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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-10, 12-20, and 24-26 remain pending in the application. Claims 1, 8, 12 and 20 have been amended. Claims 11 and 21-23 have been cancelled. Claims 24-26 have been added.
Claim Objections
Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim does not end in a period as is required. See MPEP 608.01(m). Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-10, 13-14, 17, 19, 20, and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. (US 20170283063 A1, hereinafter Johnson) in view of Chavarria et al. (US 20220009635 A1, Chavarria) and Eaton et al. (US 20240351686 A1, claiming benefit to application 63497248, hereinafter Eaton).
Concerning claims 1 and 12, Johnson teaches an in-flight entertainment and communication system for a passenger vehicle having an aisle, window seats along a first side of the aisle, and center seats along a second side of the aisle (fig. 2; ¶0026), the system comprising:
a plurality of display screens (fig. 2: display or amenity monuments 215a-215c; fig. 5A; ¶¶0034-0035), wherein each of the plurality of display screens comprises:
a first portion configured to be at a front-center of a field of vision of a passenger opening/cavity on the passenger vehicle, the first portion having a first curvature radius (¶0034: one screen positioned in the front of the passenger; ¶0035: wherein the multiple displays may be replaced by a curved display that occupies substantially the entire span of the countertop; ¶0037),
a second portion configured to be at a front-left of the field of vision, the second portion having a second curvature radius (¶0034: one screen positioned to the left of the passenger; ¶0035: wherein the multiple displays may be replaced by a curved display that occupies substantially the entire span of the countertop), and
a third portion configured to be at a front-right of the field of vision, the third portion having a third curvature of radius (¶0034: one screen positioned to the right of the passenger; ¶0035: wherein the multiple displays may be replaced by a curved display that occupies substantially the entire span of the countertop),
wherein the first portion, the second portion, and the third portion are configured to occupy at least 90 percent of the field of vision (¶0034: the multiple screens may be provided to substantially surround the passenger with multimedia content; ¶0035: wherein the multiple displays may be replaced by a curved display that occupies substantially the entire span of the countertop; figs. 5A & 6A shows multiple displays that occupy the frontal and peripheral field of vision.),
wherein at least one of the second portions or the third portions of the display screens are positioned closer to the aisle than the first portions (fig. 2: compartments 215a-215c & aisles 210a-210b show that at least one of the first, second and third portions of the multiple displays (now one large curved display) would naturally be positioned closer to an aisle). Not explicitly taught is the first portion configured to be at a front-center of a field of vision of a seat on the passenger vehicle.
Chavarria, in the same field of endeavor, extended display assemblies for passenger seats on an aircraft (¶0015), comprising:
a plurality of display screens (¶0016: a passenger seat arrangement 100 can include one or multiple seat assemblies 102 arrayed in conjunction with and separated from each other by privacy enclosures 104; ¶0017: a seat-facing portion 106 of each enclosure 104 includes an extended display assembly 120), wherein each of the plurality of display screens comprises:
at least a first portion configured to be at a front-center of a field of vision of a seat on the passenger vehicle (fig. 5: main portion 526 of display assembly 120 is located at a front-center of a field of vision of a seat; ¶0023: main display is configured to provide a preferred viewing angle (e.g., perpendicular) to a facing passenger seat). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Johnson and Chavarria in order to extend the in-flight display of content to one or more seat assemblies on a passenger vehicle. Johnson and Chavarria fail to teach, wherein an adjustable transparency of at least one of the first portions, the second portions and the third portions of the plurality of display screens is configured to be controllable by crew members for adjusting a transparency level during take-off and landing.
Eaton, in the same field of endeavor, teaches electronic screens onboard a passenger vehicle that can be used to provide content management and content delivery (figs. 3-7: electronic screens 214 and 216; ¶0042), wherein an adjustable transparency of at least one of the first portions, the second portions and the third portions of the plurality of display screens is configured to be controllable by crew members for adjusting a transparency level during take-off and landing (¶0033; ¶¶0042-0043: electronic screens 214 and 216 can be controlled and operated by control unit 230 to be transparent during taxi, take off, and landing to meet regulatory requirements). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add the features of Eaton to the Johnson in view of Chavarria invention in order to meet regulatory requirements that require a flight attendant to be visible to passengers along the length of the internal cabin.
Concerning claim 2, Johnson in view of Chavarria and Eaton further teach the system of claim 1, wherein the display screens are positioned such that edge portions of the display screens adjacent to the aisle are substantially perpendicular to the aisle (Johnson, figs. 5A & 6A; Chavarria, figs. 1 & 5).
Concerning claim 4, Johnson further teaches the system of claim 1, wherein each of the display screens has a screen size and is spaced apart from the corresponding seat to provide a viewing angle of 140-160° (figs. 5A & 6A, ¶0017: a 24” screen with an ultra-wide 21:9 aspect ratio configured at the appropriate distance would provide a wide viewing angle).
Concerning claim 5, Chavarria further teaches the system of claim 1, wherein each of the display screens is configured to simultaneously display a first content on the first portion and a second content distinct from the first content on the second portion (¶0019; ¶0028).
Concerning claim 6, Chavarria further teaches the system of claim 5, wherein the first content includes at least one of a menu, weather information, an itinerary, a schedule, or a map, and wherein the second content includes at least one a multimedia content or flight tracking information (¶0019; ¶0028 – information unrelated to the multimedia content may be displayed on one portion while multimedia content may be displayed on another portion).
Concerning claim 7, Chavarria further teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the center seats are positioned on either side of a partition wall extending parallel to the aisle (figs. 1 & 5: a seat is positioned on the side of partition walls in the front and to the side), and wherein the first portions of the display screens in the center seats face away from the partition walls (fig. 5: portion 526 is mounted on to face away from the partition wall).
Concerning claim 9, Chavarria further teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the second curvature radius is infinity such that the second portions are substantially flat (figs. 1 & 4: shows a left portion of display assembly 120 being substantially flat).
Concerning claim 10, Chavarria further teaches the system of claim 9, wherein the substantially flat second portions are mounted on and parallel to partition walls separating seats in adjacent rows and in a column (fig. 1: the left portions of display assembly 120 are mounted to a privacy partition).
Concerning claim 13, Johnson in view of Chavarria and Eaton further teach the display screen of claim 12, wherein at least one of the first portion, the second portion, or the third portion is convex with respect to the seat (Johnson, ¶0035; Chavarria, fig. 5).
Concerning claim 14, Chavarria further teaches the display screen of claim 12, wherein at least one of the first portion, the second portion, or the third portion is concave with respect to the seat (fig. 1: display screen 130).
Concerning claim 17, Chavarria further teaches the display screen of claim 12, wherein the first portion and the second portion are arranged laterally such that the display screen curves along a lateral axis (fig. 5).
Concerning claim 19, Eaton further teaches the display screen of claim 12, wherein the display screen includes Organic Light-Emitting Diode (OLED) display elements (¶0022; ¶0040).
Concerning claim 20, Eaton further teaches the display screen of claim 12, wherein the adjustable transparency of at least one of the first portion, the second portion, or the third portion is further configured to be controllable based on user inputs or sensor outputs (¶0033; ¶¶0042-0043: electronic screens 214 and 216 can be controlled and operated by control unit 230 to be transparent during taxi, take off, and landing to meet regulatory requirements).
Concerning claim 25, Eaton further teaches the display screen of claim 1, wherein each of the display screens include Organic Light-Emitting Diode (OLED) display elements (¶0022; ¶0040).
Concerning claim 26, Chavarria further teaches the display screen of claim 1, wherein the first portion is configured to display main content comprising movies, TV shows, flight tracking, or a combination thereof, and wherein at least one of the second portion or the third portion is configured to display secondary content comprising time, wireless connection status, temperature, volume controls, or a combination thereof (¶0019; ¶0028 – information unrelated to the multimedia content may be displayed on one portion while multimedia content may be displayed on another portion).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. (US 20170283063 A1, hereinafter Johnson) in view of Chavarria et al. (US 20220009635 A1, Chavarria) and Eaton et al. (US 20240351686 A1, claiming benefit to application 63497248, hereinafter Eaton) and Ruiz Lara et al. (US 20240351689 A1).
Concerning claim 3, Johnson in view of Chavarria and Eaton teaches the system of claim 1. Not explicitly taught is the system, wherein each of the window seats and the center seats is angled by at least 15° relative to the aisle to face a center of the corresponding display screen.
Ruiz Lara et al. (hereinafter Ruiz Lara) teaches a passenger seating system, wherein each of the seats are angled by at least 15° relative to the aisle to face a center of the corresponding display screen (figs. 2 & 5, ¶¶0028-0029). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Ruiz Lara in to the Johnson in view of Chavarria and Eaton invention and configure the seating arrangement into a reverse-herringbone style seating. Such a modification is a simple design choice implemented by the inventor according to a design identity through shape and styling selections (Ruiz Lara, ¶0002).
Claims 8 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. (US 20170283063 A1, hereinafter Johnson) in view of Chavarria et al. (US 20220009635 A1, Chavarria) and Eaton et al. (US 20240351686 A1, claiming benefit to application 63497248, hereinafter Eaton) and Zink et al. (US 20240196026 A1).
Concerning claim 8, Johnson in view of Chavarria and Eaton teaches the system of claim 1. Not explicitly taught is the system, wherein the second portions or the third portions of the display screens in the window seats at least partially cover corresponding windows in the window seats, and wherein a transparency of the second portions is adjustable to at least partially hide or reveal the windows.
Zink et al. (hereinafter Zink) teaches content production and playout for surround screens, wherein the second portions of the display screens in the window seats at least partially cover corresponding windows in the window seats (fig. 4B, ¶0098: “One or more of the screens 452 may be transparent or partially transparent LCD or OLED panels (also called see-through displays) for augmenting the natural view of the vehicle exterior, may have an opaque backing for virtual reality, or may include an electronic or mechanical shutter to transition between opaque and transparent or partially transparent states”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Zink in order to allow the user the choice of a natural view or digital content.
Concerning claim 24, Zink further teaches the system of claim 8, wherein the transparency level of the second portions of the third portions of the display screens positioned in front of the window seats is configured to be set at least partially hide or reveal the windows (¶0098: “One or multiple LCD layers may be used as an electronic shutter to transition between opaque and transparent states.”).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. (US 20170283063 A1, hereinafter Johnson) in view of Chavarria et al. (US 20220009635 A1, Chavarria) and Eaton et al. (US 20240351686 A1, claiming benefit to application 63497248, hereinafter Eaton) and Becouarn et al. (US 20200165001 A1, hereinafter).
Concerning claim 15, Johnson in view of Chavarria and Eaton teaches the display screen of claim 12. Chavarria further teaches the screen, wherein the first curvature radius is infinity such that the first portion is substantially flat (figs. 1 & 4: shows a center portion of display assembly 120 being substantially flat). Not explicitly taught is the screen, wherein the second curvature radius is less than 1,200 millimeters.
Becouarn, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a display screen presented in front of a user in a vehicle or aircraft, wherein the second curvature radius is less than 1,200 millimeters (¶0081: lateral zones 14 curve radius is less than 1000mm), and wherein the first curvature radius is infinity such that the first portion is substantially flat (¶0068: main zone 12 is substantially planar). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Becouarn into the Johnson in view of Chavarria and Eaton invention in order to give the user better peripheral immersion of the content being presented. It is noted that the prior at fails to explicitly teach, wherein the display screen has a screen size of 45 inches.
Although not explicitly stated, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to implement the display screen in a size of 45 inches. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that a larger screen size provides a more immersive and engaging viewer experience.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. (US 20170283063 A1, hereinafter Johnson) in view of Chavarria et al. (US 20220009635 A1, Chavarria) and Eaton et al. (US 20240351686 A1, claiming benefit to application 63497248, hereinafter Eaton) and Hwang et al. (US 20240019893 A1, hereinafter Hwang).
Concerning claim 16, Johnson in view of Chavarria and Eaton teaches the display screen of claim 12. Chavarria further teaches the screen, wherein the second curvature radius is infinity such that the first portion is substantially flat (figs. 1 & 4: shows a left portion of display assembly 120 being substantially flat). Not explicitly taught is the screen, wherein the first curvature radius is 800 millimeters.
Hwang , in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a display screen presented in front of a user, wherein the second curvature radius is 800mm (¶0042). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Hwang into the Johnson in view of Chavarria and Eaton invention in order to give the user the highest sense of reality and immersion (Hwang, ¶0042). It is noted that the prior at fails to explicitly teach, wherein the display screen has a screen size of 34-39 inches.
Although not explicitly stated, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to implement the display screen in a size of 34-39 inches. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that a larger screen size provides a more immersive and engaging viewer experience.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. (US 20170283063 A1, hereinafter Johnson) in view of Chavarria et al. (US 20220009635 A1, Chavarria) and Eaton et al. (US 20240351686 A1, claiming benefit to application 63497248, hereinafter Eaton) and An Jun-Seok r et al. (EP 2664957 A1).
Concerning claim 18, Johnson in view of Chavarria and Eaton teaches the display screen of claim 12. Not explicitly taught is the display screen, wherein the first portion and the second portion are arranged vertically such that the display screen curves along a vertical axis.
An Jun-Seok r et al. (hereinafter An Jun-Seok) teaches configuration of a curved display apparatus, wherein the display screen is arranged vertically such that the display screen curves along a vertical axis (fig. 19). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of An Jun-Seok in to the Johnson in view of Chavarria and Eaton invention and implement the first portion and the second portion arranged vertically such that the display screen curves along a vertical axis. This modification would allow the presentation of content in a different manner (e.g., aspect ratio, form factor, etc.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8 of the remarks, filed 04/02/2026, with respect to rejections 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. §§102 and 103 of claims have been fully considered, but they are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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 JAMES M ANDERSON II whose telephone number is (571)270-1444. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10AM-6PM.
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, BRIAN PENDLETON can be reached at 571-272-7527. 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.
/James M Anderson II/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Prosecution Insights