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 . Claims 1-20 are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. §101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Regarding Claim 15. The subject matter in Claim 15 is “A computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon to execute a plurality of operations for displaying an execution screen of an application by an electronic device” (emphasis added). Applicant's disclosure states (emphasis added):
[0220] Various embodiments as set forth herein may be implemented as software (e.g., the program 1640) including one or more instructions that are stored in a storage medium (e.g., internal memory 1636 or external memory 1638) that is readable by a machine (e.g., the electronic device 1601). For example, a processor (e.g., the processor 1620) of the machine (e.g., the electronic device 1601) may invoke at least one of the one or more instructions stored in the storage medium, and execute it, with or without using one or more other components under the control of the processor. This allows the machine to be operated to perform at least one function according to the at least one instruction invoked. The one or more instructions may include a code generated by a complier or a code executable by an interpreter. The machine-readable storage medium may be provided in the form of a non-transitory storage medium. Wherein, the term "non-transitory" simply means that the storage medium is a tangible device, and does not include a signal (e.g., an electromagnetic wave), but this term does not differentiate between where data is semi-permanently stored in the storage medium and where the data is temporarily stored in the storage medium.
Claim 15 recites “a computer-readable storage media” while the disclosure states: “The machine-readable storage medium may be provided in the form of a non-transitory storage medium. The disclosure does not limit the computer readable storage medium to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium therefore the subject matter of Claim 15 can be interpreted to include transitory signals which the courts have determined are not directed towards one of the statutory categories of patentable subject matter. In re Nuijten, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
MPEP 2106.I Claim interpretation affects the evaluation of both criteria for eligibility. For example, in Mentor Graphics v. EVE-USA, Inc., 851 F.3d 1275, 112 USPQ2d 1120 (Fed. Cir. 2017), claim interpretation was crucial to the court’s determination that claims to a "machine-readable medium" were not to a statutory category. In Mentor Graphics, the court interpreted the claims in light of the specification, which expressly defined the medium as encompassing "any data storage device" including random-access memory and carrier waves. Although random-access memory and magnetic tape are statutory media, carrier waves are not because they are signals similar to the transitory, propagating signals held to be non-statutory in Nuijten. 851 F.3d at 1294, 112 USPQ2d at 1133 (citing In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). Accordingly, because the BRI of the claims covered both subject matter that falls within a statutory category (the random-access memory), as well as subject matter that does not (the carrier waves), the claims as a whole were not to a statutory category and thus failed the first criterion for eligibility.
In support of compact prosecution the preamble to Claims 15-20 are construed:
“A non-transitory computer readable storage medium” or “The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of Claim 15” or “The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of Claim 18” or “The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of Claim 19” as appropriate.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character not mentioned in the description: FIG. 4 @40. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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 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.
Claims 1, 11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caskey (US 2020/0064536) in view of Jung (US 2020/0225706). All reference is to Caskey unless otherwise indicated.
Regarding Claims 1, 11 and 15 (Original), Caskey teaches an electronic device, a method and a computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon to execute a plurality of operations, comprising:
a first housing [fig. 15 @1502];
a second housing [fig. 15 @1504] connected to the first housing via a first hinge [fig. 15 @1505];
a third housing [fig. 15 @1504] connected to the second housing via a second hinge [fig. 15 @1507];
a first display [¶0082, “… first panel 102, the second panel 104, and the third panel 106 effectively form an extended, three-panel display screen …”] disposed across the first housing, the second housing, and the third housing and exposed, facing a first direction of the electronic device [fig. 5 illustrates three panel display facing a direction normal to the plane containing the three unfolded panels];
a memory storing instructions [fig. 8 @832]; and at least one processor [fig. 8 @810] operatively connected to the first display, and the memory [fig. 8 illustrates claimed connection], wherein, when executed by the at least one processor, the instructions cause the electronic device to:
identify whether one side of the first housing [fig. 15 @1502] is located on a portion corresponding to the third housing in an entire area of the first display [fig. 15 illustrates a side of 1502 folded on 1506 and comparing with fig. 5 the overlap is the entire area of fig. 5 @102 portion of the first display],
based on a first folding angle between the first housing and the second housing and a second folding angle between the second housing and the third housing, according to the electronic device being multi-folded [fig. 26 illustrates receiving sensor input which ¶0131 teaches is equivalent to a first and second folding angle to determine 2608 fully folded hardware state]; and
change a display mode of the first display from a first display mode [fig. 26 @2602 before reaching folded state] to a second display mode [fig. 26 @2610 after sensors indicate device in fully folded state], based on identifying that the one side of the first housing is located on the portion corresponding to the third housing [fig. 15 @folded state], wherein
the second display mode is a mode for controlling an activated portion [fig. 2 @102] area of the first display [¶0095, “when the device 800 is in a fully folded configuration, the display controllers 862, 864, and 866 may control the first display 802 to display a graphical user interface and may power down or not use the other displays 804 and 806” 802, 804 and 806 are equivalent to fig. 5 @102, 104 and 106] and
an inactivated remaining area [fig. 5 @104 and 106 (folded arrangement]] of the first display [fig. 2 fig. based on a position on the portion of the first display [all portions of the first display are covered by portion 102 as illustrated by fig. 2] where the one side of the first housing is located
Caskey does not teach a second display disposed at the first housing and facing a second direction of the electronic device; a processor connected to the second display; and display an execution screen of an application on the second display
Jung teaches a second display [fig. 3 @250] disposed at the first housing [fig. 3 @231] and facing a second direction of the electronic device [fig. 3 @340 illustrates display 250 faces opposite to display 240 when device is fully unfolded];
a processor [fig. 4 @460] connected to the second display [fig. 4 @250]; and
display an execution screen [fig. 6 @601] of an application [fig. 6 @610 (clock)] on the second display [fig. 6 @ 601 (250)]
Before the application was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a second display on a first housing opposite to a first display, as taught by Jung, into the electronic device, a method and a computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon to execute a plurality of operations, taught by Caskey, in order to provide a display screen to easily control the device when in a fully folded state, enabling the first display to be powered down and thereby reducing the devices power consumption when in the folded state.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-10, 12-14 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Douglas Wilson whose telephone number is (571)272-5640. The examiner can normally be reached 1000-1800 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.
/Douglas Wilson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622
Prosecution Insights