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 with traverse of restriction requirement in the reply filed on 5/6/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that MPEP § 803 and/or arguing the claims and species are considered in the same application.
Examiner consider Applicant’s Remark and agree to regroup or merge the following species:
Fig 5 and fig 6A, 6B, 6C, 6D, 6E: Examiner agree to merge these embodiments and consider as a single species. Since Applicant elected R5 (fig 6D), therefore, Examiner consider all above figures as elected specie.
Fig 4B-4C: this is the only embodiment that Examiner can’t merge into the elected embodiment based on Applicant argument. Because these figures comprise some layer(s) which is not in the above elected embodiment.
Examiner called and left voice message to Applicant’s attorney a couple times. If Applicant has any other suggestion, please feel free to contact Examiner to further discuss.
All other Species and inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes /subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Koo (US 20190132987).
With regard claim 1, Koo discloses An electronic device (abstract, see also fig 1-23) comprising: a first housing; a second housing (abstract, see also fig 1, Fig 15-16, Fig 17, two housings on both side); a hinge module configured to enable the first housing and the second housing to be folded with respect to each other (abstract, see also fig 1-2, Fig 15-16, Fig 17, hinge between two housings on both side); a flexible display panel disposed at the first housing and the second housing (abstract, see also fig 1-2, Fig 15-16, Fig 17); and a plate disposed under the flexible display panel to support the flexible display panel (abstract, see also fig 1-2, Fig 15-16, Fig 17), wherein the plate comprises: a first flat portion disposed with respect to the first housing, a second flat portion disposed with respect to the second housing (abstract, see also fig 1-2, Fig 15-16, Fig 17; Examiner consider the structure under the display 11 is the plate), and a flexible portion formed between the first flat portion and the second flat portion (at least fig 2, fig 15, flexible portion formed between the first flat portion and the second flat portion), the flexible portion including a plurality of openings spaced apart from each other so as to enable the flexible portion to bend when the first housing and the second housing are folded with respect to each other (paragraph [168]-[170]), and wherein the plate comprises a plurality of recesses formed in a predetermined depth in a portion of at least one of the first flat portion and the second flat portion (at least fig 2, fig 15).
Regarding claim 6, Koo further disclosed the plurality of recesses define a lightweight area of the at least one of the first flat portion and the second flat portion (at least fig 2, fig 15, a lightweight area of the at least one of the first flat portion and the second flat portion; no label), and wherein the lightweight area has a size or a shape not to impair a rigid reinforcement function, a heat radiation function, and/or a noise shielding function of the plate (at least fig 2, fig 15; see also paragraph [93]-[99]).
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 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 of this title, 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 7, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koo (US 20190132987) in view of further in view of Examiner’s Official Notice (EON).
Regarding claim 12, the above discussed art further disclosed the plurality of recesses formed in a predetermined depth in one of the first flat portion or the second flat portion (at least fig 2, fig 15; see also paragraph [93]-[99]).
The primary art discussed in the preceding claim disclosed all the subject matter except for “a display driver integrated circuit (DDI) is disposed on the one of the first flat portion or the second flat portion”.
However, Examiner take official notice (EON) that the above limitations (“a display driver integrated circuit (DDI) is disposed on the one of the first flat portion or the second flat portion”) are well known.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to include this feature “a display driver integrated circuit (DDI) is disposed on the one of the first flat portion or the second flat portion” and modify to previous discussed structure (the above device structure). The motivation to modify the previous discussed structure with EON feature is to further protect the DDI the modified structure.
Regarding claim 7, The primary art discussed in the preceding claim disclosed all the subject matter except for “a display driver integrated circuit (DDI) is disposed on one of the first flat portion and the second flat portion, and wherein the lightweight area and the DDI do not overlap each other.”.
However, Examiner take official notice (EON) that the above limitations (“a display driver integrated circuit (DDI) is disposed on one of the first flat portion and the second flat portion, and wherein the lightweight area and the DDI do not overlap each other”) are well known.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to include this feature “a display driver integrated circuit (DDI) is disposed on one of the first flat portion and the second flat portion, and wherein the lightweight area and the DDI do not overlap each other” and modify to previous discussed structure (the above device structure). The motivation to modify the previous discussed structure with EON feature is to further protect the DDI the modified structure.
Examiner’s note:
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to have a display driver integrated circuit (DDI) is disposed on one of the first flat portion and the second flat portion, and wherein the lightweight area and the DDI do not overlap each other; and/or a display driver integrated circuit (DDI) is disposed on the one of the first flat portion or the second flat portion, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. The motivation to modify the previous discussed structure with the above features is to further protect the DDI the modified structure.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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