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 .
This office action is in response to the Applicant’s communication filed on 04/27/2026.
In view of applicant’s amendment and arguments regarding objection to the drawings set forth in the previous office action, the objection is hereby withdrawn. In view of applicant’s amendment and arguments regarding objections to the claims, the objection is hereby withdrawn.
In view of applicant’s amendment and arguments regarding rejection of claim(s) 13 – 18 under 35 U.S.C. 101 and under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first and/or second paragraph, set forth in the previous Office Action, the rejection(s) is/are hereby withdrawn.
The applicant's arguments to the claims rejection are fully considered, however they are not deemed to be persuasive; for examiner response to the applicant’s arguments see “Response to Arguments” section below. Additionally, new grounds of rejections are presented in this office action necessitated by the applicant’s amendment.
Response to Arguments
On page 15 of the Remarks, the Applicant argues the Examiner’s reasoning of obviousness with respect to adapting disclosed by Lim fast retraction of the display to reception of an incoming call. Particularly, the Applicant appears to argue that the Examiner’s reasoning
“…is an ex post facto rationalization made after knowing the technical solution of the present application, rather than a technical motivation that a person skilled in the art could reasonably expect as of the filing date. There is no evidence in the prior art suggesting that there exists a technical consensus or conventional technical means in the art that "the screen must retract at a speed higher than the manual speed when an incoming call is received.”
Initially, in response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Second, a problem of giving a user an opportunity to faster answering an incoming call in certain situations is well known in the art. One of the reasons is that the longer the incoming call remains unanswered, the higher the probability that the calling party will lose patience and simply hung up. For example, US 20160088140, filed nearly 10 years prior to the US filing date of the present application, at least in abstract and paragraphs 0002 and 0063, as well as throughout the disclosure, teaches the importance of urgent answering an incoming call especially for devices with large displays in a driving situation. Additionally, US 20150021113, also filed nearly 10 years prior to the US filing date of the present application, at least in paragraph 0004 teaches the importance of quickly answering a call when driving. Still additionally, US 20060287787, filed nearly 15 years prior to the US filing date of the present application, teaches that the longer the incoming call is unanswered, the more risk of the caller hanging up.
In the device of Lim, when the display is fully extended, as shown in FIG 12 and described in paragraphs 0177 – 0182, the display needs to fully retract, which may take some time depending on the speed of retraction, prior to allowing the user to answer the call. The device of Lim already has the capability of retracting the display with the speed higher than normal. Thus, there is no need to introduce any additional mechanical features not already present in the device. A person of ordinary skill in the art being aware that retraction of the display with normal speed takes some time prior to giving the user opportunity to answer the incoming call, and knowing the importance of fast answering the call, at least in some situations, would have been motivated to utilize already existing technical capability of retracting the display with higher speed, and [optionally] apply it upon reception of an incoming call, at least to reduce the chance of the calling party hanging up prior to the user being able to answer the incoming call and/or while driving.
Therefore, the Examiner maintains that the disclosure of Lim teaches or fairly suggest the limitations of amended claim 1 (which now includes the limitations of canceled claim 2), and the Applicant’s arguments are not found to be persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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, 3 – 5, 7, 9 – 11, 13, 15 – 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20100167791 (Lim).
Regarding claims 1, 7, 13 and 20, Lim teaches “A control method applied to an electronic device, wherein the electronic device has an extendable screen (par. 0176 and FIGS. 12 and 13: views showing examples to restore the extended flexible LCD to the initial state when an incoming call is received.), and the method comprises:
in a case that a call request is received, if the extendable screen is in extended state (par. 0177: As shown in FIG. 12, the flexible LCD 51 may be automatically or manually extended), controlling the extendable screen to retract; and in a case that the extendable screen retracts to a first target size (par. 0178: When an incoming call is received in a state that the flexible LCD 51 is in an extended state, the controller 180 restores the extended flexible LCD 51 to the initial state), outputting prompt information corresponding to the call request (par. 0179: If the received incoming call is a voice call, the flexible LCD 51 is restored to the initial state, and, the message is displayed on the main LCD 50 of the portable terminal.);
wherein in a case that a call request is received, if the extendable screen is in extended state, controlling the extendable screen to retract comprises: in the case that a call request is received, if the extendable screen is in extended state, controlling the extendable screen to retract (please see explanation in the rejection of similar limitation above)…”
Lim does not teach that the retraction is “at a first preset speed, wherein the first preset speed is greater than a retraction speed at which the extendable screen retracts when manually triggered.”
However, Lim in paragraphs 0158 and 0171 – 0174 teaches the capability of manually controlling extension of the flexible display, and in paragraph 0175, Lim teaches the capability of automatic extension and contraction. Further, paragraph 0151 teaches that an LCD sliding motor is driven by the driving control signal and may be rotated in a forward or backward direction. And, the LCD sliding motor may have a speed controlled step by step (highest speed (“a first preset speed”) at an emergency mode).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application that, upon receiving an incoming call, it would be better if the disclosed contraction of the flexible display were performed as fast as possible (“at a first preset speed”), so that the user would be able to answer the phone call sooner upon the display becoming fully contracted, as shown in FIG 12, bottom part. Otherwise, if the contraction of the display is performed slowly (such as at the speed disclosed in paragraphs 0158 and 0171 – 0174, being “a retraction speed at which the extendable screen retracts when manually triggered”), there may be a risk that by the time the display is fully contracted and the phone is ready to be used for answering the call, the phone may stop ringing (i.e. the caller may have already hung up) and the user would not be able to answer the call in time.
Additional explanations may be found in section Response to Arguments above which is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding claims 3, 9 and 15, Lim teaches “wherein before the controlling the extendable screen to retract, the method further comprises: in the case that a call request is received, obtaining a running state of the electronic device (par. 0179: If the received incoming call is a voice call, the controller 180 checks whether an external headset such as a Bluetooth headset is in a connected state to the portable terminal (representing claimed “a running state of the electronic device”).); and if the extendable screen is in extended state, controlling the extendable screen to retract specifically comprises: if the extendable screen is in extended state and the running state of the electronic device does not satisfy a first preset condition, controlling the extendable screen to retract (par. 0179: if the external headset is not in a connected state to the portable terminal (“the running state of the electronic device does not satisfy a first preset condition”), the flexible LCD 51 is restored to the initial state.).”
Regarding claims 4, 10 and 16, Lim teaches “wherein before the controlling the extendable screen to retract, the method further comprises: if the extendable screen is in extended state and a running state of the electronic device satisfies a first preset condition (par. 0179: If the received incoming call is a voice call, the controller 180 checks whether an external headset such as a Bluetooth headset is in a connected state to the portable terminal), keeping a screen size of the extendable screen unchanged and outputting the prompt information corresponding to the call request (par. 0179: If an external Bluetooth headset is in a connected state to the portable terminal (“a running state of the electronic device satisfies a first preset condition”), the controller 180 controls the user to perform a voice calling by using the headset. There is no disclosure that the flexible LCD 51 is restored to the initial state which means that it stays in the in the extended state. Similarly paragraph 0152: When an incoming call is received in a state that the flexible LCD is in an extended state (slid state), the controller 180 checks whether the interface unit 170 is in a connected state to an external Bluetooth Headset. If the interface unit 170 is in a connected state to an external Bluetooth Headset, the slid state of the flexible LCD (extended state) is maintained.).”
Regarding claims 5, 11 and 17, Lim teaches “wherein the first preset condition comprises at least one of the following: the electronic device is connected to an external device (these claims depend from claims 3, 9 and 15, correspondingly. The parent claims require that if the running state does not satisfy “the first preset condition”, the screen retracts upon reception of the phone call. Thus, this specific limitation of the current claims require that when the electronic device is not connected to an external device, the screen retracts upon reception of the phone call. In view of this, paragraph 0179: If the received incoming call is a voice call, the controller 180 checks whether an external Bluetooth headset is in a connected state to the portable terminal. If the external headset is not in a connected state to the portable terminal, the flexible LCD 51 is restored to the initial state.); and
the extendable screen displays a running interface of a preset application, wherein the preset application comprises a video application and a game application (in view of the requirements of the parent claims, this specific limitation of the current claims require that when the electronic device does not display a running interface of a video application and/or a game application, the screen retracts upon reception of the phone call. However, neither these claims, nor their parent claims specify a course of the action when the running state of the electronic device does satisfy the first preset condition, or in this case does display a video application and/or a game application. Therefore, within the concept of broadest reasonable interpretation, the wording of the claims does not forbid performing exactly same action regardless of whether a video application and/or a game application is displayed or not. In other words, the claims do not forbid retracting the display from its extended state regardless of the specific application being presented on the display of the electronic device, including presenting a video application and/or a game application. This is shown in Lim’s FIG 12. In Lim, the retraction is performed regardless of a specific application being presented on the display of the electronic device, thus meeting the limitation of instant claims.).”
Regarding claim 19, Lim teaches “a processor (controller 180 in FIG 1) and a communications interface, the communications interface is coupled to the processor (wireless communication unit 110 in FIG 1 coupled to the controller), and the processor is configured to execute a program or an instruction to implement the steps of the control method applied to an electronic device according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).”
Lim does not teach “A chip, wherein the chip comprises” all above mentioned components. However, it is either implicit in Lim, or it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to use an integrated circuit encompassing controller and wireless communication unit, in the device of Lim. Doing so would have allowed to miniaturize the device, reduce its cost and ensure repeatability of parameters from device to device.
Claims 6, 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20100167791 (Lim) as applied to claims 1, 7 and 13 above, and further in view of US 20210392224 (Noh).
Regarding claims 6, 12 and 18, Lim does not explicitly teach “wherein after the outputting prompt information corresponding to the call request, the method further comprises: receiving a response input for the call request from a user; and in a case that the response input is to reject a call corresponding to the call request, extending the extendable screen from the first target size to a second target size; or
in a case that the response input is to answer a call corresponding to the call request, extending the extendable screen from the first target size to a second target size after the call ends; wherein the second target size is a screen size of the extendable screen before the call request is received.”
Noh teaches a similar arrangement in which the mobile terminal may receive a phone call in the enlarged display mode, switch to the reduced display mode in response to the phone call, and output a phone call application on the display (see paragraph 0269). Additionally, Noh teaches “wherein after the outputting prompt information corresponding to the call request, the method further comprises: receiving a response input for the call request from a user; … in a case that the response input is to answer a call corresponding to the call request, extending the extendable screen from the first target size to a second target size after the call ends; wherein the second target size is a screen size of the extendable screen before the call request is received (paragraphs 0270 – 0271: When the phone call is ended, the mobile terminal may terminate the phone call application and switch to the enlarged display mode. Accordingly, when the event ends, the mobile terminal may switch to the enlarged display mode, output the first content 1410 that has originally been executed in the enlarged display mode (“the second target size is a screen size of the extendable screen before the call request is received”)).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by Noh restoration of the original extended state of the display upon termination of the call, in the system of Lim. Doing so would have increased convenience to the user by automatically going back to the content the user was consuming prior to the answering of the call.
With respect to the limitation “in a case that the response input is to reject a call corresponding to the call request, extending the extendable screen from the first target size to a second target size”, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize the same approach as disclosed by Noh by restoring the display to its original extended state upon the user rejecting the call. Doing so would have increased convenience to the user by automatically going back to the content the user was consuming prior to receiving notification of the incoming call.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 GENNADIY TSVEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3198. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5:30.
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, Wesley Kim can be reached at 571-272-7867. 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.
/GENNADIY TSVEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648
Prosecution Insights