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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of election in the reply filed on 3/17/26 is acknowledged.
The elected Group II corresponds to claims 1-7, 10-11 Only.
Since Applicant further amended claim 18 and also discuss this in the interview on 4/24/26, Examiner agree to merge this claim into the group II.
Claims 12-17 are obviously comprising a method for user inputs, output content and telescoping structure (similar to claim 9). These claims are withdrawn from consideration on this office action and further office action.
In the response of election, Applicant forget to elect the species. Examiner interview with Applicant’s Attorney, Philip Burrus, and Applicant further elected specie A (fig 1-9) without traverse.
Therefore, Examiner will exam elected claims and embodiment.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and dependent claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, “a unitary flexible display coupled to the device housing and having at least two end portions that are separably adjacent and that extend distally in one direction from one side of a base portion” are not supported by SPEC/drawing. The limitation lacks antecedent basis and/or is not supported by SPEC/drawings. Further clarification is required. Examiner request Applicant to further clarify: (point it out on the figure)
Which figure shows “separably adjacent and that extend distally in one direction from one side of a base portion”? Examiner remind Applicant that there is no “adjacent” relationship disclose in the SPEC. There are two portions which split apart with a slit. Nor matter further bending or not (by hinge), it’s not in adjacent relationship, especially when the device is further bended.
Where is the “one side of the base portion” and “extend distally in one direction”? At least the embodiment shown in fig 1-3, it’s not “distally” and it’s not “one direction” if it compares with the embodiment shown in fig 4-6.
If Applicant can’t explain clearly based on the figure, a 112 rejection will be applied in the next office action.
In claim 1, “the translator is operable to selectively move the at least two end portions between a first position where the at least two end portions are adjacent to the device housing and a second position where the at least two end portions extend distally from the device housing” are not supported by SPEC/drawing. The limitation lacks antecedent basis and/or is not supported by SPEC/drawings. Further clarification is required. At least fig 3, fig 6 clearly shows the two end portions are held and also lift up by the translator. The “translator” is obviously between the two end portions and the device housing. Once again, there is no disclosure of “the at least two end portions are adjacent to the device housing” in the SPEC which doesn’t exist in the embodiments shown in the drawing. If Applicant can’t explain clearly based on the figure, a 112 rejection will be applied in the next office action.
The Examiner respectfully requests that the Applicant(s) review all claims for any such similar issues.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitations, discussed in the above claim objections must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2-7, 10, 11, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Maddock (US 6466369).
With regard claim 1, Maddock discloses An electronic device, (abstract, see also fig 1-30) comprising: a device housing (any housing in any embodiment); a unitary flexible display coupled to the device housing (at least fig 3, 4, 6, 10, 15, 23 etc. different embodiments which show a unitary flexible display coupled to the device housing) and having at least two end portions that are separably adjacent and that extend distally in one direction from one side of a base portion (at least fig 3, 4, 6, 10, 15, or 23 etc.; Examiner consider at least two end portions that are separably adjacent and that extend distally in one direction from one side of a base portion located on the center; no label); and a translator coupled to the unitary flexible display (at least fig 3, 4, 6, 10, 15, 23 etc. whatever structure coupled to the flexible display and allow or cause the flexible display to change the state or bend, Examiner consider as a translator); wherein the translator is operable to selectively move the at least two end portions between a first position where the at least two end portions are adjacent to the device housing (at least fig 3, 4, 6, 10, 15, 23 etc.; see also fig 3 and fig 6 for more detail examples) and a second position where the at least two end portions extend distally from the device housing (at least fig 3, 4, 6, 10, 15, 23 etc.; see also fig 3 and fig 5 for more detail examples).
Regarding claim 18, Maddock further disclosed: An electronic device, (abstract, see also fig 1-30) comprising: a first device housing that is pivotable relative to a second device housing between an axially displaced open position and a closed position (at least fig 4, fig 23; Examiner consider a portion of the screen assembly, frame, and/or screen support/body which can pivotable relative to another portion of the screen assembly, frame, and/or screen support/body; on two different side; no labels these portions are the 1st and 2nd device housing); and a unitary flexible display having a base portion (at least fig 4, fig 23; at least the center portion; no label), a first portion extending from a side of the base portion that is selectively extendable from the first device housing (at least fig 4, fig 23; the 1st portion extending from a side of the base portion that is selectively extendable from the first device housing; closer to the top portion shown on fig 4, fig 23; no label), and a second portion extending from the side of the base portion in the same direction as the first portion that is selectively extendable from the second device housing (at least fig 4, fig 23; the 2nd portion extending from a side of the base portion that is selectively extendable from the first device housing; closer to the top portion shown on fig 4, fig 23; no label); a translator coupled to the unitary flexible display (at least fig 4, fig 23; any structure can be held or cause the flexible display to change the states; Examiner consider as a translator; for example, but not limited to, the frame structure and/or screen assembly; no label); wherein the translator is operable to selectively move the first portion and the second portion between a first position where the first portion and the second portion abut the first device housing and the second device housing, respectively (at least fig 4, fig 23; at least the closed position), and a second position where the first portion and the second portion extend distally from the first device housing and the second device housing, respectively (at least fig 4, fig 23; at least the open position or the position between closed and open position).
Regarding claim 2, Maddock further disclosed: the at least two end portions comprise a first end portion separated from a second end portion by a slit also extending in the one direction (at least fig 3, fig 6, the at least two end portions comprise a first end portion separated from a second end portion by a slit also extending in the one direction; Examiner consider “a long, narrow opening/gap between the two end portions is a slit”).
Examiner’s note: Slit: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/slit
Regarding claim 3, Maddock further disclosed: the first end portion and the second end portion abut along the slit (at least fig 3, fig 6, the first end portion and the second end portion abut along the slit or opening/gap; see also fig 4, fig 23)
Regarding claim 4, Maddock further disclosed: the device housing comprises a first device housing pivotable relative to a second device housing between an axially displaced open position and a closed position (at least fig 3, fig 6, ; see also fig 4, fig 23; Examiner consider a portion of the screen assembly, frame, and/or screen support/body which can pivotable relative to another portion of the screen assembly, frame, and/or screen support/body; on two different side; no labels these portions are the 1st and 2nd device housing; no label)
Regarding claim 5, Maddock further disclosed: the first device housing is pivotable about a hinge relative to the second device housing between the axially displaced open position and the closed position (at least fig 3, fig 6, ; see also fig 4, fig 23; the structure/portion on the pivot axis; Examiner consider as a hinge; no label)
Regarding claim 6, Maddock further disclosed: the translator is operable to selectively move the at least two end portions from the first position where they abut the device housing (at least fig 4, fig 23) and the second position where they extend distally from the device housing only when the first device housing is pivoted to the axially displaced open position relative to the second device housing (at least fig 3, fig 6, ; see also fig 4, fig 22-23; when the first device housing is pivoted to the axially displaced open position relative to the second device housing; )
Regarding claim 7, Maddock further disclosed: the base portion is concealed and the first end portion and the second end portion are exposed when the first end portion and the second end portion are in the first position (at least fig 4, fig 22-23) and the first device housing is pivoted relative to the second device housing to the closed position (at least fig 3, fig 6, ; see also fig 4, fig 22-23)
Regarding claim 10, Maddock further disclosed: the base portion is fixedly coupled to a first major surface of the device housing (at least fig 3, fig 6, ; see also fig 4, fig 22-23) and the at least two end portions abut a second major surface of the device housing when in the first position (at least fig 3, fig 6, ; see also fig 4, fig 22-23)
Regarding claim 11, Maddock further disclosed: the unitary flexible display is configured as in a block U-shape (at least fig 3, fig 6, ; see also fig 4, fig 22-23)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the Applicants’ remarks that, “Lafarre's flexible display 21 is integrated into a display cover 22/122, and that assembly is wrapped around a stick. The "display cover" is a separate structural element (e.g., attachment section 24, control section 25) and the claims in Lafarre expressly define the invention as a "wrap display system" comprising a stick and a flexible display unit including a display cover. There is no disclosure in Lafarre of a single, contiguous display component with a base portion fixed to one major surface of a device housing and integrally formed end portions extending distally from that base portion, as required by Applicant's claims.” (pages : Applicant’s Remark has not page #).
Examiner’s Answer: the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that:
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to current ground of rejection in the office action.
All the argued limitations in the claims are rejected in the above office action.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERRY WU whose telephone number is (571)270-5420. The examiner can normally be reached on PHP: M-Th: 8:30-12:30; 2:30-8:30pm.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JERRY WU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights