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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 11, 13-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Määttä (US 2017/0356225).
Regarding claim 1 Määttä discloses:
An electronic device comprising:
a first panel (e.g. 510 FIG.5) with first one or more components thereon;
a second panel (e.g. 512 FIG.5) with second one or more components thereon;
a first wire (e.g. 560 FIG.5) that communicatively couples the first one or more components and the second one or more components; and
a hinge mechanism (e.g. 500 FIG.5) that couples the first panel with the second panel, wherein the wire passes through the hinge mechanism and the hinge mechanism includes a first tensioning mechanism (e.g. 570 FIG.5) to provide tension to the first wire when the electronic device is in an open position and a closed position (e.g. shown FIG.9).
Regarding claim 2 Määttä discloses:
the first tensioning mechanism includes at least a first spring-loaded tensioner (e.g. described paragraph [0079]).
Regarding claim 3 Määttä discloses:
the first tensioning mechanism includes at least a first elastic spring (e.g. described paragraph [0079]).
Regarding claim 4 Määttä discloses:
a second wire (e.g. 562 FIG.5) that communicatively couples the first one or more components and the second one or more components, wherein the second wire passes through the hinge mechanism (e.g. shown FIG.5).
Regarding claim 5 Määttä discloses:
the first tensioning mechanism is further to provide tension to the second wire (e.g. indicated by arrows FIG.5).
Regarding claim 6 Määttä discloses:
the hinge mechanism includes a second tensioning mechanism (e.g. 572 FIG.5) to provide tension to the second wire when the electronic device is in an open position and a closed position (e.g. shown FIG.9).
Regarding claim 11 Määttä discloses:
the first one or more components include a battery, a circuit board, a processor, or an antenna (e.g. at least understood as inherent in device described paragraph [0037], "hand-held device, such as a smart phone, or a portable computer, such as a lap-top").
Regarding claim 13 Määttä discloses:
A hinge mechanism for use in an electronic device that includes a first panel coupled with the hinge and a second panel coupled with the hinge opposite the first panel, wherein the hinge mechanism includes:
a first opening and a second opening on an opposite side of the hinge from the first opening (e.g. opposite openings for 600 FIG.7) , wherein the first and second openings are configured to allow a first wire to pass through the hinge (e.g. as indicated by arrows FIG.7) and communicatively couple first one or more components of the first panel (e.g. left side FIG.7) with second one or more components of the second panel (e.g. path as described paragraph [0041], right side FIG.7); and
a first tensioning mechanism (e.g. 570 FIG.5) to provide tension to the first wire when the hinge mechanism is in an open position and a closed position (e.g. shown FIG.9).
Regarding claim 14 Määttä discloses:
the first tensioning mechanism includes at least a first spring-loaded tensioner (e.g. described paragraph [0079]).
Regarding claim 15 Määttä discloses:
the first tensioning mechanism includes at least a first elastic spring (e.g. described paragraph [0079]).
Regarding claim 16 Määttä discloses:
the hinge mechanism is configured such that a second wire (e.g. 562 FIG.5) can pass through the hinge mechanism and communicatively couple the first one or more components with the second one or more components (e.g. shown FIG.5).
Regarding claim 17 Määttä discloses:
the first tensioning mechanism is further to provide tension to the second wire (e.g. indicated by arrows FIG.5).
Regarding claim 18 Määttä discloses:
the hinge mechanism includes a second tensioning mechanism (e.g. 572 FIG.5) to provide tension to the second wire when the hinge mechanism is in an open position and a closed position (e.g. shown FIG.9).
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by PARK et al. (US 2015/0378397).
Regarding claim 19 PARK discloses:
An electronic device comprising:
a first panel (e.g. 1 FIG.1) with a first portion of a foldable organic light-emitting diode (FOLED) display (e.g. 4 FIG.1);
a second panel (e.g. 2 FIG.1) with a second portion of the FOLED display (e.g. shown FIG.1);
a wire (e.g. 620 FIG.53) that communicatively couples the first portion of the FOLED display with the second portion of the FOLED display (e.g. shown via 1 and 2 FIG.53); and
a hinge mechanism (e.g. central section between 122 and 222 FIG.53) physically coupled with the first panel and the second panel such that the wire passes through the hinge mechanism (e.g. shown FIG.53), and wherein the hinge mechanism includes:
a first tensioning mechanism (e.g. left 660 FIG.53) configured to provide tension on the wire in a first direction; and
a second tensioning mechanism (e.g. right 660 FIG.53) configured to provide tension on the wire in a second direction opposite the first direction; wherein
the first tensioning mechanism and the second tensioning mechanism are configured to provide tension to the wire when the first panel and the second panel are in an open position and a close position (e.g. indicated FIG.55A-FIG.55C).
Regarding claim 20 PARK discloses:
the first tensioning mechanism includes a spring-loaded tensioner or an elastic spring (e.g. shown FIG.53, described paragraph [0285]).
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(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Määttä (US 2017/0356225) in view of Codd et al. (US 2017/0295642).
Regarding claim 7 Määttä discloses:
The electronic device of claim 1
Määttä does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the first wire is physically and communicatively coupled with a flexible printed circuit (FPC) that is physically and communicatively coupled with the first one or more components
Codd teaches:
the first wire (e.g. 215 FIG.2/1505 FIG.15) is physically and communicatively coupled with a flexible printed circuit (e.g. 210 FIG.2, paragraph [0028], 1520 FIG.15) that is physically and communicatively coupled with the first one or more components (e.g. at least one shown on 210 FIG.2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teachings of Codd as pointed out above, in Määttä, as one having ordinary skill in the art would have would have recognized the teaching, suggestion, and motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings (as pointed out above) to arrive at the claimed invention, and would have been motivated to do this with a reasonable expectation of success because such a combination and/or modification would have allowed for: “to support surface mounted electronic components, protect solder joints and other connections, provide reinforcement in high stress areas such as bends, and aid in heat dissipation” (paragraph [0033]).
Regarding claim 8 Määttä as modified discloses:
The electronic device of claim 7
Määttä does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the first wire is physically coupled with the FPC such that the first wire is between the FPC and a stiffener of the FPC
Codd teaches:
the first wire is physically coupled with the FPC such that the first wire is between the FPC and a stiffener of the FPC (e.g. 1505 between 1542 and 1520 FIG.15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teachings of Codd as pointed out above, in Määttä, as one having ordinary skill in the art would have would have recognized the teaching, suggestion, and motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings (as pointed out above) to arrive at the claimed invention, and would have been motivated to do this with a reasonable expectation of success because such a combination and/or modification would have allowed for: “to support surface mounted electronic components, protect solder joints and other connections, provide reinforcement in high stress areas such as bends, and aid in heat dissipation” (paragraph [0033]).
Regarding claim 9 Määttä as modified discloses:
The electronic device of claim 8
Määttä does not explicitly disclose:
the stiffener is glass-based or glass- reinforced
Codd teaches:
the stiffener is glass-based or glass- reinforced (e.g. glass woven fabric described paragraph [0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teachings of Codd as pointed out above, in Määttä, as one having ordinary skill in the art would have would have recognized the teaching, suggestion, and motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings (as pointed out above) to arrive at the claimed invention, and would have been motivated to do this with a reasonable expectation of success because such a combination and/or modification would have allowed for: “to support surface mounted electronic components, protect solder joints and other connections, provide reinforcement in high stress areas such as bends, and aid in heat dissipation” (paragraph [0033]).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Määttä (US 2017/0356225) in view of PARK et al. (US 2015/0378397).
Regarding claim 10 Määttä discloses:
The electronic device of claim 1
Määttä does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the first one or more components include a first display element of a foldable organic light-emitting diode (FOLED) display, and the second one or more components include a second display element of the FOLED display
PARK teaches:
wherein the first one or more components include a first display element of a foldable organic light-emitting diode (FOLED) display (e.g. 4 above 1 FIG.1), and the second one or more components include a second display element of the FOLED display (e.g. 4 above 2 FIG.1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teachings of PARK as pointed out above, in Määttä, as one having ordinary skill in the art would have would have recognized the teaching, suggestion, and motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings (as pointed out above) to arrive at the claimed invention, and would have been motivated to do this with a reasonable expectation of success because such a combination and/or modification would have allowed for: “a larger screen may be provided” (paragraph [0006]) (e.g. provide a larger continuous display area than two separate displays on two different housings, which also reduces redundant display circuitry).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Määttä (US 2017/0356225) in view of Rittenhouse et al. (US 2018/0348825).
Regarding claim 12 Määttä discloses:
The electronic device of claim 1
Määttä does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the wire is a coaxial wire
Rittenhouse teaches:
wherein the wire (e.g. 122 FIG.3) is a coaxial wire.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teachings of Rittenhouse as pointed out above, in Määttä, as one having ordinary skill in the art would have would have recognized the teaching, suggestion, and motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings (as pointed out above) to arrive at the claimed invention, and would have been motivated to do this with a reasonable expectation of success because such a combination and/or modification would have allowed for: “Coax cable can be coupled to wireless module and antenna can provide the wireless signaling for wireless module” (paragraph [0039]), also “This can allow hinge to be configured as an antenna for one or more wireless devices or one or more wireless modules” (paragraph [0049]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional references cited on the PTO-892 disclose similar electronic device housing/hinging structures as those disclosed in the present application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THERON S MILLISER whose telephone number is (571)270-1800. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6.
Examiner interviews are available.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Imani N. Hayman can be reached on (571) 270-5528. 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.
/THERON S MILLISER/Examiner, Art Unit 2841 /IMANI N HAYMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2841