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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on 01-30-2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the CN 202210113973 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 9, 10, 13, 16, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 17, delete first two recitations of “,”;
Claim 1, line 18, before “display” insert --a--;
Claim 2, line 7, delete second and third recitations of “,”;
Claim 9, line 3, delete first two recitations of “,”;
Claim 10, line 3, delete both recitations of “,”;
Claim 13, line 2, delete first two recitations of “,”;
Claim 16, line 4, delete first two recitations of “,”;
Claim 18, line 2, delete second recitation of “,”; and
Claim 18, line 3, delete first recitation of “,”.
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 5, 8-10, 14, and 18-20 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.
It is unclear if the “first guiding part” recited in claim 5, line 6, is referencing the “first guiding part” previously recited in claim 5, line 2.
It is unclear if the “first guiding structure” recited in claim 5, lines 7-8, is referencing the “first guiding structure” previously recited in claim 5, line 3.
Claim 8 recites a “second sliding rail” and a “second sliding block”, however, a first sliding rail and a first sliding block have not been established. It thus unclear as to the quantity of sliding rail(s) and sliding block(s) being claimed.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as they depend from a rejected claim.
In claim 14, the following phrases lack antecedent basis: “the second sliding groove”; “the second sliding rail”; and “the second sliding block”. Further, a first sliding groove, rail, and block have not been established. It thus unclear as to the quantity of sliding groove(s), sliding rail(s), and sliding block(s) being claimed.
Claim 18 recites a “second arc-shaped slot” and “second arc-shaped rotation block”, however a first arc-shape slot and a first arc-shaped rotation block have not been established. It thus unclear as to the quantity of arc-shaped slot(s) and arc-shaped rotation block(s) being claimed.
Claim 19 recites a “second support arm”, “second guiding part”, “second track slot”, and “second guiding structure”, however a first support arm, first guiding part, first track slot, and first guiding structure have not been established. It thus unclear as to the quantity of support arm(s), guiding part(s), track slot(s), and guiding structure(s) being claimed.
In claim 20, line 3, “the first support arm” lacks antecedent basis.
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 19); 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 4); the first rotating component comprises a first support plate (claim 4), the first support plate comprises a first plate surface, and the first plate surface is configured to support the flexible display; 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 4 (claim 19 depends from claim 4) of the reference application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hou et al. (US#2021/0325941).
Regarding claim 1, Hou discloses a hinge mechanism for a foldable electronic device comprising: the hinge mechanism comprises a base 100 and a main hinge module 70 and is disposed corresponding to a bendable part of a flexible display 210 of the electronic device, wherein the electronic device is unfolded (Fig. 1) or folded (Fig. 2) via the hinge mechanism; the base comprising a bearing surface (interior surface), and the bearing surface is configured to support the flexible display (Fig. 2); the main hinge module comprises a first rotating component 72 (smaller right element 72 of Fig. 3) and a second rotating component 72 (larger left element 72 of Fig. 3), and the first rotating component and the second rotating component are disposed on two opposite sides of the base; the first rotating component comprises a first support plate, the first support plate comprises a first plate surface, and the first plate surface is configured to support the flexible display (Fig. 2); the second rotating component comprises a second support plate, the second support plate comprises a second plate surface, and the second plate surface is configured to support the flexible display (Fig. 2); and when the hinge mechanism is in a folded state (Fig. 2), 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 (Fig. 2), to form, between the first plate surface, the second plate surface, and the bearing surface, a display accommodating space for accommodating the bendable part of the flexible display (Fig. 2). See annotated FIG. 2 below for reference:
PNG
media_image1.png
357
718
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Upon filing an approved terminal disclaimer, claim 2 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 3, 4, 6, 7, 11-13, and 15-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 5, 8-10, 14, and 18-20 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
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