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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 27, 2025 has been considered by the examiner.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 11-13, 15-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (USPGPUB 2021/0150953—hereinafter “Lee”).
Claims 1, 11 and 16 are drawn to an electronic device and a method of operating an electronic device and a non-transitory storage medium. Claims 1, 11 and 16 recite the same invention in different statutory formats and thus are considered together below.
As to Claims 1, 11 and 16, Lee teaches an electronic device (Fig. 1 at 101) comprising:
a flexible display (Pg.1, ¶ 2);
at least one sensor (Pg. 11, ¶ 166 and Pg. 14, ¶’s 200-201);
at least one processor (Fig. 1 at 120); and
a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively (Fig. 1 at 130), cause the electronic device:
display, via the flexible display, a first window of an application (Fig. 8 at 850) in an entire display area that includes a first display area (Fig. 8 at 810) and a second display area (Fig. 8 at 820) in a state in which the display is unfolded (Fig. 8 at 801 an Pg. 9, ¶ 139);
display, via the flexible display, a second window (Fig. 8 at 860) to partially overlay at least a portion of the first window (Fig. 8 at 850), based on an input for displaying the second window (Pg. 9, ¶ 139);
detect a folding event of the flexible display using the at least one sensor (Pg. 9, ¶ 140, Pg. 11, ¶ 166 and Pg. 14, ¶’s 200-201); and
in response to the detection of the folding event, display, via the flexible display, the first window in the first display area and the second window in the second display area in a state in which the display is at least partially folded, the first display area and the second display area being separate from each other and divided by a folding in the flexible display (See Fig. 8 at 803 and Pgs. 9-10, ¶’s 139-145).
As to Claims 2, 12 and 17, Lee teaches controlling the first window based on a first interaction input into the flexible display in a designated direction (Pg. 5, ¶ 93; reads on touch via z-axis direction); and controlling the second window based on a second interaction input into the flexible display in the designated direction or a different direction than the designated direction (Pg. 9, ¶ 142 – “may differently operate UIs related to respective objects 850, 860, and 870…”).
As to Claims 3, 13 and 18, Lee teaches that in the state in which the flexible display is unfolded, the first window or the second window is in an active state in which an interaction input is enabled, and wherein, in the state in which the flexible display is at least partially folded, each of the first window and the second window is in the active state in which the interaction input is enabled (Pg. 7, ¶ 116 and Pg. 9, ¶ 138).
As to Claims 4, Lee teaches that in response to the detection of the folding event, separately display the first window in the first display area of the flexible display and the second window in the second display area of the flexible display based on a hinge of the flexible display (See Fig. 8 at 803, Fig. 9 at 903, Fig. 15 at 1503 and Fig. 18 at 1803 and Pg. 11, ¶ 166-167, Pg. 14, ¶ 200, Pg. 15, ¶ 207, and Pg. 17, ¶ 246).
As to Claims 6, 15 and 20, Lee teaches detecting a folding event of the flexible display (See Fig. 8 at 803, Fig. 9 at 903, Fig. 15 at 1503 and Fig. 18 at 1803); in response to the detection of the folding event, identify whether the first window and the second window enable different interaction inputs (Pg. 9, ¶ 142 – “may differently operate UIs related to respective objects 850, 860, and 870…”); and in response to the identification of the first window and the second window enabling different interaction inputs, separately display the first window in the first display area of the flexible display and the second window in the second display area of the flexible display (See Fig. 8 at 803).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 5, 14 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Yang (USPGPUB 2016/0139685—hereinafter “Yang”).
As to Claims 5, 14 and 19, Lee fails to teach that the first window corresponds to an execution screen of the application, and the second window comprises content associated with the execution screen of the application. Examiner cites Yang to teach an electronic device (Fig. 5C at 501) having a first window that corresponds to an execution screen of an application (Fig. 5C at 523 and Pg. 6, ¶’s 86- 87), and a second window which comprises content associated with the execution screen of the application (Fig. 5C at 521). At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the ability to display an execution screen and a content screen on separate windows, as taught by Yang, in the electronic device/method/non-transitory storage medium taught by Lee, in order to easily control content (Pg. 6, ¶ 87).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Ricci (USPGPUB 2019/0288916—hereinafter “Ricci”).
As to Claims 9, Lee fails to teach that in a state in which the first window of the application comprises a first area and a second area enabling different interaction inputs, the instructions are further configured to, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to: control the first area based on a first interaction input into the flexible display in a designated direction; and control the second area based on a second interaction input into the flexible display in a different direction than the designated direction. Examiner cites Ricci to teach an electronic device wherein in a state in which a first window of the application comprises a first area (Fig. 2C at 240a) and a second area (Fig. 2C at 240b) enabling different interaction inputs, the instructions are further configured to, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to: control the first area based on a first interaction input into the flexible display in a designated direction (Fig. 2C at 268); and control the second area based on a second interaction input into the flexible display in a different direction than the designated direction (Fig. 2D at 268). At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the ability to control two input areas as stated above, as taught by Ricci, in the electronic device taught by Lee, in order to control GUI’s (Pg. 10, ¶’s 87-88).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8 and 10 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: As to Claim 7, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest, either alone or in combination “The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the instructions are further configured to, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to: detect a folding event of the flexible display; in response to the detection of the folding event, identify whether the first window of the application displayed in the state in which the flexible display is unfolded comprises two areas enabling different interaction inputs, respectively; and in response to the identification of the first window comprising the two areas enabling different interaction inputs, divide an entire area of the flexible display into the first display area and the second display area according to a position of the folding.” (As claimed, emphasis added)
As to Claim 8, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest, either alone or in combination “The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the instructions are further configured to, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to: detect a folding event of the flexible display; in response to the detection of the folding event, identify whether the first window of the application displayed in the state in which the flexible display is unfolded comprises a first area and a second area enabling different interaction inputs, and in response to the identification of the first window comprising the first area and the second area enabling different interaction inputs, separately display the first area in the first display area and the second area in the second display area divided by the folding, in the state in which the flexible display is at least partially folded. (As claimed, emphasis added)
As to Claim 10, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest, either alone or in combination “The electronic device of claim 1, wherein in a state in which the flexible display is in an unfolded states and a first area of the first window is controlled based on a first interaction input in a designated direction, and a second area of the first window is controlled based on a second interaction input in a direction different than the designated direction, the instructions are further configured to, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to separately display the first area controlled based on the first interaction input in the designated direction in the first display area and the second area controlled based on the second interaction input in a different direction than the designated direction in the second display area divided by the folding, in a state in which the flexible display is at least partially folded.” (As claimed, emphasis added)
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY AMADIZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7762. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs; 9AM - 5PM EST.
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, Patrick Edouard can be reached at 571-272-7603. 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.
/RODNEY AMADIZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622