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 3/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner thanks applicant for confirming the election of species A without traverse.
Examiner thanks applicant for including indicators of first channel and opening, and the second channel and opening. The drawing amendments are acceptable.
Applicant has replaced “movable part” with “rotating shaft”, which reduces issues. Applicant asserts that the terms “damping component” and “transmission part” are not appropriate for 112f interpretation, but does not further address the issue. Examiner thanks applicant for reducing issues regarding the location of the channels and rotating shafts. Examiner thanks applicant for clarifying that “side trimming” means “trimmed side”, which is disclosed, and amended as such.
Applicant asserts, Shang does not explicitly disclose (a) the inner diameter of the channel is smaller than an outer diameter of the rotating shaft, (b) that the “shaft is deformable”, or that (c) the type of connection between the shaft and channel is an “interference fit that generates friction damping”. A and C are explicitly taught in Shang, since Shang teaches a “Friction fit”, which is identical in scope to an “interference fit”, and is created in the same manner using identical structure known in the art. Regarding B, examiner notes that the “shaft is deformable” is contrary to the common disclosure of similar devices, as similar prior art devices show that the channel is deformable by including the opening, not the shaft. Since it is contrary to the state of the art, applicant is required to support how and why this opposite structure can functionally do the same thing. Applicant has not done so; the only reference to “deformable” Is in [0046] without any explanation. The record is not clear what structure allows the “shaft” to “be deformed” as stated in the specification, and is therefore not described. Examiner has included several references with the detail of similar and well known shaft within a channel with an opening to show applicant that this is contrary to common disclosure, and therefore, the reverse disclosed by applicant not considered properly described.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 8, 9, 18, 19, are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species B, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/26/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 3 depends from itself. Examiner assumes applicant intends to depend claim 3 from claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 3/26/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
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:
“damping component” in claims 1 and 11,
“transmission part” in claims 5 and 15, which are later defined as “gears” in claims 6 and 16.
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-11, 13-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Applicant claims “rotating shaft is deformable”, which is exactly opposite of the common disclosure of similar structure (rotating shafts within a channel with an opening). Applicant does not describe this assertion in [0046], by merely stating “rotating shaft can be deformed” with no further discussion or description. Since this is exactly opposite of the common structure claimed and disclosed by applicant (see Siddiqui, below), the disclosure of “can be deformed” does not properly describe that the “rotating shaft IS deformable”. The record is not definite as to what creates this “deformation”; examiner assumes this is a material limitation, but applicant has not disclosed any structure whatsoever that allows the shaft to be deformable. Applicant’s disclosure seems to rely on this being common in the art; examiner notes this is contrary to the known manner of achieving a frictional fit with these structures; please see previously cited reference 2020/0064890 Siddiqui [0005] and [0023] and [0024] stating that the sleeve is compressive, not the shaft.
Regarding claims 21, 22, applicant claims “circumferentially distributed contact pressure”, which is not mentioned in the specification. Applicant claims the “contact pressure provides the friction damping”, which is already provided in independent claims 1 and 11, and therefore is not necessary for providing the friction damping. Further, claims 1 and 11 already require the “channel is smaller than an outer diameter of the…shaft” and “interference fit”, and therefore, claims 21 and 22 seems to be duplicating language which is not further limiting. Please also see 112d rejection below.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claims 21 and 22, applicant claims the intermediate step of “contact pressure” which “provides the friction damping” which is already present in independent claims 1 and 11. Since claims 21 and 22 do not claim any structural differences of the “hinge component” or the “electronic device”, and only discusses the intermediate functional steps that create the “friction damping” already present in claim 1, claims 21 and 22 are not considered to be further limiting claims 1 and 11. Further, claims 1 and 11 already require the “channel is smaller than an outer diameter of the…shaft” and “interference fit”, and therefore, claims 21 and 22 seems to be duplicating language which is not further limiting. Examiner notes that the friction damping is commonly created in the standard structure disclosed by applicant, and examiner has cited several references of similarly structured hinge pins within channels with openings.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
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:
PNG
media_image1.png
410
784
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 is passes through the first channel to form an interference fit (“to form a friction fit” [0037]), 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 first 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 is passes through the first channel to form an interference fit (“to form a friction fit” [0037]), 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
the flexible screen 300 covers the first part, the hinge component, and the second part (as shown in figure 8).
Regarding “deformable” shaft, examiner notes that applicant has not described this phrase. This structure of a shaft within a channel with an opening in this manner commonly has a flexible channel, because the channel has the opening. Applicant has not described how applicant’s device operates in the exact opposite manner. Applicant does not discuss what structure described this “deformable” shaft. Further, the prior art already creates the friction fit, and therefore, the manner of creating this frictional contact does not patentably distinguish the claim language from the prior art of Shang. Applicant is reminded that process limitations are given little patentable weight in product claims since the patentability determination of product-by-process claims is based on the product itself, even though such claims are limited and defined by the process. See MPEP § 2113. Examiner notes that this phrase does not structurally read over the prior art.
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).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Shang discloses the electronic device according to claims 1 and 11, wherein the first mounting part and the second mounting part comprises: a hinge rotating part 73/74, wherein the hinge rotating part is arranged on the first rotating shaft 710, and moves synchronously with the first rotating shaft 710; and a rotating connecting piece 1, wherein the rotating connecting piece is connected with the hinge rotating part 73, and the rotating connecting part is connected with the first part 100.
Regarding claims 21 and 22, Shang discloses the hinge component according to claims 1 and 11, wherein the rotation of the first cylindrical rotating shaft 710 around its own axis under the interference fit (existing in Shang as the “Friction fit”) generates a circumferentially distributed contact pressure between an outer surface of the first cylindrical rotating shaft and the inner wall surface of the first channel (already existing in claim 1, and the pressure is present on the surface of the fitting part and the rotating shaft), and the contact pressure provides the friction damping between the damping component and the first cylindrical rotating shaft (which is already present in claim 1, and shown in Shang), and the rotation of the second cylindrical rotating shaft around its own axis under the interference fit generates a circumferentially distributed contact pressure between an outer surface of the second cylindrical rotating shaft and the inner wall surface of the second channel (identical to the first rotating shaft and fitting part), and the contact pressure provides the friction damping between the damping component and the second cylindrical rotating shaft (as taught in Shang).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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