Patent 11086361

Obviousness

Combinations of prior art that suggest the claimed invention would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Active provider: Google · gemini-2.5-flash

Obviousness

Combinations of prior art that suggest the claimed invention would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

✓ Generated

The following analysis of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is based on the "Prior art keywords" provided in the Google Patents section for US Patent 11086361. It is important to note that specific claims of US11086361 are not available in the provided document, nor are specific prior art documents. Therefore, this analysis will proceed by interpreting the "Prior art keywords" as representing known concepts or technologies in the field as of the priority date (2010-08-10) and applying them to the features described in the patent's abstract and summary. A definitive legal obviousness analysis requires explicit claim language and detailed comparison with specific prior art disclosures.

Obviousness Analysis of US11086361 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

A person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) in the field of portable computing devices (e.g., mobile phones, tablets, laptops) around the priority date of 2010-08-10 would have possessed knowledge of various display technologies, device form factors, and common engineering principles for creating functional and durable electronic devices.

Identified Prior Art Concepts (from keywords):

The "Prior art keywords" for US11086361 indicate common knowledge or existing technologies related to:

  • OLED display: Organic Light Emitting Diode displays, known for their thinness, flexibility, and power efficiency.
  • Flexible touch / sensitive OLED / sensitive: Touch-sensitive display technology, particularly as applied to flexible OLED screens, implying the ability to detect user input on a flexible surface.
  • Structural support: The provision of underlying frameworks or materials to give strength and stability to components, especially displays or reconfigurable device elements.

Combination of Prior Art Concepts to Render Claims Obvious:

The claimed invention, as described in the abstract, focuses on a reconfigurable touch screen computing device with folding configurations, transitioning between a compact (phone-sized) state and an expanded (tablet/laptop-sized) state, using segmented displays (flexible and/or rigid), and incorporating features like integrated processing, sensors, and structural support mechanisms.

A PHOSITA, aiming to develop such a reconfigurable device to overcome the limitations of small-scale touch screens while maintaining portability, would be motivated to combine the following conceptual elements from the prior art:

  1. Flexible, Touch-Sensitive OLED Displays:

    • Prior Art Concept: The keywords "oled display," "flexible touch," and "sensitive oled" indicate that flexible, touch-sensitive OLED technology was known or at least actively explored.
    • Motivation for Combination: A PHOSITA would be motivated to use such displays in a portable device to achieve several advantages:
      • Increased Screen Real Estate in a Compact Form: Flexible displays inherently allow for novel form factors, including folding, which enables a larger screen area to be contained within a smaller, pocketable device.
      • Enhanced User Interaction: Touch sensitivity is a fundamental requirement for modern handheld computing devices, and integrating it directly into a flexible display provides an intuitive interface.
      • Thinness and Aesthetics: OLEDs offer superior thinness compared to other display technologies, which is crucial for multi-segment folding devices to avoid excessive bulk in the compact state.
      • Power Efficiency: OLEDs are generally more power-efficient than LCDs, which is a significant advantage for battery-powered portable devices.
  2. Structural Support for Reconfigurable Devices:

    • Prior Art Concept: The keyword "structural support" implies the general engineering principle of providing rigidity and protection to components, particularly in dynamic or multi-part assemblies.
    • Motivation for Combination: When designing a multi-segment, folding device with flexible displays, a PHOSITA would recognize the critical need for robust structural support to:
      • Protect the Display: Flexible displays, while bendable, are still susceptible to damage. Structural elements are needed to shield them from external forces, especially when folded.
      • Ensure Alignment and Stability: For a multi-segment display to function cohesively as a single, larger screen in an expanded state, the segments must be precisely aligned and held securely. Without "structural support," the device would feel flimsy and be impractical for touch input.
      • Facilitate Folding/Unfolding: Hinges, latches, and other mechanical features (described in the patent as alignment/locking mechanisms) are essential for controlled reconfiguration and to maintain the desired form factor in both compact and expanded states. These all rely on robust structural support.
      • Integrate Components: Housing a computing module (processor, memory, communications) within one segment, as described, requires a rigid structure to protect these components and provide interfaces for ports.

Specific Obviousness Arguments (based on abstract's features):

  • Segmented Displays and Folding Configurations: The idea of using multiple display segments that fold to achieve a compact form and unfold for an expanded view would be obvious to a PHOSITA seeking to maximize screen size while maintaining portability. Early dual-screen devices and conceptual drawings of folding phones predated the priority date. The choice between flexible and rigid segments would be an engineering decision based on desired durability, cost, and specific folding mechanics.
  • Compact Phone State / Expanded Tablet/Laptop State: The goal of achieving a phone-sized compact state and a tablet/laptop-sized expanded state directly addresses the user desire for versatility and would be an obvious design objective for a PHOSITA.
  • Integrated Speaker and Microphone: Integrating basic phone functionalities like a speaker and microphone into the compact (phone-like) state would be a routine design choice to ensure the device serves as a primary communication tool.
  • Sensors for Configuration State: Incorporating sensors to detect the device's configuration (folded or unfolded) for automatic content rescaling or power management is a common practice in convertible or folding devices and would be obvious for intelligent device operation.
  • Alignment and Locking Mechanisms: The need for mechanisms to align and lock segments together, especially in a touch-sensitive display that requires a stable surface, would be an obvious engineering challenge with readily available solutions (e.g., magnets, latches, interlocking plates) from other mechanical design contexts.

Conclusion:

A PHOSITA in 2010 would have understood the advantages of flexible, touch-sensitive OLED displays ("oled display," "flexible touch," "sensitive oled") for creating larger, more versatile screens in portable devices. They would also understand the fundamental engineering need for "structural support" to make such reconfigurable, multi-segment devices practical, durable, and user-friendly. Combining these known concepts and applying standard mechanical design principles (like hinges, latches, sensors for state detection) to create a device that transforms between a phone-sized compact state and a tablet/laptop-sized expanded state, as broadly described in US11086361's abstract, would have been obvious to a PHOSITA seeking to meet the known demands for larger, yet portable, computing device displays.

Generated 6/1/2026, 6:49:41 AM