the first and second panels are folded around the hinge part, the leaf spring and the flexible display are also folded, wherein the leaf spring is curved in an arc shape to guide the flexible display disposed thereon to be smoothly bent in an arc shape while supporting the same. (see figs 18(a)-18(c) and corresponding discussion.)
Regarding Claim 9, Samsung teaches wherein the leaf spring is disposed to move relative to the first panel or the second panel. (see figs 18(a)-18(c) and corresponding discussion.)
Regarding Claim 12 Samsung teaches wherein the hinge part is formed of a spring (see figs 18(a)-18(c) and corresponding discussion.)
Regarding claims 13/1 and 13/12, Samsung teaches wherein the hinge part is embedded in an elastic material. (See discussion of elastic arms 61 and 62).
Regarding claims 16, 17 and 18, see Fig 21a and Fig 22 of Samsung and corresponding description.
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2017-510065 (hereafter Samsung) in view of Maata US10,301,858.
Regarding claim 7, Samsung fails to teach wherein the leaf spring and the flexible display are folded together inward or outward. However, from the same field of endeavor, Maata teaches such (See Maata US10,301,858 B3 Figs 2a-2e corresponding description). It would have been obvious before the effective date to use the teachings of Maata with Samsung for 360 degree rotation thus giving the user a more flexible device.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2017-510065 (hereafter Samsung) in view of Maenpaa US 7593524 (hereafter Maenpaa)
Regarding Claim 8, Samsung fails to teach a “strip” type leaf spring. However, Maenpaa from the same field of endeavor, teaches such (see 23 in fig 1). It would have been obvious to substitute one type of spring for another to use the strip leaf spring giving it a longer lasting tension spring that wouldn’t need to be replaced thus saving money.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2017-510065 (hereafter Samsung) in view of Kim et al US 2016/0034742 A1 (hereafter Kim)
Regarding claim 10, Samsung fails to teach the device being formed as a wearable ring. However, Kim from the same field of endeavor teaches such (see Fig 2B for wearable “ring” structure). It would have been obvious before the effective date to modify Samsungs flexible display as a ring as taught by Kim to allow for a smaller footprint thus increasing sales.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2017-510065 (hereafter Samsung) in view of Kim et al US 2016/0034742 A1 (hereafter Kim) further in view of KR20080001222U (here after Mahanju)(Google translation https://patents.google.com/patent/KR20080001222U/en?oq=kr20080001222)
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Samung in view of Kim fails to teach the ring structure being able to open and to unfold. However, Mahanju teaches such. It would have been obvious as a design choice before the effective date to utilize the teaching of Mahanju in the combination in for easy maintenance of the device.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2017-510065 (hereafter Samsung) in view of KR20150113352A (hereafter Yun-hwan et al)(see google translation https://patents.google.com/patent/KR20150113352A/en?oq=KR20150113352A)
Regarding claim 14, Samsung fails to teach an elastic pad disposed under the flexible display. However, in the same field of endeavor Yun-hwan teaches and elastic pad 120 mounted under the display panel. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to include a buffer pad in Samsung in order to cushion it and to protect the screen from damage.
Regarding claim 15. Samsung display panel is horizontally movable on the housing structure during opening and closing of the device.
Claims 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2017-510065 (hereafter Samsung) in view of KR20080050308A (hereafter Watanabe et al)(see google translation https://patents.google.com/patent/KR20080050308A/en?oq=KR20080050308A+)
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Samsung fails to teach a touch pen located in the hinge part as claimed. However, from the same field of endeavor, Wantanabe teaches such (see holder part (18), hinge part (3) and touch pen (6). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to add accessories such as a touch pen in order to increase sales.
Regarding claim 21, and in view of the 112-issue stated above, the bottom support of Samsung rotates in the opposite direction of the display panel when opening and closing.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US9204565B1 Lee teaches (see figs 8c and 8d) a hinge assembly in a foldable display device that provides support for a bending portion of a flexible display panel when the foldable display device in an unfolded state. The hinge assembly includes a bending portion support assembly and a sliding member that is slidable relative to the bending portion support assembly as the foldable display device is folded or unfolded. The hinge assembly also includes a surface that abuts the bending portion of the flexible display panel that defines the curvature of the flexible display panel when the foldable display device is rotated from the unfolded state. CN103927940A Yinxing teaches a leaf spring 6 used in a folding flexible display that is connected to both plates and surrounds the hinge mechanism.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CURTIS A KUNTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7499. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th from 6-3 and F from 6-10am.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/CURTIS A KUNTZ/SPE AU 2687, Art Unit 2687