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, “flexible printed board, FPC” (Claim 3, ln. 3-4), “FPC of the flexible screen” (Claim 6, ln. 1-2, in particular “FPC … connected to the mainboard of the foldable display device through the second hinge”), “flexible circuit board FPC” (Claim 8, ln. 2), “buffer layer” (Claim 10, line 2), “the shape of the first bent part of the flexible screen is a water-drop shape” (Claim 12, line 2), and “flexible circuit board FPC” (Claim 15) must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered. Figure 6 (a) shows a water drop shape; however, when compared to fig. 2, such shape should correspond to the second bent part (internal folding between second and third flat parts 602 and 603) rather than the first bent part 604 (external folding between first and second flat parts 601 and 602) as claimed.
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 12 and 18-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12, in lines 1-2, recites “wherein the foldable display device is in a folded state, a shape of the first bent part of the flexible screen is a water-drop shape”. It should read: wherein when the foldable display device is in a folded state, a shape of the first bent part of the flexible screen is a water-drop shape.
Claim 18, in line 1, recites “the front-facing camera is disposed”. It should read: the front-facing camera module is disposed.
Claim 19, in line 3, recites: “the first magnet and the second magnet are mutually adsorbed”. It should read: “and the first magnet and the second magnet are mutually attracted”. Alternatively, if Applicant intends to define a particular meaning to the term “adsorbed” other than its ordinary meaning, it should explicitly indicate so.
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.
Claims 2, 6, 9-12, and 14-15 are 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 2 recites the limitation “the thickness of the first housing is the same as the thickness of the second housing” in lines 1-2 . This limitation is confusing because it conflicts with the limitation “the thickness of the first housing is different from the thickness of the second housing” recited in lines 25-26 of claim 1, which claim 2 depends on. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be read as: the thickness of the first housing is not the same as the thickness of the second housing.
(Note an amendment to this end would present an issue under 112(d))
Claim 6 recites the limitation “The foldable display device according to claim 1, the FPC of the flexible screen is connected to the mainboard of the foldable display device through the second hinge" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination the limitation will be read as: The foldable display device according to claim 3, the FPC of the flexible display is connected to the mainboard of the foldable display device through the second hinge.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the flexible screen further comprises a first bending part and a second bending part” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination the limitation will be read as: the flexible display further comprises a first bending part and a second bending part.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “wherein the screen of the first folding part has a buffer layer” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination the limitation will be read as: wherein the first bending part of the flexible display has a buffer layer.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “The foldable display device according to claim 9, wherein the thickness of the first flat part, the thickness of the second flat part, and the thickness of the third flat part” in lines 1-2. This limitation is confusing because it lists multiple elements but terminates abruptly without providing a structural, functional or comparative relationship; that is it does not further limit claim 9. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination the limitation will be read as: The foldable display device according to claim 9, wherein the thickness of the first flat part, the thickness of the second flat part, and the thickness of the third flat part is the same.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “wherein the foldable display device is in a folded state, a shape of the first bent part of the flexible screen is a water-drop shape” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, it is not clear how the first bent part would fold to have the claimed water-drop shape (see drawing rejection above). For the purposes of examination the limitation will be read as: wherein when the foldable display device is in a folded state, a shape of the second bent part of the flexible display is a water-drop shape.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the chip is disposed at a position that is in the third housing and away from the frame of the third housing, and is electrically connected to the main board of the foldable display device” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination the limitation will be read as: the chip is disposed at a position that is in the third housing and away from a frame of the third housing, and is electrically connected to a main board of the foldable display device.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the chip and the flexible circuit board FPC of the flexible screen do not overlap in a thickness direction” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination the limitation will be read as: the chip and a flexible circuit board FPC of the flexible display do not overlap in a thickness direction.
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 1-2, 7, 9, 11, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 20200366770 A1, and Kim ‘770 hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 1, Kim ‘770 discloses a foldable display device, comprising:
a first housing (210, fig. 2A),
a second housing (220, fig. 2A),
a third housing (230, fig. 2A),
a first hinge (261, fig. 2A),
a second hinge (262, fig. 2A),
a flexible display (240, figs. 2A and 4),
at least one front-facing camera module (214, fig. 2A), at least one rear-facing camera module (256, fig. 2B), and wherein:
two opposite ends of the first hinge are respectively connected to the first housing and the second housing (fig. 2A), two opposite ends of the second hinge are respectively connected to the second housing and the third housing (fig. 2A), and the flexible display is connected to the first housing, the second housing, and the third housing (figs. 2A, 2C, and 4);
the first hinge is capable of deforming for folding or unfolding of the first housing relative to the second housing (fig. 4), and the second hinge is capable of deforming for folding or unfolding of the second housing relative to the third housing (fig. 4), wherein the first hinge is an outward-foldable hinge (fig. 4), and the second is an inward-foldable hinge (fig. 4);
the flexible display comprises a first flat part (DA1, fig. 2A), a second flat part (DA2, fig. 2A), and a third flat part (DA3, fig. 2A), the first flat part is connected to the first housing (fig. 4), the second flat part is connected to the second housing (fig. 4), and the third flat part is connected to the third housing (fig. 4), and when the foldable display device is in a folded state, the first flat part of the flexible display is exposed (fig. 4), and the second flat part and the third flat part of the flexible display are hidden inside (fig. 4);
the at least one front-facing camera module is installed inside the first housing (fig. 2A, “at least one electronic component that is disposed under at least a portion of the display 240 … may include at least one camera module 214”, [0059]), and the at least one rear-facing camera module is disposed in the third housing (fig. 2B); and
a thickness of the third housing (h, fig. 2C) is greater than a thickness of the first housing and/or a thickness of the second housing (e.g., h is greater than thickness of 2182, fig. 2C), and the thickness of the first housing is different from the thickness of the second housing (fig. 2C, average thickness of 210 is different than that of 220).
Regarding Claim 2 (as best understood), Kim ‘770 discloses the foldable display device according to claim 1, wherein the thickness of the first housing is the same as the thickness of the second housing (fig. 2C average thickness of 210 is different than that of 220).
Regarding Claim 7, Kim ‘770 discloses the foldable display device according to claim 1, wherein the first housing internally comprises a first speaker (252, fig. 6), and the third housing internally comprises a second speaker (257, fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 9 (as best understood), Kim ‘770 discloses the foldable display device according to claim 1, wherein the flexible screen further comprises a first bending part (portion of 240 corresponding to 261, fig. 2A) and a second bending part (portion of 240 corresponding to 261, fig. 2A), and the first bending part is located between the first flat part and the second flat part (fig. 2A); the second bending part is between the second flat part and the third flat part (fig. 2A).
Regarding Claim 11 (as best understood), Kim ‘770 discloses the foldable display device according to claim 9, wherein the thickness of the first flat part, the thickness of the second flat part, and the thickness of the third flat part (fig. 2C).
Regarding Claim 13, Kim ‘770 discloses the foldable display device according to claim 1, wherein a plurality of antennas are installed on a frame of the third housing, an upper frame of the second housing, and a lower frame of the second housing (“When the first housing structure 210, the second housing structure 220, and/or the third housing structure 230 are made of a metal material, the corresponding first side member 213, second side member 223, and third side member 233 may include an at least partially electrically separated conductive portion, and the electrically separated conductive portion may be electrically connected to a wireless communication circuit, and may be used as at least one antenna”, [0055]).
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.
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim ‘770 in view of Yamazaki et al. (US 20150248149 A1, and Yamazaki hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 3, Kim ‘770 discloses the foldable display device according to claim 1, wherein the first housing internally comprises a first battery (251, fig. 6) and the third housing internally comprises a third battery (255, fig. 6), and a rear-facing camera module (256, fig. 6). Kim ‘770 does not explicitly disclose the second housing internally comprises a second battery, and the third housing internally comprises a mainboard and a flexible printed board, FPC, of the flexible display.
Yamazaki discloses a second housing (11, fig. 1G) internally comprises a second battery (117, fig. 1G), and a third housing (10, fig. 1A-1G) internally comprises a mainboard (140, fig. 4) and a flexible printed board, FPC (4, fig. 4), of a flexible display(116, fig. 4; “FIG. 4 illustrates an example where a touch input portion and a display portion are electrically connected to one battery 117 with one FPC 4”, [0103] in view of “with reference to FIGS. 1A to 1G, FIGS. 2A to 2C, FIGS. 3A to 3F, FIG. 4, FIGS. 5A to 5C, FIG. 6, FIGS. 17A to 17C, and FIGS. 18A to 18D … one component also serves as another”, [0082]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kim ‘770 to incorporate the teachings of Yamazaki so that the second housing internally comprises a second battery, and the third housing internally comprises a mainboard and a flexible printed board, FPC, of the flexible display, in order to increase the power available in case of failure of one battery and to provide electronic components/circuits to drive the flexible display (Yamazaki: “Furthermore, even when one of the small-sized batteries is broken or its amount of power becomes zero, another battery can be used as a substitute”, [0028]; “the FPC 4 is connected to a connector on the circuit board 140”, [0105] and “Part of a driver circuit 142 is mounted on the FPC 4 and includes part of the sensor driver circuit and part of the driver circuit of the display portion”, [0106]).
Regarding Claim 5, Kim ‘770/Yamazaki discloses the foldable display device according to claim 3, but does not explicitly disclose the second battery and the third battery are of the same size.
Yamazaki discloses a second battery (117, fig. 1G) and a third battery (112, fig. 1G) are of the same size (figs. 1G and 20A-C).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kim ‘770 to incorporate the teachings of Yamazaki so that the second battery and the third battery are of the same size, in order to evenly distribute the weight of the batteries in the housings. Furthermore, modifying the second battery to have the same size as the third battery would have been equivalent to a mere change in size. Absent disclosure of functional criticality, changes in size/proportions have been ruled to carry no patentable weight (In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.04, IV, A).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim ‘770 in view of Yamazaki further in view of Kim et al. (US 20230245606 A1, and Kim ‘606 hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 4, Kim ‘770 discloses the foldable display device according to claim 3 but does not explicitly disclose the mainboard is disposed in an L shape.
Kim ‘606 discloses a mainboard is disposed in an L shape (CB1, fig. 8; “The first circuit board CB1 has an “L-shape””, [0151]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kim ‘770 and Yamazaki to incorporate the teachings of Kim ‘606 so that the mainboard is disposed in an L shape, since it is a standard practice, and would have been considered at the level of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, absent disclosure of functional criticality, changes in shape have been ruled to carry no patentable weight (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP § 2144.04, IV, B).
Regarding Claim 6 (as best understood), Kim ‘770 discloses the foldable display device according to claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose the FPC of the flexible screen is connected to the mainboard of the foldable display device through the second hinge.
However, Kim ‘770 discloses a FPC of the flexible screen (“FPCB”, [0073]) is connected to the mainboard of the foldable display device through a hinge (“The PCB 253 (e.g., the main board) may be disposed in the second space 2201 of the second housing structure 220 for easy electrical connection with electronic components arranged in the first space 2101 and the second space 2201 of the first housing structure 210 and the second housing structure 220 through an electrical connection member (e.g., a flexible printed circuit board (FPCB))”, [0073]; and “the second PCB and the third PCB may also be electrically connected through the above-described electrical connection member disposed across the first hinge structure 261 and the second hinge structure 262”, [0073]).
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the flexible printed circuit board disclosed by Kim ‘770 performs a similar function of connecting elements, that are located in adjacent housings, and passing through the hinge element connecting said housings, and, that the only difference between the claimed limitation and the teachings of Kim ‘770 is in the location of elements in the particular housings/hinges. Thus, a modification to meet the claimed limitation would have been equivalent to a rearrangement of parts. Absent disclosure of functional criticality, rearrangement of parts have been ruled to carry no patentable weight (In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). See also MPEP § 2144.04, VI, C).
Regarding Claim 8, Kim ‘770 discloses the foldable display device according to claim 7, wherein the first speaker is connected, by using a flexible circuit board FPC, to a mainboard (“The PCB 253 (e.g., the main board) may be disposed in the second space 2201 of the second housing structure 220 for easy electrical connection with electronic components arranged in the first space 2101 and the second space 2201 of the first housing structure 210 and the second housing structure 220 through an electrical connection member (e.g., a flexible printed circuit board (FPCB))”, [0073]).
Kim ‘770 does not explicitly disclose the mainboard is disposed in the third housing, and the flexible circuit board FPC passes through the first hinge and the second hinge.
However, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the flexible printed circuit board disclosed by Kim ‘770 performs a similar function of connecting elements, that are located in different housings, and passing through the hinge elements connecting said housings ([0073] in view of figs. 5 and 6), and, that the only difference between the claimed limitation and the teachings of Kim ‘770 is in the location of the mainboard to be in the third housing, which would be considered a common design choice (e.g., to place the mainboard in the base/bottom housing, which would correspond to 230 shown in see figs. 4-5, 7B, 8C of Kim ‘770). A modification to meet the claimed limitation would have been equivalent to a rearrangement of parts. Absent disclosure of functional criticality, rearrangement of parts have been ruled to carry no patentable weight (In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). See also MPEP § 2144.04, VI, C).
Claims 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim ‘770 in view of Bae et al. (US 20220183174 A1, and Bae hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 10 (as best understood), Kim ‘770 discloses the foldable display device according to claim 9 but does not explicitly disclose the screen of the first folding part has a buffer layer.
Bae discloses a screen of a first folding part has a buffer layer (440, fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kim ‘770 to incorporate the teachings of Bae so that the screen of the first folding part has a buffer layer, in order to help protect the flexible display by providing a cushioning/buffering effect (“polymer layer 440 … formed of a buffer material for a buffering action”, [0070] of Bae).
Regarding Claim 18, Kim ‘770 discloses the foldable display device according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose the front-facing camera is disposed in a middle position of an upper end of the first housing.
Bae discloses a front-facing camera (105, fig. 2B) is disposed in a middle position of an upper end of a first housing (110, fig. 2B).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kim ‘770 to incorporate the teachings of Bae so that the front-facing camera is disposed in a middle position of an upper end of the first housing, in order to enhance its aesthetic look (higher symmetry). Since Kim ‘770 discloses a front camera in the first housing, a person of ordinary skill would consider said modification a mere rearrangements of parts. Absent disclosure of functional criticality, rearrangement of parts have been ruled to carry no patentable weight (In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). See also MPEP § 2144.04, VI, C).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim ‘770 in view of Yang et al. (US 20190320048 A1, and Yang hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 12 (as best understood), Kim ‘770 discloses the foldable display device according to claim 9 but does not explicitly disclose the foldable display device is in a folded state, a shape of the first bent part of the flexible screen is a water-drop shape.
Yang discloses a foldable display device is in a folded state (fig. 5A), a shape of a first bent part of a flexible screen is a water-drop shape (bent part of 230 enclosed in dashed circle shown in fig. 5A).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kim ‘770 to incorporate the teachings of Yang so that when the foldable display device is in a folded state, a shape of the second bent part of the flexible display is a water-drop shape, in order to reduce the risk of damage to the second bent part (“the flexible display unit 230 is configured so that the second bending area can be accommodated in the first and second accommodating portions 214 and 215 even in the second state as well as in the first state, so as to be bendable without damage on quality of the display”, [0241] of Yang). This modification could be implemented by providing accommodating portions in housings 220 and 230 shown in fig. 8C of Kim ‘770 so that the corresponding bent part of the flexible display so that its radius of curvature is allowed to increase gradually).
Claim 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim ‘770 in view of Moon et al. (US 20210116963 A1, and Moon hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 14 (as best understood), Kim ‘770 discloses the foldable display device according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose the foldable display device further comprises a chip, and the chip is disposed at a position that is in the third housing and away from the frame of the third housing, and is electrically connected to the main board of the foldable display device.
Moon discloses a foldable display device comprises a chip (fig. 6B, “Various elements or chips required for operations of the foldable electronic device 100 may be mounted on the printed circuit board 160”, [0085]), and the chip is disposed at a position that is in a housing (120, fig. 6A) and away from a frame of the housing (figs. 6A-6B, PCBs 161-162 are separated from top horizontal sidewall of housings 110 and 120 at least by batteries 171-172), and is electrically connected to the main board of the foldable display device (fig. 6A, “the connecting part 164 may electrically connect the first PCB 161 and the second PCB 162”, [0086]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kim ‘770 to incorporate the teachings of Moon so that the foldable display device further comprises a chip, and the chip is disposed away from the frame of the third housing, and is electrically connected to the main board of the foldable display device, in order to provide elements required for operation of the electronic components of the device (“Various elements or chips required for operations of the foldable electronic device 100 may be mounted on the printed circuit board 160”, [0085] of Moon). Furthermore, the disclosure of a PCB in the third housing of Kim ‘770 (“The electronic device 200 may include … a third PCB (e.g., a second sub-board) disposed in the third space 2301 of the third housing structure 230”, [0073] of Kim ‘770) suggests that the chip taught by Moon could be disposed at a position that is in the third housing.
Regarding Claim 15 (as best understood), Kim ‘770/Moon discloses the foldable display device according to claim 14, wherein the chip and the flexible circuit board FPC of the flexible screen do not overlap in a thickness direction (fig. 6 of Kim ‘770, space 2301 where chip would be located would not overlap FPC in a thickness direction. See also 161, 162, and 164 in Fig. 6B of Moon).
Regarding Claim 16, Kim ‘770 discloses the foldable display device according to claim1, further comprising a mounting plate (“third PCB”, [0073]), mounted on the third housing (“a third PCB (e.g., a second sub-board) disposed in the third space 2301 of the third housing structure 230”, [0073]) but does not explicitly disclose configured to mount a chip.
Moon discloses a mounting element (160, fig. 1A) configured to mount a chip (“Various elements or chips required for operations of the foldable electronic device 100 may be mounted on the printed circuit board 160”, [0085]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kim ‘770 to incorporate the teachings of Moon so that the mounting plate is configured to mount a chip, in order to provide mechanical/structural support to said chip. Said modification is standard practice in the art, and although Kim ‘770 does not explicitly disclosed, a person of ordinary skill would have found obvious to have the third PCB configured to mount a chip.
Regarding Claim 17, Kim ‘770/ Moon discloses the foldable display device according to claim16, wherein the mounting plate is disposed near the rear-facing camera module (fig. 6 of Kim ‘770, third PCB is located is located in space 2301 ([0073]), which is disposed near rear-facing camera module 256).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim ‘770 in view of Kim et al. (US 20200352046 A1, and Kim ‘046 hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 19, Kim ‘770 discloses the foldable display device according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose the first housing comprises a first magnet, the second housing comprises a second magnet, the third housing comprises a third magnet, and the first magnet and the second magnet are mutually adsorbed.
Kim ‘046 discloses a first housing (310, fig. 15) comprises a first magnet (910, fig. 15), a second housing (320, fig. 15) comprises a second magnet (920, fig. 15), a third housing (350, fig. 15) comprises a third magnet (960, fig. 15), and the first magnet and the second magnet are mutually adsorbed (fig. 15).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kim ‘770 to incorporate the teachings of Kim ‘046 so that the first housing comprises a first magnet, the second housing comprises a second magnet, the third housing comprises a third magnet, and the first magnet and the second magnet are mutually adsorbed, in order to secure/lock the device when in the folded state (“magnetic bodies 900 may perform the functions of the locker & closer and/or the damper member through an operation of a repulsive force or an attractive force as they become closer to the other magnetic bodies disposed at locations corresponding to each other. For example, in the embodiment illustrated in FIG. 15, the second magnetic substance 920 may perform a closing function with an operation of an attractive force with the first magnetic substance 910”, [0150] of Kim ‘046).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim ‘770 in view of Kim ‘046, further in view of Siddiqui et al. (US 20220100238 A1, and Siddiqui hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 20, Kim ‘770 discloses the foldable display device according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose the first housing internally comprises a first magnet, the second housing internally comprises a second magnet and an electric apparatus, the third housing internally comprises a third magnet, and the foldable display device further comprises a switch; and the switch is configured to drive, via the electric apparatus, the second magnet to move, so that the first magnet and the second magnet repulse each other, and the second magnet and the third magnet repulse each other, to unfold the foldable display device from a folded state to a Z shape.
Kim ‘046 discloses a first housing (310, fig. 15) internally comprises a first magnet (910, fig. 15), a second housing (320, fig. 15) internally comprises a second magnet (920, fig. 15) the third housing (350, fig. 15) internally comprises a third magnet (960, fig. 15)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kim ‘770 to incorporate the teachings of Kim ‘046 so that the first housing comprises a first magnet, the second housing comprises a second magnet, the third housing comprises a third magnet, and the first magnet and the second magnet are mutually adsorbed, in order to secure/lock the device when in the folded state (“magnetic bodies 900 may perform the functions of the locker & closer and/or the damper member through an operation of a repulsive force or an attractive force as they become closer to the other magnetic bodies disposed at locations corresponding to each other. For example, in the embodiment illustrated in FIG. 15, the second magnetic substance 920 may perform a closing function with an operation of an attractive force with the first magnetic substance 910”, [0150] of Kim ‘046).
Siddiqui discloses a foldable display device (fig. 1) comprising a second housing (14, fig. 2) internally comprises an electric apparatus (60, figs. 13-14), and the foldable display device further comprises a switch (68, 2); and the switch is configured to drive, via the electric apparatus, a second magnet (26, fig. 14) to move, so that the first magnet and the second magnet repulse each other, to unfold the foldable display device from a folded state (“When the release button 68 is pressed, such as by a digit of a user, the electric motor 60 may be actuated … and move the first magnet 26 toward the electric motor 60, as illustrated in FIG. 16. The movement of the first magnet 26 reduces the magnetic force between the first and second magnets 26, 28, which may release the spring-loaded opening mechanism 48, thereby causing the first housing part 14 to separate from the second housing part 16 at a predetermined angular orientation”, [0049]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kim ‘770 and Kim ‘046 to incorporate the teachings of Siddiqui so that the second housing internally comprises an electric apparatus, and the foldable display device further comprises a switch; and the switch is configured to drive, via the electric apparatus, a second magnet to move, so that the first magnet and the second magnet repulse each other, to unfold the foldable display device from a folded state, in order to facilitate unfolding of the device ([0049] of Siddiqui). Said modification could be implemented by adding an electric apparatus as taught by Siddiqui to displace magnet 920 (fig. 15 of Kim ‘046) so that it will simultaneously switch the attractive/repulsive force between the magnets above and below it, leading to unfolding by separation of the three housings (fig. 15 of Kim ‘046). Furthermore, the unfolding to a predetermined shapes/angular orientation, including a Z shape, would be considered within the level of ordinary skill in the art (“causing the first housing part 14 to separate from the second housing part 16 at a predetermined angular orientation”, [0049] of Siddiqui).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Martin A Asmat-Uceda whose telephone number is (571)270-7198. The examiner can normally be reached 8 AM - 5 PM.
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 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.
/ALLEN L PARKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2841
/MARTIN ANTONIO ASMAT UCEDA/Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights