CTNF 18/779,665 CTNF 79960 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Introduction This is a response to the applicant’s filing filed on 07/22/2024. In virtue of this filing, claims 1-18 are currently presented in the instant application. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/22/2024, 02/11/2025, 07/15/2025 and 11/10/2025 has been considered by Examiner and made of record in the application file. Drawings The drawing submitted on 07/22/2024 has been considered by Examiner and made of record in the application file. Specification The specification submitted on 07/22/2024 has been considered by Examiner and made of record in the application file. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claim 1 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 1 : It is unclear what “a third lateral portion” in lines 16, it is refer to 3 rd side surface portion 513 of figure 5? It is unclear how “a first slit formed in the first lateral portion”? in lines 20, according to figure 5, a first lateral portion 511, a first slit 516c, a third lateral portion 513. It is clearly seen that the slit 516c should be located between a first lateral portion 511 and a third lateral portion 513. It is not formed in the first lateral portion. It is unclear how “a second slit formed in the second lateral portion”? in lines 22, according to figure 5, a second lateral portion 512, a second slit 516a, a first lateral portion 511. It is clearly seen that the slit 516a should be formed between a first lateral portion 511 and a second lateral portion 513. It is not formed in the second lateral portion. It is unclear how “a third slit formed in the third lateral portion”? in lines 23, according to figure 5, a third lateral portion 513, a third slit 516d, a fourth lateral portion 514. It is clearly seen that the slit 516d should be formed between a third lateral portion 513 and a fourth lateral portion 514. It is not formed in the third lateral portion. It is unclear what “a first length of a part of the first lateral portion between the first slit and the third lateral portion is longer than a second length of a part of the third lateral portion between the first lateral portion and the third slit” in lines 24-26, according to figure 5, the first side surface portion 513 is included first length L1 and second length L2. It is clearly seen that a first length of a part L1 is located on the third side surface portion 513, it is not located in the first lateral portion 511. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp. 08-34 AIA Claim s 1 and 4-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. : 12,046,802 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1 and 4-18 in the current application have the same scope of claimed inventions with obvious wording variations . Current application Patent No.: 12,046,802 Claim 1 match with Claim 1 Claim 4 match with Claim 4 Claim 5 match with Claim 3 Claim 6 match with Claim 4 Claim 7 match with Claim 5 Claim 8 match with Claim 6 Claim 9 match with Claim 7 Claim 10 match with Claim 8 Claim 11 match with Claim 9 Claim 12 match with Claim 10 Claim 13 match with Claim 11 Claim 1 match with Claim 12 Claim 14 match with Claim 13 Claim 15 match with Claim 14 Claim 16 match with Claim 15 Claim 17 match with Claim 16 Claim 18 match with Claim 17 Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-12 and 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US Pub. No.: 2020/0333855, hereinafter, “Kim”) in view of Song et al. (US Patent No.: 10,652,374, hereinafter, “Song”) and further in view of Choi et al. (US Pub. No.: 2012/0264489, hereinafter, “Choi”) . Regarding claim 1 , Kim teaches an electronic device comprising (see figure 2, mobile 100): a housing including a first housing portion and a second housing portion (see figure 2, first body 131, second body 132, [0099]); a display including a first display portion accommodated in the first housing portion, and a second display portion accommodated in the second housing portion (see figure 2, display 151, first body 131, second body 132, [0097, 0099]); a hinge structure accommodated in the housing, and connected to the first housing portion and the second housing portion (see figure 2, hinge 210, [0099]); a wireless communication circuit accommodated in the housing (see figure 1A, wireless unit 110); and a printed circuit board accommodated in the first housing portion (see figure 2, [0103, 0119]), wherein a lateral portion of the first housing portion includes (see figure 2, first body 131, drawing below): a first lateral portion spaced apart from the hinge structure and substantially parallel with the folding axis (see figure 2, [0099-0106]), a second lateral portion extended from a first end of the first lateral portion toward the folding axis (see figure 2, [0099-0106]), a third lateral portion extended from a second end of the first lateral portion toward the folding axis, the third lateral portion including a ground portion electrically connected to the printed circuit board and a power supply portion electrically connected to the wireless communication circuit (see figure 2, [0099-0106]), a first slit formed in the first lateral portion closer to the third lateral portion than to the second lateral portion (see figure 2, [0099-0106]), a second slit formed in the second lateral portion (see figure 2, [0099-0106]), and a third slit formed in the third lateral portion (see figure 2, [0099-0106]), PNG media_image1.png 375 861 media_image1.png Greyscale wherein the part of the first lateral portion is directly extended to the part of the third lateral portion such that the part of the first lateral portion and the part of the third lateral portion together are configured to operate as an antenna radiator via the wireless communication circuit for the electronic device (see figure 2, [0099-0106]). It should be noticed that Kim fails to teach a first length of a part of the first lateral portion between the first slit and the third lateral portion is longer than a second length of a part of the third lateral portion between the first lateral portion and the third slit. However, Song teaches a first length (L1) of a part of the first lateral portion between the first slit and the third lateral portion is longer than a second length (L2) of a part of the third lateral portion between the first lateral portion and the third slit (see figure below, col.13, ln.5-14). PNG media_image2.png 539 566 media_image2.png Greyscale Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Song into view of Kim in order to provides significant improvements in connectivity, speed and reliability. A. Changes in Size/Proportion In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" were held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.). In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. B. Changes in Shape In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.). Kim and Song, in combination, fails to teach a flexible display including a first display portion accommodated in the first housing portion, and a second display portion accommodated in the second housing portion, the flexible display foldable about a folding axis when the housing is folded. However, Choi teaches a flexible display including a first display portion accommodated in the first housing portion, and a second display portion accommodated in the second housing portion, the flexible display foldable about a folding axis when the housing is folded (see figure 11, [0034]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Choi into view of Kim and Song in order to made device more compact for easily holding and design complexity. Regarding claim 2 , Song further teaches the ground portion is disposed between the third slit and the first lateral portion (see figure 4, col.14, ln.1-5). Regarding claim 3 , Song further teaches the ground portion is located as closer to the third slit than to the first lateral portion (see figure 4, GND 520, col.14, ln.1-5). Regarding claim 4 , Kim further teaches the power supply portion is located between the first lateral portion and the ground portion (see figure 4). Regarding claim 5 , Kim further teaches the power supply portion is closer to the ground portion than to the first lateral portion (see figure 2, plurality of PS). Regarding claim 6 , Kim further teaches the third lateral portion includes a switching portion electrically connected to at least one processor accommodated in the housing and disposed between the power supply portion and the first lateral portion (see figure 14, switch 243, PS 241, segment 233b and 233a, [0137-0138]). Regarding claims 7 and 12 , Song further teaches the first length. Song fails to teach the first length is between 30 mm and 50 mm. It appear to examiner that select the length is between 30 mm and 50 mm would depend more upon the choice of the manufacturer and the choice of engineering, than on any inventive concept. Changes in Size/Proportion In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" were held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.). In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Regarding claim 8 , Kim further teaches the second housing portion includes a fourth lateral portion including a fourth slit formed therein, a fifth lateral portion including a fifth slit formed therein, and a sixth lateral portion including a sixth slit formed therein, and wherein, when the housing is fully folded, the first slit, the second slit and the third slit are substantially aligned with the fourth slit, the fifth slit and the sixth slit, respectively (see figure 2, second housing 132, plurality slits 232, plurality of segments 233b). Regarding claim 9 , Song further teaches the part of the first lateral portion and the part of the third lateral portion together are configured to operate as a first antenna radiator via the wireless communication circuit for the electronic device, and wherein a part of the fourth lateral portion and a part of the sixth lateral portion together are configured to operate as a second antenna radiator via the wireless communication circuit for the electronic device (see figures 4-5, segments 431 and 471, 431a and 471a, col.12, ln.57-65, col.13, ln.21-33). Regarding claim 10 , Kim further teaches the third lateral portion including a first ground portion electrically connected to the printed circuit board and a first power supply portion electrically connected to the wireless communication circuit, and wherein the sixth lateral portion including a second ground portion electrically connected to the printed circuit board and a second power supply portion electrically connected to the wireless communication circuit (see figure 2, [0099-0106], second housing 132, plurality slits 232, plurality of segments 233b, [0099-0106]). Regarding claim 11 , Song further teaches a third length of a part of the fourth lateral portion between the fourth slit and the sixth lateral portion is longer than a fourth length of a part of the sixth lateral portion between the fourth lateral portion and the second ground portion (see figure 4, Song’s housing can apply for the second housing of Kim). Regarding claim 14 , Kim further teaches the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth slits are filled with an insulating material (see figure 2, second housing 132, plurality slits 232, plurality of segments 233b, [0099-0106]). Regarding claim 15 , Song further teaches the first antenna radiator supports a first frequency band and, the second antenna radiator supports a second frequency band (see 4, plurality of antenna segments A-D with plurality of frequency band). Regarding claim 16 , Kim further teaches a seventh slit formed in the third lateral portion (see figure 2, second housing 132, plurality slits 232, plurality of segments 233b, [0099-0106]). Regarding claim 17 , Song further teaches another part of the third lateral portion between the third slit and the seventh slit includes a third power supply portion electrically connected to the wireless communication circuit, and wherein the another part of the third lateral portion is configured to operate as an third antenna radiator support a third frequency band via the wireless communication circuit for the electronic device (see figures 4-5, segments 431 and 471, 431a and 471a, col.12, ln.57-65, col.13, ln.21-33). Regarding claim 18 , Song further teaches a first frequency band supported by the first antenna radiator includes a low frequency band, and wherein a third frequency band supported by the third antenna radiator includes mid/high frequency band (see col.13, ln.53-67) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US Pub. No.: 2020/0333855, hereinafter, “Kim”) in view of Song et al. (US Patent No.: 10,652,374, hereinafter, “Song”) and further in view of Choi et al. (US Pub. No.: 2012/0264489, hereinafter, “Choi”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Saitou et al. (US Pub. No.: 2005/0239519, hereinafter, “Saitou”) . Regarding claim 13 , Kim, Song and Choi, in combination, fails to teach at least one processor; and memory storing instruction that, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to: switch the operation of the first antenna radiator and the operation of the second antenna radiator depending on a hand grip on the first housing portion and second housing portion. However, Saitou teaches at least one processor; and memory storing instruction that, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to: switch the operation of the first antenna radiator and the operation of the second antenna radiator depending on a hand grip on the first housing portion (see figures 17 and 22, [0167, 0173], it is clearly seen that one skill in the art can apply the teaching of Saitou to modify switching the operation of the first antenna radiator and the operation of the second antenna radiator depending on a hand grip on the first housing portion and second housing portion). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Saitou into view of Kim, Song and Choi in order to prevent the decrease of receiving and transmitting the signal. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tuan A. Pham whose telephone number is (571) 272-8097, the fax number is (571) 273-8097 and the email is tuan.pham01@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday, 8:30 AM-5:30 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, Yuwen (Kevin) Pan can be reached on (571) 272-7855. 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. /TUAN PHAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2649 Application/Control Number: 18/779,665 Page 2 Art Unit: 2649 Application/Control Number: 18/779,665 Page 3 Art Unit: 2649 Application/Control Number: 18/779,665 Page 4 Art Unit: 2649 Application/Control Number: 18/779,665 Page 5 Art Unit: 2649 Application/Control Number: 18/779,665 Page 6 Art Unit: 2649 Application/Control Number: 18/779,665 Page 7 Art Unit: 2649 Application/Control Number: 18/779,665 Page 8 Art Unit: 2649 Application/Control Number: 18/779,665 Page 9 Art Unit: 2649 Application/Control Number: 18/779,665 Page 10 Art Unit: 2649 Application/Control Number: 18/779,665 Page 11 Art Unit: 2649 Application/Control Number: 18/779,665 Page 12 Art Unit: 2649 Application/Control Number: 18/779,665 Page 13 Art Unit: 2649 Application/Control Number: 18/779,665 Page 14 Art Unit: 2649 Application/Control Number: 18/779,665 Page 15 Art Unit: 2649
Prosecution Insights