DETAILED ACTION
Status
1. This Office Action is responsive to claims filed for application no. 19107319 on February 27, 2025. Please note claims 1-9 are pending and have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
3. 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.
4. 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) 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) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
5. 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), 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: “adjustment mechanism” in claim 1.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The structure for “adjustment mechanism” is not found in either the specification or the drawings, the specification does not disclose what the structure of the “adjustment mechanism”.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
8. Claim limitation “adjustment mechanism” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. As indicated in the Claim Interpretation section above, structure for “adjustment mechanism” is not found in either the specification or the drawings, the specification does not disclose what the structure of the “adjustment mechanism” is. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f);
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
11. Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (US 20170345396 A1) in view of Redeker et al. (DE 102019211156 A), Yu and Redeker references are provided in IDS.
Regarding claim 1, Yu discloses: A portable digital display device (see Fig. 1, Fig. 4, display 400), comprising:
a display with a display area (see Fig. 4, display area of display 400);
a first module to detect semantic content and/or a control indication (see Fig. 7, [0060], a pen-based handwriting input layer 706 “notes. Please note “and/or” limitation recited);
a first interface to acquire displayable digital content from a source (see Fig. 1, [0032]-[0033], serial digital video, HDMI/DVI, display port);
an adjustment mechanism providing adjustment between a first state having a first -footprint and a second state having a second footprint (see Fig. 3-5, [0050]-[0053], flexible/foldable mechanism/substrate of the foldable display. Also see 112 rejections above. Examiner reads one of a flat state display as a first-footprint and a folded state display as a second footprint);
wherein the first footprint corresponds to the display area (see Fig. 5, [0053], display area of first and second zones 502 and 504);
wherein the display area is flexible vertically and/or horizontally as a so-called whiteboard and is usable at the same time by a plurality of people (see Fig. 3-5, Fig. 8, [0068], flexible/foldable display useable to guest and admin at the same time),
wherein the second footprint renders the display device transportable (see Fig. 5, configuration 510).
Yu does not explicitly teach an energy storage; a second interface connected to the energy storage to allow recharging the energy storage.
However, in the same field of endeavor of the display device, Redeker teaches an energy storage; a second interface connected to the energy storage to allow recharging the energy storage (see Fig. 6, [0064] discloses portable digital display device 10 can include that this is an energy store (in the 6 not shown), for example a battery or an accumulator. The charger can be used for charging 38 can be used, for example in base 40 have an induction loop for charging the energy storage device and that for feeding in the electricity, for example via a power cable 42 can be connected to a power source).
Therefore, in view of teachings of Yu and Redeker, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electronic display device as taught by Yu with Redeker’s teachings of an energy storage; a second interface connected to the energy storage to allow recharging the energy storage in order to design portable/mobile rechargeable display device.
Regarding claim 2, Yu in view of Redeker teaches the limitations of parent claim 1. Yu further teaches wherein a surface of the display provides touch detection (see Fig. 1, [0031], discloses the display device 192 may be a touch-enabled display).
Regarding claim 3, Yu in view of Redeker teaches the limitations of parent claim 1. Yu further teaches wherein the detection includes an integrated speech recognition function (see Fig. 1, [0037], discloses audio receiver/microphone that provides input from the microphone to the processor 122 based on audio that is detected, such as via a user providing audible input to the microphone).
Regarding claim 4, Yu in view of Redeker teaches the limitations of parent claim 1. Yu further teaches wherein the first interface a unidirectional image interface as a bidirectional wired communication interface, and/or a near field communication standard (see Fig. 1, [0032]-[0033], HDMI 138; USB interfaces 153, wireless connections 182).
Regarding claim 5, Yu in view of Redeker teaches the limitations of parent claim 1. Yu further teaches wherein the second interface comprises a USB interface (see Fig. 1, [0033], discloses one or more USB interfaces 153).
Regarding claim 6, Yu in view of Redeker teaches the limitations of parent claim 1. Yu further teaches wherein: the display comprises e-paper; and transition from the first state to second state includes rolling and/or folding the e-paper (see Figs. 3-5, [0031] discloses foldable e-paper display).
Regarding claim 7, Yu in view of Redeker teaches the limitations of parent claim 1. Yu further teaches wherein: the first module recognizes handwritten and/or spoken words; upon recognition of semantic contents, the contents into a digital datum displayable a text format; and upon nonrecognition of semantic contents, converts the contents into a digital datum interpreted as a graphic input and displayable as an image (see Fig. 7, [0060]).
Regarding claim 8, Yu in view of Redeker teaches the limitations of parent claim 1. Yu further teaches wherein the first module carries out the control of the display device so: a) it is made capable of recognizing at least one control character from detected semantic contents,b) it detects inputs marked by the at least one control character as a command and/or selection, and c) it carries out at least one state change assigned to the command or the selection of at least parts of the display device and/or displayed content (see Fig. 7, [0060]-[0067]).
Regarding claim 9, Yu in view of Redeker teaches the limitations of parent claim 1. Yu further teaches a third interface to present wirelessly transmitted electromagnetic as an interpretable movement incident within the display area of a remote signal source to the first module for recognizing semantic contents ([0034], discloses PCI-E interface 152 allows for wireless connections 182 to devices, networks, etc. from external device)
Conclusion
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Trinh et al. (US 20210357034 A1) discloses general teachings of flexible/foldable multiuser touch screen display (see Figs. 2).
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISHNA P. NEUPANE whose telephone number is (571)270-7291. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 8:30am-5:30pm.
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, BENJAMIN C. LEE can be reached on (571) 272-2963. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KRISHNA P NEUPANE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2629
Prosecution Insights