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 § 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.
Claim 6 is 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. Claim 6, lines 1-2 sets forth the language “at least one of” used with the word ”and” which is considered indefinite since it is not clear if the material used includes both inorganic and organic materials or only one of the materials. It appears that the word “and” should be changed to - - or - - to specifically define the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 8, 11-12, 14, 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Makoto (JP 20032311087A), see supplied machine translation.
Re claims 1 and 14: Makoto teaches an apparatus (figure 1), comprising: a display member (9) configured to display an image; and a vibration apparatus (structure below the display as depicted in figure 1) disposed at a rear surface (paragraph [0035]) of the display member, wherein the vibration apparatus is configured to: vibrate the display member using a driving signal based on a driving mode (see discussion in paragraphs [0037] – [0039] of three different driving modes of operation), and vibrate the display member using a vibration signal (frequency of vibration) based on a vibration mode, wherein the driving signal includes a sound signal,(such as those vibrations discussed in paragraphs [0038 and 0039], i.e. buzzer and voice and wherein the vibration signal has a single frequency (such as discussed in paragraphs [0037] and [0038]. Claim 14 sets forth similar features as discussed with respect to claim 1, although worded using method language. These features are satisfied by corresponding method of operations of apparatus of Makoto as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Re claims 2 and 17: see paragraph [0037] along with paragraph [0011] teaching a haptic output, i.e. a tactile sense obtained by a user’s touch and paragraphs [0038] and [0039] teaching a sound output
Re claims 4 and 16: see similar embodiment taught in figures 4-7 in which a vibrator vibrates a display in which as discussed in paragraph [0043] the vibration signal corresponds to a resonance frequency of the vibrating apparatus.
Re claim 5: note paragraph [0043] teaching that the vibrating unit is a piezoelectric body (10) and that the vibrating signal corresponds to a resonance frequency of the piezoelectric device.
Re claim 6: the material used for the piezoelectric element in Makoto is inherently one of an inorganic material or organic material as definitely as set forth.
Re claim 8: as seen for example in figure 8 and 9, a display includes a liquid crystal display inherently having pixels in order for an image to be displayed along with a housing having front and back portions in which the display and vibration apparatus are enclosed therebetween
Re claim 11: the driving circuit part as set forth is taught by the circuit used to initiate each of the driving modes (see discussion in paragraphs [0037] – [0039] of three different driving modes of operation), and vibrate the display member using a vibration signal (frequency of vibration) based on a vibration mode
Re claim 12: (see discussion in paragraphs [0037] – [0039] of at least two driving modes; i.e. three different driving modes of operation), and vibrate the display member using a vibration signal (frequency of vibration) based on a vibration mode with each vibration signal being different from one another.
Re claim 18: the alternative claimed language of when the vibration signal is generated is satisfied by the arrangement in which the user touches the screen to obtain a tactile sense feed back (vibrational generated output)
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makoto in view of Noh et al. (US2020/0401187 A1)
Re claim 9: The teaching of Makoto is discussed above and incorporated herein. Makoto does not teach separate areas of the display, that include a folding area with vibration apparatus overlapping one or more of the display areas. Noh et al. teaches in a similar environment that displays can consist of two display areas with a folding area therebetween (see figure 2) which contains a vibration apparatus (520) overlapping one or more display areas (See figure 3) to provide a display that is foldable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate such teachings of Noh et al. into the display apparatus of Makoto to predictably obtain a display that is foldable. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-27 are allowed.
Claims 7, 10, 13 and 19-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The claimed display apparatus including in combination a display member, a vibration apparatus and controller used to drive the vibration apparatus in a normal mode to output a sound or a haptic feedback, and drive the vibration apparatus in a dent restoration mode to restore one or more dents or depressions in the display member as set forth in claim 21 is neither taught by nor an obvious variation of the art of record. The limitations of claims 22-27 depend upon those features of claim 21.
The claimed apparatus including in combination the features of claim 5/1 that additionally includes a vibration part including a plurality of first portions and one or more second portions with each portion comprised of a material as set forth in claim 7 is neither taught by nor an obvious variation of the art of record. The claimed apparatus including in combination the features of claim 9/8/1 that additionally has a rear member that includes a first supporting part overlapping with the first display area; a second supporting part overlapping with the second display area; and a third supporting part overlapping with the folding area, and wherein the third supporting part includes one or more holes or slits as set forth in claim 10 is neither taught by nor an obvious variation of the art of record. The claimed apparatus including in combination the features of claim 12/11/1 wherein the first vibration signal and the second vibration signal have a same frequency, and wherein a voltage level of the first vibration signal is higher than a voltage level of the second vibration signal as set forth in claim 13 is neither taught by nor an obvious variation of the art of record. The claimed method including in combination the features of claim 18/14 that additionally generates first vibration signal when the vibration mode is a first vibration mode based on the selection by the user; and generates a second vibration signal when the vibration mode is a second vibration mode based on the predetermined period, and wherein the second vibration signal is different than the first vibration signal as set forth in claim 19 is neither taught by nor an obvious variation of the art of record. The limitations of claim 20 depend upon those features of claim 19/18/14.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW SNIEZEK whose telephone number is (571)272-7563. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00 AM-3:30 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, Ahmad Matar can be reached at 571-272-7488. 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.
/ANDREW SNIEZEK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
/A.S./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693 2/10/26