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 .
This communication is in response to the claims dated 1/17/2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: double occurrences of numeral “14” for claims 14. The Examiner treats the first occurrence of “14” as “13. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the first heat-dissipation sheet” and “the second heat-dissipation sheet" in claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam et al. U.S. Pub. 2021/0255664 (hereinafter D1) in view of FENG U.S. Pub. 2024/0040723 (hereinafter D2).
Regarding claim 1, D1 teaches an electronic device (1000; figure 1A) comprising:
a housing (1000A; figure 1A) comprising a first housing (1000A1; figure 1A) and a second housing (1000A3; figure 1A);
a flexible display (100; figure 2) disposed on the housing;
at least one heat-dissipation sheet (720; figure 2) disposed between the first housing and the flexible display (100); and
a cushion member (510 + 530; figure 2), comprising a deformable material configured to absorb an impact, disposed between the second housing and the flexible display, wherein the cushion member comprises:
a first cushion member (530; figure 2) at least a portion of which is disposed between at least a portion of a folding section (1000A2; figure 1A) and the flexible display and is spaced apart from the flexible display by a first distance (see figure 2 of D1); and a
second cushion member (510; figure 2) disposed adjacent (vertically adjacent) to the first cushion member and spaced apart from the flexible display by a second distance (see figure 2 of D1) less than the first distance.
However, D1 does not specifically teach a hinge structure, comprising a hinge, rotatably connecting the first housing and the second housing.
D2, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a foldable display device (10; figures 1-2), comprising a hinge structure (200; figures 3-5) rotatably connecting the first housing (120; figure 1) and the second housing (120; figure 1).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide the electronic device of D1 with a hinge structure, comprising a hinge, rotatably connecting the first housing and the second housing, as suggested by D2, for stably folding/unfolding said first/second housing of said device.
Regarding claim 2, the modification of D1/D2 would result in the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the first cushion member (530; figure 2 of D1) is disposed between the at least one heat-dissipation sheet (720; figure 2 of D1) and the second cushion member (510; figure 2 of D1) based on the electronic device being in an unfolded state.
Regarding claim 3, as mentioned above, D1/D2 teaches the electronic device of one of claim 1.
Even though, D1/D2 does not specifically teach that a thickness of the first cushion member is less than a thickness of the second cushion member, however, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to derive a thickness of the first cushion member is less than a thickness of the second cushion member, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component, to derive desired arrangement of internal components. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 4, D1/D2 teaches the electronic device of claim 1,further comprising: a gap adjustment member comprising a tape (520; figure 2 of D1) bonded to at least a portion of the first cushion member (530; figure 2 of D1) and facing at least a portion of the flexible display.
Regarding claim 5, as mentioned above, D1/D2 teaches the electronic device of claim 1.
Even though, D1/D2 does not specifically teach that the first cushion member and the second cushion member are integrally formed, however, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to integrally form said first/second cushion members, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formally been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art, to minimize part(s) assembly. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
Regarding claim 6, D1/D2 teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the at least one heat-dissipation sheet comprises: a first heat-dissipation sheet (722; figure 2 of D1); and a second heat-dissipation sheet (723; figure 2 of D1) spaced apart (by gap tape 724; figure 2 of D1) from the first heat-dissipation sheet and having a thickness (see figure 2 of D1) substantially equal (see figure 2 of D1) to a thickness of the first heat-dissipation sheet.
Regarding claim 7, D1/D2 teaches the electronic device of claim 1, further comprising: a first adhesive member (620 + 630 + 1040; figure 2 of D1) comprising an adhesive (620; figure 2 of D1) disposed between the first heat-dissipation sheet (610; figure 2 of D1) and the second heat-dissipation sheet (710; figure 2 of D1) and configured to bond the first heat-dissipation sheet and the second heat-dissipation sheet.
Regarding claim 8, D1/D2 teaches the electronic device of claim 7, wherein the first adhesive member comprises a pressure-sensitive adhesive PSA (implicitly taught).
Regarding claim 9, D1/D2 teaches the electronic device of claim 7, wherein the first adhesive member comprises: a first adhesive layer (620; figure 2 of D1) disposed on a surface (lower surface of 610; figure 2 of D1) of the first heat-dissipation sheet (610; figure 2 of D1) facing the second heat-dissipation sheet (710; figure 2 of D1); and a second adhesive layer (1040; figure 2 of D1) disposed on a surface (upper surface of 1040; figure 2 of D1) of the second heat-dissipation sheet (1040; figure 2 of D1) facing the first heat-dissipation sheet (610), and wherein the electronic device further comprises a film layer (630; figure 2 of D1) disposed between the first adhesive layer and the second adhesive layer.
Regarding claim 10, as mentioned above, D1/D2 teaches the electronic device of claim 9.
Even though, D1/D2 does not specifically mention that the film layer comprises a polyimide film, however, D1 does disclose polyimide film is being used as a film layer at a different location (see par[0135]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use polyimide film as the material for the film layer (as recited in claim 10) of D1/D2, as suggested by D1, for achieving temperature stability, electrical isolation and flexibility.
Regarding claim 11, D1/D2 teaches the electronic device of claim 1, further comprising: a second adhesive member (1030; figure 2) comprising an adhesive (1030) disposed between the first cushion member (530; figure 2 of D1) and the flexible display (100; figure 2 of D1) and configured to bond the first cushion member (530; figure 2 of D1) and at least a portion of the flexible display.
Regarding claim 12, D1/D2 teaches the electronic device of claim 11, wherein the second adhesive material comprises a pressure-sensitive adhesive (PSA) (implicitly taught).
Regarding claim 14, as mentioned above, D1/D2 teaches the electronic device of claim 11.
Even though, D1/D2 does not specifically teach wherein a thickness of the second adhesive member is substantially equal to the first distance, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to derive such thickness for the second adhesive member, to serve as an additional cushion, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 14, D1/D2 teaches the electronic device of clain1, further comprising: at least one cover (380; figure 2 of D1; see par[0105] of D1) disposed on at least a portion of the at least one heat-dissipation sheet.
Regarding claim 15, D1/D2 teaches the electronic device of claim 14, further comprising: a third adhesive member (1010; figure 2 of D1; see par[0183] of D1) comprising an adhesive disposed between the at least one cover (380) and the flexible display (100) and configured to bond the at least one cover and at least a portion of the flexible display.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNG Q DANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3069. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6PM..
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, Imani N Hayman can be reached at 571-270-5528. 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.
/HUNG Q DANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 2841
/ANTHONY M HAUGHTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights