Detailed Action
1. This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s communication filed on 10/15/2025. In virtue of this communication, claims 1, and 4-10 are currently pending in this Office Action. Claim 10 is newly added.
Response to Arguments
2. In Remarks, applicant presents the arguments for the amended claim limitations mainly. On pages 5-7 in Remarks, applicant explains the support for amended claim limitations “wherein the side decoration includes: a side part defining a portion of a side surface, together with the first body and the second body; and a protrusion protruding toward the flexible display from an upper end of the side part, and wherein the protrusion is disposed to overlap a portion of an upper end of the flexible display in the first state, and disposed to be spaced apart from the flexible display in the second state”. On pages 8-12, applicant reasons why the previously applied prior art does not disclose the amended claimed invention or the amended claim limitations.
In light of fig. 3-4 of this instant application, if the amended claim limitations are given reasonable interpretation in accordance MPEP 2111, the difference between the prior art and the amended claim limitations could be the size and rearrangement of the parts. However, A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Additionally, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involved only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). Please see the claim rejection section set forth below. Evidence is provided to advance prosecution.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4.Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
5. Claims 1, 4-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo et al. Pub. No.: US 2018/0110139 A1 in view of Yoo et al. Pub. No.: US 2018/0324964 A1 and evidenced by Lee at al. Pub. No.: US 2016/0116944 A1.
Claim 1
Seo discloses a flexible display device (foldable electronic device in fig.1-10 having flexible display 150 or 250 shown in fig. 1-2) comprising:
a first body (110 in fig. 1A-C);
a second body configured to be rotatable relative to the first body (in fig. 1C, 2nd housing 120 rotates along X axis respective to 1st housing 110);
PNG
media_image1.png
690
404
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a flexible display (flexible display 150 or 250 in fig. 1-2) continuously disposed on the first body and the second body (see fig. 2 and par. 0062 for flexible display 250 for covering the 1st housing and the 2nd housing); and
a side decoration (folding portion 130 or hinge 140 in fig. 1A-B) disposed between the first body and the second body (230 in fig. 2 and 130 in fig. 1A-C, folding portion is between 1st housing and 2nd housing),
wherein the first body and the second body are switched into a first state to be disposed side by side (in fig. 1A-B, 1st housing and 2nd housing are side by side with respect to X axis) and a second state to face each other (in fig. 1C, 1st housing and 2nd housing are face to face), and
a side surface of (consider 130 as referred to X-Y-Z axis, if X axis is considered as side surface, section B) the side decoration is formed on the same line as outer side surfaces of the first body and the second body (section B as side surface of 130 in fig. 1A is formed on the same line as outer side surfaces of 1st housing and 2nd housing),
wherein the side decoration includes: a side part (area of B including 130, 141, 143, 140,142 in fig. 1A, area of 230 in fig. 2, see fig. 6, area of 740 in fig. 7A) defining a portion of a side surface (surface in area of B including 130, 141, 143, 140,142 in fig. 1A, area of 230 in fig. 2, see fig. 6, area of 740 in fig. 7A), together with the first body and the second body (as depicted in fig. 1-7, side surface together with 1st housing and 2nd housing, as to the first body and the second body).
Although Seo does not explicitly show: “at least a portion overlapping the flexible display; and a protrusion protruding toward the flexible display from an upper end of the side part, and wherein the protrusion is disposed to overlap a portion of an upper end of the flexible display in the first state, and disposed to be spaced apart from the flexible display in the second state”, the claim limitation is considered obvious by the following rationales.
Firstly, to address the obviousness of the claim limitation “at least a portion overlapping the flexible display”, recall that Seo depicts fig. 1-2 in which flexible display 150 overlaps with folding portion (see 130 or section B in fig. 1A overlaps with flexible 250 of fig. 2). This teaching from Seo could have rendered the addressing claimed feature obvious. However, to advance the prosecution, further evidence is provided herein. In particular, Yoo teaches at least part of the flexible display assembly forming a curved surface as the hinge structure is folded (par. 0269). It means the curved area could be considered as overlapped.
Secondly, to address the obviousness of the claim limitations “a protrusion protruding towards the flexible display, wherein the protrusion is disposed to overlap a portion of an upper end of the flexible display in the first state, and disposed to be spaced apart from the flexible display in the second state” recall that it’s to note that claim does not specifically define protrusion with reference to. Since mobile device display can be folder or flexible, there’ll be position required in the claim could be seen in fig. 2 or fig. 6-7 of Seo. In fig. 2, 241-242 could be protrusion toward display and 230 in fig. 2 could be arranged like fig. 6, protrusions are 613 in Seo. Additionally, Seo depicts fig. 1A-C, 6, 9B-C, 10A-C that the side part and the flexible display are overlapped in folding position and spaced part in horizontal position depending on the referencing point. As explained in the previous section, rearranging the parts require routine skill in the art. Further evidence is provided to advance the prosecution. In particular, Yoo teaches a protrusion towards the flexible display from the side part (A1-A2 in fig. 8 and 430 in fig. 8 could be too as it connected to the side part, similarly, in horizontal position, A1-A2 & 430 in fig. 9, and A1-A2, 520 or 520A-B in fig. 10; see other way of protrusion in 151-154 in fig. 13 of Kim et al. Pub. No.: US 2019/0166703 A1), and how A-A2 with flexible display are overlapped and spaced apart in horizontal position depending on the reference point (see fig. 25A-C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify foldable electronic device including flexible display of Seo by providing electronic device including flexible display as taught in Yoo. Such a modification would have provided an electronic device a foldable area to split a flexible display area into portions so that the flexible display could be flattened or folded for the user’s convenience suggested in par. 0007-0008 of Yoo.
PNG
media_image2.png
366
609
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Lastly, to consider the obviousness of the claim limitation “a protrusion protruding toward the flexible display from an upper end of the side part”, it’s to note that claim does not specifically define protrusion with reference to. Since mobile device display can be folder or flexible, there’ll be position required in the claim could be seen in fig. 2 or fig. 6-7 of Seo. In fig. 2, 241-242 could be protrusion toward display and 230 in fig. 2 could be arranged like fig. 6, protrusions are 613 in Seo. As explained in the previous section, rearranging the parts require routine skill in the art. In fact, Yoo teaches a protrusion towards the flexible display from the side part (A1-A2 in fig. 8 and 430 in fig. 8 could be too as it connected to the side part, similarly, in horizontal position, A1-A2 & 430 in fig. 9, and A1-A2, 520 or 520A-B in fig. 10; see other way of protrusion in 151-154 in fig. 13 of Kim et al. Pub. No.: US 2019/0166703 A1). Further evidence is provided to advance the prosecution. In particular, Lee teaches a protrusion toward the flexible display from an upper end of the side part (see fig. 7D-E for protrusion from an upper end of the side part such as 268, as upper end, 169 as upper end in fig. 7D depending on the referencing point, see various bending position in fig. 3 & 12-13, similarly, 282 as upper end of the side part in fig. 7E, see fig. 3 & 12-13 for protrusion in fig. 7D-E could be toward flexible display in various bending positions).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify foldable electronic device including flexible display of Seo in view of Yoo by providing a flexible electronic device as taught in Lee to obtain the claimed invention as specified in the claim. Such a modification would have provided an electronic device to include a display which can be bent or folded so that user could be satisfied with various foldable position conveniently as suggested in par. 0006-0009 of Lee.
Claim 4
Seo, in view of Yoo and Lee, discloses the flexible display device of claim 1, wherein the first body and the second body include a first concave groove and a second concave groove, respectively, into which the side part of the side decoration is inserted (Seo, a guide groove formed on a concave portion 753 of the first bracket 750 in fig. 7 and par. 0083, it means second bracket 760 in par. 0082 would have the same and see fig. 10A; Yoo, first guide groove in par. 0257 and second guide groove in par. 0258; for these reasons, the combined prior art renders the claim obvious).
Claim 5
Seo, in view of Yoo and Lee, discloses the flexible display device of claim 1, wherein the side decoration further includes coupling protrusions protruding toward the first body and the second body, respectively, from an inside of the side part to be coupled to the first body and the second body (Seo, in fig. 7A-B, central protrusion 752 and outer protrusion 751; Yoo, protrusion in par. 0165 and fig. 12), the first body and the second body include coupling grooves, respectively, formed concavely so that the coupling protrusions are inserted therein (Seo, a guide groove formed on a concave portion 753 of the first bracket 750 in fig. 7 and par. 0083, it means second bracket 760 in par. 0082 would have the same and see fig. 10A; Yoo, first guide groove in par. 0257 and second guide groove in par. 0258; accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the combined prior art to perform equally well to the claim, see MPEP 2143, KSR Exemplary Rationale F).
Claim 6
Seo, in view of Yoo and Lee, discloses the flexible display device of claim 1, wherein the side part of the side decoration includes fastening holes into which coupling members are inserted (Seo, coupling holes 7413a in fig. 7B and par. 0084, other members in par. 0087; Yoo, first bracket having coupling holes in par. 0112), and the first body and the second body include coupling grooves, respectively, into which the coupling members are inserted (Seo, guide groove in par. 0084 & 0086 in fig. 7A-B; Yoo, groove-shaped slide lines in par. 0169; for these reasons, the combined prior art renders the claim obvious since claim does not specifically define what are required to be coupling members).
Claim 7
Seo, in view of Yoo and Lee, discloses the flexible display device of claim 4, wherein the side decoration is inserted into the first body and the second body in the second state (Seo, the folding portion or the hinge of fig. 2 is inserted into 1st housing and 2nd housing as shown in fig. 7A & 10A , see first configuration as fig. 10A, 2nd & 3rd configurations in fig. 10B-C; Yoo, the hinge of fig. 9, 17 & 21-22 is inserted into the configurations as shown in fig. 25A-C; and thus, the combined prior art meets the claim requirement).
Claim 8
Seo, in view of Yoo and Lee, discloses the flexible display device of claim 1, wherein top surfaces of the first body and the second body and a top surface of the side decoration have the same height (Seo, as depicted in fig. 1A, section B of folding portion or hinge is the same height as section A & C of 1st housing and 2nd housing; Yoo, fig. 2-3, hinge, surfaces 202a-b are the same height; accordingly, the combine prior art reads on the claim).
Claim 10
Seo, in view of Yoo and Lee, discloses the flexible display device of claim 1, wherein the protrusion protrudes in a direction away from a plane of the side surface (Seo, in fig. 6, protrusion 612 away from the side part, in fig. 9A-C, protrusions 910-920 are away from side part; Yoo, fig. 21-222, the protrusion away from the side part; Lee, in fig. 7D-E, the protrusions are away from the side part 165b; for these reasons, the combined prior art renders the claim obvious; it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involved only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 CCPA 1950).
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
7. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAN HTUN whose telephone number is (571)270-3190. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7 AM - 5 PM.
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, Jinsong Hu can be reached at 5712723965. 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.
/SAN HTUN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2643