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 communication is in response to the claim’s amendment dated 2/26/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 2/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Issues raised by the Applicant:
The Applicant’s main argument asserts “the pressing members (261, 262) of Shin (cited regarding claim 2) are configured to bend at a specific temperature to have a flat or convex shape only, and power is not applied selectively to only some of the multiple shape memory alloys in order to reduce power consumption, as in claim 1”.
The Examiner’s position:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant. Paragraph [0154] of SHIN et al. suggests “The amount of current supplied to the pressing member 260, or a supply time duration can be determined based on a temperature of the pressing member 260 sensed by the first temperature sensor 281a and the second temperature sensor 281b”, as also mentioned by the Applicant in the Remarks. The Examiner maintains that the teaching of par[0154] reads on the claimed limitation “a temperature sensor disposed adjacent to the first shape memory alloy and the second shape memory alloy, wherein the driving circuit is configured to control an amount of power applied to at least one of the first shape memory alloy or the second shape memory alloy, based on a temperature measured by the temperature sensor.”.
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 4 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.
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 recites “a temperature sensor disposed adjacent to the first shape memory alloy and the second shape memory alloy”. It is unclear whether or not the “a temperature sensor” recited in claim 4 refers to the same “a temperature sensor” recited in claim 1. The Examiner temporarily assumes the same temperature sensor is being claimed in both claims 1 and 4.
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, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maenpaa U.S. Patent 7,593,524 in view of CHOI et al. U.S. Pub. 2015/0146349 and in further view of SHIN et al. U.S. Pub. 2016/0070304.
PNG
media_image1.png
307
415
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Maenpaa teaches an electronic device (10; figures 1-2) comprising:
a first housing (14; figures 1-2);
a second housing (12; figures 1-2);
a hinge device (18; figures 1-2) configured to connect the first housing (14) and the second housing (12) such that the electronic device (10) can be switched from a folded state (shown in figures 1-2) into an unfolded state (shown in figures 10-11);
a first shape memory alloy (see above annotated figure 1) extending across the hinge device, wherein the first shape memory alloy includes one end coupled to the first housing and the other end coupled to the second housing and is configured to return to a predetermined shape upon application of power, and is configured to return to a predetermined shape upon application of power;
a second shape memory alloy (see above annotated figure 1) extending across the hinge device and spaced apart from the first shape memory alloy, wherein the second shape memory alloy includes one end coupled to the first housing and the other end coupled to the second housing and is configured to return to a predetermined shape upon application of power; and
However, Maenpaa does not specifically teach a driving circuit configured to apply power to at least one of the first shape memory alloy or the second shape memory alloy.
CHOI et al. teaches a similar structure, which including a driving circuit (see par[0062]; “…the folding control unit…”) configured to apply power (see par[0062]; “…control voltage…”) to a shape memory member (130; figure 1 and see par[0062]) so that said shape memory member can be restored (see par[0062]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the same concept by modifying and equipping the electronic device of Maenpaa with a driving circuit configured to apply power to the at least one of the first alloy member and the second alloy member so that at least one of the first alloy member and the second alloy member can be restored so that folding/unfolding angles can be controlled.
However, Maenpaa does not specifically teach a temperature sensor disposed adjacent to the first shape memory alloy and the second shape memory alloy, wherein the driving circuit is configured to control an amount of power applied to at least one of the first shape memory alloy or the second shape memory alloy, based on a temperature measured by the temperature sensor.
SHIN et al. teaches a similar concept for controlling an amount of power/force (see par[0143 and par[0154]) applied to a shape memory alloy (see par[0143 and par[0154]) based on a temperature (see par[0143 and par[0154]) measured by a designated temperature sensor.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further equip the electronic device of Maenpaa in view of CHOI et al., with a temperature sensor disposed adjacent to the first shape memory alloy and the second shape memory alloy, wherein the driving circuit is configured to control an amount of power applied to at least one of the first shape memory alloy and the second shape memory alloy, based on a temperature measured by the temperature sensor, as suggested by SHIN et al., to control said first/second shape memory alloys based on measured temperature.
Note: A shape memory alloy (SMA) is a "smart" metal that can be deformed but will return to its original, predetermined shape when heated, thanks to a temperature-triggered, solid-state phase transformation between two crystal structures (martensite and austenite). This unique ability makes SMAs useful in applications from medical stents that expand in the body to smart textiles and actuators, with common types including Nitinol (nickel-titanium).
How it works
Training (High Temp):
The alloy is heated into its austenite phase and given its permanent shape.
Deformation (Low Temp):
When cooled below its transformation temperature, it enters the martensite phase, becoming soft and easily reshaped with little force.
Shape Recovery (Heating):
Applying heat (e.g., body temp, hot water) transforms it back to austenite, causing the atoms to realign and the material to "remember" and recover its original shape.
Regarding claim 3, as mentioned above, Maenpaa in view of CHOI et al./ SHIN et al. teaches the electronic device of claim 1.
CHOI et al. further suggests the folding sensor (see par[0062]; “The control unit may sense “and/or determine the magnitude of) the folding angle of the foldable display 120”) configured to sense a folded state (see par[0062]) of the electronic device, wherein the driving circuit is configured to control an amount of power applied to at least one of the first shape memory alloy or the second shape memory alloy, based on the folded state being sensed by the folding sensor.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to equip the electronic device of Maenpaa in view of CHOI et al./SHIN et al. with a folding sensor configured to sense a folded state of the electronic device, as suggested by CHOI et al., wherein the driving circuit is configured to control an amount of power applied to at least one of the first shape memory alloy or the second shape memory alloy, based on the folded state sensed by the folding sensor.
Regarding claim 4, as mentioned above, Maenpaa in view of CHOI et al./SHIN et al. teaches the electronic device of claim 1; further comprising a temperature sensor disposed adjacent to the first shape memory alloy and the second shape memory alloy.
However, Maenpaa in view of CHOI et al./SHIN et al. does not further teach the first shape memory alloy is configured to be restored at a first temperature, the second shape memory alloy is configured to be restored at a second temperature which is higher than the first temperature, and the driving circuit is configured to apply power such that the first shape memory alloy reaches the first temperature and/or to apply power such that the second shape memory alloy reaches the second temperature, based on a temperature measured by the temperature sensor.
SHIN et al. teaches a similar concept for applying an amount of power/force (see par[0143 and par[0154]) to two shape memory alloys (see par[0149]) based on two different temperature (see par[0149]) measured by a designated temperature sensor.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further equip the electronic device of Maenpaa in view of CHOI et al. /SHIN et al., with a capability wherein the first shape memory alloy would be configured to be restored at a first temperature, the second shape memory alloy would be configured to be restored at a second temperature which is higher (different temperatures => one temperature has to be higher than the other one) than the first temperature, as suggested by SHIN et al., such that the driving circuit would be configured to apply power such that the first shape memory alloy reaches the first temperature and/or to apply power such that the second shape memory alloy reaches the second temperature, based on a temperature measured by the temperature sensor.
PNG
media_image2.png
312
430
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Maenpaa in view of CHOI et al. /SHIN et al. teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the first shape memory alloy and the second shape memory alloy are disposed (see above annotated figure 1 of Maenpaa) symmetrically to each other with reference to a center (see above annotated figure 1) of the electronic device.
Regarding claim 8, as mentioned above, Maenpaa in view of CHOI et al. /SHIN et al. teaches the electronic device of claim 1.
Even though, Maenpaa in view of CHOI et al. /SHIN et al. does not teach a thickness of the first shape memory alloy and a thickness of the second shape memory alloy are different from each other, however, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use different thicknesses for said first/second shape memory alloys, to derive different sizes for said device, as desired, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 9, the modification of Maenpaa in view of CHOI et al. /SHIN et al. would result in the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the first shape memory alloy would be configured to memorize a shape of the first shape memory alloy; and the second shape memory alloy would be configured to memorize a shape of the second shape memory alloy (see above rejection of claim 1). Whether or not said first/second shape memory alloys are in in a folded state or in an unfolded state of the electronic device would not affect how the first/second shape memory alloys were configured to memorize its shape.
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 HUNG Q DANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3069. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6PM..
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 N 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.
HUNG Q. DANG
Examiner
Art Unit 2835
/IMANI N HAYMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2841