Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 27, 2026
Application No. 18/071,317

HINGE FOR A FOLDABLE ELECTRONIC DEVICE AND RELATED METHODS

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Nov 29, 2022
Priority
Oct 28, 2022 — CN PCT/CN2022/128286
Examiner
O BRIEN, JEFFREY D
Art Unit
3677
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Intel Corporation
OA Round
2 (Non-Final)
50%
Grant Probability
Moderate
2-3
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 50% of resolved cases
50%
Career Allowance Rate
400 granted / 792 resolved
-1.5% vs TC avg
Strong +66% interview lift
Without
With
+66.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
21 currently pending
Career history
801
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
43.8%
+3.8% vs TC avg
§102
26.5%
-13.5% vs TC avg
§112
27.3%
-12.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 792 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
CTFR 18/071,317 CTFR 84266 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Election/Restrictions 08-25-01 AIA Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, Species 2, Claims 8-15, 26, and 27 in the reply filed on 3/2/2026 is acknowledged. New claims 29-30 depend from withdrawn claim 16 and are therefore similarly directed to a non-elected species and have been withdrawn by Examiner. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination.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. 07-30-05 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. 07-30-06 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: “sliding mechanism” (claims 13-15) 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(b) 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-23 Claim limitations “means for rotating” (claims 26-27), “means for changing” (claims 26-27), “means for modifying” (claims 26-27), “means for passively stopping” (claim 27) 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. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim or no association between the structure and the function can be found in the specification. Therefore, claims 26-27 are indefinite and are 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 § 112(a) 07-30-01 AIA 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. 07-31-01 Claims 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 26-27 have been amended to recite “means for modifying…”. No such limitations appear in the original disclosure. These limitations therefore fail to comply with the written description requirement. Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-07 AIA 07-97 12-51-07 Claim s 8-12 and 15 are allowed. 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: US 12,537,888 is the closest prior art and teaches a similar hinge. ‘888 does not teach or render obvious wherein the sliding mechanism provides a compressive force to a top portion of the display and a tensile force to a bottom portion of the display in the closed orientation, and the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof, of the 112(f) limitations outlined above, as required by independent claim 8. These limitations, in combination with all the other limitations of claim 8 define over the prior art of record. Dependent claims 9-12 and 15 are allowable at least for the same reasons as the claims from which they depend . Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 7/8/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to claims 26-27, Applicant argues that the “means for rotating”, “means for changing”, and “means for passively stopping” are not indefinite because the claim limitations “finds support in the Instant Application”. Applicant points to paragraphs where these limitations are recited. However, indefiniteness cannot be overcome merely by showing support in the specification. The specification must 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. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim or no association between the structure and the function can be found in the specification. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Examiner notes the specification merely cites “the gear set implements the means for rotating…”, “the sliding mechanism implements means for changing…”, and “the torque mechanism implements means for stopping”. Applicant’s statements that the means for rotating is described “in relation to” the gear set, the means for changing is described “in relation to” the sliding mechanism, and the means for passively stopping is described “in relation to the torque mechanism” is not a clear statement 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. As best understood from the specification and Applicant’s remarks, the above referenced “means” interact with the gear set, sliding mechanism, and torque mechanism, respectively, but there is no clear statement as to what the structure is of the identified “means”. Examiner further notes that the “sliding mechanism” and “torque mechanism” are themselves 112(f) type limitations, albeit not recited in claims 26-27, and therefore cannot be the corresponding structure that perform the claimed functions. Examiner notes that Claim 26 has been amended to recite “means for modifying…” This further limitation has not been clearly linked to any structure within the specification . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2024/0431053 teaches a similar hinge that is pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure, but has not been relied upon in the current rejection . THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Jeffrey O'Brien whose telephone number is (571)270-3655. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7-5:30. 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, Jason San can be reached at (571) 272-6531. 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. /Jeffrey O'Brien/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3677 Application/Control Number: 18/071,317 Page 2 Art Unit: 3677 Application/Control Number: 18/071,317 Page 3 Art Unit: 3677 Application/Control Number: 18/071,317 Page 4 Art Unit: 3677 Application/Control Number: 18/071,317 Page 5 Art Unit: 3677 Application/Control Number: 18/071,317 Page 6 Art Unit: 3677 Application/Control Number: 18/071,317 Page 7 Art Unit: 3677 Application/Control Number: 18/071,317 Page 8 Art Unit: 3677 Application/Control Number: 18/071,317 Page 9 Art Unit: 3677
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Show 2 earlier events
Apr 01, 2026
Examiner Interview (Telephonic)
Apr 08, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112
Jul 08, 2026
Response Filed
Jul 31, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §112
Sep 10, 2026
Interview Requested
Sep 16, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Sep 16, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Sep 29, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12766072
EXTENDER FOR A PERCUSSION MASSAGE DEVICE
5y 3m to grant Granted Oct 20, 2026
Patent 12768194
HARDWARE ASSEMBLY
1y 8m to grant Granted Oct 20, 2026
Patent 12753645
KINEMATICS ASSEMBLY
3y 1m to grant Granted Oct 06, 2026
Patent 12734669
HAND TOOLS AND METHOD OF FABRICATION THEREOF
1y 10m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12729575
HINGE FOR A ROOF WINDOW AND ROOF WINDOW WITH A SET OF HINGES
2y 10m to grant Granted Sep 08, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

2-3
Expected OA Rounds
50%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+66.2%)
2y 8m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 792 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month