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 .
This action is in response to the Amendment filed on 5/3/2026.
Claims 1-16 are pending. Claims 1, 9 have been amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahlborn et al. (US 20170280124 A1, hereinafter Ahlborn), in view of Manohar et al. (US 20210065551 A1, hereinafter Manohar), further in view of Toler et al. (US 20200004325 A1, hereinafter Toler).
Regarding Claim 1, Ahlborn teaches a nested mixed reality vehicle comprising (Ahlborn, Paragraph [0051], “”the present invention's augmented window <read on mixed reality> simulates a window using a screen and software to depict a 3-dimensional landscape … like a real landscape appears behind a window.):
a primary vehicle adapted to propel a multiplicity of onboard passengers from a geographic port of departure to a geographic port of destination (Ahlborn, Paragraph [0047], “Screens may be fitted vertically (or in any other configuration) to the side panels of the pod/capsule”), the primary vehicle comprising an interior compartment (Ahlborn, Paragraph [); [[ a secondary vehicle disposed within the interior compartment and defining a cabin space; ]] a set of passenger seating fixtures disposed within the cabin space of the [[ secondary ]] vehicle (Ahlborn, Paragraph [0050],” Different interior arrangement of seat rows within a pod are envisioned”); a display panel fixed to an interior surface of the [[ cabin ]] space [[ of the secondary vehicle ]] adjacent to the set of passenger seating fixtures (Ahlborn, Paragraph [0047]-[0049], “Screens may be fitted… to the side panels of the pod/capsule” “Camera may be fitted to backside of seat/inside panels” [0050], “Different interior arrangement of seat rows within a pod”) and framed at a perimeter of the display panel with a window frame so as to render an appearance of the display panel as a window (Ahlborn, Paragraph [0021], “FIG. 12 depicts the frame that holds the display” [0071], “FIGS. 10-11 depict a non-limiting example of the framework of the capsule… FIG. 12 depicts a non-limiting example of a frame that holds the display in the capsule” [0054], “uphold the illusion of looking through a window … looking through the frame of an actual window”); and, a host computing platform comprising at least one processor and memory and coupled to the display panel (Ahlborn, Paragraph [0070], “computer … that provides, in the preferred embodiment, pre-recorded data to be shown in a screen 106”; [0072], “Commercially available streaming hardware might be employed here. If the setup is meant to be more dynamic and adapt to the viewer's position, more computation power is required”), the [[ processor ]] executing computer program instructions in the [[ memory ]]configured during execution to present pre-produced video imagery in the display of an outdoor environment of an exterior of a [[third vehicle ]] (Ahlborn, Paragraph [0010], “perspectives are derived from pre-recorded video data” [0051], “a screen and software to depict a 3-dimensional landscape … like a real landscape” [0054], “when a person moves to the left, facing the window, they will see things that are to the right, outside of the window”).
Although Ahlborn does not explicitly disclose a secondary vehicle disposed within the interior compartment and defining a cabin space; … secondary vehicle …[[ present pre-produced video imagery in the display of an outdoor environment of an exterior of a ]] third vehicle.
However, Manohar teaches a host computing platform comprising at least one processor and memory and coupled to the display panel (Manohar, Paragraph [0009], “an equipment <read on a host computing platform> for use on board a first ground transportation entity has.. a processor, and ( d) a memory storing instructions executable by the processor). the display of an outdoor environment of an exterior of a third vehicle (Manohar, Paragraph [0008], “a predicted collision between a third ground transportation entity and the second ground transportation entity. The first ground transportation entity includes a vehicle and the second ground transportation entity includes a pedestrian or other vulnerable road user. The third ground transportation entity is following the first ground transportation entity and a view of the third ground transportation entity from the first ground transportation entity is occluded
Manohar and Ahlborn are analogous since both of them are dealing with on-board systems that process and present environmental information to passengers.
Ahlborn provided a way of windowless transport by augmented windows that show a representation of the outside world. Manohar provided a way of providing on-board supplying the explicit computing platform for processing views of enhanced onboard devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate enhanced onboard view using different platform taught by Manohar into modified invention off Ahlborn such that the system can present from different platform of outside world imagery on framed screen that simulate windows which can avoid potential claustrophobic environment.
But the combination does not explicitly disclose a secondary vehicle disposed within the cabin space and defining a cabin space; … secondary vehicle.
However, Toler teaches a primary vehicle adapted to propel a multiplicity of onboard passengers from a geographic port of departure to a geographic port of destination, the primary vehicle comprising an interior compartment (Toler, Paragraph [0016], "System 100 includes a tractor 102, a trailer 104 <read on primary vehicle>" [0042], "system 100 may be towed to conferences, training events, or other events <read on geographic port of departure to a geographic port of destination>"; [0017], "Trailer 104 provides cavities above and below fuselage 106"); a secondary vehicle disposed within the interior compartment and defining a cabin space (Toler, Paragraph [0019], "Fuselage 106 is disposed at least partially within trailer 104 <read on secondary vehicle disposed within the interior compartment of the primary vehicle>. Fuselage 106 ... defines an interior 126 <read on cabin space>"); a set of passenger seating fixtures disposed within the cabin space of the secondary vehicle (Toler, Paragraph [0024], "aircraft cabin furnishings 140 include an aircraft cabin chair <read on passenger seating fixtures>, an aircraft cabin table, and an aircraft cabin side ledge" [0015], "the one living space with four seats is the only physical seating in the cabin <read on seating fixtures disposed within the cabin space of the secondary vehicle>"). a display panel fixed to an interior surface of the cabin space of the secondary vehicle adjacent to the set of passenger seating fixtures and framed at a perimeter of the display panel with a window frame so as to render an appearance of the display panel as a window (Toler, Paragraph [0029], "Window display 107 is a production aircraft window <read on window frame> with a screen <read on display panel> configured to simulate the view from the production aircraft window during flight"; it is noted that the window display 107 is installed on the interior surface of the fuselage 106 <read on interior surface of the cabin space of the secondary vehicle> adjacent to the aircraft cabin chair <read on passenger seating fixtures>, and the production aircraft window frame renders the screen as a window). a host computing platform comprising at least one processor and memory and coupled to the display panel, the processor executing computer program instructions in the memory configured during execution to present pre-produced video imagery in the display of an outdoor environment of an exterior of a third vehicle (Toler, Paragraph [0036], "Controller 160 includes one or more memory units 162 <read on memory> ... processor 164 <read on at least one processor>" [0029], "virtual experience system 108 may cause window display 107 to present a pre-recorded view <read on pre-produced video imagery> from an aircraft window during flight of the aircraft <read on outdoor environment of an exterior of a third vehicle, the production aircraft in flight being the third vehicle>").
Toler and Ahlborn are analogous since both of them are dealing with immersive display systems inside enclosed vehicle interiors that use window-framed screens to present pre-recorded exterior imagery to occupants. Ahlborn provided a way of installing augmented window displays inside an enclosed capsule/pod to show pre-recorded landscape footage to passengers and to avoid a claustrophobic environment. Toler provided a way of disposing a secondary vehicle (aircraft fuselage) within the interior of a primary vehicle (trailer) with a window display fixed to the interior of the secondary vehicle showing a pre-recorded view from a production aircraft window during flight. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the nested vehicle arrangement with the window display in the secondary vehicle taught by Toler into the modified invention of Ahlborn such that the augmented-window display is installed on the interior surface of the secondary vehicle's cabin space while it is transported within the primary vehicle, to provide passengers with a pre-produced mixed-reality window experience showing the outdoor environment of a third vehicle and to alleviate the claustrophobic environment of being inside a nested vehicle without natural window access.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Ahlborn, Manohar and Toler teaches the invention in Claim 1.
The combination further teaches wherein the primary vehicle (Ahlborn, Paragraph [0005], “Passengers of public and private transportation are used to being able to see out of their vehicle <read on primary vehicle>”)
Ahlborn does not explicitly disclose but Manohar teaches wherein the primary vehicle and the secondary vehicle (Manohar, Paragraph [0007], “an equipment for use on board a first ground transportation <read on primary vehicle> … send safety message information to a second ground transportation entity <read on secondary vehicle>”) are vehicles of different types, but the secondary vehicle and the third vehicle (Manohar, Paragraph [0008], “The third ground transportation entity is following the first ground transportation entity and a view of the third ground transportation entity”) [[ are vehicles of a same type ]].
Manohar and Ahlborn are analogous since both of them are dealing with on-board systems that present information about external road/rail participants for occupants in a vehicle environment. Ahlborn provided a way of presenting outside scenes to rider using recorded media and playback along a route. Manohar provided a way of defining a vehicle that includes a vehicle and interactions with additional vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate multiple type of vehicles taught by Manohar into modified invention off Ahlborn such that the multiple vehicles are the same type while supplies the mixed reality windows which can support scenarios that to predict collision between different vehicles and evaluated vehicle-to vehicle interactions.
Ahlborn does not explicitly disclose but Toler teaches wherein the primary vehicle and the secondary vehicle are vehicles of different types (Toler, Paragraph [0016], "tractor 102 ... trailer 104 <read on primary vehicle as ground vehicle>" [0019], "Fuselage 106 <read on secondary vehicle as aircraft> is disposed at least partially within trailer 104"; it is noted the trailer/tractor is a ground vehicle and the fuselage is an aircraft-type vehicle, which are different types). Secondary vehicle and the third vehicle are vehicles of a same type (Toler, Paragraph [0029], "Window display 107 is a production aircraft window ... to present a pre-recorded view from an aircraft window during flight of the aircraft <read on third vehicle being a production aircraft in flight>"; it is noted the secondary vehicle is an aircraft fuselage and the third vehicle from whose window the pre-recorded view was captured is also an aircraft, which are vehicles of the same type).
Toler and Ahlborn are analogous since both of them are dealing with passenger experience inside nested transportation interiors. Ahlborn provided a way of delivering outside scene visuals to passengers from pre-recorded media route footage to be played during travel. Toler provided a way of nesting different types of vehicles (aircraft fuselage in trailer) during the presenting, where the secondary vehicle and the third vehicle whose exterior view is presented are of the same type. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the nested vehicle type-differentiation concept taught by Toler into the modified invention of Ahlborn such that the primary vehicle and secondary vehicle are of different types while the secondary vehicle and the third vehicle from whose perspective the pre-recorded imagery was captured are of the same type, to enhance the realism of the immersive experience.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Ahlborn, Manohar and Toler teaches the invention in Claim 2.
The combination further teaches wherein the primary vehicle is a ship (Manohar, Paragraph [0023], “a person or a discrete motorized or non-motorized vehicle engaged in a mode of ground transportation, such as a pedestrian, bicycle rider, boat <read on ship>, car, truck, tram, treetcar, or train, among others”)
As explained in rejection of claim 1, the obviousness for combining of different kind of vehicles including boat/ship of Manohar into Ahlborn is provided above.
And the secondary vehicle is a railcar (Toler, Paragraph [0015], "the one living space with four seats is the only physical seating in the cabin" [0019], "Fuselage 106 is disposed at least partially within trailer 104 <read on secondary vehicle disposed within primary vehicle>"; it is noted that Toler teaches the concept of a secondary vehicle nested within a primary vehicle, and the specific implementation of a railcar as the secondary vehicle would be an obvious choice to one of ordinary skill in the art given Manohar's teaching of rail vehicles
As explained in the rejection of claim 1, the obviousness for combining the nested vehicle arrangement of different kinds of vehicles of Toler into Ahlborn is provided above.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Ahlborn, Manohar and Toler teaches the invention in Claim 1.
The combination further teaches the seating fixtures (Ahlborn, Paragraph [0050],” Different interior arrangement of seat rows within a pod are envisioned”) [[ comprise haptic feedback elements actuated in synchronization with specific frames of the ]] pre-recorded video imagery (Ahlborn, Paragraph [0070], “computer … that provides, in the preferred embodiment, pre-recorded data to be shown in a screen 106”)
Manohar further teaches wherein the seating fixtures comprise haptic feedback elements (Manohar, Paragraph [0084], “7. An interface unit that can be retrofit or integrated … in one or more ways such as using visual, audible, or haptic feedback) actuated in synchronization with specific frames of the pre-recorded video imagery (Manohar, Paragraph [0167],“road user data is collected to ensure that road user state is always synchronized with traffic signal state” [0038], “The data from these sensors is normalized to a single frame of reference and then is processed”; [0158], “extracted from camera and video recordings <read on pre-recorded video imagery>”).
Manohar and Ahlborn are analogous since both of them are dealing with on-board systems that present information to riders and can issue alerts during vehicle operation. Ahlborn provided a way of presenting outside scenes to rider using recorded media and playback along a route. Manohar provided a way of equipping the vehicle with on board computing and issuing haptic alerts to occupants during the ride. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate haptic feedback taught by Manohar into modified invention off Ahlborn such that during the ride with onboard interactive media, system will be able to using haptic feedback to alert the passengers to get timely tactile sues that draw attention to salient events in the displayed scene which provide more user friendly experience when using the mixed reality device.
Regarding Claim 9, it recites limitations similar in scope to the limitations of Claim 1 but as a method and the combination of Ahlborn, Manohar and Toler teaches all the limitations as of Claim 1. Therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 10, it recites limitations similar in scope to the limitations of Claim 2 and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 11, it recites limitations similar in scope to the limitations of Claim 3 and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 12, it recites limitations similar in scope to the limitations of Claim 4 and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 5, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahlborn et al. (US 20170280124 A1, hereinafter Ahlborn), in view of Manohar et al. (US 20210065551 A1, hereinafter Manohar), further in view of Toler et al. (US 20200004325 A1, hereinafter Toler) as applied to Claim 1, 9 above respectively and further in view of O'Sullivan et al. (US 20240132126 A1, hereinafter O'Sullivan).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Ahlborn, Manohar and Toler teaches the invention in Claim 4.
The combination further teaches [[ wherein the specific frames present ]] imagery pre-recorded (Ahlborn, Paragraph [0057], “The rendered scenery (virtual objects) might come from live or recorded footage”)
The combination does not explicitly disclose but O'Sullivan teaches wherein the specific frames present (O'Sullivan, Paragraph [0099], “The sensors 106 can generate sensor data on a frame-by-frame basis based on their field of view”) imagery pre-recorded (O'Sullivan, Paragraph [0013], “the sensors can provide the recorded data to the external central server”) while the secondary vehicle traverses a railroad crossing (O'Sullivan, Paragraph [0018], “the at-grade crossing includes a railroad crossing between a first roadway and a second roadway” [0013], “system for monitoring autonomous vehicles traversing a dedicated roadway that includes an at-grade crossing” [0004], “enable access to the autonomous vehicles that are likely to traverse the at-grade crossing, and monitor the autonomous vehicles safe navigation” [0037], “The roadway 109 can include one or more at-grade crossings, which an autonomous vehicle may seek to traverse to access a roadway”).
O'Sullivan and Ahlborn are analogous since both of them are dealing with vehicle-borne presentation aligned to real-world route segments and events..
Ahlborn provided a way of supplying passenger visual using live or recorded footage and play back during the ride. O'Sullivan provided a way of defining and managing the railroad cross segment and enable vehicle to traverse the at grade crossing.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate at grade/railroad crossing traversal taught by O'Sullivan into modified invention off Ahlborn such that when video is presented for the passenger, system will be able to use traversal function to improve safety and operational coherence at crossings which increase the reality experience and at the same time provide more safer immersive experience.
Regarding Claim 13, it recites limitations similar in scope to the limitations of Claim 5 and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 6, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahlborn et al. (US 20170280124 A1, hereinafter Ahlborn), in view of Manohar et al. (US 20210065551 A1, hereinafter Manohar), further in view of Toler et al. (US 20200004325 A1, hereinafter Toler) as applied to Claim 1, 9 above respectively and further in view of Nieuwlands (US 20100265414 A1) and Boyle (US 20170095742 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Ahlborn, Manohar and Toler teaches the invention in Claim 1.
The combination further teaches comprising lighting in the interior compartment configured to [[ deactivate ]] in synchronization with specific frames of the pre-recorded video imagery pre-recorded [[ while the secondary vehicle traverses a tunnel ]] (Manohar, Paragraph [0167],“road user data is collected to ensure that road user state is always synchronized with traffic signal state” [0038], “The data from these sensors is normalized to a single frame of reference and then is processed”; [0158], “extracted from camera and video recordings <read on pre-recorded video imagery>”).
The combination does not explicitly disclose Nieuwlands further comprising lighting in the interior compartment configured to deactivate in synchronization with specific frames of the pre-recorded video imagery (Nieuwlands, Paragraph [0025], “combining with the video-based ambient lighting data may adjust the color to a dimmer (e.g., less bright) color <read on deactivate>” [0006], “the combined ambient lighting data is based on corresponding video content portions and corresponding audio content portions. The processed combined ambient lighting data may then be used to control an ambient lighting element” [0016], “utilize portions of the video content that are positioned near a border of the one or more frames to produce the video-based ambient lighting data related to the video content.” [0023], “the video-based ambient lighting data and the audio-based ambient lighting data are provided as temporal sequences of data… combined” “video content and audio content are synchronized in audio-visual content”).
Nieuwlands and Ahlborn are analogous since both of them are dealing with synchronizing environmental effects to presented media that is shown to passengers.
Ahlborn provided a way of presenting pre-recorded media to passenger on a display in augmented windows with capsule with speed-coupled playback for realism.
Nieuwlands provided a way of driving ambient lighting from video based ambient lighting data including adjusting brightness during the playing of the media.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate combining and synchronizing ambient lighting configuration taught by Nieuwlands into modified invention off Ahlborn such that brightness drops all the frames showing in a tunnel can be achieved during the play back which provide more dimensional immersion in an ambient lighting environment which can heighten realism in immersive windows when the content is depicts darker scene.
The combination does not explicitly disclose but Boyle teaches traverses a tunnel (Boyle, Paragraph [0004], “a ride system includes a tunnel, a vehicle ride path in the tunnel… and a projection system to project images onto the one or more walls of the tunnel”).
Boyle and Ahlborn are analogous since both of them are dealing with vehicle environments coordinated with visual sequences along a route. Ahlborn provided a way of presenting pre-recorded media to passenger on a display in augmented windows.
Boyle provided a way of tying content to a vehicle’s path including darker segments like tunnels during the media play. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate route-segment timing (tunnel segments) taught by Boyle into modified invention off Ahlborn such that the system deactivates cabin lighting in synchronization with specific data while vehicle traverse a darker segment like tunnel which will create same realism and/or immersive improvement that results from matching perceived out the windows darkness with actual cabin lighting state during the tunnel frames.
Regarding Claim 14, it recites limitations similar in scope to the limitations of Claim 6 and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 7, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahlborn et al. (US 20170280124 A1, hereinafter Ahlborn), in view of Manohar et al. (US 20210065551 A1, hereinafter Manohar), further in view of Toler et al. (US 20200004325 A1, hereinafter Toler) as applied to Claim 1, 9 above respectively and further in view of Kirkeby (US 20060115090 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Ahlborn, Manohar and Toler teaches the invention in Claim 4.
The combination does not explicitly disclose but Kirkeby teaches further comprising at least two audio output devices disposed at opposite portions of the cabin space (Kirkeby, Paragraph [0017], “loudspeakers, such as those locating on different sides (left, right, above, below) of the screen”) and wherein an audio playback is delayed at one of the audio output devices relative to another of the audio output devices (Kirkeby, Paragraph [0014], “mixing said first equalized channel with the second filtered channel that has been delayed”).
Kirkeby and Ahlborn are analogous since both of them are dealing with onboard media presentation. Ahlborn provided a way of recorded footage/pre-recorded video when process the onboard media presentation. Kirkeby provided a way of using multiple speakers arrangement with relative delay to shape spatial audio. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate multl-speakers with channel delayed relative to the other taught by Kirkeby into modified invention off Ahlborn such that the cabin has multiple sources of audio/visual sources which enhance spatial impression and give a listener the impression that the sound come from positions outside the angle spanned by multiple speakers which increase the immersive experience in the mixed reality environment.
Regarding Claim 15, it recites limitations similar in scope to the limitations of Claim 7 and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 8, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahlborn et al. (US 20170280124 A1, hereinafter Ahlborn), in view of Manohar et al. (US 20210065551 A1, hereinafter Manohar), further in view of Toler et al. (US 20200004325 A1, hereinafter Toler) as applied to Claim 1, 9 above respectively and further in view of Zhu et al. (US 10864433 B2, hereinafter Zhu).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Ahlborn, Manohar and Toler teaches the invention in Claim 1.
The combination further teaches further comprising a motion sensor adapted to sense motion within the cabin space, wherein the computer program instructions in the memory are further configured [[ during execution to change ]] the pre-recorded video imagery in the display (Ahlborn, Paragraph [0070], A tracking camera 110 is pointed at the passenger 102… within a capsule/pod… a computer 112…provides… pre-recorded data… the computer can vary the perspective of the user shown on screen).
The combination does not explicitly disclose but Zhu teaches wherein the computer program instructions in the memory are further configured during execution to change the pre-recorded video imagery in the display (Zhu, Column 35, Line 17-20, “the portable device provides the spectator with other video editing tools to manipulate the live or prerecorded video”; Column 3, Line 22-25, “A spectator video stream of the interactive session is generated based on the current state of the interactive application and the tracked position and orientation of the handheld device. And the spectator video stream is rendered”).
Zhu and Ahlborn are analogous since both of them are dealing with onboard media presentation. Ahlborn provided a way of recorded footage/pre-recorded video when process the onboard media presentation. Zhu provided a way of using adjust the media during the execution of the media playing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate media adjustment taught by Zhu into modified invention off Ahlborn such that during the onboard media playing, system will be able to dynamically adjust the media based on the event happing during the playback which increase the flexibility and to provide more user friendly and more realistic immersive experience when using the mixed reality device.
Regarding Claim 16, it recites limitations similar in scope to the limitations of Claim 8 and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1, 9, filed on 5/3/2026, with respect to rejection under 35 USC § 103 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. It has now been taught by the combination of prior arts Ahlborn, Manohar and Toler.
In regard to Claims 2-8, 10-16, they directly/indirectly depends on independent Claim 1, 9 respectively. Applicant does not argue anything other than the independent claim 1, 9. The limitations in those claims in conjunction with combination previously established as explained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20240253569 A1 DIGITAL WINDOW
US 20110278877 A1 CARRIAGE-TYPE CABIN
US 20110057475 A1 CABIN
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 YUJANG TSWEI whose telephone number is (571)272-6669. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am-5:30pm 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, Kent Chang can be reached at (571)272-7667. 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.
/YuJang Tswei/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2614
Prosecution Insights