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 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 (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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 6, 13, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US 10912214 B2, and Kang hereinafter) in view of Cho et al. (US 8837126 B2, and Cho hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 1, Kang discloses a folding computing device comprising:
a hinge assembly (230, fig. 1B) defining a first axis and a second axis (axes of 231a and 232a, fig. 7);
a first assembly (201, fig. 2) rotatably connected to the hinge assembly about the first axis (fig. 1B);
a second assembly (202, fig. 2) rotatably connected to the hinge assembly about the second axis (fig. 1B), wherein, when the folding device is fully opened about the hinge assembly, an inner surface of the first assembly is coplanar with an inner surface of the second assembly (fig. 2);
a flexible continuous display (251, fig. 1B) spanning an inner surface of the first assembly and an inner surface of the second assembly (figs. 1B and 2), wherein the hinge assembly includes a cavity into which a portion of the flexible continuous display resides when the folding computing device is closed (cavity defined by space housing bent portion 252 of the flexible display in fig. 10A);
a camera (121, fig. 1), wherein a particular edge of an active area of the flexible continuous display is straight (top edge of 201 and 202 surrounding 251, figs. 5-6);
first mechanical components (annotated figure I below) configured to directly connect the hinge assembly to the first assembly (“a first rotation shaft 231 connected to the first body 201”, Col. 19, ln. 54-55); and
second mechanical components (annotated figure I below) configured to directly connect the hinge assembly to the second assembly (“a second rotation shaft 231 connected to the second body”, Col. 19, ln. 56-56), wherein the first and second mechanical components are located in a top hinge region (230a, figs. 5-6), and wherein measured parallel to the first axis a dimension of the first and second mechanical components in the top hinge region is smaller than a dimension of the bezel that borders the particular edge (figs. 5-7).
PNG
media_image1.png
1007
1641
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kang does not explicitly disclose the camera having an aperture located in a bezel of the second assembly that borders the flexible continuous display, and wherein the aperture is directly adjacent to the particular edge.
Cho discloses a folding computing device comprising a camera (310, fig. 18) having an aperture located in a bezel of a second assembly (rightmost portion of B1, fig. 18) that borders the flexible continuous display (figs. 1 and 18), and wherein the aperture is directly adjacent to a particular edge ( bottom edge of B1 fig. 18).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill I the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kang to incorporate the teachings of Cho so that the camera has an aperture located in a bezel of the second assembly that borders the flexible continuous display, and wherein the aperture is directly adjacent to the particular edge, in order to provide a uniform display area, enhancing the user experience when watching images or videos (e.g., display area being gap-free). More in detail, Kang discloses a display device with a bezel and front camera in an undisclosed location, Cho provides a front camera located in the bezel area. For devices that do have a bezel, placing the camera under the display rather than in the bezel would decrease the available display area and at the same time would produce a gaps in the images displayed, at the location of the camera. On the other hand, placing the camera on the bezel would avoid said drawbacks. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that said modification (placing the camera in the bezel) represents a routine optimization – not an inventive concept that would have the advantage of providing devices that enhance user experience (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(E) and MPEP § 2143 (I)(A)).
Regarding Claim 6, Kang/Cho discloses the folding computing device of claim 1, wherein the second assembly further comprises a trim housing component, that forms the bezel of the second assembly (annotated figure II below) but does not explicitly disclose the trim component defining an opening via which the aperture of the camera receives light.
PNG
media_image2.png
1000
1177
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Cho further discloses a trim component (including B1 and B2, fig. 18) defining an opening via which the aperture of the camera receives light (portion of B1 occupied by 310, fig. 18).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kang/Cho to incorporate the additional teachings of Cho so that the trim component defines an opening via which the aperture of the camera receives light, in order to allow passage of light from the outside environment towards the camera module.
Regarding Claim 13, Kang/Cho discloses the folding computing device of claim 1, wherein the top hinge region is not located under the flexible continuous display (fig. 5 of Kang).
Regarding Claim 16, Kang/Cho discloses the folding computing device of claim 1, wherein a portion of an active area of the flexible continuous display is not removed to accommodate the aperture (see rejection of Claim 1 above, camera module (310, fig. 18 of Cho), and inherently its aperture, would be located entirely in bezel B1 such that no active area of display is removed to accommodate it).
Regarding Claim 17, Kang/Cho discloses the folding computing device of claim 1, wherein, when the folding device is fully closed, the camera is covered by the first assembly (Kang as modified by Cho would have the camera located in a bezel of the second assembly. Figure 1B of Kang shows the when the folding device is fully closed, the first assembly 201 covers the second assembly 202).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang in view of Cho, further in view of Choi et al. (US 11444260 B2, and Choi hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 2, Kang/Cho discloses the folding computing device of claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose the flexible continuous display comprises an active-matrix organic light emitting diode (AMOLED) display panel comprising a plurality of layers.
Choi discloses a flexible continuous display (20, fig. 3) comprises an active-matrix organic light emitting diode (AMOLED) display panel comprising a plurality of layers (including 100 and 140, figs. 3-4; “the display module 701 may be… an active matrix organic light emitting diode (AMOLED) display”, Col. 10, ln. 49-52).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kang and Cho to incorporate the teachings of Choi so that the flexible continuous display comprises an active-matrix organic light emitting diode (AMOLED) display panel comprising a plurality of layers, in order to provide enhanced color vibrancy and low power consumption.
Claims 3-5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang in view of Cho and Choi, further in view of Chen et al. (US 11251239 B2, and Chen hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 3, Kang/Cho/Choi discloses the folding computing device of claim 2, wherein the plurality of layers of the AMOLED display panel comprises:
an AMOLED layer (Kang as modified by Choi includes AMOLED layer 701, fig. 4 of Choi. See also rejection of Claim 2 above) but does not explicitly disclose a metal stiffener layer.
Chen discloses a metal stiffener layer (400, fig. 2, “the material of the support layer 400 is metal”, Col. 5, ln. 45).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kang, Cho, and Choi to incorporate the teachings of Chen so that the plurality of layers of the AMOLED display panel comprises a metal stiffener layer, in order to provide mechanical support to the AMOLED layer. This modification could be implemented, for instance, by allowing the rigid portions of the flexible frame (226, fig. 3 of Kang) to be made of a metal material as suggested by Chen, since it has a similar support functionality (as support layer 400 of Chen).
Regarding Claim 4, Kang/Cho/Choi/Chen discloses the folding computing device of claim 3 but does not explicitly disclose a subset of the plurality of layers of the AMOLED display panel are notched proximate to the camera.
Choi further discloses a subset of the plurality of layers of the AMOLED display (e.g., 140, fig. 3; “The display unit 20 may include the display 100 and at least one plate or layer 140 on which the display 100 is mounted”, Col. 7, ln. 10-12) are notched proximate to the camera (figs. 1 and 3, “a partial area of the plate 140 may be formed in a shape corresponding to the notch 104 of the display 100”, Col. 7, ln.17-19).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kang/Cho/Choi/Chen to incorporate the additional teachings of Choi so that a subset of the plurality of layers of the AMOLED display are notched proximate to the camera, in order to optimize fitting of the display layers around the camera or other peripherals installed in the notch area.
Regarding Claim 5, Kang/Cho/Choi/Chen discloses the folding computing device of claim 4, wherein the subset of the plurality of layers comprises the metal stiffener layer (140, fig. 3 of Choi as modified by Chen. See rejection of Claims 3 and 4 above).
Regarding Claim 15, Kang/Cho discloses the folding computing device of claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose the flexible continuous display comprises an active-matrix organic light emitting diode (AMOLED) display panel comprising a plurality of layers, wherein the plurality of layers of the AMOLED display panel comprises:
an AMOLED layer; and
a metal stiffener layer,
wherein a subset of the plurality of layers of the AMOLED display panel are notched proximate to the camera, and wherein the subset of the plurality of layers comprises the metal stiffener layer.
Choi discloses a flexible continuous display (20, fig. 3) comprises an active-matrix organic light emitting diode (AMOLED) display panel comprising a plurality of layers (including 100 and 140, figs. 3-4; “the display module 701 may be… an active matrix organic light emitting diode (AMOLED) display”, Col. 10, ln. 49-52), wherein the plurality of layers of the AMOLED display panel comprises: an AMOLED layer (701 fig. 4, includes AMOLED layer), wherein a subset of the plurality of layers of the AMOLED display (e.g., 140, fig. 3; “The display unit 20 may include the display 100 and at least one plate or layer 140 on which the display 100 is mounted”, Col. 7, ln. 10-12) are notched proximate to the camera (figs. 1 and 3, “a partial area of the plate 140 may be formed in a shape corresponding to the notch 104 of the display 100”, Col. 7, ln.17-19).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kang and Cho to incorporate the teachings of Choi so that the flexible continuous display comprises an active-matrix organic light emitting diode (AMOLED) display panel comprising a plurality of layers, in order to provide enhanced color vibrancy and low power consumption, and to optimize fitting of the display layers around the camera or other peripherals installed in the notch area.
Chen discloses a metal stiffener layer (400, fig. 2, “the material of the support layer 400 is metal”, Col. 5, ln. 45).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kang, Cho, and Choi to incorporate the teachings of Chen so that the plurality of layers of the AMOLED display panel comprises a metal stiffener layer, in order to provide mechanical support to the AMOLED layer. This modification could be implemented, for instance, by allowing the rigid portion of the flexible frame (226, fig. 3 of Kang) to be made of a metal material as suggested by Chen, since it has a similar support functionality (as support layer 400 of Chen).
Claim 7 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang in view of Cho, further in view of Shibayama et al. (US 11520382 B2, and Shibayama hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 7, Kang/Cho discloses the folding computing device of claim 6 but does not explicitly disclose the opening defined by the trim housing component is shaped as a discorectangle.
Shibayama discloses an opening (44, fig. 6) defined by a trim housing component (40, fig. 6) is shaped as a discorectangle (fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kang/Cho to incorporate the teachings of Shibayama so that the opening defined by the trim housing component is shaped as a discorectangle, in order to make it more visible and easier to locate for users.
Regarding Claim 10, Kang/Cho discloses the folding computing device of claim 6 but does not explicitly disclose the opening has a long dimension and a short dimension, and wherein the short dimension is parallel to the second axis.
Shibayama discloses an opening (44, fig. 6) has a long dimension (along X, fig. 6) and a short dimension (along Y, fig. 6), and wherein the short dimension is parallel to a second axis (rotation axes being along Y, fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kang/Cho to incorporate the teachings of Shibayama so that the opening has a long dimension and a short dimension, and wherein the short dimension is parallel to the second axis, in order to make it easier for a user to quickly recognize the location of the camera.
Regarding Claim 11, Kang/Cho/Shibayama discloses the folding computing device of claim 10 but does not explicitly disclose the short dimension of the opening is less than or equal to a dimension of the bezel parallel to the second axis.
Shibayama further discloses the short dimension of the opening (width of 44 along Y, fig. 6) is approximately equal to a dimension of the bezel parallel to the second axis (width along Y, of the top horizontal portion of 40, fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kang/Cho/Shibayama to incorporate the additional teachings of Shibayama so that the short dimension of the opening is approximately equal to a dimension of the bezel parallel to the second axis, in order to maximize the space for the camera components including lens.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang in view of Cho, further in view of Kim et al. (US 10775852 B2, and Kim hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 8, Kang/Cho discloses the folding computing device of claim 6, wherein the camera further comprises an image sensor (“The camera 121 processes a image frame, such as still picture or video, acquired by an image sensor”, Col. 9, ln.24-25) but does not explicitly disclose a lens, the lens disposed between the trim housing component and the image sensor.
Kim discloses a camera comprising a lens (fig. 22; “the camera module 2280 may include one or more lenses, image sensors”, Col. 31, ln. 28-29).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kang and Cho to incorporate the teachings of Kim so that the camera further comprises a lens, in order to properly capture light from the external environment and produce images. Furthermore, lenses are conventional elements widely used in the art to capture images, such that a person of ordinary skill would have found obvious to have the lens disposed between the trim housing component and the image sensor, because the functional characteristics of a camera lens are to focus light coming from the exterior(side where trim would be located) towards image sensor located in interior (to prevent capture of undesired light).
Regarding Claim 9, Kang/Cho/Kim discloses the folding computing device of claim 8, wherein the lens is not decorated (Kang/Cho as modified incorporates 310, fig. 18 of Cho showing camera module being not decorated by additional elements or markings).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claim 1, Applicant argues (pages 2-3 of Arguments/Remarks) that “The Examiner's Motivation to Combine Kang and Cho is Insufficient and Relies on Impermissible Hindsight.
Applicant respectfully submits that the Examiner's stated motivation to combine "in order to provide a uniform display area, enhancing the user experience" is a generic goal applicable to nearly any display device design and doesn't mention or, absent hindsight, have anything to do with cameras. It does not provide a specific reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the specific teachings of Kang and Cho to arrive at the features of Applicant's claim 1.”
First, as the Applicant appears to acknowledge that, providing a uniform display area is a general goal pertinent to display device design in general. This recognition presupposes this a known motivation in the field of displays and one of ordinary skill in the art would be looking for teachings helping towards this goal. Such teachings were provided by the prior art where the secondary reference provided a means by which to keep the display area uninterrupted.
Further, the examiner’s rationale for combining the references is supported by explicit teachings, suggestions, or motivations present in the prior art itself, as set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 08/05/2025. More in detail, Kang (US 10912214 B2, cited in previous Office Action) explicitly disclose a folding computing device having a bezel (fig. 1B) and one or a plurality of cameras (121, fig. 1A, “the mobile terminal 100 may include one or a plurality of cameras 121”, Col. 9, ln. 22-23). Furthermore, primary reference Kang discloses the camera configured for use in video phone call (“The camera 121 processes a image frame, such as still picture or video, acquired by an image sensor in a video phone call”, Col. 9, ln. 24-26) from which it is understood that at least one camera is a front camera. Kang is silent about whether said camera is located in the display area or the bezel, creating ambiguity regarding the location of the camera. Secondary reference Cho discloses a folding computing device having a bezel and a camera located in said bezel (fig. 18 of Cho). Thus, Cho solves the problem of ambiguity regarding the location of the camera disclosed by Kang. Furthermore, examiner notices that placement on bezel is an obvious design choice that yield predictable results (MPEP § 2144 (I)). Even assuming arguendo that Kang would have disclosed the camera located under the display, it would have been obvious to a one of ordinary skill in the art to place the camera on the bezel because of:
Market forces and Consumer preferences: users value large, uninterrupted (uniform) display areas. For devices that do have a bezel, placing the camera under the display rather than in the bezel would decrease the available display area and at the same time would produce a gaps in the images displayed, at the location of the camera. On the other hand, placing the camera on the bezel would avoid said drawbacks. Under KSR v. Teleflex, market pressure and design incentives constitute valid motivation to combine or modify prior art teachings (see MPEP 2143 (I)(E)(1))
Simplicity: it avoids technical challenges associated with placing cameras beneath the active display area (e.g., reduced light transmission through display layers, degraded image quality due to color filters or masking layers, increased processing needed for image correction). By contrast, placing a camera on a bezel avoids these problems and was the conventionally preferred location across consumer devices, as exemplified by fig. 18 of Cho. Thus, relocating the camera to the bezel represents a routine optimization – not an inventive concept. This is also consistent with MPEP § 2143 (I)(E) and MPEP § 2143 (I)(A), (“obvious to try” and optimization of known parameters).
Applicant further argues “Applicant's claim 1 is based on the recognition of a specific problem associated with a particular class of hinge mechanisms. As disclosed in the specification, folding that "enable an apex of a continuous display to reside within a hinge assembly, may increase a size of a dimension parallel to a folding axis(es)... This increase in other dimensions of the device may result in a larger bezel." Applicant's claim 1 solves this problem by placing the camera within this necessarily enlarged bezel, thereby "utiliz[ing] the same perimeter space such that neither increases the overall size of folding device 100." The prior art provides no recognition of this problem or its solution. The Examiner has used the Applicant's own disclosure as a blueprint to combine the references, which constitutes impermissible hindsight.”
Applicant’s assertion that Claim 1 is based on the recognition of a specific problem associated with a particular class of hinge mechanisms, and reference to the specification of the instant application is acknowledged by the examiner. However, examiner respectfully disagrees with the assertion that Applicant’s own disclosure has been used as a blueprint to combine the references. Examiner notices that applicant does not provide any specific citation or evidence to support a connection between the elements used in rejection of Claim 1 by the examiner and the Applicant’s disclosure.
The instant application, including the specification and drawings, was thoroughly considered to determine the scope of the invention. However, the rejection of Claim 1 was based on the claim language as presented at the time of examination. For instance, claim 1 recites “a hinge assembly defining a first axis and a second axis” (Claim 1, line 2) and “a camera having an aperture located in a bezel of the second assembly that borders the display” (Claim 1, lines 10-11), however, Claim 1 did not require a particular relationship/condition between said hinge and the location of said camera.
As mentioned above, the references cited above (Kang and Cho) provide a clear scenario of a folding computing device having a bezel and a front camera in an unspecified location, and a folding computing device having a front camera located in the bezel. Thus, combining them solves the problem of ambiguity in the location of the camera.
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 Martin A Asmat-Uceda whose telephone number is (571)270-7198. The examiner can normally be reached 8 AM - 5 PM.
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 L 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
/MARTIN ANTONIO ASMAT UCEDA/Examiner, Art Unit 2841