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
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed 05/22/2026, are accepted and appreciated by the
Examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 05/22/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments. Whitman (US 20180088633 A1) does not explicitly teach “wherein in the closed state of the foldable device, a first electrode of the first set of electrodes is disposed across from a ground or reference electrode, and a second electrode of the first set of electrodes is disposed across from a guarding electrode.” Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Whitman (US 20180088633 A1) and Lim (US 20170357354 A1).
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.
Claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 10-13, 15, 16, and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitman (US 20180088633 A1) as modified by Lim (US 20170357354 A1).
With respect to claims 1 and 10,
Whitman teaches,
a plurality of electrodes, including a first set of electrodes for performing absolute capacitance sensing for open/close detection, wherein the first set of electrodes is located proximate to an edge of the foldable device; (Para. [0056] “Obtain a self-capacitance value for each powered electrode of the plurality of powered electrodes based on a distance between each powered electrode of the plurality of powered electrodes and the at least one grounded electrode;” (i.e. self-capacitance is analogous to absolute capacitance. Para. [0026] teaches “the electrodes in the first portion 101 (e.g., electrode 104, etc.) may be active (e.g., powered, etc.) and the electrodes in the second portion 103 (e.g., electrode 105, etc.) may be grounded.” Fig. 1A shows that electrodes 104 and 105 approach the edge of the device.)
and a processing system, configured to: obtain at least one first absolute capacitance measurement via the first set of electrodes; (Para. [0003] teaches “at least one processor; and at least one memory comprising computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the electronic device to at least.” Para. [0056] “Obtain a self-capacitance value for each powered electrode of the plurality of powered electrodes based on a distance between each powered electrode of the plurality of powered electrodes and the at least one grounded electrode;”)
and determine whether the foldable device is in an open state or a closed state based on the at least one first absolute capacitance measurement. (Para. [0053) teaches “self-capacitances of active electrodes with respect to grounded electrodes on the opposite side of the fold axis 602 may be used to calculate the fold angle at the fold axis.” Para. [0076] teaches “The defined formula may take the self-capacitance pattern of the pluralities of electrodes as input and provide a value associated with an opening state of the electronic device as an output.”)
Whitman does not explicitly teach,
wherein in the closed state of the foldable device, a first electrode of the first set of electrodes is disposed across from a ground or reference electrode, and a second electrode of the first set of electrodes is disposed across from a guarding electrode.
Lim teaches,
wherein in the closed state of the foldable device, a first electrode of the first set of electrodes is disposed across from a ground or reference electrode, and a second electrode of the first set of electrodes is disposed across from a guarding electrode. (Para(s). [0159-0160] teaches “The flexible circuit board FPC5 may further include a ground electrode GND which is disposed on a first surface thereof, and the ground electrode GND may block noise which is introduced into the first electrode T1′ and the second electrode T2′, according to an exemplary embodiment of the present invention. The ground electrode GND may be folded or bent in the same direction as that of the flexible circuit board FPC5, when the flexible circuit board FPC5 is folded or bent above and below the first boundary I-I′. The flexible circuit board FPC5 may further include a first conductive guard and a second conductive guard which are disposed on the first surface of the flexible circuit board FPC5. The first conductive guard G1 may receive voltages with the same phase as voltages being received by the first electrode T1′ and may be disposed to face the first electrode T1′ according to an exemplary embodiment of the present invention. The second conductive guard G2 may receive voltages with the same phase as voltages being received by the second electrode T2′ and may be disposed to face the second electrode T2′, according to an exemplary embodiment of the present invention.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Whitman wherein in the closed state of the foldable device, a first electrode of the first set of electrodes is disposed across from a ground or reference electrode, and a second electrode of the first set of electrodes is disposed across from a guarding electrode such as that of Whitman.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Whitman, because as seen in Whitman Para. [0026] and Fig. 1A when the device is closed, grounded electrodes 105 are across from active electrodes 104, and self-capacitance of the active electrodes are measured in order to determine the fold angle. Lim teaches a guarded and a grounded electrode in a folded circuit across from first and second electrodes to reduce noise in measurement from the two electrodes as seen in Para. [0159] of Lim. Therefore, one would combine the prior art in order to reduce noise in the measurement.
With respect to claim 2,
Whitman further teaches,
The system according to claim 1, wherein the processing system is configured to obtain the at least one first absolute capacitance measurement and second absolute capacitance measurements via a second set of electrodes of the plurality of electrodes for performing absolute capacitance sensing for angle detection in a single sensing step. (Para. [0035] “The capacitance bar graph shows a capacitance pattern including the relative capacitances (e.g., mutual capacitances or self-capacitances, etc.) of five electrodes 206, 207, 208, 209, and 210 disposed in the electronic device, wherein each electrode is positioned progressively closer to the hinge element 202 from left to right. The three electrodes 206, 207, and 208 represented by the first three bars from the left may be disposed on or near the face of portion 201 and each is positioned progressively closer to the hinge element 202 from left to right. The electrode 209 represented by the bar that is second from the right may be disposed on the end of portion 201 toward the hinge. The electrode 210 represented by the bar that is farthest on the right may be positioned near the hinge element 202 and on the back surface of a portion 201 of the electronic device 200.” (i.e. Where the first set of electrodes are viewed as 206-208 and the second electrodes are viewed as 209 and 210.) Para. [0036] teaches “Device 200 may be asked by the electronic device, via a user interface, to fold the electronic device to different degrees and corresponding relative positions may be measured by the electrodes and/or processor.” (i.e. electrodes measured in the same step.))
With respect to claims 8 and 15,
Whitman further teaches,
The system according to claim 1, wherein the first set of electrodes includes an electrode of the foldable device closest to an edge of the foldable device. (Fig. 1B shows that electrodes 104 and 105 approach an edge of the device)
With respect to claims 9 and 16,
Whitman further teaches,
The system according to claim 1, wherein the first set of electrodes does not include an electrode of the foldable device closest to an edge of the foldable device. (Fig. 1B shows that electrodes 104 and 105 do not approach the edge of the device that is farthest from the hinge.)
With respect to claim 11,
Whitman further teaches,
The method according to claim 10, wherein the method further comprises: obtaining, by the processing system, second absolute capacitance measurements via a second set of electrodes of the plurality of electrodes of the foldable device for angle detection; and determining, by the processing system, a fold angle of the foldable device based on the second absolute capacitive measurements; (Para. [0035] “The capacitance bar graph shows a capacitance pattern including the relative capacitances (e.g., mutual capacitances or self-capacitances, etc.) of five electrodes 206, 207, 208, 209, and 210 disposed in the electronic device, wherein each electrode is positioned progressively closer to the hinge element 202 from left to right. The three electrodes 206, 207, and 208 represented by the first three bars from the left may be disposed on or near the face of portion 201 and each is positioned progressively closer to the hinge element 202 from left to right. The electrode 209 represented by the bar that is second from the right may be disposed on the end of portion 201 toward the hinge. The electrode 210 represented by the bar that is farthest on the right may be positioned near the hinge element 202 and on the back surface of a portion 201 of the electronic device 200.” (i.e. Where the first set of electrodes are viewed as 206-208 and the second electrodes are viewed as 209 and 210.) Para. [0075] teaches “In an example, the at least one electrode comprises a plurality of electrodes (e.g., 2 electrodes, 5 electrodes, 10 electrodes, etc.). Each of the plurality of electrodes may provide a signal such that a self-capacitance value is calculated for each of the plurality of electrodes. The plurality of self-capacitance values may be considered as a self-capacitance pattern (e.g., the set of capacitance values represented in the bar graphs of FIGS. 2A-2F, 7A-7F, etc.) for determining the opening state of the electronic device.” (i.e. opening state corresponds to fold angle.))
And wherein determining that the foldable device is in the closed state based on the at least one first absolute capacitance measurement is performed in response to determining that the fold angle of the foldable device is 0° or below a predetermined value. (Fig. 2b shows closed state at zero degrees.)
With respect to claim 12,
Whitman further teaches,
The method of claim 11, further comprising:
determining that the foldable device is in an open state based on a respective absolute capacitance measurement obtained via the first set of electrodes: and in response to determining that the foldable device is in the open state, determining a fold angle of the foldable device. (Para. [0079] teaches “In an example, a state change may be triggered when an opening state falls within a range of opening states. For instance, a state change to transform display interface to display multiple interfaces may be triggered when the determined opening state indicates that the electronic device has a fold angle between 10 degrees and 170 degrees. Alternatively, or additionally, a state change to display a single interface may be triggered when the opening state indicates that the electronic device has a fold angle between 170 degrees and 180 degrees. Alternatively, or additionally, a state change to deactivate a display may be triggered when the opening state indicates that the electronic device has a fold angle between 0 degrees and 10 degrees.”)
With respect to claim 13,
Whitman further teaches,
The method according to claim 11, wherein the at least one first absolute capacitance measurement and the second absolute capacitance measurements are obtained in a single sensing step. (Para. [0036] teaches “Device 200 may be asked by the electronic device, via a user interface, to fold the electronic device to different degrees and corresponding relative positions may be measured by the electrodes and/or processor.” (i.e. electrodes measured in the same step.))
With respect to claims 21, 23, and 25,
Whitman further teaches,
wherein the processing system is configured to, based on the foldable device being in the closed state, detect a first increase in absolute capacitance from the first electrode and a second increase in absolute capacitance from the second electrode, wherein the first increase and the second increase are different. (Para. [0038] teaches “The hinge element 202 is folded such that the fold angle between the portions 201 and 203 is substantially 0 degrees. The associated bar graph shows that the three electrodes 206, 207, and 208 on the face of the portion 201 have relatively high capacitances, reflecting that the electrodes 206, 207, and 208 are in very close proximity to the electrodes of the opposite portion 203. The end electrode 209 displays a low capacitance, reflecting that the end electrode 209 is further from other electrodes than the face electrodes.” (i.e. as the electrodes of one side approach the electrodes of the other side the capacitance increases. Fig. 7A shows that some electrodes get closer to the other side than others when the device is fully closed leading to the electrodes away from the bend having a larger increase than those closer to the bending region when the device is closed.)
With respect to claims 22 and 26,
Whitman further teaches,
wherein the first increase is larger than the second increase. (Fig. 7A shows that some electrodes get closer to the other side than others when the device is fully closed leading to the electrodes away from the bend having a larger increase than those closer to the bending region when the device is closed.)
With respect to claim 24,
Whitman teaches,
A non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon for determining an open or closed state of a foldable device, wherein the instructions, when executed, facilitate performance of the following: (Para. [0028] teaches “The electronic device 100 may further comprise a computing apparatus, such as at least one processor and at least one memory comprising computer program code, the computing apparatus being configured to calculate a fold angle of the electronic device 100 as described below.”)
obtaining, by a processing system, at least one first absolute capacitance measurement via a first set of electrodes of a plurality of electrodes of the foldable device for open/close detection, wherein the first set of electrodes is located proximate to an edge of the foldable device; (Para. [0056] “Obtain a self-capacitance value for each powered electrode of the plurality of powered electrodes based on a distance between each powered electrode of the plurality of powered electrodes and the at least one grounded electrode;” (i.e. self-capacitance is analogous to absolute capacitance. Para. [0026] teaches “the electrodes in the first portion 101 (e.g., electrode 104, etc.) may be active (e.g., powered, etc.) and the electrodes in the second portion 103 (e.g., electrode 105, etc.) may be grounded.” Fig. 1A shows that electrodes 104 and 105 approach the edge of the device.)
determining, by the processing system, that the foldable device is in a closed state based on the at least one first absolute capacitance measurement, (Para. [0003] teaches “at least one processor; and at least one memory comprising computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the electronic device to at least.” Para. [0056] “Obtain a self-capacitance value for each powered electrode of the plurality of powered electrodes based on a distance between each powered electrode of the plurality of powered electrodes and the at least one grounded electrode;” Para. [0053) teaches “self-capacitances of active electrodes with respect to grounded electrodes on the opposite side of the fold axis 602 may be used to calculate the fold angle at the fold axis.” Para. [0076] teaches “The defined formula may take the self-capacitance pattern of the pluralities of electrodes as input and provide a value associated with an opening state of the electronic device as an output.”)
Whitman does not explicitly teach,
wherein in the closed state of the foldable device, a first electrode of the first set of electrodes is disposed across from a ground or reference electrode, and a second electrode of the first set of electrodes is disposed across from a guarding electrode.
Lim teaches,
wherein in the closed state of the foldable device, a first electrode of the first set of electrodes is disposed across from a ground or reference electrode, and a second electrode of the first set of electrodes is disposed across from a guarding electrode. (Para(s). [0159-0160] teaches “The flexible circuit board FPC5 may further include a ground electrode GND which is disposed on a first surface thereof, and the ground electrode GND may block noise which is introduced into the first electrode T1′ and the second electrode T2′, according to an exemplary embodiment of the present invention. The ground electrode GND may be folded or bent in the same direction as that of the flexible circuit board FPC5, when the flexible circuit board FPC5 is folded or bent above and below the first boundary I-I′. The flexible circuit board FPC5 may further include a first conductive guard and a second conductive guard which are disposed on the first surface of the flexible circuit board FPC5. The first conductive guard G1 may receive voltages with the same phase as voltages being received by the first electrode T1′ and may be disposed to face the first electrode T1′ according to an exemplary embodiment of the present invention. The second conductive guard G2 may receive voltages with the same phase as voltages being received by the second electrode T2′ and may be disposed to face the second electrode T2′, according to an exemplary embodiment of the present invention.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Whitman wherein in the closed state of the foldable device, a first electrode of the first set of electrodes is disposed across from a ground or reference electrode, and a second electrode of the first set of electrodes is disposed across from a guarding electrode such as that of Lim.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Whitman, because as seen in Whitman Para. [0026] and Fig. 1A when the device is closed, grounded electrodes 105 are across from active electrodes 104, and self-capacitance of the active electrodes are measured in order to determine the fold angle. Lim teaches a guarded and a grounded electrode in a folded circuit across from first and second electrodes to reduce noise in measurement from the two electrodes as seen in Para. [0159] of Lim. Therefore, one would combine the prior art in order to reduce noise in the measurement.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitman (US 20180088633 A1) and Lim (US 20170357354 A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Shepelev (US 20170003778 A1).
With respect to claim 3,
Whitman dies not explicitly teach,
The system according to claim 2, wherein the processing system is configured to,
in the single sensing step, ground one or more electrodes disposed between the first and second
sets of electrodes and guard one or more electrodes disposed between the first and second sets of
electrodes.
Shepelev teaches,
wherein the processing system is configured to, in the single sensing step, ground one or more electrodes disposed between the first and second sets of electrodes and guard one or more electrodes disposed between the first and second sets of electrodes. (Para. [0059] teaches “The sensor module 244 is also configured to operate the grid electrode 122 as a shield electrode. Processing system 110 is configured to operate the grid electrode 122 as a shield electrode that may shield the sensor electrodes 120 from the electrical effects of nearby conductors. In one embodiment, processing system is configured to operate the grid electrode 122 as a shield electrode that may shield sensor electrodes 120 from the electrical effects of nearby conductors and guard the sensor electrodes 120 from grid electrode 122, at least partially reducing the parasitic capacitance between the grid electrode 122 and the sensor electrodes 120. In one embodiment, a shielding signal is driven onto the grid electrode 122. The shielding signal may be a ground signal, such as the system ground or other ground, or any other constant voltage (i.e., non-modulated) signal.” (i.e. the grid electrode caries a shielding that is a ground signal therefore the electrode represents a grounded and guarded electrode.))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Whitman wherein the processing system is configured to, in the single sensing step, ground one or more electrodes disposed between the first and second sets of electrodes and guard one or more electrodes disposed between the first and second sets of electrodes such as that of Shepelev.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Whitman, because it would allow the electrodes to be shielded from nearby conductors as taught in Para. [0059] Shepelev leading to a more accurate measurement.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitman (US 20180088633 A1) and Lim (US 20170357354 A1) as applied to claims 2 and 11 above, and further in view of Palmor (US 20220075427 A1).
With respect to claim 4,
Whitman does not explicitly teach,
The system according to claim 2, wherein the processing system is configured to obtain the at least one first absolute capacitance measurement in a first sensing step and the second absolute capacitance measurements in a second sensing step different from the first sensing step.
Palmor teaches,
wherein the processing system is configured to obtain the at least one first absolute capacitance measurement in a first sensing step and the second absolute capacitance measurements in a second sensing step different from the first sensing step. (Para. [0059] teaches “substeps of step 406 are provided. In a touch-free state, step 406 includes at 416, measuring a first background capacitance at a selected set of a plurality of electrodes of the first capacitive touch sensor. At 418, step 406 includes measuring a second background capacitance at a selected set of a plurality of electrodes of the second capacitive touch sensor.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Whitman wherein the processing system is configured to obtain the at least one first absolute capacitance measurement in a first sensing step and the second absolute capacitance measurements in a second sensing step different from the first sensing step such as that of Palmor.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Whitman, because it would allow the device to calibrate both sides of the hinge in order to get more accurate capacitance measurements by accounting for interference with respect to the angle and distance between the screens as seen in Para. [0059] of Palmor.
With respect to claim 14,
Whitman does not explicitly teach,
The method according to claim 11, wherein the at least one first absolute capacitance measurement is obtained in a first sensing step and the second absolute capacitance measurements are obtained in a second sensing step different from the first sensing step.
Palmor teaches,
wherein the at least one first absolute capacitance measurement are obtained in a first sensing step and the second absolute capacitance measurements are obtained in a second sensing step different from the first sensing step. (Para. [0059] teaches “substeps of step 406 are provided. In a touch-free state, step 406 includes at 416, measuring a first background capacitance at a selected set of a plurality of electrodes of the first capacitive touch sensor. At 418, step 406 includes measuring a second background capacitance at a selected set of a plurality of electrodes of the second capacitive touch sensor.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Whitman wherein the at least one first absolute capacitance measurement are obtained in a first sensing step and the second absolute capacitance measurements are obtained in a second sensing step different from the first sensing step such as that of Palmor.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Whitman, because it would allow the device to calibrate both sides of the hinge in order to get more accurate capacitance measurements by accounting for interference with respect to the angle and distance between the screens as seen in Para. [0059] of Palmor.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitman (US 20180088633 A1) and Lim (US 20170357354 A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Seger Jr. (US 20230039953 A1).
With respect to claim 5,
Whitman further teaches
The system according to claim 2, wherein the processing system is further configured to: obtain touch sensing measurements via the first and second sets of electrodes; (Para, [0030] teaches “The display may be a touch sensitive display. In an implementation, the electronic device 100 is a mobile device, and the display is a touch sensitive display. At least one characteristic of a graphical user interface presented on the display may be transformed based on a calculated fold angle and/or change in the fold angle between the first portion 101 and the second portion 103. In an example, the display of the electronic device 100 is a touch sensitive display and the active electrodes (at least one of the electrodes disposed in the first portion 101 and/or the second portion 103 (e.g., electrode 104, electrode 105, etc.)) of the electronic device 100 comprise capacitive sensors of the touch sensitive display.”)
Whitman does not explicitly teach,
and determine, based on the touch sensing measurements, a position of an input object in a sensing region corresponding to the plurality of electrodes.
Seger Jr. teaches,
and determine, based on the touch sensing measurements, a position of an input object in a sensing region corresponding to the plurality of electrodes. (Para. [0143] teaches “A change in the impedance is indicative of a touch. For example, an increase in self-capacitance (e.g., the capacitance of the electrode with respect to a reference (e.g., ground, etc.)) is indicative of a touch on the electrode.)” Para. [0143] teaches “The method continues at step 106 where the processing module interprets the change in the impedance to indicate a touch of the touch screen display in an area corresponding to the electrode”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Whitman with determining, based on the touch sensing measurements, a position of an input object in a sensing region corresponding to the plurality of electrodes such as that of Seger Jr.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Whitman, because knowing the position of the touch would allow the device more functionality and applications than just detecting if there is a touch anywhere on the device.
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 JOSHUA L FORRISTALL whose telephone number is 703-756-4554. The examiner
can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 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, Andrew Schechter can be reached on 571-272-2302. 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.
/JOSHUA L FORRISTALL/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ANDREW SCHECHTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights