DETAILED ACTION
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 under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/15/2024, 1/22/2025, 10/8/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, claim 6, limitation of a notch and flexible screen supporting plate movably arranged within the notch is not shown; these limitations must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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, 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, 11-13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hung et al. US Pub 2022/0357771 in view of Pegg et al. US Pub 2014/0091686.
Regarding claim 1, Hung teaches,
A foldable computing device (figures 4a-e) comprising:
a host case (element 130);
a first enclosure (element 120) pivotally coupled to a back side of the host case via a first hinge (element 140b);
a second enclosure (element 110) pivotally coupled to a front side of the first enclosure via a second hinge (140a);
a flexible display panel (element 10; paragraph 65) attached to the first enclosure and the second enclosure; and
Hung suggests the position to be held in place between locked position (i.e., closed position) the first enclosure and the second enclosure together after the second enclosure is opened from the first enclosure, or to unlock (i.e. open position) the first enclosure and the second enclosure before the second enclosure is closed onto the first enclosure.
Hung does not teach the use of a locking unit, such that the locking unit between the first enclosure and the second enclosure, wherein the locking unit is configured to lock the first enclosure and the second enclosure together after the second enclosure is opened from the first enclosure, or to unlock the first enclosure and the second enclosure before the second enclosure is closed onto the first enclosure.
Pegg in similar field of electronic device teaches a locking unit (figures 3 and 4, elements 310 in fig 3; locking unit being 402 and structure as seen in figure 4; paragraphs 34 and 36) between the first enclosure (paragraph 36; either one 302 or 304, figure 4) and the second enclosure (paragraph 36; either one 302 or 304, figure 4 that is not first enclosure in the previous citation), wherein the locking unit is configured to lock the first enclosure and the second enclosure together after the second enclosure is opened from the first enclosure (paragraphs 34-36 and as seen in figures 2-4), or to unlock the first enclosure and the second enclosure before the second enclosure is closed onto the first enclosure (paragraphs 34-36 and as seen in figures 2-4).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to use the locking unit as taught by Pegg with the securing of the first and second enclosures of Hung in more detail use of the locking unit such that the locking unit between the first enclosure and the second enclosure, wherein the locking unit is configured to lock the first enclosure and the second enclosure together after the second enclosure is opened from the first enclosure, or to unlock the first enclosure and the second enclosure before the second enclosure is closed onto the first enclosure, such modification will prevent the respective enclosures from accidently being closed or opened and thereby protecting the device yet providing aesthetical appealing locking unit.
Regarding claim 3, Hung as modified by Pegg teaches,
Wherein a first end of the second hinge is pivotally connected with the front side of the first enclosure (one end of the second hinge of 140a that is engaging the front side of the first enclosure 120 is consider the first end), and a second end of the second hinge is pivotally connected with the back side of the second enclosure (the other end of the second hinge of 140a that is engaging the front side of the second enclosure 110 is consider the first end).
Regarding claim 11, Hung as modified by Pegg teaches,
wherein the front of the host case comprises a supporter (figure 4a-e, element 150, supports the second enlcosure 110 after closed onto the first enclosure 120; additionally the office notes this is an operation/conditional limitation "after it is closed" thereby the conditional/operation language is an intermediate step and not the final product. The office notes this is a product claim not a method) configured to support the second enclosure after it is closed onto the first enclosure.
Regarding claim 12, Hung as modified by Pegg teaches,
wherein the host case comprises a keyboard (element 151 as labeled in figure 2 seen in figure 4 not labeled) and a hidden touchpad (element 152).
Regarding claim 13, Hung as modified by Pegg teaches,
wherein the host case comprises a motherboard and a power supply system (paragraph 45 of Hung described the portable electronic device maybe a notebook computer, thus it is understood that motherboard and power supply system is provided within notebook computers).
Regarding claim 14, Hung teaches,
A foldable computing device (Figures 4a-e) comprising:
a first enclosure (element 120) and a second enclosure (element 110), wherein the second enclosure is pivotally (pivotally connected by hinge 140a) coupled to a front side of the first enclosure (figure 4c); and
Hung suggests the position to be held in place between locked position (i.e., closed position) the first enclosure and the second enclosure together after the second enclosure is opened from the first enclosure, or to unlock (i.e. open position) the first enclosure and the second enclosure before the second enclosure is closed onto the first enclosure.
Hung does not teach a locking unit between the first enclosure and the second enclosure, wherein the locking unit is configured to lock the first enclosure and the second enclosure together after the second enclosure is opened from the first enclosure, or to unlock the first enclosure and the second enclosure before the second enclosure is closed onto the first enclosure,
wherein the locking unit comprises a first movable bolt movably arranged inside the second enclosure, and wherein the first movable bolt is configured to protrude from the second enclosure and lock with the first enclosure after the second enclosure is opened from the first enclosure, and the first movable bolt is configured to retract from the first enclosure into the second enclosure before the second enclosure is closed onto the first enclosure.
