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 .
Reissue Applications
For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions.
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceeding in which Patent No. 11,054,869 (hereinafter the ‘869 patent) is or was involved. These proceedings would include any trial before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, interferences, reissues, reexaminations, supplemental examinations, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 15, 2026, has been entered.
Objections to the Amendments - Formalities
The claim amendments filed May 15, 2026, are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b)(2) and (d). Amended claims must show all changes made relative to the patent claims, with omitted text enclosed in single brackets and added text underlined. See MPEP § 1453.
The claim amendments are improper because claim 1 has not been marked to show all of the changes being made relative to patent claim 1.
Original patent claim 1 included the following limitation:
PNG
media_image1.png
56
534
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Amended reissue claim 1 currently reads:
PNG
media_image2.png
50
538
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The amendment of claim 1 is informal because the amendment does not show the deletion of the phrase “at least one fiber structure” in line 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 251 - Improper Broadening
35 U.S.C. 251(d) states:
(d) REISSUE PATENT ENLARGING SCOPE OF CLAIMS.—No reissued patent shall be granted enlarging the scope of the claims of the original patent unless applied for within two years from the grant of the original patent.
Claims 1, 3-6, and 8-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being broadened in a reissue application filed outside the two year statutory period. A claim is broader in scope than the original claims if it contains within its scope any conceivable product or process which would not have infringed the original patent. A claim is broadened if it is broader in any one respect even though it may be narrower in other respects.
In this case, patent claim 1 required “at least one fiber structure disposed on at least a portion of a side of the first housing, the portion of the side being adjacent to the hinge housing within a predetermined distance, and wherein the at least one fiber structure comprises a plurality of aggregates including a plurality of fibers.” The “at least one fiber structure” was originally required to be both disposed on at least a portion of a side of the first housing and comprised of a plurality of aggregates, such that the aggregates of the fiber structure(s) were understood to be disposed on the portion(s) of the side of the first housing.
As currently amended, claim 1 now recites “a portion of at least one fiber structure disposed on each of at least a portion of a side of the first housing and at least a portion of a side of the second housing, the portion of the side being adjacent to the hinge housing within a predetermined distance, wherein each of the at least one fiber structure includes a fiber bundle, wherein the fiber bundle comprises a plurality of aggregates including a plurality of fibers” (emphasis added). As amended, claim 1 no longer requires that the plurality of aggregates are disposed on at least a portion of a side of the first housing, since claim 1 describes “a portion” of the fiber structure(s) being disposed on the side of the first housing and does not specify that the aggregates of the fiber bundle are in the portion of the fiber structure that is so disposed. For this reason, amended claim 1 is broader than patented claim 1, even though it may be narrower in other respects.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 251 - New Matter
35 U.S.C. 251(a) states, with emphasis added:
(a) IN GENERAL.—Whenever any patent is, through error, deemed wholly or partly inoperative or invalid, by reason of a defective specification or drawing, or by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he had a right to claim in the patent, the Director shall, on the surrender of such patent and the payment of the fee required by law, reissue the patent for the invention disclosed in the original patent, and in accordance with a new and amended application, for the unexpired part of the term of the original patent. No new matter shall be introduced into the application for reissue.
Claims 41-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being based upon new matter added to the patent for which reissue is sought. The added material not supported by the prior patent is as follows:
Regarding claims 41-43, the original disclosure does not provide sufficient written description support for the claimed configuration of fibers of the first and second housing with respect to the flexible display. Rather, the original disclosure describes an arrangement of fibers of the hinge housing with respect to the flexible display.
Independent claim 39 defines the “plurality of fibers” as being part of “the at least one fiber structure” that is part of the first and second housings (see claim 39, lines 8-9, “the first housing and the second housing include at least one fiber structure,” and lines 18-19, “wherein the at least one fiber structure includes a plurality of aggregates including a plurality of fibers”). Thus, the term “the plurality of fibers” as used in claims 40-42 is understood to refer to fibers of the first and second housings. Similarly, dependent claim 40 refers to the plurality of fibers as including a first fiber portion and a second fiber portion. Thus, the terms “the first fiber portion” and “the second fiber portion” in claim 43 are also understood to refer to fibers of the first and second housings.
However, the original disclosure does not describe the particular arrangement of fibers “facing the display” (claim 41), “side by side with the flexible display” (claim 42), and having “a length of the first fiber portion … smaller than a length of the second fiber portion” (claim 43) on the first and second hinge housings. Rather, the original disclosure describes such an arrangement only with respect to fibers on the hinge housing. See Figs. 14-16, showing alternative arrangements of “a first side dustproof structure 330a” which “may include at least one of the third dustproof structure 330 and the fourth dustproof structure 340 arranged on both side edges of the hinge housing 150 described in Fig. 6.” Col. 22:47-54.
