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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In Claim 1, the limitations “a foldable enclosure including a plurality of foldable sub-enclosures; a display disposed on the plurality of foldable sub-enclosures: a hinge coupled to an end of each of the foldable sub-enclosures to interconnect the foldable sub-enclosures and to allow the foldable enclosure to be folded or unfolded by rotation of the foldable sub-enclosures”; “a follower located inside any one of the foldable sub-enclosures” are unclear since neither the written description nor the drawings appear to describe/show the claimed features. Examiner request Applicant to explain the followings:
Based on Applicant’s drawing, the plurality of foldable sub-enclosures including (at least):
Housing 210, 220
Sub-housing 302a, 302b
213, 223
2131, 2231
How can “the hinge coupled to an end of each of the foldable sub-enclosures”? Also, are “the foldable sub-enclosures” a sub-set of the plurality of foldable sub-enclosures?
Examiner request Applicant to clarify and amendments could be required. For example, the above limitations could be a first and second housings; and a display disposed on the first and second housing. Which can find the support on the SPEC.
The limitations “a follower located inside any one of the foldable sub-enclosures” are not supported by the drawing. Fig 3 clearly shows the follower located inside one housing and also in the hinge area. So, it’s obviously NOT “located inside any one of the foldable sub-enclosures”, especially the scope of “any one of the foldable sub-enclosures” is unclear. Is this equal to the 1st and 2nd housing ONLY or it also included the hinge, 213, 223, 2131, 2231 (See above discussion)
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, all the limitations, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph (see above), and/or the claim objections must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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 of this title, 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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kosugi (US 20100024165) in view of Hsiang ( US 20220397943)
With regard claim 1, Kosugi discloses A foldable electronic device (abstract, see also fig 1-18) comprising: a foldable enclosure including a plurality of foldable sub-enclosures (at least fig 1, plurality of foldable sub-enclosures with 30, 20 and/or hinge); a hinge (fig 1, 11) coupled to an end of each of the foldable sub-enclosures to interconnect the foldable sub-enclosures and to allow the foldable enclosure to be folded or unfolded (Fig 1(a)(b) ) by rotation of the foldable sub-enclosures; a biaser comprising an elastic member and being configured to apply a rotational force to the hinge in a direction that causes the foldable enclosure to be unfolded (at least fig 3, biaser to apply a rotational force to the hinge in a direction that causes the foldable enclosure to be unfolded, see paragraph [88]-[91]; including the 170, and/or 190, and the biaser force generated by the structure shown in fig 14, 170, 150, 140, 160, 130); a follower located inside any one of the foldable sub-enclosures and configured to move incremental during folding or unfolding of the foldable enclosure (at least fig 3, the follower including interlock parts comprising 110, 160, 150, 140, or 130 and associated parts; paragraph [74]-[78]); a stop configure to selectively come into contact with or be separated from the follower to selectively restrict movement of the follower (at least fig 3, and paragraph [94]-[97]; stop to selectively come into contact with or be separated from the follower to selectively restrict the movement of the follower); and an actuator (at least fig 3, and paragraph [95]-[98], [107-110]; the actuator to selectively control folding and unfolding of the foldable electronic device) configuredto selectively control folding and unfolding of the foldable electronic device by selectively causing the stop to come into contact with or be separated from the follower; and a return spring disposed between the stop and the actuator, wherein the return spring is configured to return the stop to a position in which the stop contacts the follower when the actuator is not operated (paragraph [93]-[96], [113]-[115]; and/or [003]; Examiner consider the returning spring is the return spring in the claim; ).
Kosugi lacks teaching: a display disposed on the plurality of foldable sub-enclosures.
Hsiang teaches a foldable electronic device comprising: a display disposed on the plurality of foldable sub-enclosures.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, or at the time of the invention was made, to include this feature (a display disposed on the plurality of foldable sub-enclosures) and modify to previous discussed structure (modified to the primary art’s sub-enclosure including changing the shape, smooth the support to the display and modify the hinge support shown in Hsiang’s fig 8) so as to further provide a bigger display for the modified structure.
Regarding claim 2, Kosugi further disclosed at least one the following applies: the foldable enclosure comprises a foldable housing and the foldable sub-enclosures comprise foldable sub-housings (see fig 1-2, sub-enclosures comprise foldable sub-housings; sub-housings for 31, 21a, 20, 21b or other); the hinge comprises a hinge part (11); the biaser comprises an elastic member (see claim 1 rejection); the follower comprises an interlocking part (see claim 1 rejection); the stop comprises a motion restriction member (see claim 1 rejection); and the actuator comprises a button part (see claim 1 rejection).
Regarding claim 3, Kosugi further disclosed the follower comprises a ratchet wheel (at least fig 3, the wheel structure with a notched or toothed wheel either held in position or turned by an engaging detent; Examiner consider as ratchet wheel; see also fig 14) configure to rotate with the hinge and including a plurality of teeth (at least fig 3, the curved with sharp tips structure, Examiner consider as teeth), and the stop comprises a ratchet pawl selectively engageable with the teeth of the ratchet wheel (at least fig 14 and/or fig 3, the structure engageable by 25, 130, 134, 133, 113, 119 etc. paragraph [74]-[78]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kosugi (US 20100024165) in view of Hsiang ( US 20220397943) and further in view of Kilpatrick (US 20100064244).
With regard claim 17, the primary art and/or the modified structure discussed in the preceding claim disclosed all the subject matter except for the actuator comprises an electrical switch disposed thereon to generate an electrical signal when the actuator is operated, and further comprising: a sensor to detect the folding or unfolding operation of the foldable housing.
Kilpatrick teaches: an electrical switch disposed thereon to generate an electrical signal when the actuator is operated (at least fig 8, electrical signal between the housing with hinge; paragraph [167]-[176]), and further comprising: a sensor to detect the folding or unfolding operation of the foldable housing (paragraph [188]-[191]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to include this feature (electrical switch to generate an electrical signal; sensor to detect the folding or unfolding operation of the foldable housing) and modify to previous discussed structure so as to further save the power, power on/off the electronic module/display, change the orientation, or change the display information for the modified structure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the Applicants’ remarks that, “The Examiner relied on the first and second members 20, 30 for the "plurality of foldable sub-enclosures." Assuming arguendo that this is reasonable, the display screen 31 is not disposed on the first and second members 20, 30. Additionally, the Examiner relied on the urging means 170 for the "biaser," and there is no other component in the cited embodiment of Kosugi that could be the "return spring." Therefore, claim 1 is not anticipated by Kosugi, as discussed and agreed to during the interview.
During the interview, the Examiner also requested citation to the specification to assist in review of the amended claim language. Applicant respectfully directs the Examiner to paragraphs 108, 110, 116, and 118 for further description of these features.” (pages 9 to the end).
Examiner’s Answer: the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that:
Examiner invite Applicant to review and clarify the 112 rejections as discussed above.
In this case, cited arts successfully teaches: a biaser comprising an elastic member and being configured to apply a rotational force to the hinge in a direction that causes the foldable enclosure to be unfolded (at least fig 3, biaser to apply a rotational force to the hinge in a direction that causes the foldable enclosure to be unfolded, see paragraph [88]-[91]; including the 170, and/or 190, and the biaser force generated by the structure shown in fig 14, 170, 150, 140, 160, 130); a follower located inside any one of the foldable sub-enclosures and configured to move incremental during folding or unfolding of the foldable enclosure (at least fig 3, the follower including interlock parts comprising 110, 160, 150, 140, or 130 and associated parts; paragraph [74]-[78]); a stop configure to selectively come into contact with or be separated from the follower to selectively restrict movement of the follower (at least fig 3, and paragraph [94]-[97]; stop to selectively come into contact with or be separated from the follower to selectively restrict the movement of the follower); and an actuator (at least fig 3, and paragraph [95]-[98], [107-110]; the actuator to selectively control folding and unfolding of the foldable electronic device) configured to selectively control folding and unfolding of the foldable electronic device by selectively causing the stop to come into contact with or be separated from the follower; and a return spring disposed between the stop and the actuator, wherein the return spring is configured to return the stop to a position in which the stop contacts the follower when the actuator is not operated (paragraph [93]-[96], [113]-[115]; and/or [003]; Examiner consider the returning spring is the return spring in the claim; ).
Regarding the display: Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to current ground of rejection in the office action.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERRY WU whose telephone number is (571)270-5420. The examiner can normally be reached on PHP: M-Th: 8:30-12:30; 2:30-8:30pm.
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, Imani 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JERRY WU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights