Response to Amendment
This communication is in response to the amendment filed on 2/10/2026. Claims 1-7 and 9-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
The objections to claims 2 and 15 are withdrawn based on the amendments filed on 2/10/2026.
Claim 9 is objected to because it depends from cancelled Claim 8; it appears that Claim 9 should be amended to depend from Claim 1.
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 1-7 and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Is the Claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of Matter?
Independent Claim 1 recites a method, and independent Claim 14 recites an electronic device. Thus, the claims are to a method and a machine, which are among the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A: Prong One: Does the Claim Recite an Abstract Idea?
Independent claim 1 recites:
A hinge angle detection method, applied to a foldable electronic device having a foldable screen, the method comprising:
determining whether the foldable screen is in a closed state, and, if the foldable screen is not in a closed state, then detecting the hinge angle by a process comprising [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined element recites a mental process because it can be performed in the human mind, i.e., by observing the foldable screen]:
determining, by a processor of the foldable electronic device, a motion status of the electronic device and a relative position between a common axis and a horizontal plane, wherein the common axis is an axis on which a folding edge of the foldable screen is located;
determining, by the processor, a target algorithm based on the motion status and the relative position, wherein the target algorithm comprises an acceleration sensor algorithm, a gyroscope sensor algorithm, or a fusion algorithm, and the fusion algorithm is an algorithm of fusing data of an acceleration sensor and data of a gyroscope sensor to calculate a hinge angle, wherein the determining the target algorithm based on the motion status and the relative position comprises: determining the acceleration sensor algorithm as the target algorithm if the electronic device is in a still state and the common axis is not perpendicular to the horizontal plane [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined element recites mathematical concepts, and a mental process because it can be performed in the human mind];
calculating, by the processor, a hinge angle of the electronic device by using the determined target algorithm, wherein the foldable screen comprises a first screen and a second screen, and the hinge angle is an included angle between the first screen and the second screen [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined element recites mathematical concepts, and a mental process because it can be performed using pen and paper]; and
altering a still or moving image displayed on the foldable screen based on the calculated hinge angle.
Step 2A: Prong Two: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Abstract Idea Into a Practical Application?
The elements that are not underlined above are the additional elements (i.e., “A hinge angle detection method, applied to a foldable electronic device having a foldable screen”, “determining, by a processor of the foldable electronic device, a motion status of the electronic device and a relative position between a common axis and a horizontal plane, wherein the common axis is an axis on which a folding edge of the foldable screen is located”, “wherein the foldable screen comprises a first screen and a second screen, and the hinge angle is an included angle between the first screen and the second screen”; and “altering a still or moving image displayed on the foldable screen based on the calculated hinge angle”).
The examiner submits that each of the additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they are merely an incidental or token addition to the claim that does not alter or affect how the process steps of the abstract idea are performed. The processor is merely generic computer hardware, the foldable electronic device comprising the first screen and the second screen with an angle therebetween is merely a generic component, and the determining step is merely gathering data from generic sensors having no particular configuration with respect to the electronic device for use in the abstract idea. The altering step is merely an insignificant output of the abstract idea.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Step 2B: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Amount to Significantly More Than the Abstract Idea?
The examiner submits that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Independent Claim 14 recites the same determining, determining, and calculating steps as Claim 1, and the same foldable screen, and is also not patent eligible for the reasons outlined above with respect to Claim 1. Claim 14 additionally recites a memory storing a program that is executed by one or more processors, which is merely generic computer hardware for implementing the abstract idea.
Dependent Claims 2-7, 9-13 and 15-20 are also not patent eligible. Claims 2 and 15 recite mere gathering of data for use in the abstract idea, and Claims 3-6, 11, and 16-19 merely recite further details of the mathematical concepts and/or mental process. Claims 7, 9-10, 12-13, and 20 recite further details of the mathematical concepts and/or mental process, and common arrangements of generic sensors (as evidenced by the Abstract of Cui et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0350373)), and paragraph [0073] of Cheong et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/00394408)).
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.
Claim(s) 4 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0350373, hereinafter “Cui”) in view of Zhou et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0239391, hereinafter “Zhou”).
Regarding Claim 1, Cui teaches a hinge angle detection method, applied to a foldable electronic device (Figs. 1a-b), having a foldable screen (first and second housing displays 118 and 122), the method comprising: determining, by a processor of the foldable electronic device (paragraph [0057]), a motion status of the electronic device and a relative position between a common axis and a horizontal plane, wherein the common axis is an axis on which a folding edge of the foldable screen is located (paragraph [0024], angle relative to the ground, which is equated to common axis, and motion determined); determining, by the processor a target algorithm based on the motion status and the relative position, wherein the target algorithm comprises an acceleration sensor algorithm (paragraph [0024], accelerometers 110a-b used to determine angle when not in motion and not vertical to ground), a gyroscope sensor algorithm (paragraph [0026], gyroscopes 112a-b used to determine angle when in motion and vertical to the ground), or a fusion algorithm, and the fusion algorithm is an algorithm of fusing data of an acceleration sensor and data of a gyroscope sensor to calculate a hinge angle (paragraphs [0044]-[0045], in other modes, hinge angle can be a fusion of accelerometers and gyroscopes), wherein the determining the target algorithm based on the motion status and the relative position comprises: determining the acceleration sensor algorithm as the target algorithm if the electronic device is in a still state and the common axis is not perpendicular to the horizontal plane (paragraph [0024], “When electronic device 102 is not in motion or in a portrait orientation where hinge 108 is vertical to ground 130, hinge angle detection engine 114 can be configured to use the data from first housing accelerometer 110a and second housing accelerometer 110b to determine an angle of first housing 104 relative to second housing 106”; the accelerometers of Cui are used to determine the hinge angle over a range of tilt angles between vertical, i.e., perpendicular, and horizontal to the horizontal plane); and calculating, by the processor, a hinge angle of the electronic device by using the determined target algorithm, wherein the foldable screen comprises a first screen and a second screen, and the hinge angle is an included angle between the first screen and the second screen (Figs. 1A-D; paragraphs [0024], [0026], and [0044]-[0045]); and altering a still or moving image displayed on the foldable screen based on the calculated hinge angle (end of paragraph [0024]; paragraphs [0079], [0086], [0098]).
Cui does not specifically teach determining whether the foldable screen is in a closed state, and, if the foldable screen is not in a closed state, then detecting the hinge angle by a process. However, Cui does teach the claimed process for detecting the hinge angle (see above). Further, Zhou teaches in paragraph [0335] automatically unlocking a foldable screen based on a detected opening or closing of a device (i.e., when the device is not in the closed state, the device is unlocked and the detecting step would be performed). It is noted that the claim language does not preclude the detecting of the hinge angle being performed if the foldable screen is in a closed state, and that, in the system of Cui, the hinge angle is detected for a wide range of hinge angles, including hinge angles that are not in the closed state (see Figs. 1A-B, open mode configuration). It is further noted that the current claim language does not require the hinge angle detection process to be given patentable weight because contingent limitations require only those steps that must be performed, and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met, see MPEP 2111.04(II) (i.e., when the foldable screen is in the closed state, nothing is required to be performed). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the automatic unlocking of Zhou in the hinge angle system of Cui, in order to easily detect opening and closing of the device (see Zhou, paragraph [0335]).
Regarding Claim 2, Cui in view of Zhou teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Cui further teaches wherein the motion status of the electronic device comprises: the electronic device is in the still state or is not in the still state; and the relative position between the common axis and the horizontal plane comprises: the common axis is perpendicular to the horizontal plane or the common axis is not perpendicular to the horizontal plane (paragraphs [0024], [0026], and [0044]-[0045], in motion or not, and vertical to the ground or not).
Regarding Claim 3, Cui in view of Zhou teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 2. Cui further teaches wherein the determining a target algorithm based on the motion status and the relative position comprises: determining, by the processor, the fusion algorithm or the gyroscope sensor algorithm as the target algorithm if the electronic device is not in the still state and the common axis is not perpendicular to the horizontal plane (paragraphs [0044]-[0045], in other modes, hinge angle can be a fusion of accelerometers and gyroscopes); and determining the gyroscope sensor algorithm as the target algorithm if the electronic device is not in the still state and the common axis is perpendicular to the horizontal plane (paragraph [0026], gyroscopes 112a-b used to determine angle when in motion and vertical to the ground).
Regarding Claim 5, Cui in view of Zhou teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Cui further teaches wherein a process of determining the relative position between the common axis and the horizontal plane comprises: if a difference between a component of an acceleration vector on the common axis and a gravitational acceleration is less than or equal to a first preset value, determining, by the processor, that the common axis is perpendicular to the horizontal plane; or if the difference between the component of the acceleration vector on the common axis and the gravitational acceleration is greater than the first preset value, determining, by the processor, that the common axis is not perpendicular to the horizontal plane (paragraph [0024], difference between accelerometers and gravity vector used to determine tilt angle relative to the ground; if accelerometer is not tilted with respect to gravity, i.e., the axis is perpendicular to the horizontal plane, the difference is zero, which is equated to the first preset value, and common axis is perpendicular to horizontal plane).
Regarding Claim 12, Cui in view of Zhou teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Cui further teaches wherein if the target algorithm is the acceleration sensor algorithm, the calculating a hinge angle of the electronic device by using the determined target algorithm comprises: obtaining, by the processor, the hinge angle of the electronic device through calculation by using the acceleration sensor algorithm based on a projection vector of an acceleration vector on an x1o1z1 plane of a first-screen coordinate system and a projection vector of the acceleration vector on an x2o2z2 plane of a second-screen coordinate system, wherein the projection vector of the acceleration vector on the x1o1z1 plane of the first-screen coordinate system is collected by a first acceleration sensor, the projection vector of the acceleration vector on the x2o2z2 plane of the second-screen coordinate system is collected by a second acceleration sensor, the first acceleration sensor is disposed in the body corresponding to the first screen, the second acceleration sensor is disposed in a body corresponding to the second screen, and a y1-axis of the first-screen coordinate system is parallel to a y2-axis of the second-screen coordinate system (paragraphs [0034]-[0041], angles of first and second housing relative to horizontal plane are used, which is equated to the first and second screen coordinate systems; y1 and y2 axes are both parallel to gravity; first and second accelerometers are located in respective first and second housings).
Regarding Claim 14, Cui in view of Zhou teaches a foldable electronic device (Figs. 1a-b), comprising: a foldable screen, wherein the foldable screen comprises a first screen and a second screen (first and second housing displays 118 and 122); one or more processors (paragraphs [0055], [0057]); and a memory, storing a program (paragraph [0056], software modules), wherein when the program is executed by the one or more processors, the foldable electronic device is enabled to: determine a motion status of the electronic device and a relative position between a common axis and a horizontal plane, wherein the common axis is an axis on which a folding edge of the foldable screen is located (paragraph [0024], angle relative to the ground, which is equated to common axis, and motion determined), determine a target algorithm based on the motion status and the relative position, wherein the target algorithm comprises an acceleration sensor algorithm (paragraph [0024], accelerometers 110a-b used to determine angle when not in motion and vertical to ground), a gyroscope sensor algorithm (paragraph [0026], gyroscopes 112a-b used to determine angle when in motion and vertical to the ground), or a fusion algorithm, and the fusion algorithm is an algorithm of fusing data of an acceleration sensor and data of a gyroscope sensor to calculate a hinge angle (paragraphs [0044]-[0045], in other modes, hinge angle can be a fusion of accelerometers and gyroscopes), wherein to determine the target algorithm based on the motion status and the relative position, the foldable electronic device is enabled to: determine the acceleration sensor algorithm as the target algorithm if the electronic device is in a still state and the common axis is not perpendicular to the horizontal plane (paragraph [0024], “When electronic device 102 is not in motion or in a portrait orientation where hinge 108 is vertical to ground 130, hinge angle detection engine 114 can be configured to use the data from first housing accelerometer 110a and second housing accelerometer 110b to determine an angle of first housing 104 relative to second housing 106”; the accelerometers of Cui are used to determine the hinge angle over a range of tilt angles between vertical, i.e., perpendicular, and horizontal to the horizontal plane), and calculate a hinge angle of the electronic device by using the determined target algorithm, wherein the hinge angle is an included angle between the first screen and the second screen (paragraphs [0024], [0026], and [0044]-[0045]); and altering a still or moving image displayed on the foldable screen based on the calculated hinge angle (end of paragraph [0024]; paragraphs [0079], [0086], [0098]).
