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.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on February 13, 2026, disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Patent No. 11,625,074, has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 30, 2026, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.1
Reissue Oath/Declaration
The reissue declaration (PTO/AIA /05) filed February 13, 2026, is informal because, on pg. 1 of the form, the wrong box has been checked with respect to the specification. The specification of U.S. 11,054,869 was filed on October 10, 2024, as reissue application number 18/912,050. The appropriate box should be checked in the reissue declaration form. See below.
PNG
media_image1.png
268
605
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 251 - Defective Reissue Declaration
Claims 1-50 are rejected as being based upon a defective reissue declaration under 35 U.S.C. 251 as set forth above. See 37 CFR 1.175. The nature of the defect in the declaration is set forth in the discussion above in this Office action.
Support for Claim Changes
37 CFR 1.173(c) states, with emphasis added:
Status of claims and support for claim changes. Whenever there is an amendment to the claims pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section, there must also be supplied, on pages separate from the pages containing the changes, the status (i.e., pending or canceled), as of the date of the amendment, of all patent claims and of all added claims, and an explanation of the support in the disclosure of the patent for the changes made to the claims.
The response filed February 13, 2026, fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.173(c) because it fails to provide an explanation of support in the disclosure of the patent for the changes made to the claims.
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 15-20 and 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:
The amendment of independent claim 1 gives rise to new matter in dependent claims 15 and 18 and their dependent claims. Claim 1 has been amended to recite “the at least one fiber structure is configured to rotate as rotation of the first housing and the at least one fiber structure is configured to keep in contact with an external surface of the hinge housing.” Dependent claim 15 recites “the at least one fiber structure includes a third dustproof structure provided on a side edge of the hinge housing.” Dependent claim 18 recites “the at least one fiber structure further includes a fourth dustproof structure provided on an opposite side edge of the hinge housing.” This combination of limitations appears to require that at least one fiber structure be configured to rotate with the first housing and keep in contact with an external surface of the housing and include a third dustproof structure on a side edge of the hinge housing (in claim 15) and include a fourth dustproof structure on an opposite side of the hinge housing (in claim 18). However, the disclosed dustproof structures on the side edges of the hinge housing (e.g., 330 and 340 in Fig. 6) do not rotate with the first housing or keep in contact with an external surface of the hinge housing. The original patent disclosure does not describe “at least one fiber structure” that includes all of the features now recited in independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 15 and/or 18.
Claims 16-17 are rejected in view of their dependency from claim 15; claim 19-20 are rejected in view of their dependency from claims 15 and 18.
The amendment of independent claim 39 and dependent claim 40 gives rise to new matter in dependent claims 41-43. Reissue claim 40, as previously presented, defined the “plurality of fibers” as part of the “first structure” of the hinge housing. Independent claim 39 is now amended to recite “the first housing and the second housing include at least one fiber structure disposed on at least a portion of a side of the first housing … wherein the at least one fiber structure includes a plurality of aggregates including a plurality of fibers,” and dependent claim 40 has been amended to recite “the plurality of fibers includes a first fiber portion and a second fiber portion.” Thus, the “plurality of fibers” recited in claims 41 and 42 and the “first fiber portion” and “second fiber portion” recited in claim 43 now refer to fibers of the at least one fiber structure on the first and second housings, rather than on the hinge housing as previously claimed. The original patent disclosure does not provide sufficient written description support for the claimed configuration of fibers on the first and second housings. In particular, claim 41 recites “the plurality of fibers are arranged facing the flexible display,” claim 42 recites “the plurality of fibers are arranged side by side with the display,” and claim 43 recites “a length of the first fiber portion is smaller than a length of the second fiber portion.” The original patent disclosure describes these as features of the fibers on the hinge housing, not the first and second housings. See, e.g., Figs. 14-15, showing the fibers of the third dustproof structure (330) of the hinge housing (150) facing the flexible display (160; and Fig. 16 showing the fibers of the third dustproof structure (330) of the hinge housing (150) arranged side by side with the flexible display (160) with a first fiber portion (330c1) having a length smaller than a length of a second fiber portion (330c2), as described at col. 22:44-25:12. The original patent disclosure does not describe these features 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 15-20 and 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 1-50 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, it is unclear how “a fiber bundle on at least one fiber structure” (line 10) is structurally related to “a plurality of aggregates including a plurality of fibers” (lines 13-14). For example, is the “fiber bundle” one of the “plurality of aggregates”? Considered in view of dependent claim 10, which recites “the plurality of aggregates comprise fiber bundles” (line 2), it appears that the fiber bundle recited in claim 1 may be one of the aggregates or some part of the aggregates. Because this relationship is not clearly defined in claim 1, the scope of claim 1 is unclear. For the purpose of examination, “a fiber bundle” in line 10 is interpreted in view of the patent disclosure as referring to one of, or a subset of, the plurality of aggregates.
Additionally, the limitation “the fiber bundle disposed on the first housing and the second housing is configured to move according to the respective housing portion” (lines 16-17, emphasis added) renders the claim indefinite because the fiber bundle is defined in lines 10-11 as being “disposed on at least a portion of a side of the first housing,” without mentioning the second housing. It is unclear whether the subsequent reference to the fiber bundle as being disposed on the first and second housings requires a second fiber bundle on the second housing, or requires the single claimed fiber bundle be disposed on both housings. Additionally, there is insufficient antecedent basis in the claims for “the respective housing portion” (since the claim defines first and second housings, not housing portions). For the purpose of examination, this limitation is interpreted as encompassing the single fiber bundle being indirectly disposed on the second housing (since the patent disclosure does not describe a single bundle that is directly disposed on both first and second housings).
Finally, the limitation “wherein the at least one fiber structure is configured to rotate as rotation of the first housing and the at least one fiber structure is configured to keep in contact with an external surface of the hinge housing” is generally unclear. For example, it is unclear what is meant by “configured to rotate as rotation of the first housing.” Additionally, it is unclear whether “an external surface” refers to the same “outer surface” previously recited in line 16. Consistent terminology should be used for the same parts throughout the claims.
Claims 2-25 are rejected in view of their dependency from claim 1.
Regarding claim 26, the limitation “the fiber bundle comprises a plurality of aggregates including a plurality of fibers” (last two lines) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear in what sense a single “bundle” comprises a plurality of “aggregates.” 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.” Moreover, dependent claim 33 (which depends ultimately from claim 26) recites “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 26 as referring broadly to a fiber structure.
Claims 27-38 are rejected in view of their dependency from claim 26.
Regarding claim 39, the limitation “the first housing and the second housing include at least one fiber structure disposed on at least a portion of a side of the first housing” in lines 8-9 renders the claim indefinite, because it is unclear in what sense the second housing includes a fiber structure on a side of the first housing. Additionally, there is insufficient antecedent basis in the claims for “the inner side” of the hinge housing (line 17). For these reasons, it is unclear what arrangement of the fiber structures and fiber bundle is being claimed.
Claims 40-50 are rejected in view of their dependency from claim 39.
In addition, claim 44 depends from claim 40, and both claims 40 and 44 recite “a first fiber portion and a second fiber portion.” It is unclear whether claims 40 and 44 are referring to the same first and second fiber portions.
Regarding claim 45, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the hinge housing portion” (claim 39 having been amended to recite “a hinge housing” rather than a hinge housing portion). In addition, the examiner notes that “portion” in line 2 should read --a portion--.
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 1-2, 7-8, 10, 21-26, 30, 31, 39, 40-41, 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 comprising a plurality of aggregates including a fiber bundle and a plurality of fibers which is disposed on a portion of a side of the first housing. (See note on claim interpretation in the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above.) 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). The portion of the side on which the fiber structure (1760) is disposed is adjacent to a hinge housing (mandrel 1718). Considering Fig. 17 of Silvanto, the fiber structure (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 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 (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 (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). The fiber structure (1760) is considered to be indirectly disposed on the second housing. (See note on claim interpretation in the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above.) 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). 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 disposing at least one fiber structure as taught by Silvanto on a side of the first housing adjacent to the hinge housing within a predetermined distance (e.g., at a location near the gap between the first housing 3 and the hinge housing 7 of Mok, 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 rotate with the first housing while the fiber structure keeps in contact with the outer surface of the hinge housing (by virtue of the fiber structure being attached to the first housing which rotates with respect to the hinge housing), as taught by Silvanto, 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 including a fiber bundle 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 fiber bundle and 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 as a plurality of aggregates including a fiber bundle as taught by Shia (with the fiber bundle arranged in the manner discussed above with respect to the fiber structure), in order to optimize fill density to improve the barrier function of the fiber structure.
Regarding claim 2, the modified Mok teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Silvanto further teaches the at least one fiber structure (1760, Fig. 17) includes a first dustproof structure (“a physical barrier to prevent or reduce[] foreign particles from entering,” ¶ 150) disposed with a predetermined length in an axial direction of a hinge housing (mandrel 1718, where “the term ‘mandrel’ can be interchangeable with the term ‘hinge mechanism’ or a ‘cover (or lid) for a hinge mechanism,” ¶ 54). The axial direction of the hinge/mandrel is shown at ‘204’ in Fig. 2 of Silvanto (see ¶ 59). In Mok, the gap between the first housing and the hinge housing shown in Fig. 3 is understood to extend a predetermined length in an axial direction of the hinge housing. Thus, when modifying Mok in view of Silvanto as discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to dispose the dustproof structure taught by Silvanto with a predetermined length in the axial direction of the hinge housing of Mok, in order to close the gap between the first housing and the hinge housing along the axial length of the hinge housing to prevent intrusion of foreign particles along the length of the hinge housing.
Regarding claim 7, the modified Mok teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 2. Silvanto further teaches the first dustproof structure (1760, Fig. 17) includes a first portion (the leftmost portion of barrier 1760 in Fig. 17) that contacts the hinge housing (1718) when the electronic device is in a folded state (Fig. 17), and a second portion (the rightmost portion of barrier 1760 in Fig. 17) that does not contact the hinge housing (1718).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Mok teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 7. Silvanto does not explicitly state that an area of the second portion is larger than an area of the first portion. However, Shia further discloses that, when the brush is formed of a plurality of aggregates or tufts, an area of a second portion (base structure 24, Fig. 7; or base structure 26, Fig. 8) may be larger than an area of a first portion (at free end of tufts 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, when modifying Mok in view of Silvanto and Shia as discussed above, to configure the second portion of the dustproof structure to have an area larger than the first portion of the dustproof structure, as suggested by Shia, in order to provide a larger base area for affixing the dustproof structure to the first housing.
Regarding claim 10, the modified Mok teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Shia further teaches the plurality of aggregates comprises fiber bundles (filament tufts 1, Fig. 8), as discussed above for claim 1, the fiber structure includes a substrate portion (base structure 26) including a plurality of holes (tuft holes 28), and 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) 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). 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 30, the modified Mok teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 26. Silvanto further teaches the fiber bundle structure (1760, Fig. 17) includes a first fiber portion (the leftmost portion of barrier 1760 in Fig. 17) that contacts the hinge housing (1718) when the device is in a folded state (Fig. 17), and a second fiber portion (the rightmost portion of barrier 1760 in Fig. 17) that does not contact the hinge housing (1718).
Regarding claim 31, the modified Mok teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 30. Silvanto does not explicitly state that an area of the second portion is larger than an area of the first portion. However, Shia further teaches that, when a brush is formed of fiber bundles, an area of a second portion (base structure 24, Fig. 7; or base structure 26, Fig. 8) may be larger than an area of a first portion (at free end of tufts 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, when modifying Mok in view of Silvanto as discussed above, to configure the second portion of the fiber bundle structure to have an area larger than the first portion of the fiber bundle structure, as suggested by Shia, in order to provide a larger base area for affixing the fiber bundle structure to the first housing.
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 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 disposing at least one fiber structure including a plurality of fibers as taught by Silvanto on at least a portion of a side of the first housing and the second housing of Mok, and a first structure having a fiber bundle as taught by Silvanto in 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 fiber bundles (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, 33, and 35-37 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 2. 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 dustproof structure along the side edge of the first bent portion of the first housing (claim 4), a second dustproof structure along the side edge of the second bent portion of the second housing (claim 13), a third dustproof structure on a side edge of the hinge housing (claim 15), and 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.
Regarding claim 33, the modified Mok teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 36. Shia further teaches the plurality of aggregates comprises fiber bundles (filament tufts 1, Fig. 8), as discussed above for claim 26, the fiber structure includes a substrate portion (base structure 26) including a plurality of holes (tuft holes 28), and the fiber bundles (1) are disposed in the holes (¶ 42).
Regarding claim 35, the modified Mok teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 33. Shia further teaches each aggregate (tuft 1, Fig. 8) is inserted into a hole (28) of a predetermined pattern (¶ 42).
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.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mok in view of Silvanto, Shia, and Takamori, in further view of Precision Brush.
Regarding claim 34, the modified Mok teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 33. 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 brush. If 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
Pending the filing of a corrected reissue declaration to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 251:
Claims 9, 32, 44, and 49-50 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 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.2
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 9 is indicated as allowable for the reasons set forth in the non-final Office action mailed November 28, 2025, see pg. 35-37.
Claim 32 recites limitations similar to claim 9. With respect to claim 32, the prior art does not teach the particularly claimed configuration of the structure including a first fiber portion that contacts the hinge housing when the portable communication device is in a folded state, and a second fiber portion that does not contact the hinge housing (claim 30), wherein a density of fibers disposed on the first fiber portion is higher than a density of fibers disposed on the second fiber portion (claim 32), in combination with the features of claim 26, considered as a whole.
Claim 44 also recites limitations similar to claim 9. With respect to claim 44, the prior art does not teach the particularly claimed configuration of the first and second fiber portions wherein a density of the first fiber portion is higher than a density of the second fiber portion, in combination with the limitations of claim 39, considered as a whole.
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 amendments filed February 13, 2026, have overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 251 based on improper broadening outside the two year statutory period and recapture of surrendered subject matter. Accordingly, these rejections are withdrawn.
The amendments have also overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in the prior Office action. However, the amendments raise new issues under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as set forth in the rejections above in response to Applicant’s amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 13, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to independent claim 1, Applicant argues that Mok, Silvanto, and Shia do not teach a fiber bundle configured to move along a corresponding portion of an outer surface of a hinge housing and to move according to the respective housings being folded or unfolded with respect to the hinge housing. The examiner acknowledges that Mok alone does not teach this feature. However, the examiner maintains that Silvanto teaches a fiber bundle configured to move along the outer surface of a hinge housing as claimed, and that this feature would have been obvious to incorporate into the housings of Mok in order to prevent intrusion of foreign particles within the housing. Regarding Silvanto, Applicant states that “Silvanto fails to present a structure that is distinct from the first housing, the second housing, and the hinge housing,” arguing on this basis that Silvanto “fails to present a structure in which the fiber structure positioned in the first housing rotates in accordance with the rotation of the first housing while maintaining contact with the outer surface of the hinge housing.” Remarks, pg. 21. However, the examiner maintains that Silvanto does in fact disclose a structure (namely, the brush/bristle barrier 1760, Fig. 17) that is distinct from the electronic device housings, as clearly shown in Fig. 17, and which is clearly shown in contact with the hinge housing (mandrel 1718). This contact is understood to be necessary to Silvanto’s explicit purpose of forming a barrier which prevents foreign particles from entering the housings at the hinge. See Silvanto, ¶¶ 152-153. Considering Fig. 17 of Silvanto, the fiber structure (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 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 (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 (1760) is understood to be configured to move with the first housing when the first and second housings are folded or unfolded with respect to the hinge housing, for example, when the electronic device is a handheld device such as a cellular telephone (Silvanto, ¶ 162) in which 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).
In response to Applicant’s arguments that Shia does not teach the limitation discussed above, the examiner notes that Shia is relied on only to teach the bundled, aggregate arrangement of the fibers.
For independent claims 26 and 39 and the dependent claims, Applicant relies on the same arguments set forth for claim 1. See Remarks, pg. 22. These arguments are not persuasive for the reasons set forth above. Additionally, the examiner notes that claim 39 does not recite the argued limitations.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
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
1 Applicant may wish to review the translation of the Korean Office action for accuracy, as the English translation of supplied with the IDS mistakenly translates the name of the Korean Intellectual Property Office (지 식 재 산 처) as “The wife who is boastful with knowledge and lives.”
2 The indication of allowable subject matter in claims 17, 19, and 20 is withdrawn in view of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 251 (new matter) and 35 U.S.C. 112(a) necessitated by Applicant’s amendment of independent claim 1.