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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, line 8, after “other” insert --,-- and delete “,” and
Claim 19, line 2, before both recitations of “support” insert --second--;
Claim 19, line 6, delete second recitation of “second”; and
Claim 19, line 8, delete both recitations of “second”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 2, and 4-21 are 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.
In claim 1, line 13, “the first support arm” lacks antecedent basis. Further, claim 1 is incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationship is between the first support arm and the hinge mechanism. It is noted upon the incorporation of claim 3 into claim 1, the subject matter of intervening claim 2 was omitted resulting in the above indefinite language. The applicant is advised the incorporation of claim 2 into claim 1 would receive favorable consideration.
It is unclear if “a first support arm” recited in claim 2, line 2, is referencing and/or includes “the first support arm” previously recited in claim 1, line 13. It is noted upon the incorporation of claim 3 into claim 1, the subject matter of intervening claim 2 was omitted resulting in the above indefinite language. The applicant is advised the incorporation of claim 2 into claim 1 would receive favorable consideration.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as they depend from a rejected claim.
In claim 6, line 2, “the housing mounting bracket” lacks antecedent basis. It is noted upon the incorporation of claim 3 into claim 1, the subject matter of intervening claim 2 was omitted resulting in the above indefinite language. The applicant is advised the incorporation of claim 2 into claim 1 would receive favorable consideration.
Claims 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as they depend from a rejected claim.
Claim 14, lines 1-2, recites “a second sliding groove”, however a first sliding groove has not been established. It is thus unclear as to the quantity of sliding grooves being claimed.
In claim 14, line 2, "the sliding rail" lacks antecedent basis.
In claim 14, line 3, “the sliding block" lacks antecedent basis.
In claim 15, line 2, “the housing mounting bracket” lacks antecedent basis. It is noted upon the incorporation of claim 3 into claim 1, the subject matter of intervening claim 2 was omitted resulting in the above indefinite language. The applicant is advised the incorporation of claim 2 into claim 1 would receive favorable consideration.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as they depend from a rejected claim.
In claim 21, line 15, the phrase “similarly connected” is undefined and indefinite thereby rendering the scope of the claims unascertainable.
Double Patenting
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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 2 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of copending Application No. 19/025,301 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim 1 of the instant application and claim 19 of the reference application each recite a hinge mechanism for a foldable electronic device comprising (claim 1): the hinge mechanism comprises a base (claim 1) and a main hinge module and is disposed corresponding to a bendable part of a flexible display of the electronic device (claim 1), wherein the electronic device is unfolded or folded via the hinge mechanism; the base comprising a bearing surface, and the bearing surface is configured to support the flexible display (claim 1); the main hinge module comprises a first rotating component and a second rotating component, and the first rotating component and the second rotating component are disposed on two opposite sides of the base (claim 1); the first rotating component comprises a first support plate (claim 1), the first support plate comprises a first plate surface, and the first plate surface is configured to support the flexible display; wherein the first rotating component further comprises a swing arm, the swing arm is rotatably connected to the base, and a rotation axis (second rotation axis, claim 19) of the first support arm is parallel to but does not overlap (inherent when parallel to) a rotation axis (first rotation axis, claim 19) of the swing arm, the second rotating component comprises a second support plate (claim 19), the second support plate comprises a second plate surface, and the second plate surface is configured to support the flexible display; and when the hinge mechanism is in a folded state, an included angle between the first plate surface and the bearing surface is less than an included angle between the second plate surface and the bearing surface, to form, between the first plate surface, the second plate surface, and the bearing surface, display accommodating space for accommodating the bendable part of the flexible display (claim 19, lines 1-10).
The first support arm and housing mounting bracket recited in claim 2 of the instant application are recited in claim 1 (claim 19 depends from claim 1) of the reference application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Allowable Subject Matter
Upon filing of an approved terminal disclaimer, claims 1 and 2 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. Regarding independent claim 1, the applicant is advised dependent claim 2 should be incorporated therein.
Claims 4-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 21 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 1 was amended to include the subject matter of previously objected claim 3 (now canceled). However, the applicant failed to include the necessary subject matter of intervening claim 2. The applicant is advised claim 2 should be incorporated therein.
New claim 21 includes the allowable subject matter of previously objected claims 11 and 12.
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments have been considered and are persuasive, less the remaining provisional double patenting rejection and the above 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections necessitated by amendment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
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 WILLIAM L MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-7068. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 - 6:00 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, Jason San can be reached at (571) 272-6531. 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.
WILLIAM L. MILLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3677
/WILLIAM L MILLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3677
Prosecution Insights