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 .
Priorities
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2020-0156418, filed on 11/20/2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed on 03/26/2025; 06/24/2025; and 02/18/2026 have been acknowledged and considered by the examiner. An initialed copy of the PTO-1449 is included in this correspondence.
Claim Objections
Claim 32 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 32 should be amended to be dependent on claim 31 because claim 32 recites “the first expandable display area” and “the second expandable display area” which are recited in claim 31.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 21, 25, 27, 30, 34, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US Pub. 2022/0329687 A1).
Regarding claim 21; Kim teaches an electronic device (Figs. 1-3, a mobile terminal 100) comprising:
a housing (a housing 101, Fig.3);
a display (a display unit 151, Fig.3) comprising:
a main display area (e.g., Fig.11, a first fixed display 311a); and
at least one expandable display area (a first expansion display 311b, Fig.11) configured to expand from the main display area (Fig.11, para. [0146]), wherein the at least one expandable display area is configured to be hidden in the housing and/or viewable from outside based on a movement and/or position of at least part of the housing (Para. [0107-0110, Figs. 2 and 3, the first expansion display (e.g., 1513) is configured to be hidden in the housing (Fig.3(b)) or viewable from outside (Fig.3(b)) based on a movement of a roller 1028);
a communication module (a wireless communication unit 110, Fig.1) comprising communication circuitry (para. [0052, 0055, 0058]);
at least one processor (a controller 180, Fig.1), comprising processing circuitry, operatively connected to the display and the communication module (Fig.1, para. [0072-0074]);
memory (a memory 170, Fig.1); wherein the memory stores instructions executable by at least one processor individually and/or collectively (para. [0072]), to cause the electronic device to:
cause the display to display a first video content on the main display area while the at least one expandable display area is hidden in the housing (Fig.11(a), para. [0151-0152], the first fixed display 311a displays a video while the first expansion display 311b is hidden in the housing);
based on detecting a touch input on the main display area of the display (Fig.11, para. [0153], an option menu 374 is displayed to enable a user to expand the display),
determine an area (the option menu 374, Fig.11) on which the touch input is detected among a plurality of areas divided from the main display area (Fig.11, para. [0153], it is detected whether the option menu 374 is selected); determine an area of the at least one expandable display area to display a second video content corresponding to the determined area on which the touch input is detected (Fig.11(b), para. [0153], when the user clicks on the option menu 374, the first display 311 is expanded so as to be divided into the first fixed display 311a and the first expansion display 311b. Para. [0164-0168], Fig.15, Kim further discloses that the user may receive a video call notification 363 when the first display 311 is not extended. The user may extend the first display 311 to expose the first expansion display 311b to display the video call screen);
receive information related to the second video content from an external device (para. [0003, 0016, ], the video data is received from an external device (e.g., social network service)), via at least the communication circuitry (Fig.1, the wireless communication unit 110); and
when the determined area of the at least one expandable display area is exposed (e.g., Fig.15, the first expansion display 311b), cause the display to display the first video content on the main display area (Fig.11, the first fixed display 311a displays a first video) and display the second video content on the determined area of the at least one expandable display area (Fig.15, when the video call is receiving, the first expansion display 311b is configured to display the video call screen).
Regarding claim 25; Kim teaches the electronic device of claim 21 as discussed above. Kim further teaches that cause the display to display at least one visual object in each of the plurality of areas divided from the main display area, wherein each visual object indicates a corresponding expandable display area (Fig.13, para. [0157], a first option menu 376 is displayed enabling a determination as to whether to expand the display 311. As shown in Fig.13, the first option menu 376 indicates a direction to expand the display 311).
Regarding claim 27; Kim teaches the electronic device of claim 21 as discussed above. Kim further teaches that cause at least part of the housing to move so that the determined area of the at least one expandable display area is viewable (Fig.3, the frame 102 moves so as to expose the expansion portion 1513 which is corresponding to the first expansion portion 311b), and/or cause the display to display information to guide a user to expand the determined area of the at least one expandable display (Fig.13, the first option menu 376 is displayed to guide the user to expand the display 311 to expose the first expansion display 311b).
Regarding claim 30; Kim teaches a method of an electronic device, the electronic device comprising a housing, a display including a main display area viewable from outside the housing and at least one expandable display area configured to expand from the main display area, wherein the at least one expandable display area is configured to be hidden in the housing and/or viewable from outside based on a movement and/or position of at least part of the housing; the method comprising: displaying a first video content on the main display area while the at least one expandable display area is hidden in the housing; based on detecting a touch input on the main display area of the display, determining an area on which the touch input is detected among a plurality of areas divided from the main display area; determining one of the at least one expandable display area to display a second video content corresponding to the determined area on which the touch input is detected; receiving information related to the second video content from an external device; and when the determined one of the at least one expandable display area is viewable, displaying the first video content on the main display area and displaying the second video content on the determined one of the at least one expandable display area (similar to the analysis of claim 21 above).
Regarding claim 34; Kim teaches the method of claim 30 as discussed above. The limitation of claim 34 is substantially similar to claim 25. Accordingly, claim 34 is rejected based on the same analysis as claim 25 above.
Regarding claim 36; Kim teaches the method of claim 30 as discussed above. The limitation of claim 36 is substantially similar to claim 27. Accordingly, claim 36 is rejected based on the same analysis as claim 27 above.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 22, 24, 31, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US Pub. 2022/0329687 A1) in view of He et al. (US Pub. 2021/0044683 A1).
Regarding claim 22; Kim teaches the electronic device of claim 21 as discussed above. Kim does not teach that the at least one expandable display area comprises a first expandable display area configured to be expanded in a first direction from the main display area and a second expandable display area configured to be expanded in a second direction from the main display area, the first and second directions being different from each other.
He teaches the at least one expandable display area (Figs. 23-24, a mobile terminal comprises a display unit including a fixed portion 20 and two expansion portions 21 and 21’) comprises a first expandable display area (a first expansion portion 21, Fig.24) configured to be expanded in a first direction from the main display area (Fig.24, the first expansion portion 21 is expanded from a left side of the fixed portion 20) and a second expandable display area (a second expansion portion 21’, Fig.24) configured to be expanded in a second direction from the main display area (Fig.24, the second expansion portion 21’ is expanded from a right side of the fixed portion 20), the first and second directions being different from each other (see Fig.24).
At the time of invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the expandable display system of Kim to include the teaching of He of providing an expandable display system including two expansion portions to be expanded from a left side and a right side of the fixed portion. The motivation would have been in order to increase the size of the display panel and provide better user experience (He, para. [0002, 0106, and 0184]).
Regarding claim 24; Kim in view of He teaches the electronic device of claim 22 as discussed above. Kim further teaches the memory stores instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the electronic device (para. [0072]) to: cause at least part of the housing to move so that the first expandable display area is viewable (Fig.3), based on the determination whether to display the second video content on the first expandable display area (Fig.15, para. [0165], the first expandable display 311b is exposed to be viewable based on the determination that the mobile terminal is receiving a video call request).
Kim does not teach cause at least part of the housing to move so that the first expandable display area or the second expandable display area is viewable, based on the determination whether to display the second video content on the first expandable display area or the second expandable display area.
He teaches cause at least part of the housing to move so that the first expandable display area or the second expandable display area is viewable, based on the determination whether to display the content on the first expandable display area or the second expandable display area (see the analysis of claim 22 above, Figs.23-24, He discloses an expandable display system comprising a fixed portion 20; a first expansion portion 21, and a second expansion portion 21’. Each of expansion portions can be controlled to be expanded or retracted by activating a key or two keys (see para. [0051, 0159, 0164, and 0216-0218]). Therefore, He further teaches that the expandable display system is configured to hide or expose the first expansion portion 20 or the second expansion portion 21’ by activating the keys). The motivation is the same as the rejection of claim 22.
Regarding claim 31; Kim teaches the method of claim 30 as discussed above. The limitation of claim 31 is substantially similar to claim 22. Accordingly, claim 31 is rejected based on the same analysis as claim 22 above.
Regarding claim 33; Kim in view of He teaches the method of claim 31 as discussed above. The limitation of claim 33 is substantially similar to claim 24. Accordingly, claim 33 is rejected based on the same analysis as claim 24 above.
Claims 23 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US Pub. 2022/0329687 A1) in view of He et al. (US Pub. 2021/0044683 A1) as applied to claims 22 and 31 above; further in view of Ahn et al. (US Pub. 2022/0365562 A1).
Regarding claim 23; Kim in view of He teaches the electronic device of claim 22 as discussed above. Kim further teaches the memory (the memory 170, Fig.1) stores instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor (para. [0072]), cause the electronic device to: when the touch input is detected on a first area of the main display area (e.g., Fig.11, the touch input is detected on the option menu 374 which is adjacent to the first expansion display 311b. Similarly, Fig.13, a first option menu 376 is adjacent to the first expansion display 311b), determine the first expandable display area to display the second video content (see the analysis of claim 1).
Kim in view of He does not teach that when the touch input is adjacent to the first expandable display area.
Ahn teaches when the touch input is adjacent to the first expandable display area; determine the first expandable display area to display the second video content (Figs. 2 and 4, para. [0081-0082], an electronic device is configured to display a second icon 403 at a right edge of a display panel. When a user touches at the second icon 403, the display is expanded in a first direction).
At the time of invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the extendable display system of Kim in view of He to include the teaching of Ahn of displaying an icon at an edge of a display panel; detecting a touch input at the icon; and expanding the display from the edge of the display in the first direction. Accordingly, the expandable display system of Kim in view of He and Ahn would be configured to display a first icon at a first edge (e.g. left edge) and a second icon at a second edge (e.g., right edge); and expanding the display from the first edge or the second edge in response to a touch input at the first icon or the second icon. Therefore, the combination of Kim, He, and Ahn further teaches when the touch input is detected on a second area of the main display area adjacent to the second expandable display area, determine the second expandable display area to display the second video content. The motivation would have been in order to improve the user convenience (Ahn, para. [0011 and 0182]).
Regarding claim 32; Kim in view of He teaches the method of claim 31 as discussed above. The limitation of claim 32 is substantially similar to claim 23. Accordingly, claim 32 is rejected based on the same analysis as claim 23 above.
Claims 26 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US Pub. 2022/0329687 A1) in view of Mao et al. (US Pub. 2025/0165209 A1).
Regarding claim 26; Kim teaches the electronic device of claim 25 as discussed above. Kim further teaches cause the display to display the at least one visual object, based on a communication with the external device is started (Fig.13, the first option menu 376 is displayed based on a video call operation).
Kim does not teach screen sharing.
Mao teaches screen sharing (In the abstract, para. [0003-0006, 0012, 0016, 0020, and 0026], Mao discloses a method of performing a video call with adding a screen sharing feature).
At the time of invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the expandable display system of Kim to include the teaching of Mao of adding a screen sharing feature in a video call. Accordingly, in the expandable display system of Kim as modified by Mao, the display 311 would be configured to display a first option menu to expand the display 311 to expose the expansion display 311b during a video call with a screen sharing function. The motivation would have been in order to improve the user experience (Mao, para. [0006]).
Regarding claim 35; Kim teaches the method of claim 34 as discussed above. The limitation of claim 35 is substantially similar to claim 26. Accordingly, claim 351 is rejected based on the same analysis as claim 26 above.
Claims 28 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US Pub. 2022/0329687 A1) in view of Park et al. (US Pub. 2014/0232648 A1).
Regarding claim 28; Kim teaches the electronic device of claim 21 as discussed above. Kim does not teach receive information on display orientation of the second video content from the external device, and determine orientation of the second video content based on the received information.
Park teaches receive information on display orientation of the content from the external device, and determine orientation of the content based on the received information (Figs. 4a and 4b; para. [0068-0073 and 0088], Park discloses a method of transmitting content from a mobile device 100 to a display apparatus 200; and displaying the content on the display apparatus 200. The mobile device 100 is configured to track an orientation of the mobile device 100 using a sensor; and send the content along with the orientation to the display apparatus 200. The display apparatus 200 is configured to display the content according to the orientation in which the mobile device 100 is placed (see Fig.4b)).
At the time of invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the expandable display system of Kim to include the teaching of Park’648 of displaying content on a display apparatus according to an orientation which a mobile device is placed. The motivation would have been in order to intuitively share video content.
Regarding claim 37; Kim teaches the method of claim 30 as discussed above. The limitation of claim 37 is substantially similar to claim 28. Accordingly, claim 37 is rejected based on the same analysis as claim 28 above.
Claims 29 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US Pub. 2022/0329687 A1) in view of Oh et al. (US Patent No. 10,963,016).
Regarding claim 29; Kim teaches the electronic device of claim 21 as discussed above. Kim does not teach determine a screen size for displaying the first video content and the second video content based on at least one of sizes or aspect ratios of the first video content and the second video content, and cause at least part of the housing to move so that the at least one expandable display area is viewable, based on the determined screen size.
Oh teaches that determine a screen size for displaying the first video content and the second video content based on at least one of sizes or aspect ratios of the first video content and the second video content, and cause at least part of the housing to move so that the at least one expandable display area is viewable, based on the determined screen size (Fig.4, col.10||36-67, col.11||1-67, col.12||1-3; Oh discloses a method of displaying a first content on a first area 441; and displaying a second content on a second area 442 which is an extended area. The first content has a predetermined size corresponding to the first area 441. The size of the extended second area 442 is determined according to a size of the second content which is determined in advance. In other words, a third size (e.g., in case of numeral 4e) would be determined according to the sizes of the first content and the second content).
At the time of invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the expandable display system of Kim to include the teaching of Oh of determining a screen size of an expanded display area based on a size of a second content. The motivation would have been in order to fully display content in the expansion display portion.
Regarding claim 38; Kim teaches the method of claim 30 as discussed above. The limitation of claim 38 is substantially similar to claim 29. Accordingly, claim 38 is rejected based on the same analysis as claim 29 above.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGUYEN H TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1630. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10-6.
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, Chanh Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-7772. 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.
/NGUYEN H TRUONG/Examiner, Art Unit 2623
/CHANH D NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2623
Prosecution Insights