DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 depends from claim 3; however, the subject matter of claim 4 is contradictory to that of claim 3 which indicates that the content presentation of the curvilinear portion remains constant while claim 4 indicates that the content presentation changes in the curvilinear portion. It seems like the dependency of claim 4 should be corrected to depend from claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
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.
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.
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 limitations are:
“translation mechanism” in claims 1, 11 and 17. The translation mechanism seems to be an “actuator” or “dual-shaft motor” and their equivalents.
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 § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP 3531230 A2 (Park et al., hereinafter Park).
Regarding claim 1, Park discloses an electronic device (Fig. 8, “electronic device 800”), comprising:
a device housing (pars. [0049], [0469]);
a blade assembly carrying a blade (par. [0469], “supporting rail” or par. [0049], “second housing”; Fig. 76, pars. [0617]-[0618], “main bracket 7620”); and a flexible display (Fig. 54, “flexible display 5401”) and slidably coupled to the device housing (pars. [0052], 0470]-[0471], “the first housing 5410 is fixed and the flexible display 501 is movable upwards or downwards…”);
a translation mechanism operable to slide the blade assembly relative to the device housing (pars. [0052] and [0071], “a driver (not shown) electrically coupled with the first housing or the second housing to move (e.g., slide in or out) the housing.”); and
one or more processors operable with the translation mechanism (pars. [0052] and [0071], “the operation of the driver may be performed under the control of the processor 310 or another processor (e.g., a DDI (e.g., the DDI 230 of Fig. 2)…”);
the one or more processors segmenting the flexible display into three content presentation segments as a function of a position of the blade assembly (Figs. 29, 40 and 44-45; pars. [0355]-[0356], [0383]-[0385], [0392]-[0401], [0471], [0557]-[0558], please see at least “front display area 4410”, “curved display area 4430” and “rear display area 4440”).
Regarding claim 11, Park discloses an electronic device (Fig. 8, “electronic device 800”), comprising:
a device housing (pars. [0049], [0469]);
a blade assembly carrying a blade (par. [0469], “supporting rail” or par. [0049], “second housing”; Fig. 76, pars. [0617]-[0618], “main bracket 7620”) and a flexible display (Fig. 54, “flexible display 5401”) and slidably coupled to the device housing (pars. [0052], 0470]-[0471], “the first housing 5410 is fixed and the flexible display 501 is movable upwards or downwards…”);
a translation mechanism operable to slide the blade assembly relative to the device housing (pars. [0052] and [0071], “a driver (not shown) electrically coupled with the first housing or the second housing to move (e.g., slide in or out) the housing.”); and
one or more processors operable with the translation mechanism (pars. [0052] and [0071], “the operation of the driver may be performed under the control of the processor 310 or another processor (e.g., a DDI (e.g., the DDI 230 of Fig. 2)…”);
the one or more processors manipulating content being presented on the flexible display as a function of a position of the blade assembly (Figs. 29 and 44; pars. [0383]-[0385], [0392]-[0401], [0471], [0557]-[0558]).
Regarding claim 17, Park discloses an electronic device (Fig. 8, “electronic device 800”), comprising:
a device housing (pars. [0049], [0469]);
a blade assembly carrying a blade (par. [0469], “supporting rail” or par. [0049], “second housing”; Fig. 76, pars. [0617]-[0618], “main bracket 7620”) and a flexible display (Fig. 54, “flexible display 5401”) and slidably coupled to the device housing (pars. [0052], 0470]-[0471], “the first housing 5410 is fixed and the flexible display 501 is movable upwards or downwards…”);
a translation mechanism operable to slide the blade assembly relative to the device housing between at least an extended position where the blade extends beyond an edge of the device housing and a retracted position where the blade abuts a major surface of the device housing (pars. [0052] and [0071], “a driver (not shown) electrically coupled with the first housing or the second housing to move (e.g., slide in or out) the housing.”); and
one or more processors operable with the translation mechanism (pars. [0052] and [0071], “the operation of the driver may be performed under the control of the processor 310 or another processor (e.g., a DDI (e.g., the DDI 230 of Fig. 2)…”);
the one or more processors segmenting the flexible display into three content presentation segments as a function of a position of the blade assembly (Figs. 29, 40 and 44-45; pars. [0355]-[0356], [0383]-[0385], [0392]-[0401], [0471], [0557]-[0558], please see at least “front display area 4410”, “curved display area 4430” and “rear display area 4440”).
Regarding claim 2, Park discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Park further discloses wherein the three content presentation segments consist of a front-facing content presentation segment, a rear-facing content presentation segment, and a curvilinear content presentation segment (Figs. 29, 40 and 44-45; pars. [0355]-[0356], [0383]-[0385], [0392]-[0401], [0471], [0557]-[0558], please see at least “front display area 4410”, “curved display area 4430” and “rear display area 4440”).
Regarding claim 3, Park discloses all the limitations of claim 2. Park further discloses wherein an area of the flexible display occupied by the curvilinear content presentation segment of the flexible display remains constant as the blade assembly translates (Fig. 44, pars. [0383]-[0385], “curved display area 4430” stays in a constant position of the flexible display).
Regarding claim 4, Park discloses all the limitations of claim 3. Park further discloses wherein the area of the flexible display occupied by the curvilinear content presentation segment of the flexible display changes as the blade assembly translates (par. [0388], “the electronic device may apply… a designated third color variation value (e.g., a minimum alpha blending value) to the curved display area 4430…).
Regarding claim 5, Park discloses all the limitations of claim 2. Park further discloses wherein the front-facing content presentation segment and the rear-facing content presentation segment change location as the blade assembly translates (Fig. 57A and pars. [0485]-[0489], “When one flexible display is driven by one display driving circuit (or a data driver), the image displayed on the second area 5720 may be an image by adjusting the resolution of the image displayed on the first area 5710 to suit the size of the second area 5720 and rotating and left-to-right inverting the resolution-adjusted image”).
Regarding claim 6, Park discloses all the limitations of claim 5. Park further discloses wherein wherein the front-facing content presentation segment gets larger as the blade assembly translates from a retracted position to an extended position (please see at least Figs. 53 and 57A).
Regarding claim 7, Park discloses all the limitations of claim 5. Park further discloses wherein the rear-facing content presentation segment gets smaller as the blade assembly translates from a retracted position to an extended position (Fig. 54, as the front-facing content presentation is expanded, the rear-facing portion decreases in size).
Regarding claim 8, Park discloses all the limitations of claim 5. Park further discloses wherein content presented on the rear-facing content presentation segment is rotated 180-degrees relative to other content presented on the front-facing content presentation segment (Fig. 57B and par. [0493], third image, “image rotation”).
Regarding claim 9, Park discloses all the limitations of claim 2. Park further discloses wherein the one or more processors moving content from the front-facing content presentation segment to the rear-facing content presentation segment when the blade assembly translates from a retracted position to an extended position (Fig. 57A and pars. [0485]-[0489], “image displayed on the second area 5720 may be the image displayed on the first area 5710 which is on the opposite surface of the second area 5720. When one flexible display is driven by one display driving circuit (or a data driver)”).
Regarding claim 10, Park discloses all the limitations of claim 2. Park further discloses wherein the one or more processors resizing, and remapping content presented on the flexible display when the blade assembly translates from a retracted position to an extended position (par. [0493], “the image resolution change (or resizing), image inversion, and image rotation, may be performed by the display driving circuit before displayed on the second area 5720, and then, the final image, i.e., the image having undergone resizing, image inversion, and image rotation, may be represented on the flexible display by the data driver.”).
Regarding claim 12, Park discloses all the limitations of claim 11. Park further discloses wherein the electronic device comprising a smartphone (par. [0020], “mobile phone, a video phone” are smartphones).
Regarding claim 13, Park discloses all the limitations of claim 11. Park further discloses where the one or more processors segmenting the flexible display into a display root 1 portion, a display root 2 portion, and a display root 3 portion and presenting first content in the display root 1 portion, second content in the display root 2 portion, and third content in the display root 3 portion (Figs. 29, 40 and 44-45; pars. [0355]-[0356], [0383]-[0385], [0392]-[0401], [0471], [0557]-[0558], please see at least “front display area 4410”, “curved display area 4430” and “rear display area 4440”; where the front, curvilinear and rear portions correspond to root portions 1, 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 14, Park discloses all the limitations of claim 13. Park further discloses wherein: the display root 1 portion corresponds to a front-facing portion of the flexible display; the display root 2 portion corresponds to a rear-facing portion of the flexible display; and the display root 3 portion corresponds to a roll edge portion of the flexible display (Figs. 29, 40 and 44-45; pars. [0355]-[0356], [0383]-[0385], [0392]-[0401], [0471], [0557]-[0558], please see at least “front display area 4410”, “rear display area 4440” and “curved display area 4430” correspond to ; root portions 1, 2 and 3, respectively).
Regarding claim 15, Park discloses all the limitations of claim 14. Park further discloses wherein wherein the second content presented in the display root 2 portion is rotated 180 degrees relative to the first content presented in the display root 1 portion (Fig. 57B and par. [0493], third image, “image rotation”).
Regarding claim 16, Park discloses all the limitations of claim 15. Park further discloses wherein the third content presented in the display root 1 portion is presented as a function of the orientation of the electronic device in three- dimensional space (Fig. 9-10, 59, par. [0131], “the electronic device 900 may display the screen according to the designated resolution and considering the orientation (e.g., the landscape orientation) of the electronic device 900”; pars. [0503]-[0504], “an electronic device 5900 in the landscape orientation may include a flexible display 5901. As a housing (e.g., the flexible display) of the electronic device 5900 moves, a portion of the flexible display 5901 may selectively be slid in or out from the side of the electronic device 5900”).
Regarding claim 18, Park discloses all the limitations of claim 17. Park further discloses wherein the one or more processors segmenting the flexible display into a front-facing portion, a roll edge portion, and a rear-facing portion (Figs. 29, 40 and 44-45; pars. [0355]-[0356], [0383]-[0385], [0392]-[0401], [0471], [0557]-[0558], please see at least “front display area 4410”, “curved display area 4430” and “rear display area 4440”).
Regarding claim 19, Park discloses all the limitations of claim 18. Park further discloses wherein first content presented on the front-facing portion and second content presented on the roll edge portion are presented with the same orientation (Fig. 57B, first example showing the same orientation).
Regarding claim 20, Park discloses all the limitations of claim 18. Park further discloses wherein the one or more processors remapping content presentations on the front-facing portion, the roll edge portion, and the rear-facing portion in response to the blade assembly translating toward the extended position or retracted position (Fig. 57B and pars. [0492]-[0493], “image resolution change (or resizing), image inversion, and image rotation, may be performed by the display driving circuit before displayed on the second area 5720, and then, the final image, i.e., the image having undergone resizing, image inversion, and image rotation, may be represented on the flexible display by the data driver.”; Fig. 59 showing an image presented and resized in each of the “front display area 4410”, “rear display area 4440” and “curved display area 4430”).
Note: The examiner has cited the European Examination Report dated April 26 2024.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2019/0346954 A1 relates to method for displaying content in expandable screen area and electronic device supporting the same.
US 20230051784 A1 (Lee et al., hereinafter Lee) discloses flexible electronic device for displaying based on type of content.
US 2021/0337049 A1 relates to mobile terminal and control of slidable display.
US 2016/0378270 A1 relates to method for providing usability for extendable area of display in an electronic device.
US 12045535 B2 relates to expandable display control method.
US 2023/0097982 A1 relates to electronic device including a plurality of displays and method of operation.
US 20130275910 A1 relates to optimization of application execution based on length of pulled out flexible display screen.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Angelica Perez whose telephone number is 571-272-7885. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
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, Yuwen (Kevin) Pan can be reached at (571) 272-7855. The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned are 571-273-8300 for regular communications and for After Final communications.
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 the PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through the 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). Information regarding Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system can be found at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the TC 2600's customer service number is 703-306-0377.
/Angelica M. Perez/
Primary Examiner AU 2649