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 .
This action is in response to communications filed on 03/27/2026.
Claims 17 and 19-20 have been canceled.
Claims 21-23 have been added.
Claims 1-16, 18, and 21-23 are pending and have been examined.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The use of a trade name or a mark used in commerce (e.g. ALIPAY, WECHAT, FACEBOOK, etc.) has been noted in this application. It should be capitalized (each letter) wherever it appears and be accompanied by the generic terminology or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce, such as ™, SM, or ® following the term. Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 9, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As per claim 1, it appears that the word “and” should be inserted after “a first operating system;” in line 7. It appears that the semicolon in “the second screen;” in line 12 should be replaced with a comma. It appears that the word “and” should be inserted after the semicolon in line 18. It appears that “the method further comprises” in lines 19-20 should be replaced with “the method further comprising”. It appears that the word “and” should be inserted after “person operation support mode;” in line 25. It appears that the word “and” should be inserted after “watching support mode;” in line 28. It appears that “the method further comprises” in lines 29-30 should be replaced with “the method further comprising”. It appears that the word “and” should be inserted after “support mode;” in the 4th to last line.
The above similarly applies to claims 9 and 18.
Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
With respect to objections to the specification, it is noted that not all trademarks have been addressed. See above.
Previous objections to the claims have been withdrawn in view of amendments.
Previous claim interpretations have been withdrawn in view of canceled claim 17.
Previous rejections under 35 USC 112(a) have been withdrawn in view of canceled claim 17.
Previous rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been withdrawn in view of claim amendments and canceled claim 17.
Previous rejections under 35 USC 101 have been withdrawn in view of claim amendments.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 16-18 of remarks, filed 03/27/2026, with respect to claims 1-18 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-18 over Kim and Kwon has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-16, 18, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a method, device, and medium comprising detecting, displaying, controlling, and determining.
The limitations as recited in claim 1 are each a process, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covering performance of the limitations in the mind or by pen and paper (See Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1366, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018)) but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “an electronic device comprising a foldable screen, wherein the foldable screen can be folded to form a first screen and a second screen”, the limitation “detecting whether the foldable screen is in an unfolded form or a half-folded form… wherein the foldable screen being in the unfolded form includes that an included angle between the first screen and the second screen is greater than a first angle threshold P1; and the foldable screen is in the half-folded form includes that the included angle between the first screen and the second screen is between the first angle threshold Pl and a second angle threshold P2, wherein 0° < P1 < P2 < 180°” in the context of the claim encompasses the user making observations. The limitation “while the foldable screen is in the half-folded form and is folded outward, the method further comprises: determining whether a placement form of the electronic device is a dual-screen landscape standing placement form or a single-screen horizontal placement form; based on the placement form of the electronic device being the dual-screen landscape standing placement form, determining that the electronic device is in a two- person operation support mode; based on the placement form of the electronic device being the single-screen horizontal standing placement form, determining that the electronic device is in a movie watching support mode” in the context of the claim encompasses the user making observations and/or evaluations. The limitation “while the foldable screen is in the half-folded form and is folded inward, the method further comprises: determining whether the placement form of the electronic device is a dual- screen portrait standing placement form or the single-screen horizontal placement form; based on the placement form of the electronic device being the dual-screen portrait standing placement form, determining that the electronic device is in a reading support mode; based on the placement form of the electronic device being the single-screen horizontal standing placement form, determining that the electronic device is in a computer support mode” in the context of the claim encompasses the user making observations and/or evaluations. If a claimed limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements. The claim recites “an electronic device comprising a foldable screen, wherein the foldable screen can be folded to form a first screen and a second screen”, “based on detecting that the foldable screen is in the unfolded form, displaying, by the electronic device, a first interface on the foldable screen in a full screen mode, wherein the first interface runs on a first operating system” and “based on detecting that the foldable screen is switched from the unfolded form to the half-folded form, controlling, by the electronic device, the first screen to display a second interface, and controlling the second screen to display a third interface or to be turned off based on a location relationship between a horizontal plane and each of the first screen and the second screen”. The elements are recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (e.g. See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are no more than applying to a generic computer component or field of use. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 9 and 18 also recite similar claim language as claim 1, and thus have the same issues. It is noted, with respect to claim 9, that the claim further recites “one or more processors; and one or more memories…and the one or more memories are separately coupled to the one or more processors; the one or more memories are configured to store computer program code, wherein the computer program code comprises computer instructions, and based on the computer instructions being run on the processor, the electronic device is enabled to perform” the method. The elements are recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (e.g. See MPEP 2106.05(f)). It is noted, with respect to claim 18, that the claim further recites “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising computer instructions, wherein in response to the computer instructions being run on an electronic device, the electronic device is enabled to perform” the method. The elements are recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (e.g. See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 2, the claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For example, the claim merely further describes the controlling, which amounts to applying the exception using a generic computer component (e.g. See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(h)). This similarly applies to claims 10 and 21.
Regarding claim 3, the claim does not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For example, the claim merely further describes based on detecting switching to a fully folded form, displaying and turning off, which amounts to applying the exception using a generic computer component (e.g. See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(h)). This similarly applies to claims 11 and 22.
Regarding claim 4, the claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For example, the claim merely further describes the controlling, which amounts to applying the exception using a generic computer component (e.g. See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(h)). This similarly applies to claims 12 and 23.
Regarding claim 5, the claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For example, the claim merely generally describes function controls on an interface, which amounts to applying the exception using a generic computer component (e.g. See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(h)). This similarly applies to claim 13.
Regarding claim 6, the claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For example, the claim merely generally describes function controls associated with a camera, which amounts to applying the exception using a generic computer component (e.g. See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(h)). This similarly applies to claim 14.
Regarding claim 7, the claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For example, the claim merely further describes the controlling, which amounts to applying the exception using a generic computer component (e.g. See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(h)). This similarly applies to claim 15.
Regarding claim 8, the claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For example, the claim merely further describes the controlling, which amounts to applying the exception using a generic computer component (e.g. See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(h)). This similarly applies to claim 16.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
For example,
La et al. (US 20160187994 A1) teaches “a flexible display… determine, based on an angle at which the foldable device is unfolded, a range of a partial activation area of the main display area” (e.g. in abstract and paragraphs 5-6, and figure 7).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM WONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1399. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, TAMARA KYLE can be reached at (571)272-4241. 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.
/W.W/Examiner, Art Unit 2144 06/22/2026
/TAMARA T KYLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2144
Prosecution Insights