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
Previous 112 rejections withdrawn.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 12, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo (US 20180324964 A1, hereinafter Yoo) in view of Lee (US 11863695 B2, hereinafter Lee), further in view of Choi (US 20200266384 A1, hereinafter Choi)
Claim 1. Yoo teaches an electronic device comprising:
a first housing (1001, fig 24b); a second housing (1002); at least one hinge device (figs 25, 26) which connects the first housing and the second housing to be foldable with respect to each other with reference to a folding axis (figs 25, 26);
a hinge housing (housing of 1040, figs 26) which receives the at least one hinge device;
a flexible display (1030, figs 25, 26) including a first region corresponding to the first housing, a second region corresponding to the second housing, and a folding area which is foldable and connects the first region and the second region (figs 25, 26), and a front surface that faces toward an outside of the electronic device and forms a plane which is parallel to the folding axis when the electronic device is in an unfolded state (figs 25a, 28);
at least one protective member (1090, 1012a, 1012b, figs 24 and 1230, 1240 from Fig. 31) comprising a shaft (1021a, b, fig 24b) which is coupled, in an area corresponding to the folding area, to the hinge housing to be rotatable with reference to a rotation axis parallel to the folding axis (comparing figs 28, 29), the at least one protective member comprising a material which is at least partially deformable according to a folding operation of the electronic device (materials 1230, 1240 described in [0257] - [0260] and fig 31),
wherein the at least one protective member at least partially overlaps at least a portion of the front surface of the flexible display in the folding area so that the at least the portion of the front surface is not visible from the outside of the electronic device in the unfolded state (comparing figs 28, 29 show that the multibars hold element 1030 while fig 28 shows an unfolded state, for further clarification, [0197] recites ‘multi bars 890 are fastened to one surface of the hinge structure 800, supporting, along with the center bar 880, the display assembly not to bend inward of the electronic device’ and also ‘Accordingly, they may support the display assembly corresponding to the structure of the display assembly forming the curve’).
However one might argue that fig. 31 is a different embodiment from figs 24-29;
One might argue that fig 29 teaches a fpcb rather than a display
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the arrangement as taught by Yoo fig 31 into the device of Yoo figs 24-29. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Yoo figs 24-29 in the above manner for the purpose of preventing and/or reducing the display module 1210 disposed on the multi bar 1280 from crumpling and resultantly enhancing the surface quality of the display assembly (Yoo paragraph 0256)
Lee fig 9 teaches a display (120) rather than a fpcb on the inside of the device
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the arrangement as taught by Lee into the device of Yoo. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Yoo in the above manner for the purpose of protecting the display during travel.
One might argue that Yoo fails to specifically teach the flexible display extending underneath the structure of fig 25a
Choi teaches flexible display extending underneath the structure (fig 8)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the display extending under a housing at the edges which fits logically with Yoo figs 28, 29 to apply to the sides of the display as taught by Choi into the device of Yoo. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Yoo in the above manner for the purpose of supporting the display, preventing damage from sagging, slipping or moisture (Choi [0006]).
Claim 2. Yoo in view of Lee teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein Yoo further teaches the at least one protective member comprises:
a body (1012a, b, fig 24b) including an upper surface (top of 1012a, b) and a side surface (side of 1012a, b) extending from the upper surface;
wherein the shaft (1021a, b, fig 24b) is disposed at the side surface (paragraph 0216) along the rotation axis
to have a length, and wherein the at least one protective member is rotatably coupled to the hinge housing through the shaft ([0215] recites 'The slide covers 1010a and 1010b may be restricted by the hinge shafts 1021a and 1021b and rotate along the virtual rotational axes formed in the lengthwise directions of the hinge shafts 1021a and 1021b').
Claim 12. Yoo in view of Lee teaches the electronic device of claim 2, Yoo further comprising a foreign matter blocking cover (1010a, 1010b) extending toward the hinge housing, and coupled to the body ([0214] recites ‘slide covers 1010a and 1010b may provide air-tight sealing, against the outside, for the couplings of the center bar 1080 and dual-axis hinge modules 1020 and the gaps formed by the multi bars 1090, preventing and/or reducing infiltration of foreign bodies and achieving a more aesthetic look’).