The original patent disclosure does not describe the features recited in claims 41-43 in association with fiber structures of the first and second housings.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a) - New Matter
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 41-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The added material is discussed above in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 251 based on new matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) - Indefiniteness
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.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-29, and 31-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “the side” in line 12 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether “the side” refers to the side of the first housing or the side of the second housing.
In addition, the limitation “the fiber bundle comprises a plurality of aggregates including a plurality of fibers” in lines 15-16 renders the claim indefinite, because when considered in view of Applicant’s disclosure, it is unclear what constitutes a “bundle” and what constitutes an “aggregate.” The ‘869 patent disclosure appears to use the terms “bundle” and “aggregate” interchangeably to refer to the same grouping of fibers. Compare col. 15:14-16, “each aggregate is inserted into a sac or hole 710 of a predetermined pattern disposed in the substrate portion 311”; and col. 26:34-37 “fiber bundles 312 disposed in the plurality of holes of the substrate portion.” The relationship of the bundles to the aggregates was stated in original patent claim 10 as “the plurality of aggregates comprises fiber bundles.” Because the patent disclosure appears to describe aggregates that are bundles or include bundles, it is unclear what configuration of fibers is being described by the limitation “the fiber bundle comprises a plurality of aggregates.” For the purpose of examination, the term “fiber bundle” will be interpreted in the context of claim 1 as referring broadly to a fiber structure.
Regarding claim 4, it is unclear how (or whether) “a first dustproof structure” recited in claim 4 is structurally related to the claimed “portion” and/or “fiber bundle” and/or “first fiber structure” of the at least one fiber structure recited in claim 1. For example, could the “first dustproof structure” be the same as the “first fiber structure” introduced in claim 1, or do the different names given in the claims mean that the first dustproof structure must be a different element distinct from the first fiber structure?
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “the fiber bundle is disposed in the plurality of holes” in line 5 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear in what sense a singular bundle is disposed in a plurality of holes.
Regarding claim 13, it is unclear how (or whether) “a second dustproof structure” recited in claim 13 is structurally related to the claimed “portion” and/or “fiber bundle” and/or “second fiber structure” of the at least one fiber structure recited in claim 1. For example, could the “second dustproof structure” be the same as the “second fiber structure” introduced in claim 1, or do the different names given in the claims mean that the second dustproof structure must be a different element distinct from the second fiber structure?
Regarding claim 22, the limitation “each fiber bundle is inserted into a sac or a hole of a predetermined pattern” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the claim requires more than one fiber bundle (since claim 1 recites “a fiber bundle,” singular, while the term “each” in claim 22 suggests more than one fiber bundle). Because it is unclear how many bundles are being claimed, it is also unclear how may sacs or holes are required to satisfy the limitations with respect to “each” fiber bundle and “a predetermined pattern.” (For example, would a single bundle in a single hole satisfy the requirement of “a predetermined pattern”?)
Regarding claim 26, the limitation “each of the fiber bundle comprises a plurality of aggregates including a plurality of fibers” (last two lines) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the term “each of” preceding “the fiber bundle” requires more than one bundle, and it is unclear in what sense a single “bundle” comprises a plurality of “aggregates.” As noted above, the ‘869 patent disclosure appears to use the terms “bundle” and “aggregate” interchangeably to refer to the same grouping of fibers. See col. 15:14-16, 26:34-37, and original patent claim 10, quoted above. Because the patent disclosure appears to describe aggregates that are bundles or include bundles, it is unclear what configuration of fibers is being described by the limitation “each of the fiber bundle comprises a plurality of aggregates.” For the purpose of examination, the term “fiber bundle” will be interpreted in the context of claim 26 as referring broadly to a fiber structure.
Regarding claim 33, the limitation “the fiber bundle is disposed in the plurality of holes” in line 5 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear in what sense a singular bundle is disposed in a plurality of holes.
Regarding claim 35, the limitation “each fiber bundle is inserted into a sac or a hole of a predetermined pattern” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the claim requires more than one fiber bundle (due to the apparently conflicting recitation of “a fiber bundle” which suggests a singular bundle, and “each fiber bundle” which suggests plural bundles). Because it is unclear how many bundles are being claimed, it is also unclear how may sacs or holes are required to satisfy the limitations with respect to “each” fiber bundle and “a predetermined pattern.” (For example, would a single bundle in a single hole satisfy the requirement of “a predetermined pattern”?)
Regarding claim 39, the limitation “the side” in line 10 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether “the side” refers to the side of the first housing or the side of the second housing. Additionally, there is insufficient antecedent basis in the claims for “the inner side” of the hinge housing (line 19).
Regarding claim 45, there is insufficient antecedent basis in the claims for “the space” in line 2.
