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 .
Response after Pre-Appeal Conference
In view of the Pre-Appeal conference decision mailed 4/23/26, prosecution is re-opened.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8,393, 749 to Daicos in view of US 10,318,145 to Broxson and US 9,527,347 to Skeptor.
Regarding claim 1, Daicos '749 discloses a display device comprising: a body 20 that displays an image; and a base 32 that supports the body in a state where the base is placed on a floor surface, wherein: the base 32 includes a plurality of casters 33 that roll on the floor surface, the plurality of casters 33 include two first casters and at least one or more second casters (col. 2, lines 55-58), the base 32 includes, as casters, only the two first casters and the one or more second casters, the plurality of casters are arranged in a circumferential direction on the base (col. 5, lines 56-59), and the two first casters are arranged in a direction parallel to a display surface of the body, in a position that overlaps the body when viewed from a vertical direction with respect to the floor surface.
Daicos '749 discloses a display device comprising: a body 20 that displays an image, but not an image based on a video signal.
However, Broxson '145 teaches a display device comprising: a body 10 that displays an image based on a video signal. Broxson '145 teaches a smart mirror device that also displays an image.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the conventional mirror taught in Daicos '749 with the smart mirror as taught in Broxson '145 in order to provide information or imagery to a user while preserving the mirror primary reflective function, thereby reducing the need for a separate display device, conserving space and improving user convenience.
Daicos '749 discloses that plurality of casters are arranged in a circumferential direction on the base (col. 5, lines 56-59), and the two first casters are arranged in a direction parallel to a display surface of the body, in a position that overlaps the body when viewed from a vertical direction with respect to the floor surface.
However, Daicos '749 is silent as to the one or more second casters having a hardness lower than a hardness of the two first casters.
Spektor ‘347 teaches that caster wheel materials may be selected from materials having varying hardnesses according to the operating environment and intended application (col. 5, line 65 to col. 6, line 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Daicos '749 to select the one or more second casters having a hardness lower than a hardness of the two first casters, as suggested by Spektor ‘347, because Spektor ‘347 recognizes caster wheel hardness as a design characteristic that may be selected according to the intended application and operating environment. Thus, selecting relative hardness values for the casters would have been within ordinary skill in the art to achieve the desired performance for the intended application.
Regarding claim 3, Daicos '749, as modified, discloses wherein the base 32 is disposed in a position that overlaps a center of gravity of the body when viewed from the vertical direction (fig. 8), and both side portions of the body 20 protrude beyond the base 32 when viewed from the vertical direction (fig. 8).
Regarding claim 4, Daicos '749, as modified, discloses further comprising: a column 30 that stands from the base and supports the body.
Regarding claim 5, Daicos '749 discloses stand that supports a display device and is placed on a floor surface, the stand comprising: a base 32; a restricting component 28 that holds the display device 20 and restricts a position of the display device; and a column 30 that stands from the base and supports the restricting component 28, wherein: the base includes a plurality of casters 33 that roll on the floor surface, the plurality of casters 33 include one or more first casters and one or more second casters (col. 2, lines 55-58 and col. 5, lines 56-59), the base includes, as casters, only the two first casters and the one or more second casters, the plurality of casters 33 are arranged in a circumferential direction on the base, and the two first casters are arranged in a direction parallel to an extending direction of the restricting component 28 (figs. 7-8), in positions that overlap the restricting component when viewed from a vertical direction with respect to the floor surface.
Daicos '749 discloses a display device comprising: a body 20 that displays an image, but not an image based on a video signal.
However, Broxson '145 teaches a display device comprising: a body 10 that displays an image based on a video signal. Broxson '145 teaches a smart mirror device that also displays an image.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the conventional mirror taught in Daicos '749 with the smart mirror as taught in Broxson '145 in order to provide information or imagery to a user while preserving the mirror primary reflective function, thereby reducing the need for a separate display device, conserving space and improving user convenience.
Daicos '749 discloses that plurality of casters are arranged in a circumferential direction on the base (col. 5, lines 56-59), and the two first casters are arranged in a direction parallel to a display surface of the body, in a position that overlaps the body when viewed from a vertical direction with respect to the floor surface.
However, Daicos '749 is silent as to the one or more second casters having a hardness lower than a hardness of the two first casters.
Spektor ‘347 teaches that caster wheel materials may be selected from materials having varying hardnesses according to the operating environment and intended application (col. 5, line 65 to col. 6, line 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Daicos '749 to select the one or more second casters having a hardness lower than a hardness of the two first casters, as suggested by Spektor ‘347, because Spektor ‘347 recognizes caster wheel hardness as a design characteristic that may be selected according to the intended application and operating environment. Thus, selecting relative hardness values for the casters would have been within ordinary skill in the art to achieve the desired performance for the intended application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 3/19/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 3-5 under US 8,393,749 to Daicos in view of "NPL '2021 and U.S. Patent No. 10,318,145 to Broxson have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US 9,527,347 to Spektor.
Noting that Spektor ‘347 teaches that caster wheel hardness may be selected according to the intended application and operating environment. Therefore, selecting different hardness values for the casters based on their locations and intended application of the device would have been within the ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONICA E MILLNER whose telephone number is (571)270-7507. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4:00pm.
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at 571-272-4797. 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.
/MONICA E MILLNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632
Prosecution Insights