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 08/05/2022.
Claims 19-20 have been canceled.
Claims 1-18 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted filed on 04/05/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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. WI-FI, BLUETOOTH, 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 9-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As per claim 9, it appears that “the following steps” in line 12 should be removed (note: there is no antecedent basis). This similarly applies to claims 10-16.
As per claim 17, the comma before “comprising” in line 1 should be removed. This similarly applies to claim 18.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “one or more functional modules…configured to perform” in claim 17.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function (e.g. the claim recites “one or more functional modules…configured to perform” which includes the embodiment of one functional module; i.e. a single means claim). As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
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.
Claims 1-8 and 17 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Independent claim 1 appears to recite three different sets of contingent limitations, e.g. based on a status of a foldable screen being detected or being in different fold configurations (e.g. “in response to detecting…, displaying…”, etc.). It appears that the contingent conditions themselves are not actively recited. For example, it is not explicitly clear what is the fold configuration form in the claim. Accordingly, it is not clear which, if any, of the contingencies are satisfied, and therefore which, if any, of the claim's consequential actions to a satisfied contingency are required. See, e.g., MPEP 2111.04(II). The effect is that the claim is rendered vague and indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and therefore rejected accordingly. Dependent claims 2-8 incorporate the features of claim 1 without curing its deficiencies, and are therefore rejected under the same rationale. Note also that claims 2-5 and 7-8 further include other contingent limitations. Applicants can overcome the rejection by making affirmative what the fold configuration is, thereby necessitating performance of a consequential action.
Claim limitation “one or more functional modules…configured to perform” in claim 17 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. While the specification describes modules in paragraph 92, these do not appear to be for performing any of the method steps that are part of the claimed functions. While the specification describes other modules in paragraphs 161 and 165, these appear to refer to software per se (e.g. note: “at the framework layer”), which is not structure. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed to a “computer-readable storage medium”, but the specification fails to expressly limit the recited “computer-readable storage medium” to a statutory embodiment. The specification only generally uses the term in paragraph 25 (“this application provides a computer-readable storage medium, including computer instructions”) and, as such, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “computer-readable storage medium” includes signals per se, which is not a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter as required. As such, the claim is non-statutory.
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 (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.
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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20190042066 A1) in view of Kwon et al. (US 20140055429 A1).
As per independent claim 1, Kim teaches a display method applied to an electronic device comprising a foldable device, wherein the foldable device can be folded to form a first screen and a second screen (e.g. in paragraphs 7, 355, and 357, “display a first screen and a second screen… folded mode”), the method further comprising:
in response to detecting that the foldable device is in an unfolded form, displaying, by the electronic device, a first interface on the foldable device in full screen mode, wherein the first interface runs on a first operating system (e.g. in paragraphs 139, 355, and 357, “expand mode means a state where one application occupies both the displays… the form type may change from the folded mode to the outspread mode [i.e. unfolded form] while both the displays are displaying their home screen [i.e. first operating system], as shown in FIG. 48… display the first page of the home screen on the sub display. Further, the electronic device may display the second page of the home screen on the main display [i.e. full screen]” or “When the application displayed on the sub display is an expandable application [i.e. first operating system], the electronic device may display the execution screen of the application on both the displays [i.e. full screen] in response to the form type change” and figures 48 and 50); and
in response to detecting that the foldable device is switched from the unfolded form to a half-folded form, controlling, by the electronic device, the first device 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 (e.g. in paragraphs 140 and 145-146, “the stand mode may mean a state in which an angle is formed by a hinge between the two displays so that the electronic device may stand against the surface (also referred to as an underneath surface or contact surface) [i.e. horizontal plane] contacted by the respective side surfaces… one display is in an on state, and the other may maintain an off state [or] two displays both may be controlled under the on state” or “the table mode may mean a state in which one of the two displays is in contact with the underneath surface (e.g., a floor), and the other display stands against the underneath surface… the display standing against the contact surface may remain in the on state and display an execution screen of an application” and figure 9), and
wherein in response to the foldable device being in the unfolded form, an included angle between the first screen and the second screen is greater than a first angle threshold (e.g. in paragraph 144, “Outspread mode: 170 degrees to 210 degrees”); and in response to the foldable device is in the half-folded form, the included angle between the first screen and the second screen is between the first angle threshold and a second angle threshold, wherein the first angle threshold is greater than the second angle threshold (e.g. in paragraphs 145-146, “Stand mode: 20 degrees to 170 degrees… Table mode: 20 degrees to 90 degrees”)
but does not specifically teach wherein the foldable device includes a foldable screen.
However, Kwon teaches a foldable device including a foldable screen (e.g. in paragraphs 9-15, “provide a flexible display apparatus configured to optimize a screen according to a change of shape according to a bending input” and figure 28). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kim to include the teachings of Kwon because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit of incorporating well-known foldable devices (also amounts a simple substitution that yields predictable results [e.g. see KSR Int'l Co v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398,82 USPQ2d 1385,1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP 2143(B)]).
As per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and the combination further teaches wherein the 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 comprises: determining, by the electronic device based on the location relationship between the horizontal plane and each of the first screen and the second screen, that a placement posture of the foldable screen is a first placement posture (e.g. Kim in paragraphs 140 and 145-146, “the stand mode may mean a state in which an angle is formed by a hinge between the two displays so that the electronic device may stand against the surface (also referred to as an underneath surface or contact surface) [i.e. horizontal plane] contacted by the respective side surfaces… one display is in an on state, and the other may maintain an off state [or] two displays both may be controlled under the on state” or “the table mode may mean a state in which one of the two displays is in contact with the underneath surface (e.g., a floor), and the other display stands against the underneath surface… the display standing against the contact surface may remain in the on state and display an execution screen of an application” and figure 9; Kwon in paragraph 9, “a flexible display”); and controlling, by the electronic device, to display the second interface on the first screen by running the first operating system, and to display the third interface on the second screen by running a second operating system (e.g. Kim in paragraphs 165, 178, and 375, “in some scenarios…the stand mode may be similar in type to the outspread mode… display the respective running screens of the first application and the second application through the first display 2020 and the second display 2040, respectively” or “the electronic device may assign the display of an application to run to the main display… provide a splash…on the opposite display… use a splash of another application”), wherein in response to the foldable screen being in the first placement posture, the foldable screen is folded outward, an included angle between the first screen and the horizontal plane is between a third angle threshold and a fourth angle threshold (e.g. Kim in paragraphs 144-146, 373 and 381, “Such stand mode may also be set to be included in the form type of the folded mode in which the displays are folded outwards” and figure 57; note angle thresholds between the screens cause angle thresholds with the horizontal plane; Kwon in paragraph 9, “a flexible display”), and an included angle between the second screen and the horizontal plane is between the third angle threshold and the fourth angle threshold, wherein the third angle threshold is greater than the fourth angle threshold (e.g. Kim in paragraphs 144-146 and figure 57; note angle thresholds between the screens cause angle thresholds with the horizontal plane).
As per claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and the combination further teaches in response to detecting that the foldable screen is switched from the half-folded form to a fully folded form, displaying, by the electronic device, a fourth interface on the first screen, and turning off the second screen, wherein the fourth interface runs on the first operating system (e.g. Kim in paragraph 194, “upon switching into the folded mode, the electronic device may display a shrunken application running screen on the active display and control the opposite display in the off state”; Kwon in paragraph 9, “a flexible display”); and when the foldable screen is in the fully folded form, the included angle between the first screen and the second screen is less than the second angle threshold (e.g. Kim in paragraphs 142-144, “Folded mode: 0 degrees to 20 degrees”; Kwon in paragraph 9, “a flexible display”).
As per claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and the combination further teaches wherein the controlling, by the electronic device, to display a second interface on the first screen, and to display a third interface on the second screen, based on a location relationship between a horizontal plane and each of the first screen and the second screen specifically further comprises: determining, by the electronic device based on the location relationship between the horizontal plane and each of the first screen and the second screen, that a placement posture of the foldable screen is a second placement posture (e.g. Kim in paragraphs 140 and 145-146, “the stand mode may mean a state in which an angle is formed by a hinge between the two displays so that the electronic device may stand against the surface (also referred to as an underneath surface or contact surface) [i.e. horizontal plane] contacted by the respective side surfaces” or “the table mode may mean a state in which one of the two displays is in contact with the underneath surface (e.g., a floor), and the other display stands against the underneath surface” and figure 9; Kwon in paragraph 9, “a flexible display”); and controlling, by the electronic device, the first screen to display the second interface, and turning off the second screen, wherein the second interface runs on the first operating system (e.g. Kim in paragraphs 140 and 145-146, “one display is in an on state, and the other may maintain an off state” or “the display standing against the contact surface may remain in the on state and display an execution screen of an application” and figure 9); and in response to the foldable screen being in the second placement posture, the foldable screen is folded outward, and an included angle between the second screen and the horizontal plane is less than a fifth angle threshold (e.g. Kim in paragraphs 144-146, 373 and 381, “folded mode in which the displays are folded outwards” and figure 57; note angle thresholds between the screens cause angle thresholds with the horizontal plane; Kwon in paragraph 9, “a flexible display”).
As per claim 5, the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated and the combination further teaches wherein the second interface comprises a function control (e.g. Kim in paragraphs 104-105, “display, through at least a portion (e.g., the display area 514) of the second display 512, a virtual input tool (e.g., a virtual keyboard 520 or gamepad 540) for an application (e.g., a chat program 510 or game 530) or function” and figure 5) and the method further comprises: receiving, by the electronic device, a first operation performed by a user on the function control and in response to the first operation, enabling, by the electronic device, a function corresponding to the function control (e.g. Kim in paragraph 105, “allocate a corresponding text to the text input application using the position of a touch detected from the virtual input tool. Further, the electronic device 101 may reflect the inputted text on the execution screen”).
As per claim 6, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated and the combination further teaches wherein the enabling, by the electronic device, a function corresponding to the function control specifically comprises: opening, by the electronic device, a flash or opening, by the electronic device, a camera on the first screen, and displaying, on the first screen, an image captured by the camera on the first screen (e.g. Kim in paragraphs 268, 467, and 727, “electronic device may display a preview image captured through the camera on the main display… electronic device may obtain a run camera application command on the main display and display, on the main display, the camera application running screen including the preview image” and figure 42 showing camera icon and figure 227 showing flash icon).
As per claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and the combination further teaches wherein the 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 specifically comprises: determining, by the electronic device based on the location relationship between the horizontal plane and each of the first screen and the second screen, that a placement posture of the foldable screen is a third placement posture (e.g. Kim in paragraphs 140 and 145-146, “the stand mode may mean a state in which an angle is formed by a hinge between the two displays so that the electronic device may stand against the surface (also referred to as an underneath surface or contact surface) [i.e. horizontal plane] contacted by the respective side surfaces” or “the table mode may mean a state in which one of the two displays is in contact with the underneath surface (e.g., a floor), and the other display stands against the underneath surface” and figure 9; Kwon in paragraph 9, “a flexible display”); and controlling, by the electronic device, the first screen to display the second interface and controlling running of the second screen to display the third interface, wherein the second interface comprises a first part of displayed content in the first interface, and the third interface comprises a second part of the displayed content in the first interface (e.g. Kim in paragraphs 165, 178, and 234-235, “in some scenarios…the stand mode may be similar in type to the outspread mode… display the execution screen of the first application on all of the first display 2020 and the second display 2040… expanded notification panel may further provide per-time weather, weekly weather, or weather of area of interest”); and in response to the foldable screen being in the third placement posture, the foldable screen is folded, an included angle between the first screen and the horizontal plane is between a sixth angle threshold and a seventh angle threshold, and an included angle between the second screen and the horizontal plane is between the sixth angle threshold and the seventh angle threshold (e.g. Kim in paragraphs 144-146, 373 and 381, “folded mode in which the displays are folded outwards” and figure 57; note angle thresholds between the screens cause angle thresholds with the horizontal plane; Kwon in paragraph 9, “a flexible display”), but does not specifically teach folded inward and wherein the sixth angle threshold is less than 90 degrees, and wherein the seventh angle threshold is greater than 90 degrees. However, Kwon teaches folding inward, wherein an angle threshold is less than 90 degrees and wherein another angle threshold is greater than 90 degrees (e.g. in paragraphs 15, 179, 281, and 298, “flexible display apparatus 100 is bent by or above a certain angle”, table 1 showing 60 degrees [less than 90] to 120 [greater than 90] degrees, and figure 26 showing folding inward). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kim to include the teachings of Kwon because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit of accounting for other directions of folding (also amounts a simple substitution that yields predictable results [e.g. see KSR Int'l Co v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398,82 USPQ2d 1385,1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP 2143(B)]).
As per claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and the combination further teaches wherein the 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 comprises: determining, by the electronic device based on the location relationship between the horizontal plane and each of the first screen and the second screen, that a placement posture of the foldable screen is a fourth placement posture (e.g. Kim in paragraphs 140 and 145-146, “the stand mode may mean a state in which an angle is formed by a hinge between the two displays so that the electronic device may stand against the surface (also referred to as an underneath surface or contact surface) [i.e. horizontal plane] contacted by the respective side surfaces” or “the table mode may mean a state in which one of the two displays is in contact with the underneath surface (e.g., a floor), and the other display stands against the underneath surface” and figure 9; Kwon in paragraph 9, “a flexible display”); and controlling, by the electronic device, the first screen to display the second interface, determining an operation control corresponding to the second interface, and controlling running of the second screen to display the third interface, wherein the third interface comprises the operation control corresponding to the second interface (e.g. Kim in paragraphs 268, 467, and 727, “electronic device may obtain a run camera application command on the main display and display, on the main display, the camera application running screen including the preview image” and figures 42 and figure 227); and in response to the foldable screen being in the fourth placement posture, the foldable screen is folded (e.g. Kim in paragraphs 144-146, 373 and 381, “folded mode in which the displays are folded”; Kwon in paragraph 9, “a flexible display”), but does not specifically teach folded inward and an included angle between the second screen and the horizontal plane is less than an eighth angle threshold. However, Kwon teaches folding inward, wherein an included angle between a screen and a horizontal plane is less than an angle threshold (e.g. in paragraphs 15, 179, 281, and 298, “flexible display apparatus 100 is bent”, table 1 showing less than particular angle thresholds, and figures 21A- 22, 26, and 28 showing folding inward). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kim to include the teachings of Kwon because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit of accounting for other directions of folding (also amounts a simple substitution that yields predictable results [e.g. see KSR Int'l Co v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398,82 USPQ2d 1385,1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP 2143(B)]).
Claims 9-16 are the device claims corresponding to method claims 1-8 and are rejected under the same reasons set forth, and the combination further teaches a foldable screen, wherein the foldable screen is divided into a first screen and a second screen by a folding line when being folded (e.g. Kim in paragraph 7, “display a first screen and a second screen”; Kwon in paragraph 9, “a flexible display” and figure 28 showing a folding line dividing a first screen and a second screen); 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 in response to the computer instructions being run on the processor, the electronic device is enabled to perform the method (e.g. Kim in paragraphs 62 and 73, “a generic-purpose processor (e.g., a CPU or application processor) that may perform the operations by executing one or more software programs stored in a memory device… memory 232 may include at least one of, e.g., a volatile memory (e.g., a dynamic random access memory (DRAM), a static RAM (SRAM), a synchronous dynamic RAM (SDRAM), etc.) or a non-volatile memory” and figure 2).
Claim 17 is the device claim corresponding to method claim 1 and is rejected under the same reasons set forth, and the combination further teaches one or more functional modules, wherein the one or more functional modules are configured to perform the display method (e.g. Kim in paragraphs 62 and 73, “a generic-purpose processor (e.g., a CPU or application processor) that may perform the operations by executing one or more software programs stored in a memory device… memory 232 may include at least one of, e.g., a volatile memory (e.g., a dynamic random access memory (DRAM), a static RAM (SRAM), a synchronous dynamic RAM (SDRAM), etc.) or a non-volatile memory” and figure 2).
Claim 18 is the medium claim corresponding to method claim 1 and is rejected under the same reasons set forth, and the combination further teaches a 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 display method (e.g. Kim in paragraphs 62 and 73, “a generic-purpose processor (e.g., a CPU or application processor) that may perform the operations by executing one or more software programs stored in a memory device… memory 232 may include at least one of, e.g., a volatile memory (e.g., a dynamic random access memory (DRAM), a static RAM (SRAM), a synchronous dynamic RAM (SDRAM), etc.) or a non-volatile memory” and figure 2).
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).
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 11/29/2025
/TAMARA T KYLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2144