Cui does not specifically teach determine whether the foldable screen is in a closed state, and, if the foldable screen is not in a closed state, then execute instructions in the program. However, Cui does teach the claimed instructions in the program (see above). Further, Zhou teaches in paragraph [0335] automatically unlocking of a foldable screen based on a detected opening or closing of a device (i.e., when the device is not in the closed state, the device is unlocked and the detecting step would be performed). It is noted that the claim language does not preclude the detecting of the hinge angle being performed if the foldable screen is in a closed state, and that, in the system of Cui, the hinge angle is detected for a wide range of hinge angles, including hinge angles that are not in the closed state (see Figs. 1A-B, open mode configuration). It is further noted that the current claim language does not require the hinge angle detection process to be given patentable weight because contingent limitations require only those steps that must be performed, and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met, see MPEP 2111.04(II) (i.e., when the foldable screen is in the closed state, nothing is required to be performed). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the automatic unlocking of Zhou in the hinge angle system of Cui, in order to easily detect opening and closing of the device (see Zhou, paragraph [0335]).
Regarding Claim 15, Cui in view of Zhou teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 14. Cui further teaches wherein the motion status of the electronic device comprises: the electronic device is in the still state or is not in the still state; and the relative position between the common axis and the horizontal plane comprises: the common axis is perpendicular to the horizontal plane or the common axis is not perpendicular to the horizontal plane (paragraphs [0024], [0026], and [0044]-[0045], in motion or not, and vertical to the ground or not).
Regarding Claim 16, Cui in view of Zhou teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 15. Cui further teaches wherein to determine a target algorithm based on the motion status and the relative position comprises: determine the fusion algorithm or the gyroscope sensor algorithm as the target algorithm if the electronic device is not in the still state and the common axis is not perpendicular to the horizontal plane (paragraphs [0044]-[0045], in other modes, hinge angle can be a fusion of accelerometers and gyroscopes); and determine the gyroscope sensor algorithm as the target algorithm if the electronic device is not in the still state and the common axis is perpendicular to the horizontal plane (paragraph [0026], gyroscopes 112a-b used to determine angle when in motion and vertical to the ground).
Regarding Claim 18, Cui in view of Zhou teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 14. Cui further teaches wherein to determine the relative position between the common axis and the horizontal plane, the foldable electronic device is enabled to: if a difference between a component of an acceleration vector on the common axis and a gravitational acceleration is less than or equal to a first preset value, determine that the common axis is perpendicular to the horizontal plane; or if the difference between the component of the acceleration vector on the common axis and the gravitational acceleration is greater than the first preset value, determine that the common axis is not perpendicular to the horizontal plane (paragraph [0024], difference between accelerometers and gravity vector used to determine tilt angle relative to the ground; if accelerometer is not tilted with respect to gravity, i.e., the axis is perpendicular to the horizontal plane, the difference is zero, which is equated to the first preset value, and common axis is perpendicular to horizontal plane).
Claim(s) 4 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui in view of Zhou and Schmidt (WO-2004041086-A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Cui in view of Zhou teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Cui does not specifically teach wherein the determining a motion status of the electronic device comprises: if a difference between a norm of an acceleration vector of the electronic device and a gravitational acceleration is less than or equal to a first preset value, determining, by the processor, that the motion status of the electronic device is the still state; or if the difference between the norm of the acceleration vector and the gravitational acceleration is greater than the first preset value, determining, by the processor, that the motion status of the electronic device is not the still state. However, Schmidt teaches wherein the determining a motion status of the electronic device comprises: if a difference between a norm of an acceleration vector of the electronic device and a gravitational acceleration is less than or equal to a first preset value, determining, by the processor, that the motion status of the electronic device is the still state; or if the difference between the norm of the acceleration vector and the gravitational acceleration is greater than the first preset value, determining, by the processor, that the motion status of the electronic device is not the still state (bottom of page 2, the norm of the acceleration vectors of accelerometers at rest equals the earth’s gravitation, i.e., if the difference between the norm and gravity is greater than zero, which is equated to first preset value, the accelerometer is in motion). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the norms of the acceleration vectors taught in Schmidt in the system of Cui, because the norm of the acceleration vectors of accelerometers at rest equals the earth’s gravitation (see Schmidt, bottom of page 2).
Regarding Claim 17, Cui in view of Zhou teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 14. Cui does not specifically teach wherein the determining a motion status of the electronic device comprises: if a difference between a norm of an acceleration vector of the electronic device and a gravitational acceleration is less than or equal to a first preset value, determine that the motion status of the electronic device is the still state; or if the difference between the norm of the acceleration vector and the gravitational acceleration is greater than the first preset value, determine that the motion status of the electronic device is not the still state. However, Schmidt teaches wherein the determining a motion status of the electronic device comprises: if a difference between a norm of an acceleration vector of the electronic device and a gravitational acceleration is less than or equal to a first preset value, determine that the motion status of the electronic device is the still state; or if the difference between the norm of the acceleration vector and the gravitational acceleration is greater than the first preset value, determine that the motion status of the electronic device is not the still state (bottom of page 2, the norm of the acceleration vectors of accelerometers at rest equals the earth’s gravitation, i.e., if the difference between the norm and gravity is greater than zero, which is equated to first preset value, the accelerometer is in motion). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the norms of the acceleration vectors taught in Schmidt in the system of Cui, because the norm of the acceleration vectors of accelerometers at rest equals the earth’s gravitation (see Schmidt, bottom of page 2).
Claim(s) 6-7 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui in view of Zhou and Eom et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0041912, hereinafter “Eom”).
Regarding Claim 6, Cui in view of Zhou teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Cui does not specifically teach wherein the calculating a hinge angle of the electronic device by using the determined target algorithm comprises: calculating, by the processor, the hinge angle of the electronic device by using the determined target algorithm if determining that the hinge angle changes. However, Eom teaches, in paragraphs [0087] and [0114], determining a changed angle between the first housing structure and the second housing structure (i.e., the folding angle is determined based on the hinge angle changing). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the angle change determination of Eom in the system of Cui, in order to accurately detect the folding angle of the display (see Eom, Fig. 5 and paragraphs [0114]-[0118]).
Regarding Claim 7, Cui in view of Zhou and Eom teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 6. Cui does not specifically teach wherein the determining that the hinge angle changes comprises: if a difference between an angular velocity difference and zero is greater than a second preset value, determining, by the processor, that the hinge angle changes, wherein the angular velocity difference is a difference between an angular velocity of a first gyroscope sensor around the common axis and an angular velocity of a second gyroscope sensor around the common axis, the first gyroscope sensor is disposed in a body corresponding to the first screen, and the second gyroscope sensor is disposed in a body corresponding to the second screen. However, Eom teaches wherein the determining that the hinge angle changes comprises: if a difference between an angular velocity difference and zero is greater than a second preset value, determining, by the processor, that the hinge angle changes, wherein the angular velocity difference is a difference between an angular velocity of a first gyroscope sensor around the common axis and an angular velocity of a second gyroscope sensor around the common axis, the first gyroscope sensor is disposed in a body corresponding to the first screen, and the second gyroscope sensor is disposed in a body corresponding to the second screen (paragraphs [0087] and [0114], changed angle between the first housing structure and the second housing structure is determined based on changed angular velocity data of the first housing structure and the second housing structure obtained by motion sensor modules 420 and 430; when changed angular velocities between the motion sensor modules 420 and 430 is greater than zero, which is equated to preset value, the change is determined). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the angle change determination of Eom in the system of Cui, in order to accurately detect the folding angle of the display (see Eom, Fig. 5 and paragraphs [0114]-[0118]).
Regarding Claim 19, Cui in view of Zhou teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 14. Cui does not specifically teach wherein to calculate a hinge angle of the electronic device by using the determined target algorithm, the foldable electronic device is enabled to: calculate the hinge angle of the electronic device by using the determined target algorithm if determining that the hinge angle changes. However, Eom teaches, in paragraphs [0087] and [0114], determining a changed angle between the first housing structure and the second housing structure (i.e., the folding angle is determined based on the hinge angle changing). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the angle change determination of Eom in the system of Cui, in order to accurately detect the folding angle of the display (see Eom, Fig. 5 and paragraphs [0114]-[0118]).
Regarding Claim 20, Cui in view of Zhou and Eom teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 19. Cui does not specifically teach wherein to determine that the hinge angle changes, the foldable electronic device is enabled to: if a difference between an angular velocity difference and zero is greater than a second preset value, determine that the hinge angle changes, wherein the angular velocity difference is a difference between an angular velocity of a first gyroscope sensor around the common axis and an angular velocity of a second gyroscope sensor around the common axis, the first gyroscope sensor is disposed in a body corresponding to the first screen, and the second gyroscope sensor is disposed in a body corresponding to the second screen. However, Eom teaches wherein to determine that the hinge angle changes, the foldable electronic device is enabled to: if a difference between an angular velocity difference and zero is greater than a second preset value, determine that the hinge angle changes, wherein the angular velocity difference is a difference between an angular velocity of a first gyroscope sensor around the common axis and an angular velocity of a second gyroscope sensor around the common axis, the first gyroscope sensor is disposed in a body corresponding to the first screen, and the second gyroscope sensor is disposed in a body corresponding to the second screen (paragraphs [0087] and [0114], changed angle between the first housing structure and the second housing structure is determined based on changed angular velocity data of the first housing structure and the second housing structure obtained by motion sensor modules 420 and 430; when changed angular velocities between the motion sensor modules 420 and 430 is greater than zero, which is equated to preset value, the change is determined). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the angle change determination of Eom in the system of Cui, in order to accurately detect the folding angle of the display (see Eom, Fig. 5 and paragraphs [0114]-[0118]).
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui in view of Zhou and Cheong et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0039408, hereinafter “Cheong”).
Regarding Claim 9, Cui in view of Zhou teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 8. Cui does not teach wherein the determining that the foldable screen is not in a closed state comprises: determining, by the processor based on magnetic force data, that the foldable screen is not in the closed state, wherein the magnetic force data is obtained by a magnetic sensor by detecting magnetic field strength of a magnet, the magnetic sensor is disposed in a body corresponding to the first screen, and the magnet is disposed in the body corresponding to the second screen. However, Cheong teaches wherein the determining that the foldable screen is not in a closed state comprises: determining, by the processor based on magnetic force data, that the foldable screen is not in the closed state, wherein the magnetic force data is obtained by a magnetic sensor by detecting magnetic field strength of a magnet, the magnetic sensor is disposed in a body corresponding to the first screen, and the magnet is disposed in the body corresponding to the second screen (paragraph [0073], first sensor 345 and second sensor 345). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the magnetic force applier and magnetic force sensor of Cheong in the system of Cui, in order to easily detect the folded angle of the device (see Cheong, paragraph [0073]).
Regarding Claim 10, Cui in view of Zhou and Cheong teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 9. Cui does not teach wherein the determining, based on magnetic force data, that the foldable screen is not in the closed state comprises: if the magnetic force data is less than or equal to a first preset magnetic force value, determining, by the processor, that the foldable screen is not in the closed state. However, Cheong teaches wherein the determining, based on magnetic force data, that the foldable screen is not in the closed state comprises: if the magnetic force data is less than or equal to a first preset magnetic force value, determining, by the processor, that the foldable screen is not in the closed state (paragraph [0073], the strength of the magnetic force is varied as the distance between the magnetic force sensor and the magnetic force applier decreases, such that the folded angle can be calculated based on the magnetic force; the magnetic force would be at a maximum value, which is equated to the preset magnetic force value, when the device is closed). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the magnetic force applier and magnetic force sensor of Cheong in the system of Cui, in order to easily detect the folded angle of the device (see Cheong, paragraph [0073]).
Claim(s) 11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui in view of Zhou and Zhao (CN-107543546-A).
Regarding Claim 11, Cui in view of Zhou teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Cui further teaches wherein if the target algorithm is the fusion algorithm, the calculating a hinge angle of the electronic device by using the determined target algorithm comprises: obtaining, by the processor, the hinge angle of the electronic device through calculation by using the fusion algorithm based on an angular velocity around the common axis that is collected by a first gyroscope sensor, the angular velocity around the common axis that is collected by a second gyroscope sensor, a hinge angle calculated by using the acceleration sensor algorithm, a process covariance, and a key parameter measurement error, wherein the fusion algorithm is constructed based on a Kalman filtering algorithm (paragraphs [0044]-[0052], in other modes, hinge angle can be a fusion of accelerometers and gyroscopes; Kalman filter, which include covariance and error, is used), the first gyroscope sensor is disposed in a body corresponding to the first screen, and the second gyroscope sensor is disposed in the body corresponding to the second screen (paragraph [0044]).
Cui does not specifically teach use of a sampling cycle. However, Zhao teaches implementing a Kalman filter based on a sampling period Ts in the third full paragraph on page 6. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the sampling period of Zhao in the Kalman filter of Cui, in order to obtain the time interval of the gyroscope and accelerometer data (see Zhao, third full paragraph on page 6).
Regarding Claim 13, Cui in view of Zhou teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Cui further teaches wherein if the target algorithm is the gyroscope sensor algorithm, the calculating a hinge angle of the electronic device by using the determined target algorithm comprises: obtaining, by the processor, the hinge angle of the electronic device through calculation by using the gyroscope sensor algorithm based on an angular velocity around the common axis that is collected by a first gyroscope sensor, the angular velocity around the common axis that is collected by a second gyroscope sensor, a hinge angle calculated last time wherein the first gyroscope sensor is disposed in a body corresponding to the first screen, and the second gyroscope sensor is disposed in the body corresponding to the second screen (paragraph [0045], when the electronic device is determined to be in portrait orientation, the hinge angle is estimated from the angular velocity of the gyroscopes, paragraphs [0046]-[0050], Kalman filter recursively uses gyroscope data).
Cui does not specifically teach use of a sampling cycle. However, Zhao teaches implementing a Kalman filter based on a sampling period Ts in the third full paragraph on page 6. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the sampling period of Zhao in the Kalman filter of Cui, in order to obtain the time interval of the gyroscope and accelerometer data (see Zhao, third full paragraph on page 6).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 101 rejections, Applicant argues on pages 13-14, regarding prong I, that the claims do not recite a judicial exception. The Examiner disagrees. The claims merely recite performing simple mathematical calculations using data gathered from generic sensors. These calculations absolutely could be performed by a human using pen and paper. It is not required that a human be able to sense the data used in the calculations, because mere gathering of data from generic sensors does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. Also, the claims do not represent any improvement, because they are known in the art (see the prior art rejections above).
On page 15, regarding prong II, Applicant argues that the claims are an improvement to operation of a foldable device. The Examiner disagrees, because the claims do not represent any improvement, because they are known in the art (see the prior art rejections above).
On pages 16-17, regarding step 2B, Applicant again argues that the claims are directed to an improvement. The Examiner disagrees, because the claims do not represent any improvement, because they are known in the art (see the prior art rejections above).
Regarding the prior art rejections, Applicant argues on page 19, regarding cancelled Claim 8, that Zhou does not teach the newly added Claim features of Claim 1. The Examiner disagrees (see the updated rejections above). It is noted that Cui explicitly teaches determining the hinge angle while the foldable screen is not in a closed state (see Cui, Figs. 1A-B, open mode configuration). It is further noted that the amended claims do not preclude the hinge angle being determined while the foldable screen is in the closed state. Further, the amended claims, because they include a conditional limitation, do not require the hinge angle to be determined at all if it is determined that the foldable screen is in the closed state.
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 CYNTHIA L DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-1599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am to 3pm.
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached at 571-272-6334. 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.
/CYNTHIA L DAVIS/Examiner, Art Unit 2863
/SHELBY A TURNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857