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
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Specification
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are:
New amended drawing comprises the labels which are different or even mutually exclusive to the original labels.
So far, Applicant already provided three or more versions of the definitions of “Cavities” (4/25/24, 6/24/25, 2/6/25 or, appeal filed on 3/5/25; 6/24/25, 8/29/25, 9/25/25; and 1/5/26). Most of the versions of “Cavities” are different. Examiner would appreciate Applicant can clearly specify (ON the original SPEC filed on 4/25/24 and drawing), which version of SPEC drawing that Applicate modified from?
Examiner also request Applicant to provide a version with quality because the current version, with markup, can’t pass the OCR. It will be very difficult for Examiner to search the confuse keywords without OCR. (See 112 rejection for the confuse keywords)
Examiner suggest Applicant to amend the SPEC and drawings based on the original version initially filed on 4/25/24. Because Examiner can’t figure it out all the different versions argued on the above 8 or more different time slots.
Applicant further amended the SPEC and drawings with new matter (see above discussion). Therefore, all the amended SPEC and drawings are not entered.
Based on Applicant’s new amendments, at least (but not limited to) the following limitations are new matter and shouldn’t add to the original SPEC or drawings:
a first component of integrated electronic equipment for operating the electronic display.
a second component of the customer electronic equipment for providing operations other than operation of the electronic display and a second component of the integrated electronic equipment for operating the electronic display.
integrated electronic equipment and the customer electronic equipment.
at least one a third component of the customer electronic equipment is supported by said third horizontal support member.
A storage device accommodating said second component of the customer electronic equipment and the second component of the integrated electronic equipment for operating the electronic display is provided at the third horizontal support member.
The first cavity extends below the third horizontal support member and is devoid of the electronic equipment, including the integrated electronic equipment and the customer electronic equipment.
Examiner will maintain this list whenever Applicant add any new matter in this application. Because there are too many amended SPEC/drawings are filed in this application.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Examiner suggest Applicant to amend the SPEC and drawings based on the original version initially filed on 4/25/24, without new matter (see above discussion). Examiner also respectively suggest Applicant do not amend any SPEC or drawings except typo or grammar errors. Because, the major issues/confusion are from the claims not the SPEC or drawings.
Examiner’s note:
Examiner appreciate Applicant canceled the other independent claims 19-21 which cause more confuse in the previous office action.
The quality of the submitted claims and SPEC were very low and the texts can’t be obtained by OCR. This cause Examiner need to manually type the claims word by word in this office action. Examiner would appreciate Applicant provide a reasonable quality of documents which, at least, can pass the OCR.
The claims in this response were missing and there are some claims attached to the document called “Specification”. Examiner suggest Applicant to follow patent submission process. If Applicant has any question, please contact USPTO associated phone number listed below.
In Applicant’s Remark filed on 1/5/26, Applicant argued “Nevertheless, Applicant notes that the only change from the original figures is the addition of new figure 3B, which is simply a differently labeled/annotated version of original figure 3. Applicant further notes that new figure 3B was added specifically to satisfy Examiner's request for such a figure. Applicant respectfully maintains that the new figure is not necessary for an adequate understanding of the claimed invention.”. There is no support found in the SPEC for fig 3B.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In Claims 1 and 14, the limitations “a storage device located within the first cavity and accommodating a first component of customer electronic equipment for providing operations other than operation of the electronic display and a first component of integrated electronic equipment for operating the electronic display; a second cavity located within the display unit, rearward of the electronic display, and at an elevated position relative to the first cavity; and a second storage device located within the second cavity and comprising a server rack, bracket, bin, or shelf accommodating and supporting a second component of the customer electronic equipment for providing operations other than operation of the electronic display and a second component of the integrated electronic equipment for operating the electronic display”. “the first cavity extends below the third horizontal support member and is devoid of electronic equipment, including the integrated electronic equipment and the customer electronic equipment” are unclear since neither the written description nor the drawings appear to describe/show the claimed features. Examiner request Applicant to clearly show the support in the SPEC and drawing. In addition, these claims are conflict to each other.
Examiner’s note: Applicant tried to add more claim scopes in this application which may cause to belong to a separate class/subclass. For example: the integrated electronic equipment for operating the electronic display, customer electronic equipment, etc. These limitations are not just failed to support by the SPEC, they are also belonging to a separate class/subclass. Examiner suggest applicant to remove these limitations; otherwise, a Non-complaint letter maybe filed in the next office action.
In the Remark filed on 4/9/26, Applicant argued: “Claim 1 is amended to capture additional subject matter, support for which can be found in one or more of figure 3 and 8 as well as paragraphs [0036-38]. No new matter is added.”. These paragraphs completely has no support to the amendments nor the claim 1 and dependent claims. Examiner request Applicant to carefully provide a reasonable patent prosecution response.
Conclusion: a 112(a) rejection is applied.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 9-10 and dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In Claim 1, the limitations “the display unit supported by the first and second side housing members at an elevated position, said first and second horizontal member and an upper portion of the first and second side housing member being part of the display unit, and said display unit comprising an electronic display and an airflow pathway which extends, at least in part, through said display unit; a first cavity located below the display unit and between a lower portion of the first and second side housing members extending below the display unit” are unclear since neither the written description nor the drawings appear to describe/show the claimed features. Examiner request Applicant to clearly show the support in the SPEC and drawing. In addition, what is the part of the display unit is unclear as well.
In Claim 9, the limitations “a third horizontal support member extending between the first and second side housing members, said third horizontal support member being located below, and spaced apart from, said second horizontal member, wherein at least a third component of the customer electronic equipment is supported by said third horizontal support member” are unclear and/or not supported by the drawing/SPEC. In addition, Examiner request applicant to clarify the difference between the “third component” and the “other component” and “storage” in claim 1.
In Claim 5, the limitations “the first cavity extends below the second storage device and is devoid of the electronic equipment including the integrated electronic equipment and the customer electronic equipment” are unclear and/or not supported by the drawing/SPEC. In addition, Examiner request applicant to clarify the support for the new amendments. Once again, these limitations are not just no support by the SPEC but also belong to different class/subclass.
In Claim 10, the limitations “a storage device accommodating said at least one other component of the customer electronic equipment and the at least one other component of the electronic equipment for operating the electronic display provided at the third horizontal support member” are unclear since neither the written description nor the drawings appear to describe/show the claimed features. Examiner request Applicant to clearly show the support in the SPEC and drawing. In addition, Examiner request applicant to clarify the difference between the “other component” and the “other component” and “storage” in claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitations, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, (a) and (b) paragraph (see above rejections), and/or discussed in the above claim objections must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5-10, 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Bowers (US 20170083043).
With regard claim 1, Bowers discloses A housing assembly (abstract, see also fig 9C, 14, 17 and/or other embodiments) for and with an integrated display unit (at least the display shown in fig 9), said housing assembly comprising: a first and second side housing member spaced apart from one another and extending in a vertical direction (at least fig 9, a first and second side housing member spaced apart from one another and extending in a vertical direction); a first and second horizontal member (at least fig 9, a least two horizontal members extending between the first and second side housing members; fig 9 shows, at least, 4 or more horizontal members), each extending between the first and second side housing members, said second horizontal member being located below, and spaced apart from, said first horizontal member (at least fig 9, second horizontal member being located below, and spaced apart from, said first horizontal member; Any pair of the members can read the claim limitations); the display unit supported by the first and second side housing members at an elevated position (see fig 9), said first and second horizontal member and an upper portion of the first and second side housing member being part of the display unit (see fig 9), and said display unit comprising an electronic display (see fig 9) and an airflow pathway which extends, at least in part (see fig 9), through said display unit (at least fig 9, fig 17, airflow pathway which extends through at least a portion of said display unit); a first cavity located below the display unit and between a lower portion of the first and second side housing members extending below the display unit (see SPEC and drawing objections, 112 rejection; at least fig 8-9; there are many cavities located within the housing assembly below the display unit and the second horizontal member); a storage device located within the first cavity and accommodating a first component of customer electronic equipment for providing operations other than operation of the electronic display and a first component of integrated electronic equipment for operating the electronic display (at least fig 9; paragraph [115]-[118], [121]-[122]; see also paragraph [51]-[54], paragraph [154]-[158]); a second cavity located within the display unit, rearward of the electronic display, and at an elevated position relative to the first cavity (at least fig 9, second cavity located within the display unit; no label); and a second storage device located within the second cavity and comprising a server rack, bracket, bin, or shelf accommodating (at least fig 9, fig 11; server rack, bracket, bin, or shelf for the parts; no label) and supporting a second component of the customer electronic equipment for providing operations other than operation of the electronic display and a second component of the integrated electronic equipment for operating the electronic display (at least fig 9, paragraph [107 ]-[110], [113]-[118], [121]-[126], [136]-[141], [144-151]; see also fig 13 for detail).
PNG
media_image1.png
683
520
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Bowers further disclosed the first cavity extends below the second storage device and is devoid of the electronic equipment including the integrated electronic equipment and the customer electronic equipment (at least fig 9; see also fig 1-7, paragraph [115]-[121]; paragraph [51]-[58], paragraph [154]-[158], [185]-[190]).
Regarding claim 6, Bowers further disclosed the first cavity and the second cavity are at least partially sealed from an ambient environment (at least fig 9; see also fig 1-7, paragraph [115]-[121]; paragraph [51]-[58], paragraph [154]-[158], [185]-[190]).
Regarding claim 7, Bowers further disclosed the second cavity is part of the airflow pathway (at least fig 9, and/or fig 7, fig 10); the first cavity is at least partially sealed from the airflow pathway (at least fig 9, fig 10); and the airflow pathway is at least partially sealed from an ambient environment (at least fig 9; see also fig 1-7, paragraph [115]-[121]; paragraph [51]-[58], paragraph [154]-[158],, [161]-[165], [185]-[190]).
Regarding claim 9, Bowers further disclosed (at least fig 9) a third horizontal support member extending between the first and second side housing members (at least fig 9, the member extending between the first and second side housing member), said third horizontal support member being located below, and spaced apart from, said second horizontal member (at least fig 9), wherein at least one other component of the customer electronic equipment is supported by said third horizontal support member (at least fig 9; see also fig 1-7, paragraph [115]-[121]; paragraph [51]-[58], paragraph [154]-[158], [185]-[190]).
Regarding claim 10, Bowers further disclosed the storage device accommodating said second component of the customer electronic equipment and the second component of the electronic equipment for operating the electronic display is provided at the third horizontal support member (at least fig 9; see also fig 1-7, paragraph [115]-[121]; paragraph [51]-[58], paragraph [154]-[158], [185]-[190]; see also paragraph [113]-[128]).
Regarding claim 14, Bowers further disclosed the first cavity extends below the third horizontal support member and is devoid of electronic equipment including the integrated electronic equipment and the customer electronic equipment (at least fig 9; see also fig 10; paragraph [51]-[62], paragraph [154]-[190]).
Regarding claim 15, Bowers further disclosed the first and second side housing members comprise a first and second receiving section, respectively (at least fig 9, fig 26), which are hollow for receiving an external support mounted to a ground surface (at least fig 9, fig 26).
Regarding claim 16, Bowers further disclosed first and second angled members extending from the first and second side housing members, respectively, to the horizontal support member and defining, at least in part, the first cavity (at least fig 9, fig 14; paragraph [51]-[62], paragraph [154]-[162]).
Regarding claim 17, Bowers further disclosed the electronic display comprises a directly backlit liquid crystal display (at least fig 9; paragraph [80]-[88]).
Regarding claim 18, Bowers further disclosed a closed airflow pathway for circulating gas extending, at least in part, within the display unit (at least fig 9; fig 17, paragraph [130]-[135], [138]-[142]); a first set of one or more fans for moving ambient air through the airflow pathway when activated (at least fig 9; fig 17, paragraph [130]-[135], [138]-[142]), wherein the airflow pathway is open to an ambient environment (at least fig 9; fig 17, paragraph [130]-[135], [138]-[142]); and a second set of one or more fans for moving circulating has through the closed airflow pathway when activated (at least fig 9; fig 17, paragraph [130]-[135], [138]-[142]), wherein the closed airflow pathway is arranged in a manner arranged to cause thermal interaction between the ambient air in the airflow pathway and the circulating gas in the closed airflow pathway (at least fig 9; fig 17, paragraph [130]-[135], [138]-[142]), at least while the first and/or second set of one or more fans is/are activated (at least fig 9; fig 17, paragraph [130]-[135], [138]-[142]; paragraph [51]-[56], [58]-[62], paragraph [154]-[161]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the Applicants’ remarks that, “The cited figures likewise lay out a general mechanical structure, but fail to provide these specifically claimed elements. Furthermore, if anything, cited figure 13 demonstrates a lack of accommodation for separate customer equipment. Furthermore, at a minimum, Bowers says nothing about the claimed server rack, bracket, bin, or shelf for supporting such equipment (customer equipment and display operations equipment) within the claimed higher cavity within the display unit. The claimed approach advantageously allows customization of equipment across otherwise relatively standardized assemblies as well as removal for further customization, servicing, and the like” (pages 7 to the end).
Examiner’s Answer: the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that:
First of all, Examiner invite Applicate to review the above 112 rejections and determine the reason why this applicant still have so many amendments related to antecedent basis issues since the first OA filed on 9/5/2024.
In this case, Bowers discloses A housing assembly (abstract, see also fig 9C, 14, 17 and/or other embodiments) for and with an integrated display unit (at least the display shown in fig 9), said housing assembly comprising: a first and second side housing member spaced apart from one another and extending in a vertical direction (at least fig 9, a first and second side housing member spaced apart from one another and extending in a vertical direction); a first and second horizontal member (at least fig 9, a least two horizontal members extending between the first and second side housing members; fig 9 shows, at least, 4 or more horizontal members), each extending between the first and second side housing members, said second horizontal member being located below, and spaced apart from, said first horizontal member (at least fig 9, second horizontal member being located below, and spaced apart from, said first horizontal member; Any pair of the members can read the claim limitations); the display unit supported by the first and second side housing members at an elevated position (see fig 9), said first and second horizontal member and an upper portion of the first and second side housing member being part of the display unit (see fig 9), and said display unit comprising an electronic display (see fig 9) and an airflow pathway which extends, at least in part (see fig 9), through said display unit (at least fig 9, fig 17, airflow pathway which extends through at least a portion of said display unit); a first cavity located below the display unit and between a lower portion of the first and second side housing members extending below the display unit (see SPEC and drawing objections, 112 rejection; at least fig 8-9; there are many cavities located within the housing assembly below the display unit and the second horizontal member); a storage device located within the first cavity and accommodating a first component of customer electronic equipment for providing operations other than operation of the electronic display and a first component of integrated electronic equipment for operating the electronic display (at least fig 9; paragraph [115]-[118], [121]-[122]; see also paragraph [51]-[54], paragraph [154]-[158]); a second cavity located within the display unit, rearward of the electronic display, and at an elevated position relative to the first cavity (at least fig 9, second cavity located within the display unit; no label); and a second storage device located within the second cavity and comprising a server rack, bracket, bin, or shelf accommodating (at least fig 9, fig 11; server rack, bracket, bin, or shelf for the parts; no label) and supporting a second component of the customer electronic equipment for providing operations other than operation of the electronic display and a second component of the integrated electronic equipment for operating the electronic display (at least fig 9, paragraph [107 ]-[110], [113]-[118], [121]-[126], [136]-[141], [144-151]; see also fig 13 for detail).
PNG
media_image1.png
683
520
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion: the cited art successfully teaches all the claimed limitations
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 JERRY WU whose telephone number is (571)270-5420. The examiner can normally be reached on PHP: M-Th: 8:30-12:30; 2:30-8:30pm.
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, Imani Hayman can be reached on 571.270.5528. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JERRY WU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights