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 .
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.
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 1-3 and 5-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0039742 to Ripley, Jr. (“Ripley”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0254939 to Anaya (“Anaya”) and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0379905 to Kawasaki-Hedges et al. (“Kawasaki-Hedges”).
Regarding claim 1, Ripley discloses a display device (e.g. display apparatus 1, as shown in figs. 1A-C and 4) comprising: i) a wall structure (e.g. housing 4, as shown in figs. 1A-C and 4, and discussed at para. 74-75) including a rear wall (e.g. back 7 and final backing 52, together, as shown in figs. 1A-C and 4) having a reflective surface portion (per para. 7, a known display device may contain a back wall having a mirror disposed thereon; note that per para. 24-26, the Ripley invention aims to provide a universal display apparatus 1 incorporating the advantages/features/capabilities of the display devices mentioned at para. 3-23 as desired; also note that as such, the aforementioned mirror may be disposed on Ripley’s back 7 panel; further note that a mirror is a reflective surface); and ii) an object or depiction of an object (e.g. objects 96-99 and support block 17, as shown in figs. 1A-C and 4) in a display position (e.g. arrangements shown in figs. 1A-C and 4): a) at (figs. 1A-C and 4); or b) spaced forwardly of (figs. 1A-C and 4) the rear wall (7 and 52, together), iii) the wall structure (4) further comprising a front wall (e.g. front portion 61, as shown in figs. 1A-C and 4), iv) the wall structure (4) having a transparent portion (e.g. glass 64, as shown in figs. 1A-C and 4), v) the front wall (61) having at least a portion spaced forwardly of (figs. 1A-C and 4) the rear wall (7 and 52, together), vi) there being at least one indicium (per para. 16, a known display device may contain indicia on a face of a transparent member; note that per para. 24-26, the Ripley invention aims to provide a universal display apparatus 1 incorporating the advantages/features/capabilities of the display devices mentioned at para. 3-23 as desired; also note that as such, the aforementioned indicia may be disposed on Ripley’s glass 64) at at least one location (e.g. on glass 64, as discussed supra) on the at least portion of the front wall (61) spaced forwardly of (figs. 1A-C and 4) the object or depiction of an object (96-99 and 17), vii) the display device (1) configured so that, as viewed from (figs. 1A-C) a first perspective (e.g. the point of view shown in figs. 1A-C) through (figs. 1A-C) the transparent portion (64) of the wall structure (4), a single reflected image (e.g. reflection of aforementioned indicia disposed on glass 64, provided by aforementioned mirror disposed on back 7 panel) of the at least one indicium (aforementioned indicia disposed on glass 64) at the reflective surface portion (aforementioned mirror disposed on back 7 panel) appears to be: i) behind (figs. 1A-C and 4; note that when observed from the point of view shown in figs. 1A-C, the aforementioned reflection of indicia disposed on glass 64 will appear behind objects 96-99 and support block 17 in the aforementioned mirror disposed on the back 7 panel, given that said indicia is located in front of objects 96-99 and support block 17 within the physical arrangements shown in figs. 1A-C and 4) the object or depiction of an object (96-99 and 17), when the object or depiction of an object (96-97, 99 and 17) is at (figs. 1A-C and 4; note that at least the rearmost surfaces of objects 96-97, object 99 and support block 17 are disposed abutting back 7 panel) the rear wall (7 and 52, together); or ii) further behind (figs. 1A-C; note that when observed from the point of view shown in figs. 1A-C, the aforementioned reflection of indicia disposed on glass 64 will appear to be located at a distance further behind the aforementioned mirror disposed on the back 7 panel than the distance that actually exists between flat object 98 and said mirror disposed on back 7 panel) the object or depiction of an object (98) than the rear wall (7 and 52, together) is spaced behind (figs. 1A-C and 4) the object or depiction of an object (98), when the object or depiction of an object (98) is spaced forwardly of (figs. 1A-C and 4) the rear wall (7 and 52, together), viii) the display device (1) further configured so that when viewed from (figs. 1A-C) the first perspective (aforementioned point of view shown in figs. 1A-C) there is: A) no reflected image (figs. 1B and 4; note that when observed from the point of view shown in figs. 1A-C, the rear surface of at least support block 17 will not be reflected, as it directly abuts the aforementioned mirror disposed on the back 7 panel, with no opportunity for light waves to enter between said rear surface of support block 17 and mirror disposed on the back 7 panel) of the object or depiction of an object (e.g. rear surface of support block 17) visible (see above reasoning) when the object or depiction of an object (aforementioned rear surface of support block 17) is at (figs. 1B and 4) the rear wall (7 and 52, together); and B) a single reflected image (e.g. reflection of objects 96-99 and support block 17, provided by aforementioned mirror disposed on back 7 panel) of the object or depiction of an object (96-99 and 17) when the object or depiction of an object (96-99 and 17) is spaced forwardly of (figs. 1A-C and 4) the rear wall (7 and 52, together).
In the event that Applicants are unconvinced that Ripley para. 7 adequately discloses a rear wall having a reflective surface portion, Anaya explicitly teaches the concept of providing a rear wall (e.g. back wall 20, as shown in fig. 2) having a reflective surface portion (e.g. mirror discussed at para. 15).
Given that Ripley and Anaya both concern display cases designed to exhibit items held therein, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Anaya’s mirror teaching to Ripley’s back 7 panel, in order to provide the benefit of yielding a resultant display case assembly that is better able to fully present and display all sides of items held therein.
In the event that Applicants are unconvinced that Ripley para. 16 adequately discloses at least one indicium at at least one location on the front wall, Kawasaki-Hedges explicitly teaches the concept of providing at least one indicium (e.g. media content 301, as shown in fig. 3 and discussed at para. 33) at at least one location (fig. 3) on (fig. 3) a front wall (e.g. transparent media display screen, as shown in fig. 3 and discussed at para. 33).
Given that Ripley and Kawasaki-Hedges both concern glass-front cases in which items are to be displayed (Ripley figs. 1A-C and 4, and Kawasaki-Hedges fig. 3), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the Kawasaki-Hedges media content 301 teachings to the Ripley glass 64 panel, in order to provide the benefit of presenting information regarding the Ripley assembly and its internally-held contents as desired.
Regarding claim 2, Ripley in view of Anaya and further in view of Kawasaki-Hedges discloses the display device according to claim 1 wherein the at least one indicium (aforementioned Ripley indicia disposed on glass 64) is on (see the reasoning set forth in the rejection of claim 1, supra) the transparent portion (Ripley 64) of the wall structure (Ripley 4).
Regarding claim 3, Ripley in view of Anaya and further in view of Kawasaki-Hedges discloses the display device according to claim 1 wherein the wall structure (Ripley 4) further comprises a peripheral (Ripley figs. 1A-C and 4) wall portion (e.g. Ripley casing 5, as shown in figs. 1A-C and 4) between (Ripley figs. 1A-C and 4) the front and rear walls (Ripley 61, and 7 and 52, together, respectively).
Regarding claim 5, Ripley in view of Anaya and further in view of Kawasaki-Hedges discloses the display device according to claim 1 wherein a part of the transparent portion (Ripley 64) of the wall structure (Ripley 4) is on the front wall (Ripley 61) and the first perspective (aforementioned point of view shown in Ripley figs. 1A-C) is through the front wall (Ripley 61) where the front wall (Ripley 61) is transparent (Ripley para. 75).
Regarding claim 6, Ripley in view of Anaya and further in view of Kawasaki-Hedges discloses the display device according to claim 1 wherein the front and rear walls (Ripley 61, and 7 and 52, together, respectively) each is substantially flat (Ripley figs. 1A-C and 4) and resides within a plane (Ripley figs. 1A-C and 4), the front and rear walls (Ripley 61, and 7 and 52, together, respectively) spaced fully from each other (Ripley figs. 1A-C and 4).
Regarding claim 7, Ripley in view of Anaya and further in view of Kawasaki-Hedges discloses the display device according to claim 6 wherein the planes (Ripley figs. 1A-C and 4) of the front and rear walls (Ripley 61, and 7 and 52, together, respectively) are substantially parallel to each other (Ripley figs. 1A-C and 4).
Regarding claim 8, Ripley in view of Anaya and further in view of Kawasaki-Hedges discloses the display device according to claim 1 wherein the reflective surface portion (aforementioned mirror disposed on Ripley back 7 panel) of the rear wall (Ripley 7 and 52, together) is substantially flat (Ripley figs. 1A-C and 4) and the object or depiction of an object (e.g. Ripley 98 and 17) is substantially flat (Ripley figs. 1B and 4).
Regarding claim 9, Ripley in view of Anaya and further in view of Kawasaki-Hedges discloses the display device according to claim 1 wherein the front and rear walls (Ripley 61, and 7 and 52, together, respectively) each has a flat sheet shape (Ripley figs. 1A-C and 4).
Regarding claim 10, Ripley in view of Anaya and further in view of Kawasaki-Hedges discloses the display device according to claim 4 wherein the peripheral wall portion (Ripley 5) has a polygonal shape (Ripley para. 27 and figs. 1A-C) as viewed from a front perspective (e.g. point of view shown in Ripley figs. 1A-C).
Regarding claim 11, Ripley in view of Anaya and further in view of Kawasaki-Hedges discloses the display device according to claim 10 wherein the polygonal shape (Ripley para. 27 and figs. 1A-C) is defined by flat wall portions (e.g. four rectangular panels forming casing 5, as shown in Ripley figs. 1A-C and 4) each having a flat sheet shape (Ripley figs. 1A-C and 4).
Regarding claim 12, Ripley in view of Anaya and further in view of Kawasaki-Hedges discloses the display device according to claim 1 wherein the depiction of an object (e.g. rear surface of at least Ripley support block 17) is integrally formed with (fig. 4; note that paragraph 66 of Applicants’ filed specification mentions a configuration wherein “depiction of an object 22 is integrally formed with the rear wall 16”; also note that such intended configuration is illustrated in Applicants’ figs. 4-5 and 10 as well as described at paragraph 50 of the filed specification; further note that MPEP 2111.01 provides that an applicant can act as his/her own lexicographer, and the Office will respect such in the context of the instant application) the rear wall (Ripley 7 and 52, together) and there is no reflected image (Ripley figs. 1B and 4; note that when observed from the point of view shown in figs. 1A-C, the rear surface of at least support block 17 will not be reflected, as it directly abuts the aforementioned mirror disposed on the back 7 panel, with no opportunity for light waves to enter between said rear surface of support block 17 and mirror disposed on the back 7 panel) of the object or depiction of an object (aforementioned rear surface of at least Ripley support block 17) from the first perspective (aforementioned point of view shown in Ripley figs. 1A-C) through the transparent portion (Ripley 64) of the wall structure (Ripley 4).
Regarding claim 13, Ripley in view of Anaya and further in view of Kawasaki-Hedges discloses the display device according to claim 1 wherein the wall structure (Ripley 4) is defined by a plurality of separately formed (Ripley figs. 1A-C and 4) joined (Ripley figs. 1A-C and 4) parts (e.g. Ripley casing 5, back 7, final backing 52, and front portion 61, together, as shown in figs. 1A-C and 4), the joined parts (Ripley 5, 7, 52 and 61, together) having cooperating (Ripley figs. 1A-C) connectors (e.g. Ripley hinges 60, as shown in figs. 1A-C) that are engaged (Ripley figs. 1A-C).
Regarding claim 14, Ripley in view of Anaya and further in view of Kawasaki-Hedges discloses the display device according to claim 13 wherein the front and rear walls (Ripley 61, and 7 and 52, together, respectively) each is one of (Ripley figs. 1A-C and 4) the separately formed joined parts (Ripley 5, 7, 52 and 61, together).
Regarding claim 15, Ripley in view of Anaya and further in view of Kawasaki-Hedges discloses the display device according to claim 14 wherein the wall structure (Ripley 4) comprises a peripheral (Ripley figs. 1A-C and 4) wall portion (e.g. Ripley casing 5, as shown in figs. 1A-C and 4) between (Ripley figs. 1A-C and 4) the front and rear walls (Ripley 61, and 7 and 52, together, respectively), the peripheral wall portion (Ripley 5) makes up at least one of (Ripley figs. 1A-C and 4) the separately formed joined parts (Ripley 5, 7, 52 and 61, together).
Regarding claim 16, Ripley in view of Anaya and further in view of Kawasaki-Hedges discloses the display device according to claim 15 wherein one (e.g. Ripley casing 5, alone) of the connecting (i.e. joined together via aforementioned Ripley hinge 60 “connectors”) parts (Ripley 5, 7, 52 and 61, together) comprises (e.g. has attached thereto, as shown in Ripley figs. 1A-C) a projecting part (e.g. portion of Ripley hinges 60 that projects outward from the assembly, as shown in Ripley figs. 1A-C, along with adjacent flat leaf portion intended to attach to front portion 61) on (Ripley figs. 1A-C) one (e.g. Ripley 5, alone) of: a) one of the front and rear walls; and b) the peripheral wall portion (Ripley 5), and another (e.g. Ripley front portion 61, alone) of the connecting (i.e. joined together via aforementioned Ripley hinge 60 “connectors”) parts (Ripley 5, 7, 52 and 61, together) comprises a receiver (e.g. surface of Ripley front portion 61 accepting aforementioned flat leaf portion of hinge 60) for the projecting part (aforementioned flat leaf portion of Ripley hinge 60) on the other (e.g. Ripley 61, alone) of: i) the other (Ripley 61, alone) of the front and rear walls (Ripley 61, and 7 and 52, together, respectively); and ii) the peripheral wall portion, the one (aforementioned Ripley 5, alone) of the connecting parts (Ripley 5, 7, 52 and 61, together) engageable with (Ripley figs. 1A-C) the another (aforementioned Ripley 61, alone) of the connecting parts (Ripley 5, 7, 52 and 61, together) through a press fitting step (Ripley figs. 1A-C and 4; note that the respective constituent components of the assembly may be pressed together as desired; however, also note that the instant claim is drawn to a display device- not a method of producing such).
Regarding claim 17, Ripley in view of Anaya and further in view of Kawasaki-Hedges discloses the display device according to claim 13 wherein the wall structure (Ripley 4) is configured so that the plurality of separately formed joined parts (Ripley 5, 7, 52 and 61, together) are joinable (Ripley figs. 1A-C and 4) and releasably maintainable in a joined relationship without requiring use of separate fasteners (per Ripley para. 75, in lieu of hinges 60, sliding tracks may be utilized for the purpose of securing front portion 61 to housing 4; note that such sliding tracks may be carved into respective panels of front portion 61 and housing 4 as desired).
Regarding claim 18, Ripley in view of Anaya and further in view of Kawasaki-Hedges discloses the display device according to claim 1 wherein the at least one indicium (aforementioned Ripley indicia disposed on glass 64) is related to (see the modification set forth in the rejection of claim 1, supra) the object or depiction of an object (Ripley 96-99 and 17).
Additionally, note that it has been held that “where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.” See In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385-86, 217 USPQ 401,404 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the aforementioned Ripley indicia as desired, in order to thereby present information as desired.
Regarding claim 19, Ripley in view of Anaya and further in view of Kawasaki-Hedges discloses the display device according to claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the at least one indicium (aforementioned Ripley indicia disposed on glass 64) defines at least a partial frame around the object (Ripley 96-99 and 17) with the display device (Ripley 1) viewed from a front perspective (e.g. point of view shown in Ripley figs. 1A-C).
However, note that it has been held that “where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.” See In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385-86, 217 USPQ 401,404 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the aforementioned Ripley indicia as desired, in order to thereby present information as desired.
Regarding claim 20, Ripley in view of Anaya and further in view of Kawasaki-Hedges discloses the display device according to claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the at least one indicium (aforementioned Ripley indicia disposed on glass 64) does not obstruct the object (Ripley 96-99 and 17) as with the display device (Ripley 1) viewed from at least one front perspective (e.g. point of view shown in Ripley figs. 1A-C).
However, note that it has been held that “where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.” See In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385-86, 217 USPQ 401,404 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the aforementioned Ripley indicia as desired, in order to thereby present information as desired.
Regarding claim 21, Ripley discloses a display device (e.g. display apparatus 1, as shown in figs. 1A-C and 4) comprising: i) a wall structure (e.g. housing 4, as shown in figs. 1A-C and 4) including a rear wall (e.g. back 7 and final backing 52, together, as shown in figs. 1A-C and 4) having a reflective surface portion (per para. 7, a known display device may contain a back wall having a mirror disposed thereon; note that per para. 24-26, the Ripley invention aims to provide a universal display apparatus 1 incorporating the advantages/features/capabilities of the display devices mentioned at para. 3-23 as desired; also note that as such, the aforementioned mirror may be disposed on Ripley’s back 7 panel; further note that a mirror is a reflective surface); and ii) an object or depiction of an object (e.g. objects 96-99 and support block 17, as shown in figs. 1A-C and 4) in a display position (e.g. arrangements shown in figs. 1A-C and 4): a) at (figs. 1A-C and 4); or b) spaced forwardly of (figs. 1A-C and 4) the rear wall (7 and 52, together), iii) the wall structure (4) further comprising a front wall (e.g. front portion 61, as shown in figs. 1A-C and 4), iv) the wall structure (4) having a transparent portion (e.g. glass 64, as shown in figs. 1A-C and 4), v) the front wall (61) having at least a portion spaced forwardly of (figs. 1A-C and 4) the rear wall (7 and 52, together), vi) there being at least one indicium (per para. 16, a known display device may contain indicia on a face of a transparent member; note that per para. 24-26, the Ripley invention aims to provide a universal display apparatus 1 incorporating the advantages/features/capabilities of the display devices mentioned at para. 3-23 as desired; also note that as such, the aforementioned indicia may be disposed on Ripley’s glass 64) at at least one location (e.g. on glass 64, as discussed supra) on the at least portion of the front wall (61) spaced forwardly of (figs. 1A-C and 4) the object or depiction of an object (96-99 and 17), vii) the display device (1) configured so that, as viewed from (figs. 1A-C) a first perspective (e.g. the point of view shown in figs. 1A-C) through (figs. 1A-C) the transparent portion (64) of the wall structure (4), a reflected image (e.g. reflection of aforementioned indicia disposed on glass 64, provided by aforementioned mirror disposed on back 7 panel) of the at last one indicium (aforementioned indicia disposed on glass 64) at the reflective surface portion (aforementioned mirror disposed on back 7 panel) appears to be: a) behind (figs. 1A-C and 4; note that when observed from the point of view shown in figs. 1A-C, the aforementioned reflection of indicia disposed on glass 64 will appear behind objects 96-99 and support block 17 in the aforementioned mirror disposed on the back 7 panel, given that said indicia is located in front of objects 96-99 and support block 17 within the physical arrangements shown in figs. 1A-C and 4) the object or depiction of an object (96-99 and 17), with the object or depiction of an object (96-97, 99 and 17) at (figs. 1A-C and 4; note that at least the rearmost surfaces of objects 96-97, object 99 and support block 17 are disposed abutting back 7 panel) the rear wall (7 and 52, together); and b) further behind (figs. 1A-C; note that when observed from the point of view shown in figs. 1A-C, the aforementioned reflection of indicia disposed on glass 64 will appear to be located at a distance further behind the aforementioned mirror disposed on the back 7 panel than the distance that exists between flat object 98 and said mirror disposed on back 7 panel) the object or depiction of an object (98) than the rear wall (7 and 52, together) is spaced behind (figs. 1A-C and 4) the object or depiction of an object (98), with the object or depiction of an object (98) spaced forwardly of (figs. 1A-C and 4) the rear wall (7 and 52, together), viii) wherein the depiction of an object (e.g. rear surface of at least support block 17) is integrally formed with (fig. 4; note that paragraph 66 of Applicants’ filed specification mentions a configuration wherein “depiction of an object 22 is integrally formed with the rear wall 16”; also note that such intended configuration is illustrated in Applicants’ figs. 4-5 and 10 as well as described at paragraph 50 of the filed specification; further note that MPEP 2111.01 provides that an applicant can act as his/her own lexicographer, and the Office will respect such in the context of the instant application) the rear wall (7 and 52, together).
In the event that Applicants are unconvinced that Ripley para. 7 adequately discloses a rear wall having a reflective surface portion, Anaya explicitly teaches the concept of providing a rear wall (e.g. back wall 20, as shown in fig. 2) having a reflective surface portion (e.g. mirror discussed at para. 15).
For the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1, supra, it would have been obvious to apply Anaya’s mirror teaching to Ripley’s back 7 panel.
In the event that Applicants are unconvinced that Ripley para. 16 adequately discloses at least one indicium at at least one location on the front wall, Kawasaki-Hedges explicitly teaches the concept of providing at least one indicium (e.g. media content 301, as shown in fig. 3 and discussed at para. 33) at at least one location (fig. 3) on (fig. 3) a front wall (e.g. transparent media display screen, as shown in fig. 3 and discussed at para. 33).
For the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1, supra, it would have been obvious to apply the Kawasaki-Hedges media content 301 teachings to the Ripley glass 64 panel.
Regarding claim 22, Ripley in view of Anaya and further in view of Kawasaki-Hedges discloses the display device according to claim 21 wherein the object or depiction of an object (e.g. Ripley 98 and 17) is substantially flat (Ripley figs. 1B and 4).
Regarding claim 23, Ripley in view of Anaya and further in view of Kawasaki-Hedges discloses the display device according to claim 22 wherein the object or depiction of an object (e.g. Ripley 99 and 17) is substantially flush with (Ripley fig. 4) the reflective surface portion (aforementioned mirror disposed on Ripley back 7 panel) of the rear wall (Ripley 7 and 52, together).
Regarding claim 24, Ripley in view of Anaya and further in view of Kawasaki-Hedges discloses the display device according to claim 8 wherein the object or depiction of an object (e.g. Ripley 99 and 17) is substantially flush with (Ripley fig. 4) the reflective surface portion (aforementioned mirror disposed on Ripley back 7 panel) of the rear wall (Ripley 7 and 52, together).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ripley in view of Anaya and further in view of Kawasaki-Hedges and U.S. Patent No. 3,963,289 to Pralle (“Pralle”).
Regarding claim 4, Ripley in view of Anaya and further in view of Kawasaki-Hedges discloses the display device according to claim 3, but does not disclose wherein a part of the transparent portion (Ripley 64) of the wall structure (Ripley 4) is on the peripheral wall portion (Ripley 5) and the first perspective is through the peripheral wall portion (Ripley 5) where the peripheral wall portion (Ripley 5) is transparent.
Pralle teaches the concept of providing a part of a transparent portion (e.g. transparent plastic sheet material discussed at col. 1, lines 66-67) of a wall structure (e.g. side walls 16 and 18, bottom wall 20 and end member 34, together, as shown in figs. 1-3) being on a peripheral wall portion (e.g. enclosure 10, as shown in figs. 1-3) and a first perspective (e.g. point of view shown in fig. 3) is through (fig. 3) the peripheral wall portion (10) where the peripheral wall portion (10) is transparent (col. 1, line 63- col. 2, line 4 and col. 2, lines 37-38).
Given that Ripley and Pralle both concern display devices having at least some transparent portions, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the Pralle transparency teachings to each of Ripley’s panels within casing 5 as desired, in order to provide the benefit of yielding a resultant Ripley assembly that enables contents held therein to be optimally viewed/presented.
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicants’ claim amendments and additions, a further search of the pertinent areas of prior art was executed. The aforementioned Ripley, Anaya and Pralle references were identified within said search. Accordingly, Applicants’ arguments have been considered, but are rendered moot because the new grounds of rejection differ from those applied in the prior rejection of record. Applicants are encouraged to see the treatment of claims set forth supra.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN V LEWIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5052. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Daniel J. Troy can be reached at (571) 270-3742. 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.
/JUSTIN V LEWIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights