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 .
Priority
This application is a continuation of U.S. application No. 18/439,595, filed on 02/12/2024, now US patent No. 12,282,360; which is a continuation of U.S. application 18/157,649, filed on 01/20/2023, now US patent No. 11,971,753; and which is a continuation of U.S. application No. 17/322,762, filed on 05/17/2021, now US patent No. 11,586,251; which is a continuation of U.S. application No. 16/797,424, filed on 02/21/2020, now US patent No. 11,044,822; and which is a continuation of U.S. application No. 15/840,750, filed on 12/13/2017, now US patent No. 10,602,623.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed on 03/20/2025 has been considered and made of record.
Oath/Declaration
The oath/declaration filed on 03/20/2025 is acceptable.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 16, 17 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11, 1, 2 and 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,044,822. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 1, The [US 11,044,822] discloses an electronic device, comprising:
a housing (Claim 11, line 2);
a roller in the housing (Claim 11, line 3);
a flexible display coupled to the roller and configured be partially rolled around the roller in a rolled state and to be unrolled from the roller in an unrolled state (Claim 11, lines 4-6); and
support structures that are configured to maintain the flexible display at an angle relative to the housing when the flexible display is in the unrolled state (Claim 11, lines 9-12).
These features as claimed are disclosed in the claim 11 of the US patent No. 11,044,822.
Regarding claim 16, The [US 11,044,822] discloses an electronic device, comprising:
a first housing portion (claim 1, line 2);
a second housing portion (claim 1, line 2) that is configured to extend relative to the first housing portion;
a roller in the first housing portion (claim 1, line 5);
a flexible display coupled to the roller (claim 1, line 6) and configured be rolled around the roller to move from an unrolled state to a rolled state (claim 1, lines 8-9); and
a window between the first housing portion and the second housing portion (claim 1, lines 3-4), wherein the flexible display is visible through the window in the rolled state (claim 1, lines 14-17).
These features as claimed are disclosed in the claim 1 of the US patent No. 11,044,822.
Regarding claim 17, The [US 11,044,822] discloses wherein the flexible display has edges, the electronic device further comprising: support structures that run along the edges of the flexible display (claim 2 of the US patent No. 11,044,822).
This feature as claimed is disclosed in the claim 2 of the US patent No. 11,044,822.
Regarding claim 18, The [US 11,044,822] discloses wherein the support structures are bistable and are configured to wrap around the roller when the flexible display is in the rolled state (claim 3 of the US patent No. 11,044,822).
This feature as claimed is disclosed in the claim 3 of the US patent No. 11,044,822.
Claims 11, 12, 13 and 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims (17 & 20), 17, 18 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,971,753. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 11, The [US 11,971,753] discloses a foldable electronic device having a front and a rear, comprising:
a first housing portion (claim 17, line 3);
a second housing portion that bends relative to the first housing portion about a first bend axis (claim 17, lines 4-5);
a third housing portion that bends relative to the second housing portion about a second bend axis (claim 17, lines 6-7);
a flexible display coupled to the first, second, and third housing portions, wherein the flexible display is movable between an unfolded planar state and a folded state, wherein the first, second, and third housing portions are planar when the flexible display is in the unfolded planar state, and wherein the first, second, and third housing portions are folded in a trifold configuration when the flexible display is in the folded state (claim 17, lines 8-15); and
hinge detents configured to maintain the first, second, and third housing portions in place when the flexible display is in the folded state (claim 20 of the US 11,971,753).
These features as claimed are disclosed in the claims (17 & 20) of the US patent No. 11,971,753.
Regarding claim 12, The [US 11,971,753] further discloses a bistable support structure coupled to the first, second, and third housing portions (claim 17 of the US 11,971,753).
This feature as claimed is disclosed in the claim 17 of the US patent No. 11,971,753.
Regarding claim 13, The [US 11,971,753] discloses wherein the flexible display faces the front in the unfolded planar state (claim 18 of the US 11,971,753).
This feature as claimed is disclosed in the claim 18 of the US patent No. 11,971,753.
Regarding claim 14, The [US 11,971,753] discloses wherein first and third portions of the flexible display that respectively overlap the first and third housing portions face the front in the folded state, and wherein a second portion of the flexible display that overlaps the second housing portion faces the rear in the folded state (claim 19 of the US 11,971,753).
This feature as claimed is disclosed in the claim 19 of the US patent No. 11,971,753.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-10, 15 and 19-20 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:
The claim 2 discloses the combination features of “wherein a portion of the flexible display is visible when the flexible display is in the rolled state.” These features, in conjunction with other features, as claimed in the claim 1, were neither found to be disclosed, nor suggested by the prior art of records. Claims 3-10 depend on the allowed claim 2.
The claim 15 discloses the combination features of “magnets in the first, second, and third housing portions that are configured to maintain the first, second, and third housing portions in place when the flexible display is in the folded state.” These features, in conjunction with other features, as claimed in the claim 11, were neither found to be disclosed, nor suggested by the prior art of records.
The claim 19 discloses the combination features of “wherein the first and second housing portions are configured to contact each other when the flexible display is in the rolled state.” These features, in conjunction with other features, as claimed in the claim 16, were neither found to be disclosed, nor suggested by the prior art of records. Claim 20 depends on the allowed claim 19.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hung S. Bui whose telephone number is (571)272-2102. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 8am-5pm.
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 on (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.
/HUNG S. BUI/Primary Patent Examiner, 2841/2800
Prosecution Insights