Pegg in similar field of electronic device teaches a locking unit (figures 3 and 4, elements 310 in fig 3; locking unit being 402 and structure as seen in figure 4; paragraphs 34 and 36) between the first enclosure (paragraph 36; either one 302 or 304, figure 4) and the second enclosure (paragraph 36; either one 302 or 304, figure 4 that is not first enclosure in the previous citation), wherein the locking unit is configured to lock the first enclosure and the second enclosure together after the second enclosure is opened from the first enclosure (paragraphs 34-36 and as seen in figures 2-4), or to unlock the first enclosure and the second enclosure before the second enclosure is closed onto the first enclosure (paragraphs 34-36 and as seen in figures 2-4);
wherein the locking unit (as described above) comprises a first movable bolt (figure 4, Pegg, 442) movably arranged inside the second enclosure, and wherein the first movable bolt is configured to protrude from the second enclosure and lock with the first enclosure after the second enclosure is opened from the first enclosure (as seen in figure 4, the bolt 442 is engaging with 442 of the first enclosure), and the first movable bolt is configured to retract from the first enclosure into the second enclosure before the second enclosure is closed onto the first enclosure (as seen in figure 4, when the bolt 442 is disengage).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to use the locking unit as taught by Pegg with the securing of the first and second enclosures of Hung in more detail use of the locking unit such that the locking unit between the first enclosure and the second enclosure, wherein the locking unit is configured to lock the first enclosure and the second enclosure together after the second enclosure is opened from the first enclosure, or to unlock the first enclosure and the second enclosure before the second enclosure is closed onto the first enclosure and wherein the locking unit comprises a first movable bolt movably arranged inside the second enclosure, and wherein the first movable bolt is configured to protrude from the second enclosure and lock with the first enclosure after the second enclosure is opened from the first enclosure, and the first movable bolt is configured to retract from the first enclosure into the second enclosure before the second enclosure is closed onto the first enclosure, such modification will prevent the respective enclosures from accidently being closed or opened and thereby protecting the device yet providing aesthetical appealing locking unit.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hung et al. US Pub 2022/0357771 in view of Pegg et al. US Pub 2014/0091686 further in view of Ditzik US Pub 2001/0030850.
Regarding claim 2,
Hung as modified by Pegg teaches the first hinge and the second hinge comprises degree range of rotation (as seen in figures 4a-e).
Hung as modified by Pegg does not teach wherein the first hinge and the second hinge comprise a 360 degree range of rotation.
Ditzik in similar field of computing device teaches a hinge (paragraph 51, element 10, hinge means) comprise a 360 degree range of rotation.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to use the hinge of 360 degree range of rotation as taught by Ditzik as the hinge choice of the first hinge and the second hinge of Hung as modified by Pegg such modification will enable the foldable computing device to be compact and used in notebook configuration (paragraph 51) such that the user have option to place it in notebook, table or desk viewing configuration.
Claim(s) 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hung et al. US Pub 2022/0357771 in view of Pegg et al. US Pub 2014/0091686 further in view of Tazbaz US Pub 2016/0215541
Regarding claim 4,
Hung as modified by Pegg teaches the second hinge as described in claim 1.
Hung as modified by Peg does not teach the specific second hinge details, specifically, wherein the second hinge comprises a first hinge plate, a second hinge plate, and a pin, wherein each of the first and the second hinge plates comprise a plate body and a plurality of pin lugs distributed along each side of the plate body, wherein the plurality of pin lugs of the first and the second hinge plates interlock with one another, and the pin is inserted through the interlocked pluralities of pin lugs of the first and the second hinge plates, and wherein the first and the second hinge plates are pivotally connected with each other.
Tazbaz in similar field of electronic device comprising hinge (figures 3, 5-7; figures 5-7 as a whole is the hinge) comprises a first hinge plate (any one or more of element 510), a second hinge plate (any one or more of element 510, fig 7), and a pin (any one of 508 that engages to the first hinge plate and second hinge plate 510), wherein each of the first and the second hinge plates comprise a plate body (body of the element 51) and a plurality of pin lugs (elements 528/530, fig 7) distributed along each side of the plate body, wherein the plurality of pin lugs of the first and the second hinge plates interlock with one another (figure 7, for example 510(5) engages to 510(3)), and the pin is inserted through the interlocked pluralities of pin lugs of the first and the second hinge plates (as seen between figures 5-7, at least the pin is engaged to at least two hinge plates via the pin lugs as described above), and wherein the first and the second hinge plates are pivotally connected with each other (figures 5-7).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to use the hinge details as described by Tazbaz such that this hinge configuration is used for as the hinge of choice for second hinge of Hung, in more detail using the hinge of Tazbaz that teaches he second hinge comprises a first hinge plate, a second hinge plate, and a pin, wherein each of the first and the second hinge plates comprise a plate body and a plurality of pin lugs distributed along each side of the plate body, wherein the plurality of pin lugs of the first and the second hinge plates interlock with one another, and the pin is inserted through the interlocked pluralities of pin lugs of the first and the second hinge plates, and wherein the first and the second hinge plates are pivotally connected with each other as the hinge of Hung as modified, such modification will provide quick attachment/detachment (paragraph 12, Tazbaz) thus reducing the time of service.
Regarding claim 5,
Hung as modified teaches the second hinge cover as described in claim 4.
Furthermore, Hung as modified by Pegg does not teach an outer protective cover on an outer side of the second hinge; and a flexible screen supporting plate under the flexible display panel, wherein the flexible screen supporting plate is arranged on an inner side of the second hinge.
Tazbaz teaches an outer protective cover (Figure 3 Tazbaz, at least the exterior of cover 304 in figure 3 that is facing the outside of the device) on an outer side of the second hinge; and
a flexible screen supporting plate (figure 3 Tazbaz, at least the interior of cover 304 in figure 3 that is facing the interior of the device) under the display panel, wherein the flexible screen supporting plate is arranged on an inner side of the second hinge (as seen in fig 3 of Tazbaz).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to use provide the the outer protective cover on an outer side of the second hinge and the flexible screen support plate that is under the display panel and the flexible screen supporting plate arranged on an inner side of the second hinge a taught by Tazbaz with as the second hinge configuration of Hung, such that the modification will provide the hinge of Tazbaz thereby making the outer protective cover on an outer side of the second hinge; and the flexible screen supporting plate under the flexible display panel of Hung, wherein the flexible screen supporting plate is arranged on an inner side of the second hinge, such modification will ensure no unwanted particles such as dust, water, etc. enter the device.
Regarding claim 6, Hung as modified by Pegg and Tazbaz teaches,
wherein a notch (the opening of the position of the hinge of Hung that is between the two enclosure is consider the notch; furthermore, in Tazbaz, figure 3 shows spacing between the two enclosure for the hinge 106 and the flexible screen support plate as described above in claim 5 such is movable as the device is folded and unfolded) is formed between the first enclosure and the second enclosure, and wherein the flexible screen supporting plate is movably arranged within the notch.
Regarding claim 7, Hung as modified by Pegg and Tazbaz teaches,
wherein the locking unit (locking unit as described in claim 1, Hung as modified by Pegg) comprises a first movable bolt (figure 4, Pegg, 442) movably arranged inside the second enclosure, and wherein the first movable bolt is configured to protrude from the second enclosure and lock with the first enclosure after the second enclosure is opened from the first enclosure (as seen in figure 4, the bolt 442 is engaging with 442 of the first enclosure), and the first movable bolt is configured to retract from the first enclosure into the second enclosure before the second enclosure is closed onto the first enclosure (as seen in figure 4, when the bolt 442 is disengage). Therefore, the teaching of Pegg of locking unit comprising first movable bolt to lock and unlock the enclosure would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to use the locking unit as claimed of claim 7 with the first enclosure and second enclosure of Hung, such modification will prevent the respective enclosures from accidently being closed or opened and thereby protecting the device yet providing aesthetical appealing locking unit.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10, 15-20 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.
Primary reasons for allowance of claim 8 in examiners opinion the pertinent prior art, when taken alone, or, in combination, cannot be reasonably construed as adequately teaching or suggesting all of the elements and features of the claimed inventions as arranged, disposed or provided in the manner as claimed by the applicant. Specifically, wherein the locking unit further comprises a second movable bolt movably arranged inside the second enclosure, wherein the second movable bolt is configured to protrude from the second enclosure and lock with the first enclosure after the second enclosure is opened from the first enclosure, and the second movable bolt is configured to retract from the first enclosure into the second enclosure before the second enclosure is closed onto the first enclosure, and wherein the first and the second movable bolt are respectively arranged on each side of the second hinge, and both the second hinge and the first and the second movable bolts are covered by the outer protective cover.
Primary reasons for allowance for claims 9 and 10 are same as for claim 8 since claims 9 and 10 dependent thereupon.
Primary reasons for allowance of claim 15 in examiners opinion the pertinent prior art, when taken alone, or, in combination, cannot be reasonably construed as adequately teaching or suggesting all of the elements and features of the claimed inventions as arranged, disposed or provided in the manner as claimed by the applicant. Specifically, a hinge; and an outer protective cover, wherein the locking unit further comprises a second movable bolt movably arranged inside the second enclosure, wherein the second movable bolt is configured to protrude from the second enclosure and lock with the first enclosure after the second enclosure is opened from the first enclosure, and the second movable bolt is configured to retract from the first enclosure into the second enclosure before the second enclosure is closed onto the first enclosure, and wherein the first and the second movable bolts are respectively arranged on each side of the hinge, and both the hinge and the first and the second movable bolts are covered by the outer protective cover.
Primary reasons for allowance for claims 16-20 are same as for claim 15 since claims 16-20 dependent thereupon.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABHISHEK M RATHOD whose telephone number is (571)270-3947. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30AM-5:00PM ET.
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, Allen L Parker can be reached at 303-297-4722. 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.
ABHISHEK M. RATHOD
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2841
/ABHISHEK M RATHOD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights