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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 1, 2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
1. Claim(s) 1-2, 5-7, 9, and 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levy (US 2017/0099885), as evidenced by FindLight (https://www.findlight.net/blog/how-does-e-ink-work/), in view of Lee (US 2018/0000169), and in further view of Erhardt (US 4,815,149).
Regarding Claim 1, Levy discloses a garment electronic display system comprising: a garment (100; para.4, “a cap”); a display screen (200) comprised of a battery (210; para.41), a fastener (230; para.45), and a receiver (216; para.39); and a software (212) that relays a piece of content to the display screen (para.36) wherein the display screen comprises a protective film layer (para.40; i.e. the “e-Paper” screen would have a protective film layer as e-paper screens have a film layer, as evidenced by the transparent layer of FindLight discussed on Pg.2 & 4-5)(as seen in Fig.1); wherein the garment is a hat (para.4, “a cap”); and wherein the software is configured to allow a user to upload pictures for display on the display screen (para.36 & 38-39). Levy does not disclose wherein the software is configured to allow a user to upload videos for display on the display screen. However, Lee teaches a garment (100) with a display screen (110), wherein software is configured to allow a user to upload pictures and videos for display on the display screen (para.16-18, 40 & 42).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the garment electronic display software of Levy to include the ability to upload videos, as taught by Lee, in order to provide a garment with an electronic display that changes to meet the desires of an event a wearer is attending.
Levy and Lee disclose the invention substantially as claimed above. Levy does not disclose the garment electronic display system comprising a speaker or the fastener is an adhesive for attaching the display screen to the garment. However, Erhardt teaches a garment electronic display system comprising a speaker (Col.1, lines 59-63) and an adhesive fastener for attaching a display to the garment (Col.1, lines 51-55)(Fig.1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the garment electronic display system of Levy to include a speaker, as taught by Erhardt, in order to provide the system with sound that enhances the design. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the fastener of Levy for the adhesive fastener of Erhardt, as a simple substitution of one well-known type of fastener for another, in order to yield the predictable result of securing the display screen to the garment. Further, it is noted that Applicant has provided no criticality for one type of fastener over another, as evidenced by Para.30 of the instant Specification.
Regarding Claim 2, Levy discloses a garment electronic display system of claim 1, wherein the display screen attaches to the garment via the fastener (230; para.45)(as seen in Fig.1).
Regarding Claim 5, Levy discloses a garment electronic display system of claim 1, wherein the piece of content is comprised of a picture, a video, a word, a letter, a phrase, an advertisement, a sound, a song, or a noise effect (para.36).
Regarding Claim 6, Levy discloses a garment electronic display system of claim 1, wherein the display screen is comprised of an electronic display screen (para.34; i.e. the display screen is an electronic display screen).
Regarding Claim 7, Levy discloses a garment electronic display system of claim 6, wherein the electronic display screen is comprised of a flexible electronic display screen (para.34 & 40; i.e. the display screen is a flexible electronic display screen).
Regarding Claims 9 and 16-17, Levy discloses a garment electronic display system comprising: a garment (100); a display screen (200) attached to the garment, the display screen comprised of a battery (210; para.41), a fastener (230; para.45), and a receiver (216; para.39); and a software (212) that relays a piece of content to the display screen (para.36)(as seen in Fig.1); wherein the garment is a jersey (100; para.33, i.e. a shirt is a jersey inasmuch as has been claimed by Applicant); and wherein the software is configured to allow a user to upload pictures for display on the display screen (para.36 & 38-39). Levy does not disclose the fastener is a snap fastener. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the fastener of Levy for a snap fastener, as a simple substitution of one well-known type of fastener for another, in order to yield the predictable result of securing the display screen to the garment. Further, it is noted that Applicant has provided no criticality for one type of fastener over another, as evidenced by Para.30 of the instant Specification.
Levy does not explicitly disclose a charging port, the battery being a rechargeable battery, and wherein the rechargeable battery can be recharged by the charging port; and wherein the software is configured to allow a user to upload videos for display on the display screen. However, Lee teaches a garment (100) with a display screen (110) with a rechargeable battery and a charging port; wherein the rechargeable battery can be recharged by the charging port (para.49); and wherein software is configured to allow a user to upload pictures and videos for display on the display screen (para.16-18, 40 & 42).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery system of Levy to include a rechargeable battery and charging port, as taught by Lee, in order to provide an environmentally friendly battery that can be recharged, creating less waste, and enhancing the ease of use for the wearer to be able to readily recharge the battery when needed. Levy and Lee do not explicitly teach the charging port is a USB charging port. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the charging port of modified Levy for a USB charging port, as a simple substitution of one well-known type of charging port for another, in order to yield the predictable result of a way to charge the system’s battery. Further, it is noted that Applicant has provided no criticality for one type of charging port over another, as evidenced by Para.32 of the instant Specification. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the garment electronic display software of Levy to include the ability to upload videos, as taught by Lee, in order to provide a garment with an electronic display that changes to meet the desires of an event a wearer is attending.
Levy and Lee disclose the invention substantially as claimed above. Levy does not disclose the garment electronic display system comprising a speaker; and the piece of content comprises a sound. However, Erhardt teaches a garment electronic display system comprising a speaker that produces sound content (Col.1, lines 59-63) and an adhesive fastener for attaching a display to the garment (Col.1, lines 51-55)(Fig.1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the garment electronic display system of Levy to include a speaker that produces sound content, as taught by Erhardt, in order to provide the system with sound that enhances the design.
Regarding Claim 12, Levy discloses a garment electronic display system of claim 9, wherein the display screen is comprised of an electronic display screen (para.34; i.e. the display screen is an electronic display screen).
Regarding Claim 13, Levy discloses a garment electronic display system of claim 12, wherein the electronic display screen is comprised of a flexible electronic display screen (para.34 & 40; i.e. the display screen is a flexible electronic display screen).
Regarding Claim 14, Levy discloses a garment electronic display system of claim 9, wherein the display screen is comprised of a protective layer (para.34; i.e. the display screen is a protective layer, inasmuch as has been claimed by Applicant, in that it is a layer protecting the user from the external environment).
Regarding Claim 15, Levy discloses a garment electronic display system of claim 9, wherein the battery is comprised of a removable battery (as seen in Fig.3, 210 can be removed from 220,222).
Regarding Claim 18, Levy discloses a method of using a garment electronic display system, the method comprising the following steps: providing a garment electronic display system (para.33-34) comprised of a garment comprised of a display screen (200), wherein the display screen is in wireless electrical communication with a software (para.38; i.e. bluetooth); attaching the display screen to the garment via a fastener (230; para.45); and wherein the display screen is a flexible display screen comprising a protective plastic film (para.34 & 40; i.e. the display screen is a flexible electronic display screen and the “e-Paper” screen would have a protective film layer as e-paper screens have a film layer); and wherein the software is configured to allow a user to upload pictures for display on the display screen (para.36 & 38-39). Levy does not disclose the fastener is an iron-on fastener or the garment being a jacket. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the fastener of Levy for an iron-on fastener, as a simple substitution of one well-known type of fastener for another, in order to yield the predictable result of securing the display screen to the garment. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the garment of Levy for a jacket, as a simple substitution of one well-known type of upper torso garment for another, in order to yield the predictable result of providing a garment. Further, it is noted that Applicant has provided no criticality for one type of garment over another, as evidenced by Para.30 of the instant Specification.
Levy does not explicitly disclose wearing the garment while attending a sporting event; and wherein the software is configured to allow a user to upload videos for display on the display screen. However, Lee teaches wearing a garment electronic display system while attending a sporting event (para.106 & 108); the garment (100) with a display screen (110), wherein software is configured to allow a user to upload pictures and videos for display on the display screen (para.16-18, 40 & 42).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have worn the garment of Levy to a sporting event and modified the software of Levy to include the ability to upload videos, as taught by Lee, in order to provide a garment with an electronic display that changes to meet the desires of an event a wearer is attending.
Levy and Lee disclose the invention substantially as claimed above. Levy does not disclose the garment electronic display system comprising a speaker. However, Erhardt teaches a garment electronic display system comprising a speaker (Col.1, lines 59-63).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the garment electronic display system of Levy to include a speaker that produces sound content, as taught by Erhardt, in order to provide the system with sound that enhances the design.
Regarding Claim 19, Modified Levy discloses a method of using a garment electronic display system of claim 18, wherein a piece of content is played on the display screen when a condition is present at the sporting event (Levy: para.36 and Lee: 106 & 108).
Regarding Claim 20, Levy and Lee disclose the invention substantially as claimed above. Levy and Lee do not explicitly disclose wherein the condition is comprised of a touchdown, a goal, a made basket, a scored point, a win, a loss, a tie, a play, a conversion, a homerun, a steal, a walk, a strikeout, an ejection, or an official’s call. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the content displayed as one of a touchdown, a goal, a made basket, a scored point, a win, a loss, a tie, a play, a conversion, a homerun, a steal, a walk, a strikeout, an ejection, or an official’s call, in order to provide the desired image on the user’s garment. Further, it has been held that when the claimed printed/image matter is not functionally related to the substrate it will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401, (CAFC 1983). The fact that the content of the printed/image matter placed on the substrate may render the device more convenient by providing an individual with a specific type of design does not alter the functional relationship. Mere support by the substrate for the printed/image matter is not the kind of functional relationship necessary for patentability. Thus, there is no novel and unobvious functional relationship between the printed/image matter and the substrate which is required for patentability.
Response to Arguments
In view of Applicant's amendment, the search has been updated, newly modified grounds of rejection and new grounds of rejection have been identified and applied. Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the newly modified grounds of rejection and the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEGAN E LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-3267. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8:00am-4:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Khoa Huynh can be reached at 571-272-4888. 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.
/MEGAN E LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732