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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/4/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding specification amendments, applicant removes “shaft” and replaces it with “axis” several times for parts 25 and 26, which is appropriate based on originally filed figure 10. Amendment is entered.
Examiner thanks applicant for clarifying amendment in claim 3, and for cancellation of claims 21-22.
Regarding 112f, applicant argues that “part” and “component” are not a “generic placeholder”; this is not persuasive. Applicant argues that “damping” and “transmission” are not functional language; this is not persuasive. Applicant asserts the claims recite specific structural features; examiner notes that applicant does define “damping component” in claims 1 and 11 when it is first claimed. Therefore, examiner notes that “damping component” can be considered a broad term for the related claimed structures in the same claim. However, “transmission part” is not defined by structure in claims 5 and 15, but is defined in claims 6 and 7, 16 and 17. Therefore, the term “transmission part” is considered as a 112f placeholder in claims 5 and 15, and is later defined in claims 6, 7, 16, 17.
Regarding 112a, applicant disagrees with examiner’s assertion without support, but amends the claims to reflect the interference fit without going into detail of which part of the device is “deformable”. Examiner thanks applicant for the amendments.
Applicant asserts (1) Shang’s rods 73/74 cannot be equivalent to the “first/second hinge rotating part”, and (2) the brackets 1 and 2 cannot be considered “first/second rotating connecting part”, so therefore (3) Shang does not disclose or suggest the “dual axis mounting structure as required in amended claim 1”.
Applicant asserts (1) because each of Shang’s rotating parts 73/74 do not have “the dual axis mounting structure”. Examiner notes that the rotating parts of the claim do not require the rotating parts to be mounted to two axes/shafts; each rotating part is claimed to move synchronously with one shaft, in the same manner shown by Shang. (1) is not persuasive.
Applicant asserts (2) because Shang’s connecting parts 1 and 2 do not rotate in an arc shaped track; the arc shaped track is located in part 320. (2) is not persuasive.
Applicant asserts (3) because Shang does not disclose “separate” rotating parts and connecting parts that rotate around “third and fourth rotation axes”. Examiner notes that the third and fourth rotation axes are only mentioned by applicant in [0020] and only shown in figure 10, which seem to be invisible lines located outside of the hinge structure. By having claimed hinge structure, the claimed third and fourth imaginary axes are considered present and function in an identical manner. See MPEP 2114 (I) and MPEP 2112.01 (I). Further, the inclusion of four axis along with the “own axes” of the rotating parts, results in 6 axes. Please see 112b rejection below; examiner assumes the “own axes” are the same as the third/fourth axes 35/36 of figure 10.
Specification
The specification amendments made on 6/4/2026 are entered.
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 limitation(s) is/are:
“transmission part” in claims 5 and 15, which are later defined as “gears” in claims 6 and 16. Therefore, for the purpose of clarity, the term “transmission part” is considered a 112f term in claims 5 and 15, which is later defined in claims 6, 7, 16, 17.
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 § 112
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 and 11 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, applicant claims 6 axes. Applicant’s original claims 1 and 11, both the first and second “cylindrical rotating shaft around its own axis”, which required two axes before applicant’s amendment requiring four axes. Examiner assumes that these previously claimed axes are equivalent to the third and fourth axes 35 and 36, as indicated by figure 10. Examiner assumes that the first and second axes are axes 25 and 26, since these are listed as such in [0062]. The record is not clear which of the first two axes (referring to the cylindrical rotating shaft axes) is the same in scope as two of the four axes, or two additional axes to the four claimed axes.
Dependent claims inherit the same issues from parent claims and do not resolve any indefinite issues.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 10-17, 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over WO 2020/0147633 Shang.
Shang was published 07/23/2020, which is prior to applicant’s foreign filing date of 3/29/2021.
Examiner notes that claims 11-17, 20 use the identical hinge of claim 1 in the electronic device with a flexible screen, two parts, and the flexible screen covers the first and second parts as well as the hinge part. Therefore, claims 1-7, 10 are broader than claims 11-17, 20. Similar claims are treated together. Examiner uses the US filing of this case, 2022/0086265, as the English translation of the WO document.
PNG
media_image1.png
410
812
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Shang discloses an electronic device, comprising a flexible screen 300, a first part 100, a second part 200, and a hinge component (detailed in figure 7), wherein the hinge component comprises:
a support base 320;
a first rotating shaft 710, wherein the first rotating shaft 710 is movably connected with the support base 320, and the first rotating shaft 710 is provided with a first mounting part suitable for connecting with the first part (as it does, shown in figures 5 and 6);
a second rotating shaft 720, wherein the second rotating shaft 720 is movably connected with the support base 320, the second rotating shaft 720 is arranged opposite to the first rotating shaft 710 (as shown in figures 5-6), and the second rotating shaft 720 is provided with a second mounting part suitable for connecting with the second part (as it does, shown in figures 5 and 6); and
a damping component (“torsion mechanism”), wherein the damping component is provided with a first fitting part 81 and a second fitting part 82, a first channel (annotated in figure 7) is provided on the first fitting part, the first rotating shaft 710 is movably fitted in the first channel [0040] and abuts against an inner wall surface of the first channel (to provide friction/torsion/damping), a second channel (indicated in annotated figure 7) is provided on the second fitting part, the second rotating shaft 720 is movably fitted in the second channel and abuts against an inner wall surface of the second channel (to provide friction/torsion/damping),
PNG
media_image2.png
248
402
media_image2.png
Greyscale
the first rotating shaft 710 is a first cylindrical rotating shaft (figure 7), an inner diameter of the first channel is smaller than the outer diameter of the first cylindrical rotating shaft (“to form a friction fit” [0037]), the damping component (“torsion mechanism”) is provided with a first opening communicating with the first channel (detailed in figure 7), the first cylindrical rotating shaft 710 forms an interference fit with the first channel (“friction fit” [0037]) when passing through the first channel, and rotation of the first cylindrical rotating shaft 710 around its own axis (between figures 5-6) under the interference fit (identical in scope to “friction fit”) generates friction damping (in the same manner disclosed by Shang) between the damping component and the first cylindrical rotating shaft (as shown in Shang), and
the second rotating shaft 720 is a second cylindrical rotating shaft (figure 7), an inner diameter of the second channel is smaller than the outer diameter of the second cylindrical rotating shaft (“to form a friction fit” [0037]), the damping component (“torsion mechanism”) is provided with a second opening communicating with the second channel (detailed in figure 7), the second cylindrical rotating shaft 710 forms an interference fit with the second channel (“friction fit” [0037]) when passing through the second channel, and rotation of the second cylindrical rotating shaft 710 around its own axis (between figures 5-6) under the interference fit (identical in scope to “friction fit”) generates friction damping (in the same manner disclosed by Shang) between the damping component and the second cylindrical rotating shaft (as shown in Shang); and
wherein the first mounting part comprises: a first hinge rotating part 73, wherein the first hinge rotating part 73 is arranged on the first rotating shaft 710, and moves synchronously with the first rotating shaft 710; and a first rotating connecting part 1, wherein the first rotating connecting part 1 is connected with the first hinge rotating part 73, and the rotating connecting part is connected with the first part 100.
wherein the second mounting part comprises: a second hinge rotating part 74, wherein the second hinge rotating part 74 is arranged on the second rotating shaft 720, and moves synchronously with the first rotating shaft 710; and a second rotating connecting part 2, wherein the second rotating connecting part 2 is connected with the second hinge rotating part 74, and the rotating connecting part is connected with the second part 200,
wherein an upper end surface of the support base 320 is provided with an arc-shaped track (as annotated),
wherein the first rotating connecting part 1 rotates in the arc-shaped track about a first rotation axis, the first hinge rotating part 73 rotates about a second rotation axis different from the first rotation axis (see drawing objection and 112b rejection above), and
wherein the second rotating connecting part 2 rotates in the arc-shaped track about a third rotation axis, the second hinge rotating part 74 rotates about a fourth rotation axis different from the third rotation axis (see drawing objection and 112b rejection above),
the flexible screen 300 covers the first part, the hinge component, and the second part (as shown in figure 8).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Shang discloses the electronic device according to claims 1 and 11, wherein the first opening penetrates through the first channel along an axial direction of the first channel, and the second opening penetrates through the second channel along an axial direction the second channel (opening continues in an axial direction, as shown in the detail of figure 7).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Shang discloses the electronic device according to claims 2 and 12, wherein a trimmed side of an outer peripheral surface of the first cylindrical rotating shaft forms a first plane (shafts 710 and 720 have a chamfered cross section), a cross section of the first cylindrical rotating shaft is a major arc bow shape (chamfered cross section), the second cylindrical rotating shaft forms a second plane, and a cross-section of the second cylindrical rotating shaft is a major arc bow shape.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Shang discloses the electronic device according to claims 1 and 11, wherein the hinge component further comprises:
a first transmission part 71, wherein the first transmission part is arranged on the first rotating shaft 710 and moves synchronously with the first rotating shaft 710;
a second transmission part 72, wherein the second transmission part is arranged on the second rotating shaft 720 and moves synchronously with the second rotating shaft 720; and
a third transmission part 7, wherein the third transmission part is arranged on the support base 320, and the third transmission part 7 is fitted with the first transmission part 71 and the second transmission part 72, so that the first transmission part and the second transmission part move synchronously (“synchronizing mechanism” abstract).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Shang discloses the electronic device according to claims 5 and 15, wherein the first transmission part 71 and the second transmission part 72 are gears arranged in parallel (as shown in figure 7), the third transmission part 7 is a gear (as shown in figure 7), and the axis of the third transmission part is perpendicular to the axes of the first transmission part and the second transmission part (as shown in figure 7).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Shang discloses the electronic device according to claims 6 and 16, wherein the first transmission part 71 is provided with first meshing teeth (figure 7), the second transmission part 72 is provided with second meshing teeth (figure 7), the first meshing teeth extend obliquely relative to the axis of the first transmission part, and the second meshing teeth extend obliquely relative to the axis of the second transmission part (so that they can engage the teeth of the third gear 7).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY M MORGAN whose telephone number is (303)297-4260. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8-5 MST.
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, Jason San can be reached at (571)272-6531. 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.
/EMILY M MORGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3677
Prosecution Insights