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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “display” “first rotating components”; “screen support components”; “stretched state of elastic reset members to squeeze the floating support component”; “compressed state of elastic reset members to squeeze the floating support component”; “the first distance”; “the second state” and “the second distance”; “hovering elastic member”; “positioning member”; “the plurality of first position limiting protrusions”; “the plurality of second position limiting protrusions” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the “display” “first rotating components”; “screen support components”; ““the first distance”; “the second state” and “the second distance”; “hovering elastic member”; “positioning member”; “the plurality of first position limiting protrusions”; “the plurality of second position limiting protrusions” as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitation “on a side that is of the base and that faces a screen support side” in line 13 is unclear. The Examiner suggests “on a side of the base that faces a screen support side” for clarity.
The limitation “the other side of the midpoint” in line 20 lack antecedent basis and is unclear. The Examiner suggests “another side of the midpoint” for clarity.
The limitation “the other side of the base” in line 25 lack antecedent basis and is unclear. The Examiner suggests “another side of the base” for clarity.
The limitation “an outer wall that is of the base and that faces away from the rotation axis” in line 28 is unclear. The Examiner suggests “an outer wall of the base that faces away from the rotation axis” for clarity.
The limitation “on a side that is of the base and that faces the rotation axis” in line 32 is unclear. The Examiner suggests “on a side of the base that faces the rotation axis” for clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitation “a surface that is of the base and that faces is in contact” in line 5 is unclear. The Examiner suggests “a surface of the base that faces is in contact” for clarity.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitation “first surfaces that are of the support plates and that face away from the base” in line 4-5 is unclear. The Examiner suggests “first surfaces of the support plates that face away from the base” for clarity.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitation “on a side that is of the base and that faces a screen support side” in line 14 is unclear. The Examiner suggests “on a side of the base that faces a screen support side” for clarity.
The limitation “the other side of the midpoint” in line 21 lack antecedent basis and is unclear. The Examiner suggests “another side of the midpoint” for clarity.
The limitation “the other side of the base” in line 26 lack antecedent basis and is unclear. The Examiner suggests “another side of the base” for clarity.
The limitation “an outer wall that is of the base and that faces away from the rotation axis” in line 29 is unclear. The Examiner suggests “an outer wall of the base that faces away from the rotation axis” for clarity.
The limitation “on a side that is of the base and that faces the rotation axis” in line 33 is unclear. The Examiner suggests “on a side of the base that faces the rotation axis” for clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitation “a surface that is of the base and that faces is in contact” in line 5 is unclear. The Examiner suggests “a surface of the base that faces is in contact” for clarity.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitation “first surfaces that are of the support plates and that face away from the base” in line 4-5 is unclear. The Examiner suggests “first surfaces of the support plates that face away from the base” for clarity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “a rotation axis of the first rotating component” in line 19 is unclear. It is unclear which first rotating component of the first rotating components is being referred to or whether this should be interpreted as the first rotating components where all the first rotating components have the same rotation axis.
For the purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret this as the first rotating components.
Further, the limitation “the first rotating component” in line 33 is unclear. It is unclear which first rotating component of the first rotating components is being referred to or whether this should be interpreted as the first rotating components.
For the purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret this as the first rotating components.
Claims 2-9 depending from claim 1 are therefore also rejected.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “the second rotating component” in line 2 is unclear. It is unclear which second rotating component of the second rotating components is being referred to or whether this should be interpreted as a corresponding second rotating component of the second rotating components.
For the purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret this as a corresponding second rotating component of the second rotating components.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “the first rotating component” in line 4 is unclear. It is unclear which first rotating component of the first rotating components is being referred to or whether this should be interpreted as the first rotating components.
For the purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret this as the first rotating components.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “the first rotating component” in line 16 is unclear. It is unclear which first rotating component of the first rotating components is being referred to or whether this should be interpreted as the first rotating components.
For the purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret this as the first rotating components.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “a rotation axis of the first rotating component” in line 20 is unclear. It is unclear which first rotating component of the first rotating components is being referred to or whether this should be interpreted as the first rotating components where all the first rotating components have the same rotation axis.
For the purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret this as the first rotating components.
Further, the limitation “the first rotating component” in line 34 is unclear. It is unclear which first rotating component of the first rotating components is being referred to or whether this should be interpreted as the first rotating components.
For the purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret this as the first rotating components.
Claims 11-18 depending from claim 10 are therefore also rejected.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “the second rotating component” in line 2 is unclear. It is unclear which second rotating component of the second rotating components is being referred to or whether this should be interpreted as a corresponding second rotating component of the second rotating components.
For the purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret this as a corresponding second rotating component of the second rotating components.
Regarding claim 15, the limitation “the first rotating component” in line 4 is unclear. It is unclear which first rotating component of the first rotating components is being referred to or whether this should be interpreted as the first rotating components.
For the purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret this as the first rotating components.
Regarding claim 16, the limitation “the first rotating component” in line 16 is unclear. It is unclear which first rotating component of the first rotating components is being referred to or whether this should be interpreted as the first rotating components.
For the purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret this as the first rotating components.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-18 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chen US 20180146560 Fig. 1-5; Sun US 20240259487 Fig. 11-20; Yao US 20240040021 Fig. 1 and 4-5 disclose a foldable display device hinge with a floating support component and elastic reset members.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER L AUGUSTIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 3 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Allen L Parker can be reached at 303-297-4722. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTOPHER L AUGUSTIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2841
/JAMES WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights