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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korea on 1/26/2021.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Hsu (US 20190390703 A1, hereinafter Hsu)
Claim 1. Hsu teaches an electronic device comprising:
a first housing (2, fig 3);
a second housing (4, fig 3);
a hinge device (6, fig 3) connecting the first housing and the second housing in a movable manner (figs 3, 4) relative to each other with respect to a folding axis (into the page of fig 4), and including:
a hinge housing (3, 5, 621, figs 3, 4) having an accommodation portion (space inside 621, fig 3),
a hinge module (61, 63, figs 2, 3) disposed in the accommodation portion (fig 3), and
including a rotator (22, 42 including 32, 34, 52, 54, fig 3) connecting the first housing and the second housing; and
a flexible display (93, fig 3) disposed to be supported by the first housing, the second housing and at least a part of the hinge device (fig 3),
wherein the rotator is disposed to allow a portion (34, 54, fig 3; also portion of 32 nearby 232 in fig 3, portion of 52 nearby 433 in fig 3) of the rotator to be in contact with the hinge housing in a folded state (fig 4), and to be spaced apart from the hinge housing by a specified distance in an unfolded state (fig 3).
Claim 2. Hsu teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein when the rotator is in the folded state (fig 4), the rotator and the hinge housing are at least partially in contact with each other along a direction parallel to the folding axis (since fig 4 is a cross section but the elements extend into and out of the page in a depth direction).
Claim 3. Hsu teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein:
the hinge housing includes a cover part (241, 243, fig 3) formed to have a length along the folding axis (since they extend in a depth direction of fig 3), a first closed end (23, fig 3) extending from one end of the cover part, and a second closed end (43, fig 3) extending from the other end of the cover part (fig 3); and wherein
the accommodation portion is formed by the cover part, the first closed end, and the second closed end (fig 3).
Claim 4. Hsu teaches the electronic device of claim 3, wherein:
the rotator includes a protrusion (32, 52, fig 3) having a first inclined portion (bottom portion in fig 3); wherein
when the rotator is in the folded state (fig 4), the first inclined portion is in surface contact with a second inclined portion (surface underneath 232, 433 in fig 3) formed proximate at least one of the first closed end and the second closed end (figs 3, 4).
Claim 5. Hsu teaches the electronic device of claim 4, wherein:
the first inclined portion (bottom portion of 32, 52 in fig 3) is formed to be gradually heightened in a direction perpendicular to the folding axis in the unfolded state (fig 3), and
the second inclined portion is formed in a shape corresponding to the first inclined portion (fig 3) to be in contact with the first inclined portion in the folded state (figs 3, 4).
Claim 15. Hsu teaches the electronic device of claim 3, wherein when the hinge housing is in the folded state, the cover part is hidden from an outside view by the first housing and the second housing (fig 4 shows that the cover part is hidden from an outside view from the top looking downwards in fig 4).
Claim 16. Hsu teaches an electronic device comprising:
a first housing (2, figs 3, 4);
a second housing (4);
a hinge device having a hinge housing (3, 5, 621, fig 3) defining an accommodation portion (space inside 621, fig 3), wherein the hinge device connects the first housing and the second housing in a movable manner (figs 3, 4) relative to each other with respect to a folding axis (into the page of fig 4); and
a rotator (22, 42 including 32, 34, 52, 54, fig 3) connecting the first housing and the second housing, wherein the rotator is disposed to be in contact with the hinge housing when the electronic device is in a folded state (fig 4), and to be spaced apart from the hinge housing by a specified distance when the electronic device is in an unfolded state (fig 3).
Claim 17. Hsu teaches the electronic device of claim 16, including a hinge module (61, 63, figs 2, 3), wherein the hinge module includes the rotator and is disposed within the accommodation portion (fig 3).
Claim 18. Hsu teaches the electronic device of claim 17, further comprising a flexible display (93) disposed to be supported by at least one of the first housing, the second housing and the rotator (fig 3).
Claim 19. Hsu teaches the electronic device of claim 18, wherein when the electronic device is in the folded state, the rotator and the hinge housing are in contact with each other in a direction parallel to the folding axis (since fig 4 is a cross section but the elements extend into and out of the page in a depth direction).
Claim 20. Hsu teaches an electronic device comprising:
a first housing (2, fig 3);
a second housing (4, fig 3);
a hinge device (6, fig 3) connecting the first housing and the second housing in a movable manner (figs 3, 4) relative to each other with respect to a folding axis (into the page of fig 4), wherein the hinge device includes a hinge housing (3, 5, 621, figs 3, 4) having an accommodation portion (space inside 621, fig 3), and
a hinge module (61, 63, figs 2, 3) disposed in the accommodation portion (fig 3) and including a rotator (22, 42 including 32, 34, 52, 54, fig 3) connecting the first housing and the second housing; and
a flexible display (93, fig 3) disposed to be supported by the first housing, the second housing and at least a part of the hinge device (fig 3),
wherein the rotator is disposed to allow a portion (34, 54, fig 3; also portion of 32 nearby 232 in fig 3, portion of 52 nearby 433 in fig 3) of the rotator to be in contact with the hinge housing in a folded state (fig 4), and to be spaced apart from the hinge housing by a specified distance in an unfolded state (fig 3),
wherein the hinge housing includes a cover part (241, 243, fig 3) formed to have a length along the folding axis (since they extend in a depth direction of fig 3), a first closed end (23, fig 3) extending from one end of the cover part, and a second closed end (43, fig 3) extending from the other end of the cover part (fig 3), wherein
the accommodation portion is formed by the cover part, the first closed end and the second closed end (fig 3).
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.
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 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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu in view of US 20190391618 A1 (hereinafter Hsu ‘618)
Claim 6. Hsu teaches the electronic device of claim 4, wherein the hinge module (61, 63, fig 2) includes a first hinge module (61) which is fixed near the first closed end in the accommodation portion (fig 3), and a second hinge module (63) however Hsu fails to teach a second hinge module which is spaced apart from the first closed end by a specified distance in the accommodation portion and is fixed near the second closed end
Hsu ‘618 teaches a second hinge module (211, 219, 221, fig 4) is spaced apart from the first closed end (closed end on the right side) by a specified distance in the accommodation portion and is fixed near the second closed end (closed end on the left side).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the arrangement as taught by Hsu ‘618 into the device of Hsu. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Hsu in the above manner for the purpose of forming a continuous supporting effect during rotation to stably increase or reduce gradually to avoid sudden failure’ (Hsu ‘618 [0038] recites ‘The torsion structure is applied by set a spindle of the first rotating member together with a sleeve and a slider of the second rotating member, so as to form a continuous supporting effect during the rotation of the each rotating member, and the provided torque is able to stably increase or reduce gradually to avoid sudden failure’ while [0030] recites ‘The sleeve 211 also has a radial opening to gradually increase or decrease the frictional torque during the forward or reverse rotation with respect to the shaft 111, such that the shaft 111 and the sleeve 211 generates a torque change, but in order to together with the reduction of volume and thickness, the rotating center shared by the shaft 111 and the sleeve 211 is eccentrically set (i.e., deviated from the common rotating center C of each rotating member) and is not regarded as the basis for the relative rotation of each rotating member, thereby it continuously provides the supporting torque during the relative rotation of each rotating member, so as to facilitate free stagnation’)
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu in view of US 20190391618 A1 (hereinafter Hsu ‘618), further in view of Hamers (US 20130002114 A1, hereinafter Hamers)
Claim 14. Hsu in view of Hsu ‘618 teaches the electronic device of claim 4, but fails to specifically teach at least one of the hinge housing and the at least one rotator are made of a metallic material
Hamers teaches a hinge housing or rotator made of metallic material ([0029] recites ‘In the embodiment shown in FIG. 4, the hinge part 8 is partly made of metal instead of plastic. The advantage is that metal is much stiffer than plastic. So a thinner construction of the positioning means (positioners) can be made with the same performance as with plastic material, but needing less space than the plastic solution’)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the arrangement as taught by Hamers into the device of Hsu in view of Hsu ‘618. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Hsu in view of Hsu ‘618 in the above manner for the purpose of having stiffness while saving space (Hamers [0029]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-13 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter for claim 7: The closest prior art (which has been made of record) fail to disclose (by themselves or in combination) a first rotator included in the first hinge module and coupled to the first housing;
a second rotator included in the first hinge module and coupled to the second housing;
a third rotator included in the second hinge module and coupled to the first housing; and
a fourth rotator included in the second hinge module and coupled to the second housing in combination with the additionally claimed features, as are claimed by the Applicant. Thus, the Applicant’s claims are determined to be novel and non-obvious.
Claim 7. Hsu in view of Hsu ‘618 teaches the electronic device of claim 6, but fails to teach:
a first rotator included in the first hinge module and coupled to the first housing;
a second rotator included in the first hinge module and coupled to the second housing;
a third rotator included in the second hinge module and coupled to the first housing; and
a fourth rotator included in the second hinge module and coupled to the second housing.
Hsu (US 20200310497 A1) teaches a first rotator included in the first hinge module (top part of the hinge module) and coupled to the first housing (left housing);
a second rotator included in the first hinge module (top part of the hinge module) and coupled to the second housing (right housing);
a third rotator included in the second hinge module (bottom part of the hinge module) and coupled to the first housing (left housing); and
a fourth rotator included in the second hinge module (bottom part of the hinge module) and coupled to the second housing (right housing).
PNG
media_image1.png
1812
1843
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However it would not have been obvious to further modify Hsu in view of Hsu ‘618 in such a manner. Hsu (US 20200310497 A1) could not work as a primary reference since it does not teach the limitations of claim 3. Hsu (US 11009919 B2) has a similar situation.
Hsu (US 11048296 B2) fig 4 teaches the limitations of claim 7 in isolation, however Hsu (US 11048296 B2) would not work as a primary reference since it fails to teach the last limitation of claim 1.
Lee (US 11737223 B2) has a similar situation.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular elements, columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS R BURTNER whose telephone number is (571)272-0966. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Allen Parker can be reached at 303-297-4722. 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.
/ALLEN L PARKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2841
/DOUGLAS R BURTNER/Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights