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 because the orientation of the arrow associated with the positive X-axis in figs. 5A and 5B is inconsistent, at least, with that shown in figs. 2A, 2B, 3A, 3B, 4A, and 4B. Similarly, the orientation of the associated with the positive X-axis in fig. 8B is inconsistent, at least, with that shown in figs. 4A, 8A, and 10A.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “222a” has been used to designate both an element/portion parallel to the X-axis (fig. 6A) and an element/portion parallel to the Y-axis (figs. 6B, 7A-7B).
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, “driving belt connected to … one end of the second housing” (Claim 1, ln. 11) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Figures 10C-10D show driving belt 270 located in first housing 210 as well as ends 2701 and 2702 of the driving belt 270 movable within first housing 210; however, the connection to one end of the second housing is not clearly shown.
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.
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. 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 1, 17 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, in line 11-12 recites: “to spatially overlap with an electrical components disposed in the second housing”. It should read: to spatially overlap with an electrical component disposed in the second housing.
Claim 17, in line 8 recites “a battery disposed parallel to the rack in the first space”. It should read: a battery disposed parallel to the rack in a first space, in order to avoid antecedent issues.
Claim 17, in lines 9-11 recites “when the side surface of the first housing is viewed from the outside in a direction perpendicular to the sliding direction”. It should read: “when a side surface of the first housing is viewed from the outside in a direction perpendicular to the sliding direction, in order to avoid antecedent issues.
Claim 19, in lines 1-2, recites “the electronic device of claim 17, the rack is disposed so as to be proximate to”. It should read: the electronic device of claim 17, wherein the rack is disposed so as to be proximate to.
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 3, 7-9, and 12 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 3, in line 2, recites “an electrical component disposed in the second housing comprises a vibration motor”. This limitation is confusing because Claim 1 also discloses an electrical component disposed in the second housing: “the rack guide is disposed on a side of the driving motor to spatially overlap with an electrical components disposed in the second housing” (Claim 1, ln. 12-13). Therefore, it is not clear whether said electrical component of Claim 3 refers to the same one from Claim 1 or to a different element. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be read as a second electrical component disposed in the second housing comprises a vibration motor. Furthermore, since claims 8 and also claim 9 depend both on claims 1 and 3, it is not clear whether mention of “electrical component” in said claims refers to any of the “electrical component” from Claim 1 or Claim 3 or to a different/separate electrical component.
Claim 7, in line 2, recites “the rack, in the slide-in state, is disposed closer to the rear cover than the flexible display”. This limitation is confusing because it is open to multiple reasonable interpretations. More in detail, it is not clear whether it compares the distance between the rack and the rear cover versus the distance between the flexible display and the rear cover, or versus the distance between the rack and the flexible display. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be read as: the rack, in the slide-in state, is disposed closer to the rear cover than the flexible display is.
Claim 8, in lines 2-3, recites “the electrical component is disposed between the flexible display and the rack with respect from a perspective external to a side surface of the second housing”. This limitation is confusing because the term “perspective” implies an observer’s viewpoint, but it fails to define a fixed, objective reference frame. Is it the perspective perpendicular to the side surface?, parallel?, at an angle? Does it change depending on how the device is oriented? A person having ordinary skill in the art would not be able to unequivocally determine whether a particular device infringes the above limitation, because it would depend on where an observer is standing or looking from, relative to the side surface. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be read as: the electrical component is disposed between the flexible display and the rack.
Claim 8, in lines 2-3, recites “the length of the rack is determined by the size of the battery”. This limitation is ambiguous because, ordinarily, batteries have multiple sizes along different directions (length, width, thickness); however, the above limitation does not specify which direction/size it refers to. Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would not be able to unequivocally determine if said limitation has been met. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be read as: the length of the rack is determined by the size of the battery in a sliding 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 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Park et al. (US 20230421674 A1, and Park hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 17, Park discloses an electronic device comprising:
a first housing (101, fig. 3);
a second housing (102, fig. 3) slidably coupled to the first housing (fig. 3; “The first frame 101 may be slidably coupled to the front of the second frame 102 in the second direction”, [0109]);
a flexible display (151, fig. 3) having a display area that is variable on the basis of the slide-in or slide-out of the second housing (fig. 2);
a drive motor (201, fig. 7) disposed in the second housing (“the motor 201 and the pinion gear 202 may be arranged on the second frame 102”, [0132]) and including a pinion gear (202, fig. 7);
a rack fixedly coupled to the first housing (205, fig. 3) and a rack gear driven by being gear-coupled to the pinion gear (fig. 9; “pinion gear 202 to receive the rotational force of the motor 201 may be arranged to engage with a rack gear 205 composed of teeth continuously arranged in the first direction”, [0132]); and
a battery (191, fig. 7) disposed parallel to the rack in the first space (fig. 7, at least one edge of 191 is parallel to 205), wherein the rack and the battery may be disposed so as not to overlap each other when the side surface of the first housing is viewed from the outside in a direction perpendicular to the sliding direction (fig. 7 b).
Regarding Claim 18, Park discloses the electronic device of claim 17, wherein the rack and the battery are disposed so as not to overlap when viewing the flexible display from above (fig. 7b).
Regarding Claim 19, Park discloses the electronic device of claim 17, the rack is disposed so as to be proximate to or in contact with an upper inner surface of the second housing in the slide-in state (figs. 7a and 16(a)).
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.
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 1-2 and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Kwak et al. (KR 102290231 B1, and Kwak hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 1, Park discloses an electronic device comprising:
a first housing (101, fig. 3);
a second housing (102, fig. 3) slidably coupled to the first housing (fig. 3; “The first frame 101 may be slidably coupled to the front of the second frame 102 in the second direction”, [0109]);
a flexible display (151, fig. 3) having a display area that varies in accordance with a slide-in state or a slide-out state of the second housing (fig. 2);
a driving motor (201, fig. 7) disposed in the second housing (“the motor 201 and the pinion gear 202 may be arranged on the second frame 102”, [0132]) and including a pinion gear (202, fig. 7);
a rack fixedly coupled to the first housing (205, figs. 3 and 10) and including a rack gear gear-coupled to the pinion gear (fig. 9; “pinion gear 202 to receive the rotational force of the motor 201 may be arranged to engage with a rack gear 205 composed of teeth continuously arranged in the first direction”, [0132]);
a rack guide disposed in the second housing (fig. 9, “motor housing 204 may further include a rack gear guide located at the rack gear 205 in the third direction so that the rack gear 205 does not shake in the third direction”, [0143]);
a multi-bar (104, fig. 11) supporting a rear surface of a portion of the flexible display (fig. 11); wherein:
the rack guide is disposed on a side of the driving motor (fig. 9 in view of [0143]) to spatially overlap with an electrical component disposed in the second housing (figs. 7-8, see location of 205 and battery 191), and
the second housing is configured to be driven to slide-in or slide-out in accordance with reciprocating movement of the rack into the rack guide (fig. 3; “rack gear 205 slidably moves between the rack gear guide and the edge portions 2052 of the rack gear 205”, [0144]. See also [0109] and [0132]).
Park does not explicitly disclose a driving belt connected to one end of the multi-bar and one end of the second housing.
Kwak discloses a driving belt (136, fig. 3) connected to one end of a multi-bar (figs. 4(a)-4(b), connection to 140-2) and one end of a second housing (figs. 4(a)-4(b), connection to 140-1).
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 Park to incorporate the teachings of Kwak so that it comprises a driving belt connected to one end of the multi-bar and one end of the second housing, in order to provide tension to the multi-bar supporting the flexible display (“the belt member (136) is connected to the first support portion (140-1) and the second support portion (140-2), respectively, and can provide tension that pulls one end of the second support portion (140-2) relative to the first support portion (140-1).”, [0060] of Kwak).
Regarding Claim 2, Park/Kwak discloses the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the driving belt is disposed to be located in a central portion of the electronic device (Park, as modified, would incorporate belt member 136 shown in fig. 3 of Kwak, with at least one instance located in a central portion).
Regarding Claim 10, Park/Kwak discloses the electronic device of claim 1, further comprising electrical components, wherein the electrical components comprise at least one of a substrate assembly substantially centrally disposed, at least one microphone, at least one camera module, a receiver, a speaker, a connector port, at least one vibration motor, or an antenna module (AR) disposed to surround the substrate assembly (including 121, 122, fig. 1 of Park).
Regarding Claim 11, Park/Kwak discloses the electronic device of claim 1, further comprising a battery (191, fig. 7(b) of Park) disposed parallel to the rack (fig. 7(b) of Park), wherein the rack and the battery are disposed so as not to overlap each other from a perspective of a side surface of the first housing in a direction perpendicular to a sliding direction of the slide-in state or the slide-out state (fig. 7(b) of Park, 191 and 205 do not overlap in a vertical direction).
Regarding Claim 12, Park/Kwak discloses the electronic device of claim 11, wherein the rack and the battery are disposed so as not to overlap with respect to a perspective above the flexible display (fig. 10(b) of Park).
Regarding Claim 13, Park/Kwak discloses the electronic device of claim 11, wherein a sliding distance of the second housing is determined by a length of the rack (figs. 10(a)-10(b) of Park, since the sliding process is facilitated by means of the rack, along its length, the sliding distance is necessarily determined by a length of the rack).
Regarding Claim 14, Park/Kwak discloses the electronic device of claim 11, wherein a length of the rack is determined as a distance from a fixed portion of the rack to an upper inner surface of the second housing in the slide-in state (fig. 10(a) of Park, in the slide-in state, the length of rack 205 is necessarily limited by the length that can be enclosed inside housing 102, thus said length could be defined as the distance between inner surface of 1024 and right end portion of rack 205).
Regarding Claim 15, Park/Kwak discloses the electronic device of claim 11, wherein the rack is disposed so as to be proximate to or in contact with an upper inner surface of the second housing in the slide-in state (fig. 10(a) of Park, 205 is proximate to upper inner surface of 1024).
Regarding Claim 16 (as best understood), Park/Kwak discloses the electronic device of claim 11 but does not explicitly disclose, wherein the length of the rack is determined by the size of the battery.
However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found that said modification would have been considered a design choice equivalent to a change of dimensions. Changes in size/proportions have been ruled to carry no patentable weight (In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). See also MPEP § 2144.04,IV,A). A PHOSITA could be motivated to implement said modification, in order to reduce sagging of the sliding flexible display (see fig. 5 of Park, if the length of 205 is greater than the length of 191 in a direction parallel to 205, then the available support surface area of battery 191 would not be as much as if the lengths of 191 and 205 match each other).
Claims 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Kwak, further in view of Song et al. (US 11334118 B2, and Song hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 3, Park/Kwak discloses the electronic device of claim 1, wherein an electrical component comprises a vibration motor (153, fig. 1), but does not explicitly disclose the vibration motor is disposed in the second housing and the vibration motor is disposed on a rear surface of a rear cover of the second housing in an opposite direction to the flexible display.
Song discloses an electrical component (600, fig. 17) disposed in a second housing (200a, fig. 17) comprises a vibration motor (“vibration generator” 600, fig. 17), and the vibration motor is disposed on a rear surface of a rear cover (700, fig. 17) of the second housing in an opposite direction to a flexible display (310, figs. 6a-6b; axes X,Y,Z shown in figs. 6a-6b and 17 along with screws 650 shown in figs. 17-18 indicate element 600 is disposed on a rear surface of 700).
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 Park and Kwak to incorporate the teachings of Song so that the vibration motor is disposed in the second housing, and the vibration motor is disposed on a rear surface of a rear cover of the second housing in an opposite direction to the flexible display, in order to generate vibrations to be transmitted to the flexible display device as a response to certain conditions during use of the device (“The vibration generator 600 is configured to generate vibration, and the vibration of the vibration generator 600 is transmitted to the flexible display device 1”). This modification could be implemented by disposing the motor of Song on a rear surface of a rear cover of the second housing of Park (e.g., 1022 or 1025, fig. 5 of Park).
Regarding Claim 4, Park/Kwak/Song discloses the electronic device of claim 3, wherein in the slide-in state, at least a portion of the rear cover is overlapped and disposed to be in contact with or proximate to at least a portion of the first housing (figs. 6a and 17 of Song; “vibration generator 600 can be firmly coupled to the fixing frame 700 and the first body 200 a”, [0148]. See also rejection of claim 3 above).
Regarding Claim 5, Park/Kwak/Song discloses the electronic device of claim 3, wherein the vibration motor is disposed so as to overlap with an area where the rear cover and the first housing partially contact or overlap each with respect from a perspective above the rear cover (Song: figs. 6a and 17; “vibration generator 600 can be firmly coupled to the fixing frame 700 and the first body 200 a”, [0148]. See also rejection of claim 3 above).
Regarding Claim 6, Park/Kwak/Song discloses the electronic device of claim 3, wherein the vibration motor comprises a vertical motor that vibrates in a direction perpendicular to a surface of the flexible display (Song: figs. 6a and 17-18, “the vibration of the vibration generator 600 is transmitted to the flexible display device”, [0410] and “the flexible display device 1 vibrates in the third direction (Z direction)”, [0424]. See also rejection of claim 3 above).
Regarding Claim 7 (as best understood), Park/Kwak/Song discloses the electronic device of claim 3, wherein the rack, in the slide-in state, is disposed closer to the rear cover than the flexible display (Park: fig. 10(a), 205 is disposed closer to 1022 than 151 (the portion of 151 disposed above 205) is from 1022. See also rejection of claim 3 above).
Regarding Claim 8 (as best understood), Park/Kwak/Song discloses the electronic device of claim 7, wherein the electrical component is disposed between the flexible display and the rack with respect from a perspective external to a side surface of the second housing (Park: fig. 10(a), component 191 is disposed between rack 205 and flat portion of flexible display 151 at the bottom).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Kwak, further in view Yun et al. (KR 20190060180 A, and Yun hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 9, Park/Kwak discloses the electronic device of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose an electrical component disposed in the second housing comprises an array antenna (AR) configured to form a directional beam through a side surface of the second housing, and heat generated from the array antenna is transferred through a heat transfer member to a rear cover made of a metal material disposed in the second housing.
Yun discloses an electrical component disposed in a housing comprises an array antenna (AR) (512, fig. 5A) configured to form a directional beam through a side surface of the housing (fig. 5A in view of fig. 2; “array antenna 512 may include a directional first antenna 512 a and a non-directional second antenna 512 b. For example, the first antenna 512 a may include a patch antenna having a radiation pattern (or a beam pattern)”, [0071]), and heat generated from the array antenna is transferred through a heat transfer member to a rear cover disposed in the housing (“The antenna module 510 may be attached to a portion of the intermediate plate 530 so as to be thermally connected with a heat-dissipating structure 520”, [0069]).
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 Park and Kwak to incorporate the teachings of Yun so that an electrical component disposed in the second housing comprises an array antenna (AR) configured to form a directional beam through a side surface of the second housing, and heat generated from the array antenna is transferred through a heat transfer member to a rear cover made of a metal material disposed in the second housing, in order to allow high frequency wireless communication while reducing the discomfort of users due to an increase in temperature during said communications (“The heat-dissipating structure according to an embodiment may be configured to be shared by antenna modules which can be selectively activated, and thus may be mounted in a limited inner space of the electronic device. In addition, the heat-dissipating structure according to an embodiment can reduce a discomfort of a user due to an increase in a temperature of the electronic device, and can prevent an accident such as a burn or the like”, [0006] of Yun). Although Yun does not disclose a second housing and/or the rear cover made of metal material, implementing said changes would be considered within the ordinary level in the art (see also [0095] of Park “In addition to the rear camera 121b, a proximity sensor 141, an audio output unit 152, etc. may be located on the second rear portion 1022b, and an antenna may also be installed on the second rear portion 1022b”).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park.
Regarding Claim 20, Park discloses the electronic device of claim 17 but does not explicitly disclose the size of the battery is determined by the length of the rack.
However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found that said modification would have been considered a design choice equivalent to a change of dimensions. Changes in size/proportions have been ruled to carry no patentable weight (In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). See also MPEP § 2144.04,IV,A). A PHOSITA could be motivated to implement said modification, in order to reduce sagging of the sliding flexible display (see fig. 5 of Park, if the length of 205 is greater than the length of 191 in a direction parallel to 205, then the available support surface area of battery 191 would not be as much as if the lengths of 191 and 205 match each other).
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