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
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The specification does not provide antecedent basis for the claimed elements first/second/third/fourth components by correlating and explicitly identifying said elements to specific components depicted in the figures.
Drawings
1. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the first/second/third/fourth components must be shown and identified or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9 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.
There is no support in the elected embodiment of figure 6A for the claimed limitation of “the second component comprises a concave portion where the fourth component is stored”, as recited in claims 1and 5, because figure 1A clearly depicts that the fourth component 24 is not store the concave portion of the second component 22 but rather above the second component 22.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claimed limitation of “wherein the second component, the fourth component, the first region, and the third component are overlapped in this order in a state when the housing is opened so that the display panel becomes flat”, as recited in claims 1 and 5, is unclear which specific elements are the first component, the second component, the fourth component, and the third component since the disclosure and the drawings do not identify said elements.
The claimed limitation of “wherein a direction in which the opening is extended is aligned with a direction in which the second region is folded”, as recited in claim 1, is unclear as to which direction of the second region applicants refer because when the second region is folded it does not have one direction.
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.
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 1-9, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirakata et al. (2015/0016126)
Regarding claims 1 and 5, Hirakata et al. teach in figures 1A, 2 and related text an electronic device comprising
a display panel 11 including a first region, a second region, a third region and a fourth region (arbitrarily chosen); and
a housing comprising a first component 15a, a second component (another 15a), and a third component 13b, the first component including an opening; and
a fourth component 13a,
wherein the second region is interposed between the first region and the third region, and the third region is interposed between the second region and the fourth region (chosen as such),
wherein the second region is configured to be folded (see figure 1B),
wherein the fourth region is configured to slide (since element 11 slides) in the opening according to a folded state of the second region,
wherein the display panel has flexibility,
wherein in a cross-sectional view the second component 15a comprises a concave portion where the fourth component can be stored,
wherein the second component 15a, the fourth component 13a, the first region, and the third component 13b are overlapped in this order in a state when the electronic device is opened so that the first region, the second region, and the third region of the
is opened so that the display panel 11 become flat (at least part thereof), and
wherein the first region is fixed to the fourth component, and
wherein a direction in which the opening is extended is aligned with a direction in which the second region is folded.
Hirakata et al. do not explicitly state that the fourth region is configured to slide (although element 11 slides) in the opening, and wherein the fourth component is not stored in the concave portion.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to configure the fourth region to slide in the opening and to store the fourth component in the concave portion in Hirakata et al.’s device, in order to provide smooth operation of the device and in order to increase the structural integrity of the device, respectively.
Regarding claims 2 and 6, Hirakata et al. teach that the first region, the second region and the third region are a display region.
Regarding claims 3 and 7, Hirakata et al. teach that the second region is configured to be folded so that the display region faces inward.
Regarding claims 4 and 8, by choosing a portion of the fourth and the third regions to be adjacent to the second region, then Hirakata et al. teach that a portion of the fourth region is folded.
Regarding claim 9, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to form the electronic component to be at least one of an FPC, a driver IC and a connector in the device of Hirakata et al. in order to use the devices in applications which require an FPC, a driver IC or a connector.
Response to Arguments
1. Applicants argue that “Second, the crux of the Examiner's positions remains that while four corresponding "components" are clearly illustrated and supported by at least Applicant's FIGS. 2A-2B, there is no explicit identification of ordinal labels first, second, third and fourth preceding the "components" labeled in the original drawings and specification. As noted previously, these instead have numeral designations 20a, 22, 23 and 24 (see FIG. 2A annotated below), respectively, for differentiation consistent with numbering of other elements shown in the drawings. For reasons of record, Applicant maintains that, when the claimed subject matter is read as a whole, consistent with the disclosure (which includes the specification and original drawings), one skilled in the art would understand there is only a singular interpretation of corresponding "components" (and regions) meeting the claimed positional relationships. From this, the specification has sufficient antecedent basis support (i.e., as there is no in haec verba requirement for use of exact same wording one would correlate the claimed ordinal differentiation with the reference numeral differentiation in the specification). Moreover, the drawings sufficiently illustrate the subject matter claimed and the claims are sufficiently clear and definite.“
1. Although the specification and drawings use alphanumeric labels (i.e., 20a, 22, 23 and 24, respectively, for the claimed first, second, third and fourth claimed components), there is no explicit correlation between said alphanumeric labels and the various claimed components. Applicants provided such correlation in the response filed on 02/21/2025 and on 09/05/2025. However, said correlation should be recited in the disclosure.
2. Applicants argue that “Third, with respect to the new rejection (4) under U.S.C. § 112(a), the Examiner alleges that there is no support for the limitation in claims 1 and 5 wherein (in a cross- sectional view) "the second component comprises a concave portion where the fourth component is stored" (Pg. 4; Paper No. 20250610). This is allegedly because "figure 1A clearly depicts that the fourth component 24 is not store [sic] the concave portion of the second component 22 but rather above the second component 22" (Id.). Applicant respectfully disagrees and believes the phrase is being improperly interpreted in light of and consistent with the specification.
Specifically, as apparent from the exploded view of FIG. 2B (below) and from asserted FIG. 1A as well as FIG. 2A (also below), it can be seen that the second component (component 22) in cross-section is shown to have a "concave portion." It is also clearly shown that component 24 is stored in such a concave portion (see, e.g., concave portion labeled as 22a in FIGS. 1 A and 2A). This is consistent with specification paragraph [0052] teaching that "the component 22 includes a first space 22a where the component 24 is stored" (shown as a concave portion of 22). From these, it is readily apparent that the specification establishes clear written description support and illustration of the claimed feature. That is, while component 24 may be above component 22, it also is stored in the concave portion (e.g., within 22a) of component 22. This same relationship can be gleaned from FIG. 6A. Reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) is respectfully requested”.
2. Careful examination of figure 2A (see enlarged figure 2A below) reveals that the second component 22 in cross-section does not have a "concave portion." It is also clear that component 24 is not stored in such a concave portion 22a.
PNG
media_image1.png
600
510
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
624
426
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicants are invited to provide large scale drawings depicting that the second component 22 in cross-section has a "concave portion" and wherein component 24 is stored in such a concave portion.
3. Applicants argue that “One skilled in the art would understand that the first component, the second component, the fourth component, the first region, and the third component are depicted as component 20a, component 22, component 24, region 11 b, and component 23, respectively, in the above figures. That is, the drawings and specification, as filed, sufficiently illustrate and describe the presently claimed invention such that the claims are clear and definite when read in light of and consistent with the disclosure, including at least Applicant's FIGS. 2A-2B illustrated above and associated text, such as paragraphs [0037], [0060] and [0063]”.
3. As previously discussed, since the first component, the second component, the fourth component, the first region, and the third component are not explicitly defined in the specification, it is unclear which specific elements are the first component, the second component, the fourth component, and the third component.
4. Applicants argue that “alleged first component 15a does not appear to include an "opening," or any indication of a direction of extension thereof. There also is no evidence provided by the Examiner of a teaching or motivation to provide the admittedly missing claim features”.
4. Applicants’ argument is unclear. Figure 2 of Hirakata clearly depicts that first component 15a has several openings in between elements 15a.
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 ORI NADAV whose telephone number is 571-272-1660. The examiner can normally be reached between the hours of 7 AM to 4 PM (Eastern Standard Time) Monday through Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lynne Gurley can be reached on 571-272-1670. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
O.N. /ORI NADAV/
9/20/2025 PRIMARY EXAMINER
TECHNOLOGY CENTER 2800
Prosecution Insights