Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 27, 2026
Application No. 18/882,737

ELECTRONIC DEVICE

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Sep 11, 2024
Priority
Sep 28, 2023 — CN 202311272537.9
Examiner
TALUKDER, MD K
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Lenovo (United States) Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3m
Est. Remaining
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allowance Rate
675 granted / 843 resolved
+20.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+14.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
29 currently pending
Career history
879
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
6.4%
-33.6% vs TC avg
§103
69.4%
+29.4% vs TC avg
§102
19.5%
-20.5% vs TC avg
§112
2.5%
-37.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 843 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 2. It would be of great assistance to the office if all incoming papers pertaining to a filed application carried the following items: i. Application number (checked for accuracy, including series code and serial no.). ii. Group art unit number (copied from most recent Office communication). iii. Filing date. iv. Name of the examiner who prepared the most recent Office action. v. Title of invention. vi. Confirmation number (See MPEP § 503). Response to Arguments 3. Applicant's arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. 4. The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages, paragraph and figures may apply. Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. 5. Claim interpretation: When multiple limitations are connected with “OR”, one of the limitations doesn’t have any patentable weight since both of the limitations are optional. Claim Rejection- 35 USC § 103 6. 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. Claims 1, 3, 5-7 & 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al (Pub No. US 2019/0205029) and further in view of Ralls (Pub No. 20240143025). Regarding claim 1, Zhu et al discloses an electronic device (Fig. 2 & Abstract) comprising: a first body including a first area and a second area separate from each other (Fig. 2: 1st body 220 with 1st area-221 & 2nd area-222 & Abstract), the first area being an input area (Fig. 2: 1st body 220 with 1st area-221 input key); a second body rotating relative to the first body (Fig. 2: 1st body 220 and 2nd body-210 & Para. 31-33); and a display assembly, an end of the display assembly being fixedly connected to an end of the second body away from the first body (Fig. 2: display-222 & 211 & Para. 33-36), and a display area of the display assembly including: a first display area arranged inside the first body and being visible to a user through the second area (Fig. 2 & Para. 20-25: First display area arranged inside the first body and being visible). Zhu et al does not explicitly disclose the second area is configured to be switched between a transparent state and a non-transparent state. In a similar field of endeavor, Ralls discloses the second area is configured to be switched between a transparent state and a non-transparent state (Para. 20: The second switchable opacity panel 116 be in an opaque state in a first mode & Para. 21: the second switchable opacity panel 116 be in a transparent state in a second mode). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the multiple screen display system to control between opaque state and transparent state to maintain display privacy and optimum viewing angle to the users. Regarding claim 3, Zhu et al discloses the display assembly slides relative to the first body (Fig. 2); the display assembly and the first body have a first relative position and a second relative position; in the first relative position, the second area is in the transparent state, and the first display area is visible to the user through the second area; and in the second relative position, the second area is in the non-transparent state (Fig. 2 & 5: transparent state-display-22 and a non-transparent state-key 221 & Para. 33-36). Regarding claim 5, Zhu et al discloses a first input assembly cooperating with a display content of the first display area of the display assembly (Fig. 2). Regarding claim 6, Zhu et al discloses a touch area of the first input assembly is arranged in at second area (Fig. 2 & 5). Regarding claim 7, Zhu et al discloses the display assembly is able to slide relative to the first body; and the first body includes a sliding assembly arranged inside the first body and driving the display assembly to slide relative to the first body (Fig. 2 & 5 Para. 48-50). Regarding claim 10, Zhu et al discloses the display area of the display assembly further includes: a second display area exposed outside the first body, the display content of the first display area being determined based on a display content of the second display area (Fig. 2 & Abstract). Claims 4 & 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al (Pub No. US 2019/0205029), in view of Ralls (Pub No. 20240143025) and further in view of Lee et al (Pub No. 2016/0110010). Regarding claim 4, Zhu et al discloses the first body includes: an adjustment assembly configured to switch between a transparent state and a non-transparent state to cause the second area to switch between the transparent state and the non-transparent state (Fig. 2: second area switched between a transparent state-display-22 and a non-transparent state-key 221 & Para. 33-36). Ralls discloses the second area is configured to be switched between a transparent state and a non-transparent state (Para. 20: The second switchable opacity panel 116 be in an opaque state in a first mode & Para. 21: the second switchable opacity panel 116 be in a transparent state in a second mode). Zhu et al is silent regarding the adjustment assembly includes at least one of a liquid crystal layer or an electrochromic layer. Lee et al discloses the adjustment assembly includes at least one of a liquid crystal layer or an electrochromic layer (Para. 100 & 110). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the liquid crystal layer to make the display device for user convenience. Regarding claim 9, Zhu et al is silent regarding a position of the first display area in the display assembly is determined based on the sliding information of the sliding assembly driving the display assembly to slide relative to the first body. Lee et al discloses a position of the first display area in the display assembly is determined based on the sliding information of the sliding assembly driving the display assembly to slide relative to the first body (Para. 17-18 & 68: sliding display). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the liquid crystal layer to make the display device for user convenience. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the sliding type display to adjust the display screen for user convenience in a dual screen mode. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al (Pub No. US 2019/0205029), in view of Ralls (Pub No. 20240143025) and further in view of Zhang et al (Pub No. 2022/0261093). Regarding claim 8, Zhu et al is silent regarding the sliding assembly includes at least one of: a first sliding assembly including: a motor configured to drive the display assembly to slide relative to the first body; and an encoder configured to determine sliding information of the display assembly; and a second sliding assembly including: a motor configured to drive the display assembly to slide relative to the first body; and a position sensor configured to determine the sliding information of the display assembly. Zhang et al the sliding assembly includes at least one of: a first sliding assembly including: a motor configured to drive the display assembly to slide relative to the first body; and an encoder configured to determine sliding information of the display assembly; and a second sliding assembly including: a motor configured to drive the display assembly to slide relative to the first body; and a position sensor configured to determine the sliding information of the display assembly (Para. 204 & 288: Motor controlled display). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the motor-controlled display to adjust the display screen for better view. Claims 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al (Pub No. US 2019/0205029) and further in view of Zhang et al (Pub No. 2022/0261093). Regarding claim 11, Zhu et al discloses an electronic device comprising: a first body including a first area and a second area (Fig. 2: 1st body 220 with 1st area-221 & 2nd area-222 & Abstract), the first area being an input area (Fig. 2: 1st body 220 with 1st area-221 input key); a second body rotating relative to the first body (Fig. 2: 1st body 220 and 2nd body-210 & Para. 31-33); end of the display assembly being fixedly connected to an end of the second body away from the first body (Fig. 2 & Para. 25-27), and a display area of the display assembly including: a first display area arranged inside the first body and being visible to a user through the second area (Fig. 2 & Para. 20-25: First display area arranged inside the first body and being visible); and a second display area arranged on the second body (Fig. 2: 2nd body-210); wherein the first display area and the second display area are portions of the display assembly (Fig. 2: display assembly & Para. 25-31) Zhu et al is silent regarding a display assembly being a single flexible display screen bendable at any position of the display assembly and sizes of the first display area and the second display area are adjustable relative to each other. In a similar field of endeavor, Zhang et al discloses a display assembly being a single flexible display screen bendable at any position of the display assembly (Fig. 3A: single flexible display screen & Fig. 3B & 2D & 4D: screen bendable at any position) & (Para. 116-120) and sizes of the first display area and the second display area are adjustable relative to each other (Fig. 3A & Fig. 3B & 2D & 4D & Para. 116-120: Device’s screen bendable at any position display area are adjustable based on the bend area selection). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the multiple screen display system to adjust display screen based on user requirement for optimum viewing of the display. Another Prior Art 7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Another prior art, Fleck (US 2012/0105306) discloses a display device includes a multi-mode panel located between the first display surface and the second display surface. The multi-mode panel is operable to permit the image being viewable through the first and second display surfaces, and further operable to prevent the image from being viewable through the first display surface or the second display surface. Kim et al (US 2021/0173533) discloses a first main body including a first surface and a second surface. A rotatable connection connects a part of one side of the first main body part and a part of one side of the second main body part; a first display which is exposed to the first surface of the first main body part; a second display which is exposed to the third surface of the second main body part. CONCLUSION 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication from the examiner should be directed to Patent Examiner Md Talukder whose telephone number is (571) 270-3222. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Th 8:00 am to 4:30 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors, Wesley Kim can be reached on 571-272-7867. 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. /MD K TALUKDER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 11, 2024
Application Filed
Jun 02, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103
Aug 25, 2026
Response Filed
Oct 06, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12772403
COVER ARTICLES WITH HIGH HARDNESS AND ANTI-REFLECTIVE PROPERTIES FOR INFRARED SENSORS
3y 7m to grant Granted Oct 20, 2026
Patent 12750777
CONDITIONAL WAKE UP SIGNAL FOR ENERGY HARVESTING DEVICES
2y 8m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12750081
MODULAR INDIVIDUALIZED PHONE CASE
2y 6m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12743133
PACKAGES AND PROCESSES FOR RADIO FREQUENCY MITIGATION AND SELF-TEST
3y 1m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12731414
AI TECHNIQUES FOR BLINKING LIGHT DETECTION FOR VEHICLE APPLICATIONS
3y 7m to grant Granted Sep 08, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
80%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+14.1%)
2y 5m (~3m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 843 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month