Claim 14. Yoo in view of Lee teaches the electronic device of claim 12, wherein the foreign matter blocking cover further comprises a groove (sliding groove of 1010a, b, fig 24b) provided in an overlapping area, in which the foreign matter blocking cover at least partially overlaps the rotation axis when the upper surface is viewed from above (fig 24b shows the rotation axis passing through 1010a, b).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo (US 20180324964 A1, hereinafter Yoo) in view of Lee, further in view of Choi, still further in view of Li (US 20230229189 A1, hereinafter Li)
Claim 13. Yoo in view of Lee teaches the electronic device of claim 12, but fails to teach the foreign matter blocking cover comprises a material having a rigidity which is less than a rigidity of the body.
Li teaches a material having a rigidity which is less than a rigidity of the body (paragraph 0170).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the arrangement as taught by Li into the device of Yoo. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Yoo in the above manner for the purpose of improving reliability of the rotation mechanism (Li [0170]).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo (US 20180324964 A1, hereinafter Yoo) in view of Lee, further in view of Choi, still further in view of Lim (WO2022059895A1, relying upon US 20230239384 A1 as a translation, hereinafter Lim)
Claim 21. Yoo in view of Lee teaches the electronic device of claim 1, but fails to teach:
a sweeper disposed between the flexible display and the hinge housing in the folding area, the sweeper being configured to support a rear surface of the flexible display, wherein the flexible display is disposed between the at least one protective member and the sweeper in the folding area, and
Lim teaches a sweeper (331, 333, fig 6, [0112] recites ‘According to various embodiments, the electronic device 300 may include at least one elastic member 331 and 333 made of a low-density elastic body such as a sponge or a brush’) disposed between the flexible display (303, fig 6) and a hinge housing (313, fig 6) in the folding area, the sweeper being configured to support a rear surface of the flexible display ([0112] recites ‘first elastic member 331 mounted on one end of the display 303’, also see fig 6),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the arrangement as taught by Lim into the device of Yoo in view of Lee. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Yoo in view of Lee in the above manner for the purpose of removing foreign material ([0112] of Lim recites ‘the first elastic member 331 may discharge the foreign matter to the outside of the second structure 302 while moving to the opened state’)
Although Lim fails to specifically teach a protective member, since Yoo teaches a protective member that at least partially overlaps a front surface of the display, the combination of Yoo and Lim do teach:
wherein the flexible display is disposed between the at least one protective member and the sweeper in the folding area, and
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular elements, columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not found persuasive. Applicant argues:
‘As can be seen in FIG. 25A, when the electronic device of Yoo is in the unfolded position, the entire front surface of the display assembly 1030 is visible from an outside of the electronic device, because no portion of the front surface of the display assembly 1030 is covered or overlapped by the multibars or any other element disclosed in Yoo.’
However this line of argumentation is flawed since figs 1a, 1b of the present application has a mirror situation. Even though fig 6b of the present application shows what is happening from a different perspective, if one were to look at figs 1a, 1b only of the present application, they would not see any portion of the display covered or overlapped with anything. It would require viewing and comparing from inside and outside of the device to see if the entire front surface of the display assembly is visible from an outside of the electronic device or not.
The current rejection is partly based on the fact that Yoo [0197] recites ‘multi bars 890 are fastened to one surface of the hinge structure 800, supporting, along with the center bar 880, the display assembly not to bend inward of the electronic device’ and also ‘Accordingly, they may support the display assembly corresponding to the structure of the display assembly forming the curve’, which requires for the display to be not only as shown in Yoo fig 25A.
Choi teaches a display extending under a housing at the edges which fits logically with Yoo figs 28, 29 to apply to the sides of the display.
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 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 DOUGLAS R BURTNER whose telephone number is (571)272-0966. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Allen Parker can be reached on 303-297-4722. 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.
/DOUGLAS R BURTNER/ Examiner, Art Unit 2841 /ROCKSHANA D CHOWDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights