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 extended display protective layer extends beyond the extension portion of the cover layer to cover at least a portion of the gap” in claim 3.
“wherein the perimeter adhesive portion located adjacent a first side wall of the opposing side walls is configured to flex towards the first side wall when at least one of the first non-folding region or the second non-folding region are rotated about the folding region to orient the foldable electronic device in a closed status” in claim 8.
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to because:
Fig. 4 shows two “foldable display structure 306”. It appears the right “306” is wrong.
Fig. 4 also shows “display panel 320”, but it does not look like a display panel.
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, 2 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 2 and 8 recite “the opposing side walls and opposing end walls”, which should have been “the opposing side walls and the opposing end walls”.
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: “the perimeter adhesive portion located adjacent a first side wall of the opposing side walls is configured to flex towards the first side wall when at least one of the first non-folding region or the second non-folding region are rotated about the folding region to orient the foldable electronic device in a closed status” in claim 8.
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 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 8 is 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 8 (invoked 112f) recites “the perimeter adhesive portion located adjacent a first side wall of the opposing side walls is configured to flex towards the first side wall when at least one of the first non-folding region or the second non-folding region are rotated about the folding region to orient the foldable electronic device in a closed status.”. It’s unclear how the perimeter adhesive portion perform the function of flex when in a closed status. Neither the specification nor the drawing provide adequate explanation to perform this function. Furthermore, there are voids in between the perimeter adhesive portion at the folding region. Thus, claim 8 is unclear and indefinite. In order to examine this application, this particular limitation will not be considered.
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 1-5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art in Fig. 1 (hereinafter “AAPA”) in view of Malon et al. (US 9,674,922; hereinafter “Malon”).
Regarding claim 1, AAPA teaches a foldable electronic device (Fig. 1) comprising:
a housing (104) comprising:
opposing side walls (top and bottom side walls of 104 in Fig. 1);
opposing end walls (left and right side walls of 104 in Fig. 1);
a bottom (bottom of 104 in Fig. 1) that interconnects the opposing side walls and opposing end walls;
a display recess (recess of 104 for 112 and other components shown in Fig. 1) defined between the opposing side walls, opposing end walls, and a bottom of the housing, the display recess includes a ledge (ledge of 104 where 124 is seating on as shown in Fig. 1) that inwardly projects from at least one of the opposing side walls or the opposing end walls;
a folding region ([0018]: “…an example prior art foldable electronic device 102… When a foldable display is folded…”) that intersects a first non-folding region and a second non-folding region, at least one of the first non-folding region or the second non-folding region configured to rotate about the folding region (these are all inherent for foldable display);
a foldable display structure (structure in the display recess as shown in Fig. 1) positioned in the display recess within at least portions of the first non-folding region of the housing and the second non-folding region of the housing, the foldable display structure comprising:
a display panel (106) having a top face (top 106), a bottom face (bottom 106) opposite the top face, and a plurality of light-emitting pixels (inherently inside 102 in order to display pictures) disposed in the display panel; and
a cover layer (110) positioned as a topmost layer of the foldable display structure, the cover layer having a top face and a bottom face (top and bottom face of 110);
a back adhesive portion (108) disposed between the bottom face of the display panel and the bottom of the housing; and
a perimeter adhesive portion (124) disposed between a bezel (122) and the ledge.
AAPA does not teach the cover layer including a variable thickness along at least one dimension; the bottom face of the cover layer having an area larger than an area of the top face of the display panel to define an extension portion that extends beyond one or more edges of the display panel; the perimeter adhesive portion disposed between the extension portion of the cover layer and the ledge. Malon teaches a cover layer (202, Fig. 4) including a variable thickness along at least one dimension (as shown at 226 of 202 in Fig. 4); a bottom face of the cover layer (bottom of 202, Fig. 4) having an area larger than an area of a top face (top of 204) of a display panel (204, Fig. 4) to define an extension portion (extension portion of 202 not overlapping 204 shown in Fig. 4) that extends beyond one or more edges of the display panel; a perimeter adhesive portion (228, Fig. 4) disposed between the extension portion of the cover layer and a ledge (230, Fig. 4) of a housing (104, Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the cover layer including a variable thickness along at least one dimension; the bottom face of the cover layer having an area larger than an area of the top face of the display panel to define an extension portion that extends beyond one or more edges of the display panel; the perimeter adhesive portion disposed between the extension portion of the cover layer and the ledge in AAPA, as taught by Malon, in order to provide a bezel-less display that provides immersive viewing experience for the user.
Regarding claim 2, AAPA in view of Malon teaches the foldable electronic device of claim 1, and AAPA further teaches wherein the opposing side walls and opposing end walls of the housing define a housing rim (rim of 104 in Fig. 1).
AAPA does not teach a gap defined between the housing rim and the edges of the display panel, wherein the foldable electronic device lacks a bezel that covers the gap. However, Malon further teaches a gap (see gap between 108 and 204 in Fig. 4) defined between a housing rim (108, Fig. 4) and edges of the display panel (204), wherein the foldable electronic device lacks a bezel that covers the gap (as shown in Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a gap defined between the housing rim and the edges of the display panel, wherein the foldable electronic device lacks a bezel that covers the gap in AAPA in view of Malon, as taught by Malon, in order to provide a bezel-less display that provide immersive viewing experience for the user
Regarding claim 3, AAPA in view of Malon teaches the foldable electronic device of claim 2. AAPA does not teach an extended display protective layer positioned on the display panel, the extended display protective layer extends beyond the extension portion of the cover layer to cover at least a portion of the gap. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an extended display protective layer positioned on the display panel, the extended display protective layer extends beyond the extension portion of the cover layer to cover at least a portion of the gap in AAPA in view of Malon, since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, an extended display protective layer can prevent dust or other foreign material from gathering into the gap, and this yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 4, AAPA in view of Malon teaches the foldable electronic device of claim 1. AAPA does not teach a first void defined in the perimeter adhesive portion at a first side of the folding region, the first void defined between a first end of the perimeter adhesive portion and a second end of the perimeter adhesive portion; and a second void defined in the perimeter adhesive portion at a second side of the folding region, the second void defined between a third end of the perimeter adhesive portion and a fourth end of the perimeter adhesive portion. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a first void defined in the perimeter adhesive portion at a first side of the folding region, the first void defined between a first end of the perimeter adhesive portion and a second end of the perimeter adhesive portion; and a second void defined in the perimeter adhesive portion at a second side of the folding region, the second void defined between a third end of the perimeter adhesive portion and a fourth end of the perimeter adhesive portion in AAPA in view of Malon, since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the two voids are just at the folding regions, and not having the perimeter adhesive portion at the voids yields predictable results of stress-relief for the cover layer when folded, and this does not provide any unexpected results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 5, AAPA in view of Malon teaches the foldable electronic device of claim 1, and AAPA further teaches wherein the back adhesive portion comprises at least one of: a first back adhesive portion (left 108, Fig. 1) disposed between the bottom face of the display panel and the bottom of the housing on a first side of the folding region in the first non-folding region (as shown in Fig. 1); or a second back adhesive portion (not explicitly shown, but same as what is shown in Fig. 1, but on the right side of 102 instead) disposed between the bottom face of the display panel and the bottom of the housing on a second side of the folding region in the second non-folding region.
Regarding claim 8 as best understood, AAPA in view of Malon teaches the foldable electronic device of claim 1, and AAPA further teaches the opposing side walls and opposing end walls of the housing define a housing rim (rim of 104 in Fig. 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Re claims 6-7, prior arts do not teach or suggest the combination of the foldable electronic device of claim 6, in particular, a sealing material is positioned to limit an ingress of contaminants into at least one of the first or second non-folding regions of the housing, the sealing material extends between at least one of: a first end of the perimeter adhesive portion and the first back adhesive portion; a second end of the perimeter adhesive portion and the second back adhesive portion; a third end of the perimeter adhesive portion and the first back adhesive portion; or a fourth end of the perimeter adhesive portion and the second back adhesive portion.
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