DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
1. 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.
2. Claims 1-3, 5, 93-95 and 97 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vats, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0237941 (hereinafter Vats) combined with Nicol et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0268532 (hereinafter Nicol) in further view of Yoon et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0290096 (hereinafter Yoon).
Regarding claim 1, Vats discloses a transparent organic light emitting diode (OLED) display terminal comprising:
a transparent OLED display (from Figure 4, see 501) with a viewing side, said display having a left edge, a right edge, and a top edge;
an image content (from Figure 4, see U2’) imaged on said display and viewed by a user (from Figure 4, see U1) positioned on the viewing side, the user viewing the content on the display and looking simultaneously through the display to a rear environment (from Figure 4, see S1) opposite the viewing side, wherein said content is a computer generated image character against a background which is imaged as transparent by said transparent display causing the user to view said character as part of the rear environment.
Still on the issue of claim 1, Vats does not teach an electronic housing bar, containing at least an image signal transmission to the OLED, and connected to said transparent OLED display at a bottom edge thereof; and a structure supporting the electronic housing bar and the OLED, said structure concealing the bar from a user positioned on the viewing side. All the same, Nicol discloses an electronic housing bar (from Figure 1, see 104), containing at least an image signal transmission to the OLED, and connected to said OLED display at a bottom edge thereof; and a structure (from Figure 2, see 202) supporting the electronic housing bar and the OLED, said structure concealing the bar from a user positioned on the viewing side. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Vats with an electronic housing bar, containing at least an image signal transmission to the OLED, and connected to said OLED display at a bottom edge thereof; and a structure supporting the electronic housing bar and the OLED, said structure concealing the bar from a user positioned on the viewing side as taught by Nicol. This modification would have improved the system’s convenience by providing handles and/or wheels for transportation as suggested by Nicol.
Again on the issue of claim 1, the combination of Vats and Nicol does not teach the background is black. All the same, Yoon discloses that the background is black (from Figure 8, see 801). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the combination of Vats and Nicol wherein the background is black as taught by Yoon. This modification would have improved the system’s flexibility by providing for different background colors as suggested by Yoon.
Regarding claim 2, Vats discloses the transparent OLED display terminal (from Figure 4, see 501) is at least one of a home office terminal, a cubicle meeting room terminal, a medical terminal, ATM terminal, educational terminal, concierge terminal, a sales terminal, a gaming terminal, an informational terminal, an advertising terminal, and a subject matter expert terminal.
Regarding claim 3, Vats discloses a transparent organic light emitting diode (OLED) display terminal comprising:
a transparent OLED display (from Figure 4, see 501) with a viewing side, said display having a left edge, a right edge and a top edge;
an image content (from Figure 4, see U2’) imaged on said display and viewed by a user (from Figure 4, see U1) positioned on the viewing side, the user viewing the content on the display and looking simultaneously through the display to a rear environment (from Figure 4, see S1) opposite the viewing side, wherein said content is an image of a distant videoconferencing user against a background which is imaged as transparent by said transparent display causing the user to view the distant videoconferencing user as part of the rear environment.
Still on the issue of claim 3, Vats does not teach an electronic housing bar, containing at least an image signal transmission to the OLED, and connected to said transparent OLED display at a bottom edge thereof; and a structure supporting the electronic housing bar and the OLED. All the same, Nicol discloses an electronic housing bar (from Figure 1, see 104), containing at least an image signal transmission to the OLED, and connected to said OLED display at a bottom edge thereof; and a structure (from Figure 2, see 202) supporting the electronic housing bar and the OLED. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Vats with an electronic housing bar, containing at least an image signal transmission to the OLED, and connected to said OLED display at a bottom edge thereof; and a structure supporting the electronic housing bar and the OLED as taught by Nicol. This modification would have improved the system’s convenience by providing handles and/or wheels for transportation as suggested by Nicol.
Again on the issue of claim 3, the combination of Vats and Nicol does not teach the background is black. All the same, Yoon discloses that the background is black (from Figure 8, see 801). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the combination of Vats and Nicol wherein the background is black as taught by Yoon. This modification would have improved the system’s flexibility by providing for different background colors as suggested by Yoon.
Regarding claim 5, Vats discloses the transparent OLED display terminal (from Figure 4, see 501) is at least one of a home office terminal, an office terminal, a cubicle, a meeting room terminal, a medical terminal, ATM terminal, educational terminal, concierge terminal, a sales terminal, a gaming terminal, an informational terminal, an advertising terminal, and a subject matter expert terminal.
Regarding claim 93, Vats discloses a transparent display terminal comprising:
a transparent display (from Figure 4, see 501) with a viewing side, said display having a left edge, a right edge, and a top edge;
an image content (from Figure 4, see U2’) imaged on said display and viewed by a user (from Figure 4, see U1) positioned on the viewing side, the user viewing the content on the display and looking simultaneously through the display to a rear environment (from Figure 4, see S1) opposite the viewing side, wherein said content is a computer generated image character against a background which is imaged as transparent by said transparent display causing the user to view said character as part of the rear environment.
Still on the issue of claim 93, Vats does not explicitly teach the display is a LED display comprising an electronic housing bar, containing at least an image signal transmission to the OLED, and connected to said transparent LED display at a bottom edge thereof; and a structure supporting the electronic housing bar and the LED, said structure concealing the bar from a user positioned on the viewing side. All the same, Nicol discloses the display is an LED display (from paragraph 0014, see LED) comprising an electronic housing bar (from Figure 1, see 104), containing at least an image signal transmission to the LED, and connected to said LED display at a bottom edge thereof; and a structure (from Figure 2, see 202) supporting the electronic housing bar and the LED, said structure concealing the bar from a user positioned on the viewing side. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Vats wherein the display is an LED display comprising an electronic housing bar, containing at least an image signal transmission to the LED, and connected to said LED display at a bottom edge thereof; and a structure supporting the electronic housing bar and the LED, said structure concealing the bar from a user positioned on the viewing side as taught by Nicol. This modification would have improved the system’s convenience by providing handles and/or wheels for transportation as suggested by Nicol.
Again on the issue of claim 93, the combination of Vats and Nicol does not teach the background is black. All the same, Yoon discloses that the background is black (from Figure 8, see 801). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the combination of Vats and Nicol wherein the background is black as taught by Yoon. This modification would have improved the system’s flexibility by providing for different background colors as suggested by Yoon.
Claim 94 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 2.
Regarding claim 95, Vats discloses a transparent display terminal comprising:
a transparent display (from Figure 4, see 501) with a viewing side, said display having a left edge, a right edge and a top edge;
an image content (from Figure 4, see U2’) imaged on said display and viewed by a user (from Figure 4, see U1) positioned on the viewing side, the user viewing the content on the display and looking simultaneously through the display to a rear environment (from Figure 4, see S1) opposite the viewing side, wherein said content is an image of a distant videoconferencing user against a background which is imaged as transparent by said transparent display causing the user to view the distant videoconferencing user as part of the rear environment.
Still on the issue of claim 95, Vats does not teach the display is an LED display comprising an electronic housing bar, containing at least an image signal transmission to the LED, and connected to said transparent LED display at a bottom edge thereof; and a structure supporting the electronic housing bar and the LED. All the same, Nicol discloses the display is an LED display (from paragraph 0014, see LED) comprising an electronic housing bar (from Figure 1, see 104), containing at least an image signal transmission to the LED, and connected to said LED display at a bottom edge thereof; and a structure (from Figure 2, see 202) supporting the electronic housing bar and the LED. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Vats wherein the display is an LED display comprising an electronic housing bar, containing at least an image signal transmission to the LED, and connected to said LED display at a bottom edge thereof; and a structure supporting the electronic housing bar and the LED as taught by Nicol. This modification would have improved the system’s convenience by providing handles and/or wheels for transportation as suggested by Nicol.
Again on the issue of claim 95, the combination of Vats and Nicol does not teach the background is black. All the same, Yoon discloses that the background is black (from Figure 8, see 801). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the combination of Vats and Nicol wherein the background is black as taught by Yoon. This modification would have improved the system’s flexibility by providing for different background colors as suggested by Yoon.
Claim 97 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 5.
3. Claims 25, 26, 117 and 118 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vats combined with Gross, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0314017 (hereinafter Gross) and Yoon.
