DETAILED ACTION
Examiner acknowledges receipt of amendment to application 18/132,210 filed on June 30, 2026. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are still pending.
Response to Arguments
On pages 1-3 of the remarks filed June 30, 2026, Applicant argues:
In the present case, the cited combination fails to teach or suggest this required causal relationship between a detected support condition and selection of the energy storage devices that power the processors.
The Office Action acknowledges that Kim does not explicitly disclose controlling power as a function of a support condition and instead relies on Sahu for that feature. Applicant respectfully submits that this reliance does not cure the deficiency.
Kim's cited disclosure concerns identifying an "operation state" of the device, such as a
charging operation state, normal operation state, low-power operation state, or power-off state, and controlling charging control circuits based on that operation state. Kim [0095]. Kim further discloses that, in a low-power operation state or power-off state, the second charging control circuit may interrupt certain paths so that the second battery is in a no-load state, while the first battery supplies discharging current to the power input. Kim [0138]. Thus, Kim's selection or disconnection is driven by device operating state, such as display deactivation, a folded state, an idle state, or power-off processing, not by a support condition of the deformable electronic device as claimed.
Sahu is directed to an entirely different concept. Sahu discloses leveraging user proximity measurements to determine thermal management policies in a wearable computing device. Sahu [0006]. Sahu explains that sensors may be used for triggering throttling strategies that optimize device performance subject to acceptable temperature ranges for user contact, and that the device may select more conservative thermal policies when worn and relax thermal algorithms when not worn. Sahu [0030]. Sahu further describes sensors for recognizing user proximity, such as heart rate, pulse, bio-impedance, motion, temperature, pressure, capacitance, and light sensors. Sahu [0037]-[0038].
The additional Sahu paragraphs cited in the Office Action likewise concern determining
proximity or applying proximity-based thermal management in a wearable device; they do not disclose selecting among plural energy storage devices to power a processor based on a support condition. See Sahu ||||0026], [0028], [0030], [0036].
In the cited thermal-management implementation, Sahu adjusts a temperature threshold associated with acceptable touch temperature and then implements thermal management techniques based on sensed temperatures and that threshold. Sahu [0041]. These disclosures concern proximity-based thermal policies, throttling strategies, and temperature thresholds. They do not teach selecting a subset of a plurality of energy storage devices to power one or more processors, and they do not teach doing SO as a function of how or where a deformable device is supported.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Kim discloses a system for controlling power (pars. 76-80) of a foldable (figs. 1-2; pars. 40-41) device. Sahu discloses a system for controlling power (pars. 26, 28, 30 & 36) of a foldable device (par. 28, “smart glasses”). The instant application discloses controlling power (claim 1) of a foldable device (fig. 2; pars. [0044-0045]). Thus, the Kim and Sahu references are analogous art in both the sense of the field of art (foldable electronic devices) and the problem being solved (controlling power for foldable electronic devices). See MPEP 2141.01(a).
Kim teaches the specific technique of selecting a subset of storage devices to power the wearable device (a first or second battery), but does not disclose that that power control (selecting a first or second battery) is triggered by the support condition of the device. Sahu discloses triggering a power control based on the support condition of the device but not specifically that the power control involves connecting only a subset of a plurality of batteries. Both references relate to limiting power for foldable devices. Thus, by modifying Kim, which teaches power control by disconnecting one of a subset of batteries, by the teaching of Sahu, to perform such power control based on the support condition of the device, the claimed limitation is met.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that Sahu performs the power control based on the support condition for a different purpose than Applicant’s, Examiner notes that the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Although Sahu may have a different reasoning performing power control based on the support position of the device (acceptable temperature for user contact as argued by Applicant) than Applicant’s invention, the combination of Kim and Sahu teaches the claimed limitation and a valid reason for combination.
On pages 1-3 of the remarks filed June 30, 2026, Applicant argues:
The distinction is confirmed by Applicant's specification. In Applicant's disclosure, the support condition is not merely a generalized "worn/not worn" state. Rather, the support condition includes whether the device is held at a first end, held at a second end, held at a central portion, supported by a surface, or substantially held across the deformable housing. See Spec. |[0075]. The claimed thermal mitigation is performed by selecting which distributed energy storage devices supply load current to the processors. For example, when the support condition is that the device is held at a first end, the thermal mitigation circuit may select a subset situated closer to the second end to power the processors, thereby keeping the first end cooler; when held at the second end, another subset closer to the first end may be selected; when held at a central portion, first and second subsets separated by the central portion may be selected; and when supported by a surface, all energy storage devices may be selected. Spec. [0075]. The specification further explains that the thermal mitigation circuit is operable to power the processors from one, some, or all of the plurality of energy storage devices. Spec. [0076]. The claimed feature therefore requires support-condition-based energy-storage-device selection for powering the processors, not merely a thermal policy or processor throttling decision based on user proximity. The cited combination therefore does not teach the claimed support-condition-based energy-storage-device selection for powering the processors. At most, Kim teaches operation-state-based battery path control, while Sahu teaches proximity-based thermal policy or throttling adjustments; neither reference, alone or in combination, teaches using the support condition to select which subset of energy storage devices powers the processors.
This point notwithstanding, respectfully, Applicant submits that the Office Action has failed to provide an articulated reason with rational underpinning for modifying Kim in the manner required by the claims. The stated rationale-that it would be desirable to make sure the temperature is acceptable to a user-identifies only a general thermal objective. It does not explain why a person of ordinary skill would have modified Kim's operation-state-based battery/control architecture so that Kim's selection of which battery or batteries power the load would instead be driven by Sahu's proximity-based thermal policy logic.
Sahu itself teaches adjusting thermal algorithms, selecting conservative or relaxed thermal policies, and changing temperature thresholds. Sahu TT[0030], [0041]. It does not suggest using user proximity or support state to select among multiple energy storage devices to power a processor. Under the obviousness standard, the rejection must provide an articulated reason for the proposed modification with a rational underpinning. See MPEP § 2143; In re Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988. The present rejection does not do SO.
The deficiency is particularly apparent for claim 18, which requires the thermal mitigation circuit to select which energy storage devices will power the processors as a function of both a sensor-detected support condition and a geometric configuration; Kim's cited operation-state control and Sahu's proximity-based thermal policies do not teach that combined functional selection.
Accordingly, even assuming arguendo Kim and Sahu were combined, the resulting combination would at most suggest Kim's operation-state-based battery path control together with Sahu's proximity-based thermal policy or throttling adjustments. That combination still would not teach or suggest the claimed thermal mitigation circuit selecting a subset of a plurality of energy storage devices to power the processors as a function of a support condition of the deformable electronic device, as required by claims 1, 15, and 18. Claims 11 and 14 depend from claim 1 and are patentable for at least the same reasons. Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration of the §103 rejection of claims 1, 11, 14-15, and 18.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that Applicant’s arguments with respect to further defining the “support condition” are not relevant to the claim at issue here, rather those definitions are already claimed in claim 2, which has been indicated as allowable subject matter.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Kim teaches the subset of energy storage device selection. For a prima facie case of obviousness, Examiner does not have to provide a motivation for Kim’s teaching of the subset selection since Kim is the primary reference. The feature that Kim is missing is the power control based on the support condition, which is taught by Sahu, and for which Examiner has provided a motivation explicitly in the Sahu reference for it to be applied. Thus, a prima facie case of obviousness has been made.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claims 1, 11, 14-15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. US PGPUB 2020/0036198, in view of Sahu et al. US PGPUB 2018/0224871.
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Kim discloses a deformable electronic device [par. 38; flexible electronic device], comprising:
a flexible display supported by a deformable housing comprising a plurality of energy storage devices [figs. 1-2; pars. 12-13, 40-41, 50 & 72-73; flexible device including flexible display 100 comprising a plurality of batteries (pars. 12-13 & 50)];
one or more processors operable with the flexible display [figs. 1-2; par. 50];
one or more sensors operable with the one or more processors [fig. 4; par. 93; temperature sensor and voltage and current are sensed as well];
and a thermal mitigation circuit operable with each energy storage device, the thermal mitigation circuit selecting a subset of the plurality of energy storage devices to power the one or more processors [fig. 4; pars. 76-80; the charging current is controlled based on the temperature by the PMIC, which is controlled by processor 470 (fig. 4), thus the processor is a thermal mitigation circuit; the processor also chooses a subset of the batteries to power the load (par. 77; fig. 8, pars. 137-138)].
Kim discloses the deformable device [see above] and selecting a subset to control power [see above] but does not explicitly disclose the power is controlled as a function of a support condition of the electronic device.
However, Sahu discloses a power storage system for a wearable electronic device wherein the power is chosen as a function of a support condition of the electronic device [pars. 26, 28, 30 & 36; power is throttled based on whether or not the device is supported (worn)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim to further include wherein the power is chosen as a function of a support condition of the electronic device for the purpose of making sure the temperature is acceptable to a user, as taught by Sahu (par. 30).
Regarding claim 15, the method steps disclosed therein would have been are deemed as being obvious to one of ordinary skill based on the teachings of the prior art reference(s) applied above, since the prior art of record herein is construed as teaching or suggesting all of the elements recited in the method claim, as pointed out in the above rejection of claim 1. The claim is accordingly rejected.
Regarding claim 11, Kim discloses the thermal mitigation circuit further selecting the subset of the plurality of energy storage devices to power the one or more processors as a function of a geometric configuration of the deformable electronic device [par. 95 & 137-138; based on the geometric state (folded) the power is controlled (“low power”), and only a single battery may be connected to supply power (fig. 8)].
Regarding claim 14, Kim discloses wherein the plurality of energy storage devices is situated on a rear side of the deformable electronic device between an electronics component enclosure and an end cap, with each energy storage device of the plurality of energy storage devices spanning a width of the deformable electronic device [fig. 3, batteries 410 and 420 span a width (the long dimension) of the device between electronics enclosure 610 and end cap 580/590; pars. 72-73].
Regarding claim 18, Kim discloses a deformable electronic device, comprising:
a flexible display spanning a first major surface of the deformable electronic device [figs. 1-2; pars. 12-13, 40-41, 50 & 72-73; flexible device including flexible display 100 comprising a plurality of batteries (pars. 12-13 & 50)];
a plurality of energy storage devices situated along a second major surface of the deformable electronic device [fig. 3, batteries 410 and 420 span a width (the long dimension) of the device between electronics enclosure 610 and end cap 580/590; pars. 72-73];
one or more processors [figs. 1-2; par. 50];
one or more sensors [fig. 4; par. 93; temperature sensor and voltage and current are sensed as well]; and
a thermal mitigation circuit;
the thermal mitigation circuit selecting which energy storage devices of the plurality of energy storage devices will power the one or more processors as a function of a geometric configuration of the deformable electronic device [fig. 4; pars. 76-80; the charging current is controlled based on the temperature by the PMIC, which is controlled by processor 470 (fig. 4), thus the processor is a thermal mitigation circuit; the processor also chooses a subset of the batteries to power the load (par. 77; fig. 8, pars. 137-138); fig. 3, batteries 410 and 420 span a width (the long dimension) of the device between electronics enclosure 610 and end cap 580/590; pars. 72-73].
Kim discloses the deformable device [see above] and selecting a subset to control power [see above] but does not explicitly disclose the power is controlled as a function of a support condition of the electronic device.
However, Sahu discloses a power storage system for a wearable electronic device wherein the power is chosen as a function of a support condition of the electronic device [pars. 26, 28, 30 & 36; power is throttled based on whether or not the device is supported (worn)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim to further include wherein the power is chosen as a function of a support condition of the electronic device for the purpose of making sure the temperature is acceptable to a user, as taught by Sahu (par. 30).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-10, 12-13, 16-17 and 19-20 are 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.
With respect to claim 2, the following is an examiner's statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to further teach or suggest “wherein when the support condition comprises the deformable electronic device being held at a first end of the deformable housing the subset of the plurality of energy storage devices are situated closer to a second end of the deformable housing than the first end of the deformable housing” in combination with all the other elements recited in claim 2.
Claims 3-9, being dependent on claim 2, would be allowable for the same reasons as claim 2.
With respect to claim 10, the following is an examiner's statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to further teach or suggest “wherein when the support condition comprises the deformable electronic device being held at a first end of the deformable housing while the deformable electronic device is adjacent to an ear, the subset of the plurality of energy storage devices are situated closer to the first end of the deformable housing than a second end of the deformable housing” in combination with all the other elements recited in claim 10.
With respect to claim 12, the following is an examiner's statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to further teach or suggest “when the geometric configuration comprises the deformable electronic device defining a loop the thermal mitigation circuit selects all energy storage device to power the one or more processors” in combination with all the other elements recited in claim 12.
With respect to claim 13, the following is an examiner's statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to further teach or suggest “the thermal mitigation circuit further selecting another subset of the plurality of energy storage devices to be charged as a function of the support condition of the deformable electronic device” in combination with all the other elements recited in claim 13.
With respect to claim 16, the following is an examiner's statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to further teach or suggest “the support condition comprising the deformable electronic device being held at a first end, wherein the subset of the plurality of energy storage devices are separated from the first end by at least one energy storage device excluded from the subset of the plurality of energy storage devices” in combination with all the other elements recited in claim 16.
With respect to claim 17, the following is an examiner's statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to further teach or suggest “the deformable electronic device being held at a central portion, wherein the subset of the plurality of energy storage devices comprises a first set of energy storage devices and a second set of energy storage devices separated from the first set of energy storage devices by at least one energy storage device excluded from the subset of the plurality of energy storage devices” in combination with all the other elements recited in claim 17.
With respect to claim 19, the following is an examiner's statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to further teach or suggest “when the support condition comprises a wrist-worn support condition, the thermal mitigation circuit selects the all energy storage devices of the plurality of energy storage devices to power the one or more processors” in combination with all the other elements recited in claim 19.
With respect to claim 20, the following is an examiner's statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to further teach or suggest “when the geometric configuration comprises the deformable electronic device being bent to define a loop, the thermal mitigation circuit selects a subset of the plurality of energy storage devices to power the one or more processors” in combination with all the other elements recited in claim 20.
Conclusion
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 DAVID V HENZE whose telephone number is (571)272-3317. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 9am to 7pm.
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, Julian Huffman can be reached at 571-272-2147. 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.
/DAVID V HENZE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights