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 Amendment
The amendment filed July 30, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 7-8, 13, and 16 have been amended and claim 19 has been canceled. Applicant’s amendments have overcome each and every objection and §112 rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated May 6, 2025. Claims 1-18 and 20 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed July 30, 2025, with respect to the rejections of independent claims 1 and 13 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made in view of Landman (US 3,701,071).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 7-8, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2024/0188240 A1) in view of Landman (US 3,701,071).
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses a foldable electronic control device (Fig. 3A, electronic device 400a) comprising: a housing comprising a body (Fig. 3A, first middle frame 402) and a cover (Fig. 3A, second middle frame 403) configured to be opened and closed in a foldable manner; first and second boards (Fig. 3A, circuit boards 4021 and 4031) fastened to the body (Fig. 3A, first middle frame 402) and the cover (Fig. 3A, second middle frame 403), respectively; and a flexible cable (Fig. 3A, FPC 10) electrically connecting the first board (Fig. 3A, circuit board 4021) and the second board (Fig. 3A, circuit board 4031) when the housing is folded.
Wang fails to disclose first and second boards configured to be physically disconnected from each other when the housing is unfolded and connected to each other when the housing is folded.
Landman (see Figs. 1-2) discloses a foldable electronic control device having first (circuit board 14) and second (circuit board 48) boards configured to be physically disconnected from each other when the device is unfolded and connected to each other when the device is folded (see col. 3, line 42 – col. 4, line 5).
Landman is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to configure the first and second boards of Wang to be physically disconnected from each other when the housing is unfolded and connected to each other when the housing is folded. Doing so would provide a repeatable low-force way switch between a connected state and a disconnected state between the two boards.
Regarding claim 2, Wang in view of Landman teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Wang in view of Landman further teaches the foldable electronic device of claim 1, wherein the first and second boards (Wang: Fig. 3A, circuit boards 4021 and 4031) are configured to be connected to each other in a stacked state when the housing is folded (Wang: see Fig. 3B).
Regarding claim 3, Wang in view of Landman teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Wang in view of Landman further teaches the foldable electronic device of claim 1, wherein the flexible cable (Wang: Fig. 3A, FPC 10) comprises a flexible printed circuit (FPC).
Regarding claim 7, Wang in view of Landman teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Wang in view of Landman further teaches the foldable electronic device of claim 1, wherein the flexible cable (Wang: Fig. 3A, FPC 10) is fixed to a connecting portion (Wang: Fig. 3B, first and second hinges 404 and 405) between the body (Wang: Fig. 3A, first middle frame 402) and the cover (Wang: Fig. 3A, second middle frame 403) while having a horizonal arc shape (Wang: see Fig. 3B).
Regarding claim 8, Wang in view of Landman teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Wang in view of Landman further teaches the foldable electronic device of claim 1, wherein the flexible cable (Wang: Fig. 3A, FPC 10) maintains a vertical arc shape (Wang: see Fig. 3B) in a case of unfolding between the body (Wang: Fig. 3A, first middle frame 402) and the cover (Wang: Fig. 3A, second middle frame 403) and maintains a horizontal arc shape in a case of folding between the body (Wang: Fig. 3A, first middle frame 402) and the cover (Wang: Fig. 3A, second middle frame 403).
Regarding claim 13, Wang discloses a foldable electronic control device (Fig. 3A, electronic device 400a) comprising: a housing comprising a body (Fig. 3A, first middle frame 402) having an accommodation space in the body (Fig. 3A, first middle frame 402) and a cover (Fig. 3A, second middle frame 403) configured to cover the body (Fig. 3A, first middle frame 402) in a foldable manner; a first board (Fig. 3A, circuit board 4021) connected to the body (Fig. 3A, first middle frame 402); a second board (Fig. 3A, circuit board 4031) connected to the cover (Fig. 3A, second middle frame 403); and a flexible cable (Fig. 3A, FPC 10) electrically connecting the first board (Fig. 3A, circuit board 4021) and the second board (Fig. 3A, circuit board 4031), wherein the flexible cable (Fig. 3A, FPC 10) is located on a connecting portion (Fig. 3B, first and second hinges 404 and 405) between the body (Fig. 3A, first middle frame 402) and the cover (Fig. 3A, second middle frame 403).
Wang fails to disclose first and second boards configured to be physically disconnected from each other when the housing is unfolded and connected to each other when the housing is folded.
Landman (see Figs. 1-2) discloses a foldable electronic control device having first (circuit board 14) and second (circuit board 48) boards configured to be physically disconnected from each other when the device is unfolded and connected to each other when the device is folded (see col. 3, line 42 – col. 4, line 5).
Landman is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to configure the first and second boards of Wang to be physically disconnected from each other when the housing is unfolded and connected to each other when the housing is folded. Doing so would provide a repeatable low-force way switch between a connected state and a disconnected state between the two boards.
Claims 4, 6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Landman as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Burski et al. (US 2022/0404881 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Wang in view of Landman teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Wang in view of Landman further teaches the foldable electronic device of claim 1, wherein the flexible cable (Wang: Fig. 3A, FPC 10) is fixed to a connecting portion (Wang: Fig. 3B, first and second hinges 404 and 405) between the body (Wang: Fig. 3A, first middle frame 402) and the cover (Wang: Fig. 3A, second middle frame 403).
Wang in view of Landman lacks a specific teaching that the flexible cable is fixed by fusion.
Burski discloses a flexible cable (Fig. 2, flexible interconnect 230) fixed between a body (paragraph 0013) and a cover (Fig. 1, top cover 114) by fusion (paragraph 0018).
Burski is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a flexible cable fixed between the body and the cover by fusion as taught by Burski with the teachings of Wang and Landman, since such a modification would allow for a strong mechanical and electrical connection between components of the device.
Regarding claim 6, Wang in view of Landman teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Wang in view of Landman further teaches the foldable electronic device of claim 1, wherein the flexible cable (Wang: Fig. 3A, FPC 10) is connected to a connecting portion (Wang: Fig. 3B, first and second hinges 404 and 405) between the body (Wang: Fig. 3A, first middle frame 402) and the cover (Wang: Fig. 3A, second middle frame 403) while wrapping around the entire connecting portion (Wang: Fig. 3B, first and second hinges 404 and 405).
Wang and Landman fail to disclose that the flexible cable is fused to the connecting portion.
Burski discloses a flexible cable (Fig. 2, flexible interconnect 230) fused (paragraph 0018) between a body (paragraph 0013, bottom cover) and a cover (Fig. 1, top cover 114).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fuse the flexible cable fixed between the body and the cover by fusion as taught by Burski with the teachings of Wang and Landman, since such a modification would allow for a strong mechanical and electrical connection between components of the device.
Regarding claim 9, Wang in view of Landman teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above.
Wang and Landman fail to disclose each of the first and second boards comprising flip-chip type solder bumps on a portion of the first and second boards engaging with the flexible cable.
However, Burski discloses each of the first and second boards (Fig. 2, any two of PCBs 220A, 220B, and 220C) comprising flip-chip type solder bumps (paragraph 0018, inherently formed by the process of soldering) on a portion of the first and second boards (Fig. 2, any two of PCBs 220A, 220B, and 220C) engaging with the flexible cable (Fig. 2, flexible interconnect 230).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include flip-chip type solder bumps on a portion of the first and second board in order to facilitate electrical connection between the two boards.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Landman as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hasegawa et al. (JP 2016149445 A).
Wang in view of Landman teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Wang in view of Landman further teaches the foldable electronic device of claim 1, wherein the flexible cable (Wang: Fig. 3A, FPC 10) is fastened to a connecting portion (Wang: Fig. 3B, first and second hinges 404 and 405) between the body (Wang: Fig. 3A, first middle frame 402) and the cover (Wang: Fig. 3A, second middle frame 403).
Wang in view of Landman lacks a specific teaching that the flexible cable is fastened by bolting.
Hasegawa discloses a flexible cable (Fig. 2, power wiring member 6) fastened between the body and the cover by bolting (Fig. 2, i.e., by screws 8).
Hasegawa is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to fasten the flexible cable to a connecting portion between the body and the cover by bolting as taught by Hasegawa with the teachings of Wang and Landman, since such a modification would allow for the flexible cable to be rigidly connected at its ends.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Landman as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Watanable et al. (US 2019/0313538 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Wang in view of Landman teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Wang in view of Landman further discloses a body (Wang: Fig. 3A, first middle frame 402), a cover (Wang: Fig. 3A, second middle frame 403), and first and second boards (Wang: Fig. 3A, circuit boards 4021 and 4031).
Wang and Landman fail to disclose a body comprising a plurality of first backing rods protruding from the body to extend through predetermined portions of the first board, the cover comprises a plurality of second backing rods protruding therefrom to extend through predetermined portions of the second board, and when the cover covers the body, the first backing rods support the second board, and the second backing rods support the first board.
However, Watanabe discloses a body (Fig. 1, case 4) comprising a plurality of first backing rods (Fig. 1, bosses 4b) protruding from the body (Fig. 1, case 4) to extend through predetermined portions of the first board (Fig. 1, circuit board 2), the cover (Fig. 1, cover 3) comprising a plurality of second backing rods (Fig. 2, bosses 3b) protruding therefrom, and when the cover (Fig. 1, cover 3) covers the body (Fig. 1, case 4), the first backing rods (Fig. 1, bosses 4b) and the second backing rods (Fig. 2, bosses 3b) support the first board (Fig. 1, circuit board 2).
Watanable is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to include a body comprising a plurality of first backing rods protruding from the body to extend through predetermined portions of the first board, a cover comprising a plurality of second backing rods protruding therefrom to extend through predetermined portions of the second board, and when the cover covers the body, the first backing rods support the second board, and the second backing rods support the first board as taught by Watanabe with the teachings of Wang and Landman, since Watanabe states in paragraph 0031 that such a modification would allow for the circuit board to be fixed without using screws.
Regarding claim 11, Wang in view of Landman teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Wang in view of Landman further teaches a body (Wang: Fig. 3A, first middle frame 402), a cover (Wang: Fig. 3A, second middle frame 403), and a first board (Wang: Fig. 3A, circuit board 4021).
Wang in view of Landman fails to disclose a body comprising an external connection connector connected to the first board, and the cover has a structure in which a portion of the cover engaging with the connector is depressed.
However, Watanabe discloses a body (Fig. 1, case 4) comprising an external connection connector (Fig. 1, connector 2a) connected to the first board (Fig. 1, circuit board 2), and the cover (Fig. 1, cover 3) has a structure in which a portion of the cover (Fig. 1, cover 3) engaging with the connector (Fig. 1, connector 2a) is depressed (Fig. 1, i.e., the area of cover 3 between the engaging claws 3a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a body comprising an external connection connector connected to the first board, and a cover having a structure in which a portion of the cover engaging with the connector is depressed as taught by Watanabe with the teachings of Wang and Landman, since Watanabe states in paragraph 0023 that such a modification would allow for a cable to be inserted into and removed from the device in order to make electrical connection with the circuit board.
Regarding claim 12, Wang in view of Landman teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above.
Wang and Landman fail to disclose a vehicle comprising the foldable electronic control device of claim 1.
However, Watanabe discloses a vehicle comprising an electronic device (paragraph 0003).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a vehicle comprising an electronic device as taught by Watanabe with the teachings of Wang and Landman, since such a modification would allow for the disposition of an electronic control unit, allowing automated control of engine systems or climate control, for example.
Claims 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Landman as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Watanabe.
Regarding claim 14, Wang in view of Landman teaches all of the limitations of claim 13 as stated above. Wang in view of Landman further teaches a housing comprising a body (Wang: Fig. 3A, first middle frame 402) and a cover (Wang: Fig. 3A, second middle frame 403).
Wang in view of Landman lacks a specific teaching that the housing has a structure in which the body and the cover are fastened to each other by snap fitting.
However, Watanabe discloses a housing having a structure in which the body (Fig. 1, case 4) and the cover (Fig. 1, cover 3) are fastened to each other by snap fitting (Fig. 1, i.e., by engaging claws 3a and claw receiving parts 4a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a housing having a structure in which the body and the cover are fastened to each other by snap fitting as taught by Watanabe with the teachings of Wang in view of Landman, since Watanabe states in paragraph 0036 that such a modification would allow for an elastic pressing force to be applied to the circuit board to secure it within the device.
Regarding claim 20, Wang in view of Landman teaches all of the limitations of claim 13 as stated above. Wang in view of Landman lacks a specific teaching that the device is incorporated into a vehicle.
However, Watanabe discloses a vehicle comprising an electronic device (paragraph 0003).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a vehicle comprising an electronic device as taught by Watanabe with the teachings of Wang and Landman, since such a modification would allow for the disposition of an electronic control unit, allowing automated control of engine systems or climate control, for example.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Landman as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Burski.
Wang in view of Landman teaches all of the limitations of claim 13 as stated above.
Wang in view of Landman fails to disclose each of the first and second boards comprising flip-chip type solder bumps on a portion of the first and second boards engaging with the flexible cable.
However, Burski discloses each of the first and second boards (Fig. 2, any two of PCBs 220A, 220B, and 220C) comprising flip-chip type solder bumps (paragraph 0018, inherently formed by the process of soldering) on a portion of the first and second boards (Fig. 2, any two of PCBs 220A, 220B, and 220C) engaging with the flexible cable (Fig. 2, flexible interconnect 230).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include flip-chip type solder bumps on a portion of the first and second board in order to facilitate electrical connection between the two boards.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-18 are allowed.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 was previously objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Applicant has rewritten claim 16 in independent form and included all of the limitations of original claim 13. An examiner’s statement detailing why the subject matter is allowable can be found on page 12 of the Office Action dated May 6, 2025.
Claims 17-18 are allowable by virtue of their dependency to claim 16.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 ROSS TERRY MULARSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-0284. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Imani Hayman can be reached at (571)270-5528. 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.
/R.T.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2841 /IMANI N HAYMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights