DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to communication(s) filed on 6/10/2026.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/10/2026 has been entered.
Claims Status
Claims 1-6 are pending and are currently being examined.
Claims 1 and 6 are independent, and are newly amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wygonik; Gregg R. et al. (hereinafter Wygonik – US 20190114131 A1) in view of Kim; So-young et al. (hereinafter Kim – US 11886252 B2).
Independent 1:
Wygonik teaches:
An information processing device comprising: (Abstract and fig. 1)
[…]:
a first display device on a first surface, […]; (fig. 3:302 and ¶ 12)
[…] as the first surface spans across both [displays] (a user interface spans multiple display screens, allowing multiple screens to provide a representation across them, ¶ 12)
a second display device on a second surface […] being different from the first surface, […]; (fig. 3:304 and ¶ 12)
and a processor configured to display a first information inputted by a user on the first display […]; (e.g., input “A” is displayed on panel 306, ¶ 56 and fig. 3 and Abstract. )
and display a second information generated by an artificial intelligence assistant in accordance with the first information on the second display while the first information is being displayed on the first display device. (Context information related to the input is simultaneously displayed, on the second display 304, together with input information on display 302, ¶¶ 4 and 56 and fig. 3. The context information is “generated by an artificial intelligence assistant”, because, context information can be generated based on machine learning technique, ¶ 49)
Wygonik further teaches that a first and second display screens are interconnected, ¶ 12, that a corresponding system includes two or more display screens, e.g., ¶¶ 41 and 44.
Wygonik does not appear to expressly teach, but Kim teaches:
that the two displays are part of “a foldable display mechanism”, (taught, as the claim explicitly details "a first display" and "a second display" integrated into a foldable device that utilizes "a hinge for folding or unfolding”, Kim Claim 1)
“wherein the first display device comprises a first body and a second body that are foldably joined to each other”, (the device "is divided into a first body part and a second body part by the hinge", Kim Claim 1 and fig. 71)
that the first surface is on both the first body and the second body, (both bodies divided at a hinge can co-displaying information during an open state, cols 29:55-30:3 and figs. 58 and 71 and Kim Claim 1)
that the second surface is “of the first body”, (a "second display is disposed on a first body part of the foldable device", Kim Claim 1 and fig. 71)
that the first surface spans across both displays when “when the first display device is in an opened state of the foldable display mechanism”, (both bodies divided at a hinge can co-displaying information during an open state, cols 29:55-30:3 and figs. 58 and 71, Kim Claim 1)
that the first information is inputted “when the foldable display mechanism is in the opened state”, (user input occurs in an opened state, as step S3710 describes displaying a menu and first application, followed by user selection, and figs. 37 and 71 and col 22:56-65)
that the first surface is otherwise completely hidden from view in a folded state of the foldable display mechanism, (the inner two display areas [first surface] are not visible in in a folded state, and fig 71 and col 33:60-67)
and wherein the second display device is completely visible in the folded state. (a screen is completely visible in the folded state, fig 71 and col 33:60-67)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the device of Wygonik to include that the two displays are part of “a foldable display mechanism”, “wherein the first display device comprises a first body and a second body that are foldably joined to each other”, that the first surface is on both the first body and the second body, that the second surface is “of the first body”, that the first surface spans across both displays when “when the first display device is in an opened state of the foldable display mechanism”, that the first information is inputted “when the foldable display mechanism is in the opened state”, that the first surface is otherwise completely hidden from view in a folded state of the foldable display mechanism, and wherein the second display device is completely visible in the folded state, as taught by Kim.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to implement concepts of Wygonik’s multiple displays in a convenient, flexible fashion, , Kim col 1:55-58.
Claim 2:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Wygonik further teaches:
wherein the first information is inputted by voice of the user. (the user can input information using voice and speech, ¶ 31)
Claim 3:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Wygonik further teaches:
wherein the first information is inputted directly to the artificial intelligence assistant. (the user can input information to the system directly using natural user interface devices, such as touch sensitive displays, voice and speech recognition, intention and goal understanding, and motion gesture detection using depth cameras such as stereoscopic camera systems, infrared camera systems, RGB camera systems and combinations of these, ¶ 31)
Claim 5:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Wygonik further teaches:
wherein the processor is further configured to, in a case where the second information is generated, display an indication of the existence of the second information on the first information display device. (on the first device 302, an arrow is displayed indicating an association with content 308 displayed by display screen 304, ¶ 56 and fig. 3 [indication of the existence of the second information on the first information display device.])
Independent Claim 6:
Claim(s) 6 is directed to a computer readable medium for accomplishing the steps of the method in claim 1, and is rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wygonik (US 20190114131 A1) in view Kim (US 11886252 B2), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Elkhatib; Mouna et al. (hereinafter Elkhatib – US 12367873 B2).
Claim 4:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Wygonik does not appear to expressly teach, but Elkhatib teaches:
wherein the artificial intelligence assistant is launched with a predetermined wake word by the user (a machine learning model is activated based on a wake word/phrase, col 6:19-28 and Elkhatib Claim 1).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Wygonik to include wherein the artificial intelligence assistant is launched with a predetermined wake word by the user, as taught by Elkhatib.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the power efficiency and/or user privacy provide by the device, Elkhatib col 6:19-28.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s 103 arguments have been fully considered, but are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Below is a list of these references, including why they are pertinent:
Martynov; Vladislav et al. US 20140184471 A1, is pertinent to claim 1 for disclosing a device, wherein a display content is based on an identified event of the application program to result in contextual display data displayed on the second display based on application workflow event performed by the software application via the first display. The device, wherein the display content is based on an identified event of the device infrastructure to result in contextual display data displayed on the second display based on application workflow event performed by the device infrastructure via the first display, ¶ 16.
Da Silva Ramos; Heron et al. US 20170220307 A1, is pertinent to claim 1 for disclosing The method may include, responsive to detecting an operating context including an operating state of a screen of a first display unit of the plurality of display units and the mobile device being in a predetermined arrangement, displaying supplemental information for the operating context on a screen of a second display unit of the plurality of display units, ¶ 153.
Cooper; Barnes et al. US 20190278339 A1, is pertinent to claim 1 for disclosing secondary display controller 518 renders personalized user information via the secondary display 116, ¶ 65.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL S MERCADO whose telephone number is (408)918-7537. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm (Eastern Time).
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, Kieu Vu can be reached at (571) 272-4057. 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.
/Gabriel Mercado/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
Prosecution Insights