Regarding 25, Vats discloses a transparent organic light emitting diode (OLED) display terminal comprising:
a transparent OLED display (from Figure 4, see 501) rotated to a mode with a viewing side; and
an image of a person (from Figure 4, see U2’) imaged on the display.
Still on the issue of claim 25, Vats does not teach that the mode is portrait and the image of the person forms a head to toe image of the person. All the same, Gross discloses that the mode is portrait and the image of the person (from Figure 1, see 125) forms a head to toe image of the person. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Vats wherein the mode is portrait and the image of the person forms a head to toe image of the person as taught by Gross. This modification would have made the system more effective by providing natural full body interaction as suggested by Gross.
Again on the issue of claim 25, the combination of Vats and Gross does not clearly teach the display images black as transparent permitting the image of the person comprising colors other than black but surrounded by black to be viewed by an observer as part of a rear environment. All the same, Yoon discloses the display images black as transparent permitting the image comprising colors (from Figure 8, see 802) other than black but surrounded by black (from Figure 8, see 804)
to be viewed by an observer as part of a rear environment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the combination of Vats and Gross wherein the display images black as transparent permitting the image of the person comprising colors other than black but surrounded by black to be viewed by an observer as part of a rear environment as taught by Yoon. This modification would have improved the system’s flexibility by providing for different background colors as suggested by Yoon.
Regarding claim 26, Vats discloses the content image of the person is at least one of a recorded image, a live two way videoconference image and a live one way broadcast (from abstract, see videoconferencing).
Regarding 117, Vats discloses a transparent display terminal comprising:
a transparent display (from Figure 4, see 501) rotated to a mode with a viewing side; and
an image of a person (from Figure 4, see U2’) imaged on the display.
Still on the issue of claim 117, Vats does not teach that the display is an LED display and the mode is portrait and the image of the person forms a head to toe image of the person. All the same, Gross discloses that the display is an LED display (from paragraph 0018, see LED), the mode is portrait and the image of the person (from Figure 1, see 125) forms a head to toe image of the person. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Vats wherein the display is an LED display, the mode is portrait and the image of the person forms a head to toe image of the person as taught by Gross. This modification would have made the system more effective by providing natural full body interaction as suggested by Gross.
Again on the issue of claim 117, the combination of Vats and Gross does not clearly teach the display images black as transparent permitting the image of the person comprising colors other than black but surrounded by black to be viewed by an observer as part of a rear environment. All the same, Yoon discloses the display images black as transparent permitting the image comprising colors (from Figure 8, see 802) other than black but surrounded by black (from Figure 8, see 804)
to be viewed by an observer as part of a rear environment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the combination of Vats and Gross wherein the display images black as transparent permitting the image of the person comprising colors other than black but surrounded by black to be viewed by an observer as part of a rear environment as taught by Yoon. This modification would have improved the system’s flexibility by providing for different background colors as suggested by Yoon.
Regarding claim 117, Vats discloses the content image of the person is at least one of a recorded image, a live two way videoconference image and a live one way broadcast (from abstract, see videoconferencing).
4. Claims 27, 119, 127 and 130 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vats combined with Gross and Yoon in further view of Ahmed et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0043335 (hereinafter Ahmed).
Regarding claim 27, the combination of base references does not teach that the transparent OLED is a flexible OLED. All the same, Ahmed discloses that the transparent OLED is a flexible OLED (from abstract, see flexible TOLED). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the combination of base references wherein the transparent OLED is a flexible OLED as taught by Ahmed. This modification would have improved the system’s convenience by allowing for storage when not in use as suggested by Ahmed.
Regarding claim 119, the combination of base references does not teach that the transparent LED is a flexible. All the same, Ahmed discloses that the transparent LED is flexible (from abstract, see flexible). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the combination of base references wherein the transparent LED is flexible as taught by Ahmed. This modification would have improved the system’s convenience by allowing for storage when not in use as suggested by Ahmed.
Regarding claim 127, Vats discloses a transparent display terminal comprising:
a transparent display (from Figure 4, see 501) with a viewing side, said display having a left edge, a right edge, bottom edge and top edge; and
an image content (from Figure 4, see U2’) imaged on the viewing side of the display and viewed by a user (from Figure 4, see U1) positioned on the viewing side, the user viewing the content on the display while simultaneously looking through the display to a rear environment (from Figure 4, see S1) opposite the viewing side, wherein said content is an image of a distant videoconferencing user against a background which is imaged as transparent by said transparent display causing the user to view thew distant videoconferencing user as part of the rear environment.
Further regarding claim 127, Vats does not clearly teach that the display is an LED display. All the same, Gross discloses the display is an LED display (from paragraph 0018, see LED). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Vats wherein the display is an LED display as taught by Gross. This modification would have saved cost by providing for a cheaper display.
Still on the issue of claim 127, the combination of Vats and Gross does not teach that the background is black. All the same, Yoon discloses that the background is black (from Figure 8, see 801). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the combination of Vats and Nicol wherein the background is black as taught by Yoon. This modification would have improved the system’s flexibility by providing for different background colors as suggested by Yoon.
Further regarding claim 127, the combination of base references does not teach that the transparent LED is flexible LED. All the same, Ahmed discloses that the transparent LED is flexible (from abstract, see flexible). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the combination of base references wherein the transparent LED is flexible as taught by Ahmed. This modification would have improved the system’s convenience by allowing for storage when not in use as suggested by Ahmed.
Regarding claim 130, Vats discloses the transparent LED display terminal (from Figure 4, see 501) is at least one of a home office terminal, an office terminal, a cubicle, a meeting room terminal, a medical terminal, ATM terminal, educational terminal, concierge terminal, a sales terminal, a gaming terminal, an informational terminal, an advertising terminal, and a subject matter expert terminal.
5. Claims 28-30 and 120-122 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vats combined with Yoon in further view of Chou et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0281059 (hereinafter Chou).
Regarding claim 28, Vats discloses a transparent organic light emitting diode (OLED) display videoconferencing terminal comprising:
a transparent OLED display (from Figure 4, see 501) with a viewing side, said display having a left edge, a right edge and a top edge;
an image content (from Figure 4, see U2’) imaged on said display and viewed by a user (from Figure 4, see U1) positioned on the viewing side, the user viewing the content on the display and looking simultaneously through the display to a rear environment (from Figure 4, see S1) opposite the viewing side, wherein said content is an image of a distant videoconferencing user against a background which is imaged as transparent by said transparent display causing the user to view the distant videoconferencing user as part of the rear environment; and a table working surface utilized by the user.
Still on the issue of claim 28, Vats does not teach that the background is black. All the same, Yoon discloses that the background is black (from Figure 8, see 801). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the combination of Vats and Nicol wherein the background is black as taught by Yoon. This modification would have improved the system’s flexibility by providing for different background colors as suggested by Yoon.
Again on the issue of claim 28, the combination of Vats and Yoon does not teach that the table working surface extends into an image of a distant videoconferencing table working surface imaged on the display. All the same, Chou discloses the table working surface (from Figure 5, see 552) extends into an image (from Figure 5, see 554) of a distant videoconferencing table working surface imaged on the display. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the combination of Vats and Yoon wherein the table working surface extends into an image of a distant videoconferencing table working surface imaged on the display as taught by Chou. This modification would have provided a more realistic experience by allowing the participants to appear to be seated around a common object as suggested by Chou.
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Vats and Yoon as modified by Chou discloses that the table working surface (from Figure 5 of Chou, see 552) matches in appearance the distant videoconferencing table working surface (from Figure 5 of Chou, see 554).
Regarding claim 30, the combination of Vats and Yoon as modified by Chou discloses the transparent OLED display terminal is at least one of a home office terminal, an office terminal, a cubicle, a meeting room terminal, a medical terminal, ATM terminal, educational terminal, a sales terminal, a gaming terminal, an informational terminal, an advertising terminal, and a subject matter expert terminal (from paragraph 0062 of Chou, see homes, offices).
Regarding claim 120, Vats discloses a transparent light emitting diode (LED) display videoconferencing terminal comprising:
a transparent LED display (from Figure 4, see 501) with a viewing side, said display having a left edge, a right edge and a top edge;
an image content (from Figure 4, see U2’) imaged on said display and viewed by a user (from Figure 4, see U1) positioned on the viewing side, the user viewing the content on the display and looking simultaneously through the display to a rear environment (from Figure 4, see S1) opposite the viewing side, wherein said content is an image of a distant videoconferencing user against a background which is imaged as transparent by said transparent display causing the user to view the distant videoconferencing user as part of the rear environment; and a table working surface utilized by the user.
Still on the issue of claim 120, Vats does not teach that the background is black. All the same, Yoon discloses that the background is black (from Figure 8, see 801). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the combination of Vats and Nicol wherein the background is black as taught by Yoon. This modification would have improved the system’s flexibility by providing for different background colors as suggested by Yoon.
Again on the issue of claim 120, the combination of Vats and Yoon does not teach that the table working surface extends into an image of a distant videoconferencing table working surface imaged on the display. All the same, Chou discloses the table working surface (from Figure 5, see 552) extends into an image (from Figure 5, see 554) of a distant videoconferencing table working surface imaged on the display. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the combination of Vats and Yoon wherein the table working surface extends into an image of a distant videoconferencing table working surface imaged on the display as taught by Chou. This modification would have provided a more realistic experience by allowing the participants to appear to be seated around a common object as suggested by Chou.
Claim 121 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 29.
Claim 122 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 30.
6. Claims 123 and 126 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vats combined with Yoon.
Regarding claim 123, Vats discloses a transparent light emitting diode (LED) display terminal comprising:
a transparent LED display (from Figure 4, see 501) with a viewing side, said display having a left edge, a right edge, bottom edge and top edge; and
an image content (from Figure 4, see U2’) imaged on the viewing side of the display and viewed by a user (from Figure 4, see U1) positioned on the viewing side, the user viewing the content on the display while simultaneously looking through the display to a rear environment (from Figure 4, see S1) opposite the viewing side, wherein said content is an image of a distant videoconferencing user against a background which is imaged as transparent by said transparent display causing the user to view thew distant videoconferencing user as part of the rear environment.
Still on the issue of claim 123, Vats does not teach that the background is black. All the same, Yoon discloses that the background is black (from Figure 8, see 801). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the combination of Vats and Nicol wherein the background is black as taught by Yoon. This modification would have improved the system’s flexibility by providing for different background colors as suggested by Yoon.
Regarding claim 126, Vats discloses the transparent LED display terminal (from Figure 4, see 501) is at least one of a home office terminal, an office terminal, a cubicle, a meeting room terminal, a medical terminal, ATM terminal, educational terminal, concierge terminal, a sales terminal, a gaming terminal, an informational terminal, an advertising terminal, and a subject matter expert terminal.
7. Claims 125 and 129 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vats combined with Gross and Yoon in further view of He et al, U.S. Patent No. 9,007,418 (hereinafter He).
Regarding claim 125, the combination of base references does not teach a camera positioned on the rear environment side of the display opposite the viewing side of the display and aimed through the display to capture an image of the user and that image transmitted to the distant videoconferencing user. All the same, He discloses a camera (from Figure 3, see 120) positioned on the rear environment side of the display (from Figure 3, see 110) opposite the viewing side of the display and aimed through the display to capture an image of the user (from Figure 3, see 150) and that image transmitted to the distant videoconferencing user. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the combination of base references with a camera positioned on the rear environment side of the display opposite the viewing side of the display and aimed through the display to capture an image of the user and that image transmitted to the distant videoconferencing user as taught by He. This modification would have provided a more natural video conference by improving eye contact as suggested by He.
Claim 129 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 125.
8. Claims 12-14 and 104-106 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vats combined with Nicol in view of Checchi et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0308254 (hereinafter Checchi).
Regarding claim 12, Vats discloses a transparent organic light emitting diode (OLED) display terminal comprising:
a transparent OLED display (from Figure 4, see 501) with a viewing side, said display having a left edge, a right edge and a top edge.
Still on the issue of claim 12, Vats does not teach an electronic housing bar, containing at least an image signal transmission to the OLED, and connected to said transparent OLED display at a bottom edge thereof. All the same, Nicol discloses an electronic housing bar (from Figure 1, see 104), containing at least an image signal transmission to the OLED, and connected to said OLED display at a bottom edge thereof. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Vats with an electronic housing bar, containing at least an image signal transmission to the OLED, and connected to said OLED display at a bottom edge thereof as taught by Nicol. This modification would have improved the system’s longevity by preventing undue stress as suggested by Nicol.
Further regarding claim 12, the combination of Vats and Nicol does not teach a podium structure supporting the electronic housing bar, said podium structure and display viewed by an audience on the viewing side, the audience viewing content on the display and simultaneously a rear environment seen through the display. All the same, Checchi discloses a podium structure (from Figure 1a, see 2) supporting the unit (from Figure 1a, see 4), said podium structure and display viewed by an audience (from paragraph 0009, see consumers) on the viewing side, the audience viewing content on the display. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the combination of Vats and Nicol with a podium structure supporting the unit, said podium structure and display viewed by an audience on the viewing side, the audience viewing content on the display as taught by Checchi. This modification would have improved the system’s profitability by attracting consumers, particularly in a busy and or densely stocked retail environment as suggested by Checchi.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Vats and Nicol discloses that the terminal is portable (from abstract, see retracted configuration).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Vats and Nicol as modified by Checchi discloses that the electronic housing bar is concealed (from Figure 2 of Nicol, see 202) from the audience’s line of sight.
Regarding claim 104, Vats discloses a transparent display terminal comprising:
a transparent display (from Figure 4, see 501) with a viewing side, said display having a left edge, a right edge and a top edge.
Still on the issue of claim 104, Vats does not teach the display is an LED display comprising an electronic housing bar, containing at least an image signal transmission to the LED, and connected to said transparent LED display at a bottom edge thereof. All the same, Nicol discloses the display is an LED display (from paragraph 0014, see LED) comprising an electronic housing bar (from Figure 1, see 104), containing at least an image signal transmission to the LED, and connected to said LED display at a bottom edge thereof. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Vats wherein the display is an LED display comprising an electronic housing bar, containing at least an image signal transmission to the LED, and connected to said LED display at a bottom edge thereof as taught by Nicol. This modification would have improved the system’s longevity by preventing undue stress as suggested by Nicol.
Further regarding claim 104, the combination of Vats and Nicol does not teach a podium structure supporting the electronic housing bar, said podium structure and display viewed by an audience on the viewing side, the audience viewing content on the display and simultaneously a rear environment seen through the display. All the same, Checchi discloses a podium structure (from Figure 1a, see 2) supporting the unit (from Figure 1a, see 4), said podium structure and display viewed by an audience (from paragraph 0009, see consumers) on the viewing side, the audience viewing content on the display. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the combination of Vats and Nicol with a podium structure supporting the unit, said podium structure and display viewed by an audience on the viewing side, the audience viewing content on the display as taught by Checchi. This modification would have improved the system’s profitability by attracting consumers, particularly in a busy and or densely stocked retail environment as suggested by Checchi.
Regarding claim 105, the combination of Vats and Nicol discloses that the terminal is portable (from abstract, see retracted configuration).
Regarding claim 106, the combination of Vats and Nicol as modified by Checchi discloses that the electronic housing bar is concealed (from Figure 2 of Nicol, see 202) from the audience’s line of sight.
9. Claims 15 and 107 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vats combined with Nicol and Checchi in further view of Williams et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0140184 (hereinafter Williams).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of base references does not teach an intersection point where the audience’s line of sight of a lower portion of the display is blocked by at least one of the structure and a ledge. All the same, Williams discloses that an intersection point where the audience’s line of sight of a lower portion of the display is blocked (from Figure 1, see 24) by at least one of the structure and a ledge. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the combination of base references wherein an intersection point where the audience’s line of sight of a lower portion of the display is blocked by at least one of the structure and a ledge as taught by Williams. This modification would have improved safety by providing a curb as suggested by Williams.
Claim 107 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 15.
10. Claims 16, 17, 108 and 109 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vats combined with Nicol and Checchi in further view of Yoon.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of references does not teach the display images black as transparent permitting video images of objects and people comprising colors other than black but surrounded by black to be viewed on the display by the audience as part of the rear environment. All the same, Yoon discloses the display images black as transparent permitting video images comprising colors other than black but surrounded by black to be viewed on the display by the audience. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the combination of references wherein the display images black as transparent permitting video images comprising colors other than black but surrounded by black to be viewed on the display by the audience as taught by Yoon. This modification would have improved the system’s flexibility by allowing for different background colors as suggested by Yoon.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of references does not teach the display images black as transparent permitting video images of a distant videoconferencing user comprising colors other than black but surrounded by black to be viewed on the display by the audience as part of the rear environment. All the same, Yoon discloses the display images black as transparent permitting video images comprising colors other than black but surrounded by black to be viewed on the display by the audience. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the combination of references wherein the display images black as transparent permitting video images comprising colors other than black but surrounded by black to be viewed on the display by the audience as taught by Yoon. This modification would have improved the system’s flexibility by allowing for different background colors as suggested by Yoon.
Claim 108 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 16.
Claim 109 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 17.
11. Claims 23, 24, 115 and 116 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0309530 (hereinafter Choi) combined with Vats in further view of Yoon.
Regarding claim 23, Choi discloses a light emitting diode (LED) (from paragraph 0035, see LED) multi-screen terminal comprising:
a first LED display (from Figure 2B, see 202) with a viewing side and at least one additional LED display (from Figure 2B, see 202) with a viewing side, said displays having left edges, right edges and top edges, the displays rotated to a portrait mode and positioned adjacent to each other aligning at least one side edge of the first display with at least one side edge of the at least one additional display; and
an image of a person imaged in part on the first display and in part on the additional display thereby forming a head to toe image of the person (from Figure 2B, see dual displays 202 that are coupled together to form an aspect ratio that is adequate for visualizing an entire life-sized human anatomy).
Still on the issue of claim 23, Choi does not teach the displays are transparent OLED displays permitting the image of the person to be viewed by an observer as part of a rear environment. All the same, Vats disclose the display (from Figure 4, see 501) is a transparent OLED display (from paragraph 0045, see OLED) permitting the image of the person (from Figure 4, see U2’) to be viewed by an observer (from Figure 4, see U1) as part of a rear environment (from Figure 4, see S1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Choi wherein the display is a transparent OLED display permitting the image of the person to be viewed by an observer as part of a rear environment as taught by Vats. This modification would have improved the system’s realism by allowing for the perception of depth as suggested by Vats.
Further on the issue of claim 23, the combination of Choi and Vats does not teach the first display and the additional display show black as transparent permitting colors other than black but surrounded by black to be viewed by an observer as part of a rear environment. All the same, Yoon discloses that the display (from Figure 8, see 800) shows black as transparent permitting colors other than black (from Figure 8, see 802) but surrounded by black (from Figure 8, see 804) to be viewed by an observer as part of a rear environment. This modification would have improved the system’s flexibility by allowing for different background colors as suggested by Yoon.
Regarding claim 24, Choi discloses the image of the person is at least one of a recorded image, a live two way videoconference image and a live one way broadcast (from paragraph 0002, see images).
Regarding claim 115, Choi discloses a light emitting diode (LED) (from paragraph 0035, see LED) multi-screen terminal comprising:
a first LED display (from Figure 2B, see 202) with a viewing side and at least one additional LED display (from Figure 2B, see 202) with a viewing side, said displays having left edges, right edges and top edges, the displays rotated to a portrait mode and positioned adjacent to each other aligning at least one side edge of the first display with at least one side edge of the at least one additional display; and
an image of a person imaged in part on the first display and in part on the additional display thereby forming a head to toe image of the person (from Figure 2B, see dual displays 202 that are coupled together to form an aspect ratio that is adequate for visualizing an entire life-sized human anatomy).
Still on the issue of claim 115, Choi does not teach the displays are transparent permitting the image of the person to be viewed by an observer as part of a rear environment. All the same, Vats disclose the display (from Figure 4, see 501) is transparent permitting the image of the person (from Figure 4, see U2’) to be viewed by an observer (from Figure 4, see U1) as part of a rear environment (from Figure 4, see S1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Choi wherein the display is transparent permitting the image of the person to be viewed by an observer as part of a rear environment as taught by Vats. This modification would have improved the system’s realism by allowing for the perception of depth as suggested by Vats.
Further on the issue of claim 116, the combination of Choi and Vats does not teach the first display and the additional display show black as transparent permitting colors other than black but surrounded by black to be viewed by an observer as part of a rear environment. All the same, Yoon discloses that the display (from Figure 8, see 800) shows black as transparent permitting colors other than black (from Figure 8, see 802) but surrounded by black (from Figure 8, see 804) to be viewed by an observer as part of a rear environment. This modification would have improved the system’s flexibility by allowing for different background colors as suggested by Yoon.
Regarding claim 116, Choi discloses the image of the person is at least one of a recorded image, a live two way videoconference image and a live one way broadcast (from paragraph 0002, see images).
12. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vats combined with Nicol in view of Checchi in further view of McDuffie White, U.S. Patent No. 7,136,090 (hereinafter White).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of references does not teach a black surrounded image of at least one audience member captured by a camera and transmitted live to a second transparent OLED display and viewed by a second user at a second terminal as part of a distant rear environment. All the same, White discloses a black surrounded image of at least one audience member captured by a camera and transmitted live to a second display and viewed by a second user (from column 4, see This black background can be achieved by shooting the user against a black background). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the combination of references with a black surrounded image of at least one audience member captured by a camera and transmitted live to a second display and viewed by a second user as taught by White. This modification would have improved the system’s convenience by aiding the background removal process as suggested by White.
13. Claim 96 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vats combined with Nicol and Yoon in further view of White.
Regarding claim 96, the combination of references does not teach a black surrounded image of the user captured by a camera and transmitted live to a second transparent OLED display and viewed by a second user at a second terminal as part of a distant rear environment. All the same, White discloses a black surrounded image of the user captured by a camera and transmitted live to a second display and viewed by a second user (from column 4, see This black background can be achieved by shooting the user against a black background). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the combination of references with a black surrounded image of the user captured by a camera and transmitted live to a second display and viewed by a second user as taught by White. This modification would have improved the system’s convenience by aiding the background removal process as suggested by White.
14. Claim 110 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vats combined with Nicol in view of Checchi in further view of White.
Regarding claim 110, the combination of references does not teach a black surrounded image of at least one audience member captured by a camera and transmitted live to a second transparent LED display and viewed by a second user at a second terminal as part of a distant rear environment. All the same, White discloses a black surrounded image of at least one audience member captured by a camera and transmitted live to a second display and viewed by a second user (from column 4, see This black background can be achieved by shooting the user against a black background). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the combination of references with a black surrounded image of at least one audience member captured by a camera and transmitted live to a second display and viewed by a second user as taught by White. This modification would have improved the system’s convenience by aiding the background removal process as suggested by White.
15. Claim 128 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vats combined with Gross, Yoon and Ahmed in further view of White.
Regarding claim 128, the combination of references does not teach a black surrounded image of the user captured by a camera and transmitted live to a second transparent OLED display and viewed by a second user at a second terminal as part of a distant rear environment. All the same, White discloses a black surrounded image of the user captured by a camera and transmitted live to a second display and viewed by a second user (from column 4, see This black background can be achieved by shooting the user against a black background). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the combination of references with a black surrounded image of the user captured by a camera and transmitted live to a second display and viewed by a second user as taught by White. This modification would have improved the system’s convenience by aiding the background removal process as suggested by White.
Response to Arguments
16. Applicant incorrectly argues Vats is not available as prior art against the present application. Because Vats claims foreign priority to August 14, 2014 and because the certified copy of the foreign priority application discloses the video output displaying screen is a transparent electronic visual display screen (see page 4), Vats qualifies as prior art against the present application.
Citation of Pertinent Art
17. Daddi, U.S. Patent No. 8,780,167 (hereinafter Daddi) discloses the projection screen 234 may be at least partially transparent to allow the local participants to see the seatback 202 through the projection screen 234, such as in areas where the image is not displayed (see column 4).
Conclusion
18. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
19. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLISA ANWAH whose telephone number is 571-272-7533. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 8.30 AM to 6 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Carolyn Edwards can be reached on 571-270-7136. The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned are 571-273-8300 for regular communications and 571-273-8300 for After Final communications.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is 571-272-2600.
Olisa Anwah
Patent Examiner
November 9, 2025
/OLISA ANWAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2692