Regarding claim 46, the limitation “the fiber bundle is disposed in the plurality of holes” in line 5 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear in what sense a singular bundle is disposed in a plurality of holes.
Claims not specifically addressed are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 1, 8, 10, 21-26, 31, 39-41, 43, 46, and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mok et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,971,031, hereinafter Mok) in view of Silvanto et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. 2018/0113493, hereinafter Silvanto) and Shia et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. 2003/0094848, hereinafter Shia).
Regarding claim 1, Mok discloses an electronic device (display system 1, Fig. 1; col. 3:30-42) comprising: a first housing (display support 3), a second housing (display support 4), a hinge housing (hinge mechanism 7, Figs. 1-3) disposed between the first and second housings (3, 4), and a flexible display (2) at least partially disposed between the first and second housings (3, 4). The first housing (3) and the second housing (4) perform a folding or unfolding operation with respect to the hinge housing (see Figs. 1-3; col. 3:37-42).
Mok does not teach at least one fiber structure having a portion disposed on each of the first housing and the second housing. However, to solve the problem of preventing intrusion of foreign particles into gaps between housings of a hinged electronic device (the same problem confronting the inventor; see ‘869 patent, col. 1:39-2:17), Silvanto teaches at least one fiber structure comprising a fiber bundle/a plurality of fibers (barrier 1760, Fig. 17, comprising “bristles, brush, and/or felt,” ¶ 152) disposed on a portion of a side of a first device housing (as shown in Fig. 17, on blocking member 1720 of a lower housing of the electronic device). The portion of the side on which the fiber structure/bundle (1760) is disposed is adjacent to a hinge housing (mandrel 1718). Considering Fig. 17 of Silvanto, the fiber structure/bundle (1760) is understood to be configured to move along a corresponding portion of an outer surface of the hinge housing (1718) as the first, lower housing of the electronic device is rotated about the mandrel (1718) relative to a second, upper housing of the electronic device. The rotatable relationship of the device housings is described at ¶ 62 of Silvanto with respect to the upper housing (302) and lower housing (304) in Figs. 3A-B (“First portion 302 and second portion 304 can be pivotally coupled to each other via a suitable hinge mechanism,” ¶ 62), and is well understood in the electronic device art. The fiber structure/bundle (1760) disposed on the first housing is understood to be fixed to the first housing (“fixed in position between the mandrel 1718 and the blocking member 1720,” ¶ 153; the blocking member being fixed to the lower housing as described at ¶ 84 with respect to Figs. 3A-B). Thus, the fiber structure/bundle (1760) is understood to be configured to move according to the first and second housings being folded or unfolded with respect to the hinge housing, for example, when the electronic device is a cellular telephone (Silvanto, ¶ 162) and either one or both of the two housings can be rotated to close the device (as compared to a laptop embodiment in which the lower housing might remain stationary as the upper portion is closed). Because the fiber structure (1760) is attached to the first housing, the fiber structure (1760) is also understood to be configured to rotate with the first housing, and the fiber structure (1760) is configured to keep in contact with the outer surface of the hinge housing (1718). Fig. 17 shows the contact of the fiber structure (1760) with the outer surface of the hinge housing (1718), which is understood to be maintained as the device is opened by rotation of the housings, in order to accomplish Silvanto’s objective of preventing foreign particles (1742) from entering the interior of the device housings (¶ 150).
The examiner recognizes that Silvanto does not teach a portion of the fiber structure being disposed on at least a portion of a side of the second housing, or a second fiber structure of the fiber bundle fixed to the second housing, since Silvanto’s second housing is integral with the hinge housing. However, Silvanto teaches that such fiber bundle structures (1760) may be advantageously placed in “regions of the hinged electronic device … where gaps exist between different components” (¶ 149) in order to prevent intrusion of foreign particles (¶ 150). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that, in the device of Mok, gaps may exist between each of the first and second housings (3, 4) and the hinge housing (7; see, e.g., Fig. 3 of Mok), and that Silvanto’s teaching with respect to the dust barrier (1760) could be advantageously applied to both the first and second housings of Mok, in order prevent the intrusion of foreign particles at gaps between each of the two device housings and the separate hinge housing. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Mok by fixing a first fiber structure as taught by Silvanto to a side of Mok’s first housing adjacent to the hinge housing (e.g., at a location near the gap between Mok’s first housing 3 and the hinge housing 7, see Fig. 3) and by fixing a second fiber structure as taught by Silvanto to a side of Mok’s second housing adjacent to the hinge housing (and between Mok’s second housing 4 and the hinge housing 7, see Fig. 3) which is configured to move along a corresponding portion of an outer surface of Mok’s hinge housing according to the first and second housings being folded or unfolded with respect to the hinge housing and to maintain contact with the outer surface of the hinge housing during rotation of the device housings, in order to prevent foreign particles from entering the housings (see Silvanto, ¶ 150).
Although Silvanto does not explicitly disclose that the plurality of fibers are arranged in a plurality of aggregates as claimed, Shia is cited as evidence that it was old and well known in the art of brush seals to arrange fibers of a brush into a plurality of aggregates including a plurality of fibers (“plurality of fused filament tufts 1,” ¶ 41; Figs. 6-8) in order to optimize fill density. Therefore, when modifying Silvanto in view of Mok as discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrange the plurality of fibers of the fiber structure/bundle as a plurality of aggregates as taught by Shia, in order to optimize fill density to improve the barrier function of the fiber structure.
Regarding claim 8, the modified Mok teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. The examiner notes that claim 8 broadly recites a second portion of the fiber bundle having an area larger than an area of a first portion of the fiber bundle but does not otherwise specify any distinguishing features of the first and second bundles (unlike original claim 7, which defined the first portion as contacting the hinge housing and the second portion as not contacting the hinge housing). Because there are no otherwise distinguishing characteristics of the first and second portions, the fiber bundle taught by Silvanto inherently includes a first portion and a second portion having an area larger than an area of the first portion, since the first and second portions are arbitrarily defined. (For example, an arbitrarily defined portion of the fiber bundle that occupies 25% of the total area could be called a first portion and the rest of the fiber bundle could be called a second portion.)
Regarding claim 10, the modified Mok teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Shia further teaches the fiber structure includes a substrate portion (base structure 26) including a plurality of holes (tuft holes 28), and the plurality of aggregates of the fiber bundles (1) are disposed in the holes (¶ 42).
Regarding claim 21, the modified Mok teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. The examiner understands Figs. 1 and 4 of Mok to show obstruction walls at ends of the hinge housing (7) which protrude from the concave inner surface of the hinge housing (7) in such a way that an inside of the hinge housing (7) is not visible from outside. If there is any doubt regarding the examiner’s interpretation of Mok, see the alternative rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 in further view of Takamori, set forth below.
Regarding claim 22, the modified Mok teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Shia further teaches each aggregate (tuft 1, Fig. 8) of the fiber bundle is inserted into a hole (28) of a predetermined pattern (¶ 42).
Regarding claim 23, the modified Mok teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Mok further discloses a first hinge structure (hinge 6, Fig. 1) attached to the first housing (3) and a second hinge structure (hinge 5) attached to the second housing (4; col. 3:30-37), wherein the first and second hinge structures (5, 6) are arranged symmetrically with respect to a center portion of the hinge housing (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 24, the modified Mok teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Mok further discloses a gear structure (gear mechanisms 18, Fig. 5) configured to perform the folding and unfolding operation symmetrically (col. 5:19-30).
Regarding claim 25, the modified Mok teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Silvanto teaches that the fibers are “bristles, brush or felt” (¶ 152), which are understood to fall within the broad scope of “at least one of artificial fiber [or] natural fiber.” Additionally, Shia teaches that the fibers are artificial fibers (“synthetic materials” (¶ 10).
Regarding claim 26, Mok discloses a portable communication device (display system 1, Fig. 1; col. 3:30-42) comprising: a flexible display (2); a first housing (display support 3) accommodating the flexible display (2) and a second housing (display support 4) accommodating the flexible display (2); and a hinge housing (hinge mechanism 7, Figs. 1-3) disposed between the first and second housings (3, 4). As shown in Fig. 1, a first display portion of the flexible display (2) is disposed on the first housing (3) and a second display portion of the flexible display (2) is disposed on the second housing (4). The first and second housings (3, 4) fold or unfold with respect to the hinge housing (see Figs. 1-3; col. 3:37-42).
Mok does not teach a structure having a fiber bundle attached to an inner surface of each of the first and second housing portions. However, to solve the problem of preventing intrusion of foreign particles into gaps between housings of a hinged electronic device (the same problem confronting the inventor; see ‘869 patent, col. 1:39-2:17), Silvanto teaches a structure having a fiber bundle (barrier 1760, Fig. 17, comprising “bristles, brush, and/or felt,” ¶ 152) attached to an inner surface of a housing (at blocking member 1720) adjacent to a hinge housing (mandrel 1718), with a portion of the fiber bundle (1760) configured to move along a corresponding portion of an outer surface of the hinge housing (1760) according to the housing being folded or unfolded with respect to the hinge housing (1718; ¶¶ 148-153). As noted above, Silvanto teaches that such fiber bundle structures (1760) may be advantageously placed in “regions of the hinged electronic device … where gaps exist between different components” (¶ 149) in order to prevent intrusion of foreign particles (¶ 150). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that, in the device of Mok, gaps may exist between each of the first and second housings (3, 4) and the hinge housing (7). See, e.g., Fig. 3. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Mok by attaching a structure having a fiber bundle as taught by Silvanto to an inner surface of each of the first and second housings adjacent to the hinge housing (e.g., at locations near the gaps between the hinge housing 7 and first and second housing portions 3, 4 of Mok, see Fig. 3), in order to prevent foreign particles from entering the housings (see Silvanto, ¶ 150).
Although Silvanto does not explicitly disclose that the fiber bundle is arranged in a plurality of aggregates as claimed, Shia is cited as evidence that it was old and well known in the art of brush seals to arrange fibers of a brush into a plurality of aggregates including a plurality of fibers (“plurality of fused filament tufts 1,” ¶ 41; Figs. 6-8) in order to optimize fill density. Therefore, when modifying Silvanto in view of Mok as discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrange the fibers as a plurality of aggregates including a plurality of fibers as taught by Shia, in order to optimize fill density to improve the barrier function of the fiber structure.
Regarding claim 31, the modified Mok teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 26. The examiner notes that claim 31 broadly recites a second portion of the fiber bundle having an area larger than an area of a first portion of the fiber bundle but does not otherwise specify any distinguishing features of the first and second bundles (unlike previously presented claim 30, which defined the first portion as contacting the hinge housing and the second portion as not contacting the hinge housing). Because there are no otherwise distinguishing characteristics of the first and second portions, the fiber bundle taught by Silvanto inherently includes a first portion and a second portion having an area larger than an area of the first portion, since the first and second portions are arbitrarily defined. (For example, an arbitrarily defined portion of the fiber bundle that occupies 25% of the total area could be called a first portion and the rest of the fiber bundle could be called a second portion.)
Regarding claim 39, Mok discloses an electronic device (display system 1, Fig. 1; col. 3:30-42) comprising: a flexible display (2); a first housing (display support 3) accommodating the flexible display (2) and a second housing (display support 4) accommodating the flexible display (2); a hinge structure (hinges 5, 6; col. 3:30-35) configured to couple the first housing (3) and the second housing (4); and a hinge housing (curved housing of hinge mechanism, at 7 in Figs. 1-4) disposed between the first and second housings (3, 4). As shown in Fig. 1, a first display portion of the flexible display (2) is disposed on the first housing (3) and a second display portion of the flexible display (2) is disposed on the second housing (4). The first and second housings (3, 4) fold or unfold with respect to the hinge housing (see Figs. 1-3; col. 3:37-42).
Mok does not teach at least one fiber structure disposed on at least a portion of a side of the first housing and at least a portion of a side of the second housing, and a first structure having a fiber bundle disposed in an edge of an inner side of the hinge housing. However, to solve the problem of preventing intrusion of foreign particles into gaps between housings of a hinged electronic device (the same problem confronting the inventor; see ‘869 patent, col. 1:39-2:17), Silvanto teaches at least one fiber structure comprising a plurality of fibers (barrier 1760, Fig. 17, comprising “bristles, brush, and/or felt,” ¶ 152). Silvanto teaches that the fiber structure (1760) is disposed on a portion of a side of a first housing (as shown in Fig. 17, on blocking member 1720 of a lower housing of the electronic device). Silvanto additionally teaches that such fiber bundle structures (1760) may be advantageously placed in “regions of the hinged electronic device … where gaps exist between different components” (¶ 149) in order to prevent intrusion of foreign particles (¶ 150). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that, in the device of Mok, gaps may exist along the sides of the first and second housings (e.g., along the length of the first and second housings 3, 4; see Fig. 4) and at an edge of an inner side of the hinge housing (e.g., at each end of the hinge housing 7 where the first and second housings are attached; see Fig. 4). See, e.g., Figs. 1-4. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Mok by fixing fiber structures as taught by Silvanto at locations of Mok’s device where gaps exist, including a first fiber structure as taught by Silvanto fixed to a side of Mok’s first housing adjacent to the hinge housing (e.g., at a location near the gap between Mok’s first housing 3 and the hinge housing 7, see Fig. 3), a second fiber structure as taught by Silvanto fixed to a side of Mok’s second housing adjacent to the hinge housing (and between Mok’s second housing 4 and the hinge housing 7, see Fig. 3), and a first structure having a fiber bundle as taught by Silvanto fixed to an edge of an inner side of the hinge housing of Mok, in order to prevent foreign particles from entering the housings (see Silvanto, ¶ 150).
Although Silvanto does not explicitly disclose that the fiber structure is arranged in a plurality of aggregates as claimed, Shia is cited as evidence that it was old and well known in the art of brush seals to arrange fibers of a brush into a plurality of aggregates including a plurality of fibers (“plurality of fused filament tufts 1,” ¶ 41; Figs. 6-8) in order to optimize fill density. Therefore, when modifying Silvanto in view of Mok as discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrange the fibers as a plurality of aggregates including a plurality of fibers as taught by Shia, in order to optimize fill density to improve the barrier function of the fiber structure.
Regarding claim 40, the modified Mok teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 39. Silvanto further teaches that the plurality of fibers (of barrier 1760, Fig. 17) includes a first fiber portion (e.g., at top of brush barrier 1760 in Fig. 17) and a second fiber portion (e.g., at bottom of brush barrier 1760 in Fig. 17). The examiner notes that this limitation is very broad and would read on any two portions of the fiber barrier (1760) taught by Silvanto, since the claim does not recite any distinguishing features of the two portions.
Regarding claim 41, the modified Mok teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 40. The examiner notes that claim 41 does not define what aspect of the fibers faces the flexible display. When modifying Mok to include a plurality of fibers as discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrange the fibers facing the flexible display (e.g., with the free ends of the fibers facing the underside of the flexible display when the device is in the unfolded arrangement), in order to close the gaps between the hinge housing portion and the first and second housing portions to prevent intrusion of foreign particles as discussed above.
Regarding claim 43, the modified Mok teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 40. Silvanto further teaches a length of the first fiber portion is smaller than a length of the second fiber portion (see Fig. 17).
Regarding claim 46, the modified Mok teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 40. Shia further teaches the plurality of aggregates comprise fiber bundles (filament tufts 1, Fig. 8), the fiber structure includes a substrate portion (base structure 26) including a plurality of holes (tuft holes 28), and the plurality of aggregates of the fiber bundle (1) are disposed in the holes (¶ 42).
Regarding claim 48, the modified Mok teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 39. Silvanto teaches generally that the brush barrier can be positioned in regions of the hinged electronic device “where gaps exist between different components” (¶ 149). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that, in the device of Mok as modified above, gaps may respectively exist between the first and second housings and the opposing side edges of the hinge housing portion. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, when modifying Mok as discussed above, to dispose a second structure having a fiber bundle (i.e., a second brush barrier as taught by Silvanto) on an opposite side edge of the hinge housing portion, in order to prevent intrusion of foreign particles through gaps between the first and second housings and the hinge housing.
Claims 3-4, 12-13, 15-16, 18, 21, 27-28, and 36-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mok in view of Silvanto and Shia, in further view of Takamori (U.S. Patent Pub. 2009/0231786, hereinafter Takamori).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, the modified Mok teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Mok does not teach a first bent portion provided on a side edge of the first housing formed with a predetermined curvature (claim 3) and a second bent portion provided on a side edge of the second housing formed with a predetermined curvature (claim 12). However, Takamori teaches a folding electronic device (Fig. 1) comprising first and second housings (lid 3 and body 7) with a hinge housing (connection body 20) disposed therebetween, with a first bent portion (concave part 62a, Fig. 4) provided on a side edge of the first housing (3) and formed with a predetermined curvature (claim 3), and a second bent portion (concave part 62b, Fig. 4) provided on a side edge of the second housing (7) and formed with a predetermined curvature, in order to receive the hinge housing when the device is unfolded (¶¶ 125-126) (claim 12). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the invention of Mok by configuring the respective side edges of the first and second housings with a first bent portion formed with a predetermined curvature and a second bent portion formed with a predetermined curvature, as taught by Takamori, since this involves only the simple substitution of one known edge configuration of a foldable electronic device housing for another known edge configuration of a foldable electronic device housing, to yield predictable results.
Regarding claims 4, 13, 15, and 18, the modified Mok teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claims 3 and 12, respectively. Silvanto teaches generally that the brush barrier can be positioned in regions of the hinged electronic device “where gaps exist between different components” (¶ 149). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that, in the device of Mok as modified above, gaps may exist between a side edge of the first bent portion of the first housing and the hinge housing, between a side edge of the second bent portion of the second housing and the hinge housing, and between side edge of the hinge housing and the first and second housings. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, when modifying Mok in view of Silvanto as discussed above, to dispose the first fiber structure as a first dustproof structure along the side edge of the first bent portion of the first housing (claim 4), to dispose the second fiber structure as a second dustproof structure along the side edge of the second bent portion of the second housing (claim 13), to dispose a third dustproof structure on a side edge of the hinge housing (claim 15), and to dispose a fourth dustproof structure on an opposite side edge of the hinge housing (claim 18), in order to prevent intrusion of foreign particles through gaps between the first and second housings and the hinge housing.
Regarding claim 16, the modified Mok teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 15. As noted above, Silvanto teaches that the dustproof structure (1760, Fig. 17) comprises “bristles, brush or felt” which perform a sealing function (¶ 152). The dustproof structure is thus understood to include a first portion that maintains an upright state when facing part of the device (e.g., the longer portion at the bottom part of the barrier 1760, facing the hinge housing 1718) and a second portion that is pressed by the part of the device (e.g., the shorter compressed portion at the top part of the barrier 1760, which is compressed by the hinge housing). The examiner notes that the phrase “at least a portion of structures including the flexible display” is very broad because “structures” is a broad term that could encompass the entirety of the device (since the device includes the flexible display), such that “at least a portion of” such broadly defined “structures” could be any part of the device. Because of the breadth of this phrase, claim 16 does not require that the first portion specifically faces the flexible display, or that the second portion is pressed by the flexible display. When modifying Mok in view of Silvanto, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the first portion to face at least a portion of structures including the flexible display (i.e., a part of the device) and the second portion to be pressed by the portion of structures including the flexible display (i.e., the part of the device), in order to facilitate the sealing function of the dustproof structure.
Regarding claim 21, the modified Mok teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above in the rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Mok in view of Silvanto and Shia. If there is any doubt regarding the examiner’s interpretation of Mok as teaching obstruction walls as claimed, Takamori teaches an electronic device comprising a similar hinge housing (20, Fig. 4), wherein ends of the hinge housing (20) comprise obstruction walls (side walls 28, Figs. 4-5; ¶ 145) which protrude (from concave side of slide plate 27) such that an inside of the hinge housing is not visible from outside (see, e.g., Fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the invention of Mok to include obstruction walls as taught by Takamori at the ends of the hinge housing, in order to protect the interior of the hinge housing.
Regarding claims 27 and 36, the modified Mok teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 26. Mok does not teach a first bent portion provided on a side edge of the first housing portion formed with a predetermined curvature (claim 27), or a second bent portion provided on a side edge of the second housing portion and bent with a predetermined curvature (claim 36). However, Takamori teaches a folding portable communication device (Fig. 1) comprising first and second housing portions (lid 3 and body 7) with a hinge housing portion (connection body 20) disposed therebetween, with a first bent portion (concave part 62a, Fig. 4) provided on a side edge of the first housing portion (3) and formed with a predetermined curvature (claim 27), and a second bent portion (concave part 62b, Fig. 4) provided on a side edge of the second housing portion (7) and bent with a predetermined curvature (claim 36), in order to receive the hinge housing portion when the device is unfolded (¶¶ 125-126). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the invention of Mok by configuring the respective side edges of the first and second housing portions with a first bent portion formed with a predetermined curvature (claim 27) and a second bent portion bent with a predetermined curvature (claim 36), as taught by Takamori, since this involves only the simple substitution of one known edge configuration of a foldable electronic device housing for another known edge configuration of a foldable electronic device housing, to yield predictable results.
Regarding claims 28 and 37, the modified Mok teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claims 27 and 36, respectively. Silvanto teaches generally that the brush barrier can be positioned in regions of the hinged electronic device “where gaps exist between different components” (¶ 149). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that, in the device of Mok as modified above, gaps may exist between a side edge of the first bent portion of the first housing portion and the hinge housing portion, and between a side edge of the second bent portion of the second housing portion and the hinge housing portion. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, when modifying Mok as discussed above, to dispose a first part of the fiber bundle structure along the side edge of the first bent portion of the first housing portion (claim 28) and a second part of the fiber bundle structure along the side edge of the second bent portion of the second housing portion (claim 37), in order to prevent intrusion of foreign particles through gaps between the first and second housing portions and the hinge housing portion.
Claims 5-6, 14, 29, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mok in view of Silvanto, Shia, and Takamori, in further view of Marron (U.S. Patent Pub. 2008/0148640, hereinafter Marron).
Regarding claims 5-6 and 14, the modified Mok teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claims 3 and 13, respectively. Silvanto is silent with respect to the manner of attaching the dustproof structure to the housing. However, Marron teaches that it was known to attach a brush seal to a structure using an adhesive member (adhesive 132, Fig. 13; ¶ 40) disposed between the brush seal (130) and the structure (90) (claims 5 and 14), wherein the adhesive member includes a double-side tape (“double sided tape,” ¶ 40) (claim 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the invention of Mok by disposing double-sided adhesive tape as taught by Marron between the first dustproof structure and the first bent portion of the first housing (claims 5-6) and between the second dustproof structure and the second bent portion of the second housing (claim 14), in order to securely mount the dustproof structures.
Regarding claims 29 and 38, the modified Mok teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claims 28 and 37, respectively. Silvanto is silent with respect to the manner of attaching the fiber bundle structure to the housing portion. However, Marron teaches that it was known to attach a brush seal to a structure using an adhesive member (adhesive 132, Fig. 13; ¶ 40) disposed between the brush seal (130) and the structure (90), wherein the adhesive member includes a double-side tape (“double sided tape,” ¶ 40). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the invention of Mok by disposing double-sided adhesive tape as taught by Marron between the first part of the fiber bundle structure and the first bent portion of the first housing portion (claim 29) and between the second part of the fiber bundle structure and the second bent portion of the second housing portion (claim 38), in order to securely mount the parts of the fiber bundle structure.
Claims 11 and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mok in view of Silvanto and Shia, in further view of Precision Brush (non-patent literature; hereinafter Precision Brush).
Regarding claims 11 and 47, the modified Mok teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claims 10 and 46, respectively. Shia does not explicitly teach that the holes are in a zigzag arrangement. However, Precision Brush teaches that a zigzag arrangement (“staggered pattern,” pg. 2) is one of the two most common patterns for holes of a brush. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the invention of Mok by selecting a conventional zigzag arrangement for the holes, as taught by Precision Brush, in order to avoid gaps between tufts that might otherwise be penetrated by foreign particles.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 17, 19-20, 32-35, 44, and 49-50 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 251 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 9, 17, and 19-20 are indicated as allowable for the reasons set forth in the non-final Office action mailed November 28, 2025, see pg. 35-37.
Claims 32 and 44 recite limitations similar to claim 9. The prior art does not teach the particularly claimed configuration of the structure including a first fiber portion and a second fiber portion, wherein a density of fibers disposed on the first fiber portion is higher than a density of fibers disposed on the second fiber portion, in combination with the features of independent claims 26 and 39, considered as a whole.
Claims 33-35 depend from claim 32 and would be allowable for at least the same reasons discussed above for claim 32.
With respect to claim 49, the prior art does not teach the particularly claimed configuration of a second structure having a fiber bundle disposed on an opposite side edge of the hinge housing (claim 48), wherein the second structure includes a first fiber portion disposed side by side with the flexible display and a second fiber portion disposed side by side with the flexible display and including fibers longer than fibers of the first fiber portion of a fourth dustproof structure (claim 49), in combination with the limitations of claim 39, considered as a whole.
Claim 50 depends from claim 49 and is allowable for at least the same reasons discussed above for claim 49.
Response to Amendments
The reissue declaration filed May 15, 2026, is acceptable. Accordingly, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 251 based on an informal reissue declaration have been withdrawn.
With respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 251 and 112(a) based on new matter, the examiner agrees that the amendment of independent claim 1 has overcome the rejections of claims 15-18. However, the amendment of claim 39 has not overcome the rejections of claims 41-43, as explained in further detail above.
With respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the examiner notes that some of the issues have been resolved by the current amendment, while other issues have not been resolved and some new issues have been introduced. The remaining issues of clarity under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are discussed in detail above.
With respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, the amendments have not overcome the prior art rejections, as discussed above in the updated rejections set forth in response to the amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 15, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to independent claims 1 and 26, Applicant argues that Mok, Silvanto, and Shia fail to disclose features related to first and second fiber structures of the first and second housings moving along an outer surface of the hinge housing when the first and second housings are folded, arguing specifically that Silvanto does not teach these features. In response, the examiner maintains that this feature would have been obvious in view of Silvanto. Because Silvanto teaches that the fiber structure (1760, Fig. 17) is attached to the first housing which rotates relative to the hinge housing (1718), the fiber structure (1760) is understood to rotate with the first housing and to keep in contact with the outer surface of the hinge housing (1718) in the manner illustrated in Fig. 17, in order to accomplish Silvanto’s objective of preventing foreign particles (1742) from entering the interior of the device housings (¶ 150). With respect to the fiber structure of the second housing, it is the examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a fiber structure as taught by Silvanto anywhere within “regions of the hinged electronic device … where gaps exist between different components” to prevent intrusion of foreign particles (Silvanto ¶¶ 149-150), including on the second housing of Mok, to protect the gap between the second housing and the hinge housing. Applicant has not pointed out any particular disagreement with this position.
With respect to independent claim 39, Applicant argues that Mok, Silvanto, and Shia fail to disclose features related to first and second fiber structures fixed to first and second housings in combination with a fiber structure inside the hinge housing. In response, the examiner maintains that Silvanto broadly teaches that fiber structures are advantageous within “regions of the hinged electronic device … where gaps exist between different components” to prevent intrusion of foreign particles (Silvanto ¶¶ 149-150). Accordingly, it is the examiner’s opinion, based on the present record, that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add such fiber structures wherever gaps occur in an existing electronic device, including within the hinge housing. Applicant has not pointed out any particular disagreement with this position.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Laura L. Davison whose telephone number is (571)270-0189. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. 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, Eileen Lillis can be reached at (571)272-6928. 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.
/Laura Davison/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
Conferees:
/JOSHUA KADING/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
/EILEEN D LILLIS/SPRS, Art Unit 3993
Prosecution Insights