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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species II, claims 1-4 and 8-10 in the reply filed on 5/22/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 5-8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/22/2026.
Title
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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,
“a first connection apparatus”, “a second connection apparatus” and “a target angle” in claim 1;
“a first target area” and “a second target area” in claim 3.
“wherein: in response to the electronic device being in the first device attitude… a contact position between the second body and the carrier surface” in claim 3.
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “…the target member is in a first state… the target member is in a second state…”, which should have been “... the target member is in the first state… the target member is in the second state…”
Claim 4 recites “a second device attitude”, which should have been “the second device attitude” instead.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a first connection apparatus”, “a second connection apparatus” and “a target member” in claims 1-4 and 8-10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 (112f invoked) recites “a first connection apparatus” and “a second connection apparatus”. However, the specification nor the drawing support enough structure to provide the function of providing a first damping force and a second damping force. While specification does mention “elastic piece damping shaft assemblies” can be used, this is just another generic placeholder without specifying the exact structure. Since neither the specification nor the drawing provide the exact structure of the first connection apparatus and the second connection apparatus, these terms fail to comply with the written description.
Claims 2-4 and 8-10 depends on claim 1.
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 1-4 and 8-10 are 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.
Claim 1 recites “satisfies a target angle”. This is unclear since it’s not a common term in the art. It is also unclear regarding “wherein: in response to the electronic device being in a first device attitude, the third body relative to a plane formed by the first body and the second body satisfies a target angle, and the target member is in a first state”. Examiner will interpret that target angle is defined by an angle formed between the third body relative to a plane formed by the first body and the second body.
Claim 1 further recites “in response to the electronic device being in a second device attitude, a plane formed by the third body and the second body relative to the first body satisfies the target angle, and the target member is in a second state and is configured to be used to support the second device attitude.” However, this limitation change the definition of the target angle to be defined by an angle formed between a plane formed by the third body and the second body relative to the first body. This is confusing, are there two target angles? If so, applicant should clearly define a first target angle and a second target angle.
Claims 2-4 and 8-10 depends on claim 1.
Claim 2 recites “wherein: in response to the electronic device being in the second device attitude, the target angle is an angle formed by the display area of the display”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the display area”. This should have been “a display area”. Furthermore, it’s unclear what is an angle formed by a display area. Angle should be measured between two surfaces, but only a display area is given in this limitation. Furthermore, didn’t claim 1 already defined that second device attitude means “a plane formed by the third body and the second body relative to the first body”? Thus, it’s unclear what this limitation is claiming.
Furthermore, Claim 2 also recites “…and in response to the electronic device being in the second device attitude, the target angle is an angle formed by the display area of the display assembly with the input surface of the first body”. Firstly, applicant already mentioned “in response to the electronic device being in the second device attitude” in the earlier limitation, so this is repeating and confusing. Secondly, angle should be formed between two surfaces. It’s unclear what applicant meant by “with”. Thirdly, there is lack of antecedent basis for “the input surface”.
Since claim 2 have too many indefinite issues. It cannot be examined at this time.
Claim 8 recites “the target member expands relative to the second body”. Based on the specification and drawing. The target member 5 do not “expand” relative to the second body 2, rather, one end of the target member 5 moves away from the second body 2. This is shown in Fig. 11. Since the target member do not actually “expands relative” to the second body, the limitation is indefinite. Further clarification is required.
Claims 9-10 depends on claim 8.
Claim 9 recites “the target member and the second body are closed and connected”. However, claim 8 clearly mentioned the target member “expands” or in other word “one end of the target member moves away”. Thus, claim 9 is contradicting with claim 8. Based on the specification, examiner will assume the limitation is “wherein: in response to the target member being in the first state, the target member and the second body are closed and connected.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-4 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhang (US 2025/0076930).
Regarding claim 1 as best understood, Zhang discloses an electronic device (Figs. 1-11) comprising:
a first body (200);
a second body (120) connected to the first body via a first connection apparatus (400), the first connection apparatus providing a first damping force for a rotation of the first body relative to the second body (not explicit, but inherent in order to provide different steady viewing angle of 130);
a third body (110) connected to the second body via a second connection apparatus (140), the second connection apparatus providing a second damping force for a rotation of the third body relative to the second body (not explicit, but inherent in order to provide different viewing angle of 130);
a display assembly (130) connected to the second body and the third body; and
a target member (300) having a first state (Fig. 2) and a second state (Figs. 7-8) different from the first state;
wherein:
in response to the electronic device being in a first device attitude (Fig. 2), the third body relative to a plane formed by the first body and the second body satisfies a target angle, and the target member is in the first state (as shown in Figs. 1-2);
in response to the electronic device being in a second device attitude (Figs. 7-8), a plane formed by the third body and the second body relative to the first body satisfies the target angle, and the target member is in the second state and is configured to be used to support the second device attitude (as shown in Figs. 7-8).
Regarding claim 3, Zhang discloses the electronic device to claim 1, and Zhang further discloses wherein:
in response to the electronic device being in the first device attitude, a first target area is formed by a contact position between the first body and a carrier surface and a contact position between the second body and the carrier surface (as shown in Figs. 1-2); and
in response the electronic device being in the second device attitude, a second target area is formed by a contact position between the target member in a second state and the carrier surface and a contact position between the first body and the carrier surface (as shown in Figs. 7-8).
Regarding claim 4, Zhang discloses the electronic device according to claim 3, and Zhang further discloses wherein:
in response to the electronic device being in the second device attitude, when the target angle of the plane formed by the third body and the second body relative to the first body is larger, the second target area is larger (self-explanatory from Figs. 7-8 by rotating 300 at different angle).
Regarding claim 8 as best understood, Zhang discloses the electronic device according to claim 1, and Zhang further discloses wherein:
the target member is connected to the second body (as shown in Figs. 5-8);
in response to the target member being in the first state, the target member contacts the second body (see Figs. 1-4 and 10-11); and
in response to the target member being in the second state, the target member expands relative to the second body (see Figs. 5-8 where one end of 300 moves away from the second body 120).
Regarding claim 9 as best understood, Zhang discloses the electronic device according to claim 8, and Zhang further discloses wherein: in response to the target member being in the first state, the target member and the second body are closed and connected (see Figs. 1-4 and 10).
Regarding claim 10, Zhang discloses the electronic device according to claim 8, and Zhang further discloses wherein an expanded angle between the target member and the second body is linked with the target angle of the second device attitude (as shown in Figs. 7-8).
Claims 1, 3-4 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Collins et al. (US 2020/0371563; hereinafter “Collins”).
Regarding claim 1 as best understood, Collins discloses an electronic device (Figs. 1-22) comprising:
a first body (118);
a second body (104+112) connected to the first body via a first connection apparatus (116, 152), the first connection apparatus providing a first damping force ([0034]: “…friction hinge…”) for a rotation of the first body relative to the second body;
a third body (102) connected to the second body via a second connection apparatus (110, 150), the second connection apparatus providing a second damping force ([0034]: “…friction hinge…”) for a rotation of the third body relative to the second body;
a display assembly (106+108) connected to the second body and the third body; and
a target member (120, 120a) having a first state (120 shown in Figs. 2-6) and a second state (120a shown in Fig. 17) different from the first state;
wherein:
in response to the electronic device being in a first device attitude (position of Figs. 2-6), the third body relative to a plane formed by the first body and the second body satisfies a target angle, and the target member is in the first state (Figs. 2-6);
in response to the electronic device being in a second device attitude (Fig. 11-13), a plane formed by the third body and the second body (102+104 in a plane in Figs. 11-13) relative to the first body satisfies the target angle, and the target member is in the second state and is configured to be used to support the second device attitude (note 102+104 in a plane from Figs. 11-13, 16 can have 120a rotate and support as shown in Fig. 17; [0093]).
Regarding claim 3, Collins discloses the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein:
in response to the electronic device being in the first device attitude, a first target area is formed by a contact position between the first body and a carrier surface and a contact position between the second body and the carrier surface (as shown in Figs. 2-6); and
in response the electronic device being in the second device attitude, a second target area is formed by a contact position between the target member in a second state and the carrier surface and a contact position between the first body and the carrier surface (as shown in Fig. 17).
Regarding claim 4, Collins discloses the electronic device according to claim 3, wherein:
in response to the electronic device being in the second device attitude, when the target angle of the plane formed by the third body and the second body relative to the first body is larger, the second target area is larger (note again that 102+104 in a plane from Figs. 12, 13, 16 can have 120a rotate at different angle and support as shown in Fig. 17).
Regarding claim 8 as best understood, Collins discloses the electronic device according to claim 1, and Collins further discloses wherein:
the target member is connected to the second body (as shown in Figs. 2-5);
in response to the target member being in the first state, the target member contacts the second body (as shown in Figs. 2-5); and
in response to the target member being in the second state, the target member expands relative to the second body (as shown in Figs. 11-13; note again 102+104 in a plane from Figs. 11-13, 16 can have 120a rotate and support as shown in Fig. 17; [0093]).
Regarding claim 9 as best understood, Collins discloses the electronic device according to claim 8, and Collins further discloses wherein: in response to the target member being in the first state, the target member and the second body are closed and connected (see Figs. 2-5).
Regarding claim 10, Collins discloses the electronic device according to claim 8, and Collins further discloses wherein an expanded angle between the target member and the second body is linked with the target angle of the second device attitude (as shown in Figs. In Figs. 11-13, 16; note again 102+104 in a plane from Figs. 11-13, 16 can have 120a rotate and support as shown in Fig. 17; [0093]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES WU whose telephone number is (571)270-7974. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00AM - 5:00PM.
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 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.
/JAMES WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights