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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 limitation indicating that QLED, OLED, or LCDs are woven into a fabric or glued onto a fabric of claim 17 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—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 12-27 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With regard to claim 12: The claim make reference to a support structure which if “made of an at least partially air-permeable” material. It is unclear what materials would fall within the scope of this limitation, and the specification does not provide guidance as to the degree to which a material must allow for the passage of air to be considered “partially” air-permeable. Does air have to be able to pass completely through the entire thickness of the support structure, or would a material which only permits small amounts of air to penetrate a few millimeters (e.g. a closed cell foam) meet the claimed requirements? Additionally there is not any discussion of how the partial air permeability of the material affects the function of the device beyond a mention that it enables “a relatively good, even very good, acoustic property”, so it is not possible for a person having skill in the art to discern what results are expected from such a material to help guide a determination of whether a particular material meets or does not meet the claimed limitations.
Further it is unclear whether the air-permeability is required to be a property of the material itself or of the completed bulk assembly of that material into the support structure; the plain language of the claim indicates that the material must be partially air-permeable and partially sound-absorbing, but the specification and later dependent claim 13 appears to indicate that the permeability can be a function of the structure of the material as applied to the support structure and not the chemical composition of the material. This is because the example materials given in the specification (and in claim 13) include expanded glass and/or expanded PET, but neither glass nor PET are air-permeable materials (for example both glass and PET are commonly used to package carbonated beverages, which requires air-tightness, indicating that it is the “expanded” nature of the structure formed from the material which imparts the property of being partially air-permeable). The distinction is important to determination of the metes and bounds of the claim because if the claim allows for the overall structure or shape of the material to impart air-permeability (e.g. by the addition of through holes to a sheet of an otherwise-impermeable material) a much wider variety of materials and structures potentially fall within the claimed limitations.
Claims 13-27 depend from claim 12 and inherit this indefiniteness.
The examiner notes that the term “partially sound-absorbing” does not have the same issue of indefiniteness due to additional guidance in the specification indicating cutoff frequencies and sound-absorption coefficients, as well as the well-recognized dependency of sound absorption on material thickness (which is referenced by the specification indicating that the sound-absorbing properties of the structure can be altered by modifying the thickness of the support structure).
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 (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.
(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.
Claims 12, 18-19, 23-24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sasaki (US PGPub 2005/0271230 A1).
With regard to claims 12 and 23: Sasaki discloses a modular baffle device (projection screen 20 which is formed from a plurality of module speaker units 33). The plurality of speaker units can be reasonably be considered to be “baffle” units due to the inclusion of sound-guiding and absorbing support structures which would impede the propagation of sound from the rear of the units to the front. The speaker units are constructed with frame structure (cabinet 41) to which a plate shaped support structure (buffer material sections 43, which take the form of planar square-shaped sections as noted in ¶0052) is fastened. The plate-shaped support structure is disclosed as being formed of materials which have both sound-absorbing properties and are air-permeable (see ¶0052 disclosing the use of felt, which is both sound-absorbing and air permeable due to the fibrous structure). The support structure includes a first surface (facing the right as installed in Figure 9), a second surface facing away from the first surface (the rear portion of 43, to which 41 is attached), a thickness (between the first and second surfaces) and an opening (the central open portion of the square). Sasaki discloses the inclusion of an at least partially sound-transparent layer (screen material 20) which is applied to the entire first surface of the support structure to form a projection surface adapted for projecting an image thereon (see ¶0063, the screen material may be fixed to the front of elements 43 with adhesive). An acoustic transducer 33 & 34 is arranged in the opening behind the sound-transparent layer to generate sound such that the sound is emitted through the sound-transparent layer (see ¶0077).
With regard to claim 18: The opening in the support structure of Sasaki is disclosed as being formed as a through opening (the support layer taking the form of a square frame with an open central region).
With regard to claim 19: The first surface of Sasaki is planar (forming a flat screen)
With regard to claim 24: In Sasaki the modular baffle device is formed such that a plurality of baffle devices are arranged next to each other in a matrix-like manner to form the modular baffle device, and the sound transparent layers of the respective baffle modules together form an overall projection surface for displaying an image. This assembled configuration is shown in Figure 8, note that the sound transparent layer for each baffle device is the portion of element 20 which is directly in front of a particular baffle device (and, per ¶0063, attached to the support structure with adhesive).
With regard to claim 26: The modular baffle device of Sasaki is disclosed as being used as part of an audio-visual system which includes a projector for projecting a series of images onto the projection surface formed by the sound-transparent layer of the baffles (See Figure 3, projector 13) and a control device (audio signal generating circuit 50, shown in Figure 10 and the portion of the projector or A/V source that send the audio signal to the screen audio generating circuit via Sin) which operatively communicates with the projector and the acoustic transducers of the baffles to control the projector and the acoustic transducer such that sound emitted by the at least one acoustic transducer is synchronized with the series of images. See ¶0009-0016 discussing generation and delivery of audio signals in A/V systems in general, ¶0045 indicating that the non-speaker portions of the AV system of the disclosure are the same as those in the previous discussion, and ¶0066-0078 describing the generation of individual transducer drive signals in response to the received audio signals. Since the disclosure of Sasaki is within the context of a home AV system playing from a video/audio source such as a DVD disc (see ¶0016), a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the audio is synchronized with the video unless specifically noted otherwise.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki (US PG Pub 2005/ 0271230A1) in view of Tanaka et al (JP H05-347792 A, English machine translation attached).
With regard to claims 13-14: While Sasaki does teach that the sound absorbing properties of the material used to form the support structure is important to the proper operation of the assembly (see ¶0081), Sasaki does not disclose that the material comprises expanded class or PET, nor does Sasaki disclose the acoustic performance of the material (the frequency range above which it absorbs sound or the sound absorption coefficient of the material).
Tanaka is directed to a directional multi-element array speaker system. One embodiment of Tanaka includes an acoustic absorber material in order to improve the directivity of the speaker, and Tanaka notes that configuring the material to have a sound absorption coefficient of 0.8 or more results in better directivity at lower frequencies (see ¶0011, note that the material property is shown in FIgure 5 and the resulting speaker performance is shown in Figure 6).
It would have been obvious to a person havin1g ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to have configured the system of Sasaki to configure the support structure material to have a sound absorption coefficient of at least 0.8 because Tanaka indicates that a 0.8 or higher coefficient can result in improved directivity.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki (US PG Pub 2005/ 0271230A1) in view of Lygren (US Patent 9,500,942 B2).
With regard to claim 15: Sasaki does not go into detail regarding the structure of the screen material itself, and thus does not disclose that it is a cellulose paster, a laminate layer, a woven fabric made of PET, or that it has a layer thickness of between 0.1mm and 0.3mm.
Lygren teaches a sound-permeable screen structure which includes a laminated layer structure, the laminated layer structure producing a sound-transparent screen with high definition and high reflectivity, see column 4 lines 5-49.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to have configured the baffle of Sakaki to incorporate a laminated screen structure as the sound-transparent image receiving layer in order to produce a screen capable of strongly reflecting a high-definition image while still allowing sound from the transducer(s) to freely pass through.
Claims 16-17 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki (US PG Pub 2005/ 0271230A1) in view of Hill et al (US Patent 7,144,830 B2).
WRTCs 16-17 and 27: The modular baffle device of Sasaki is disclosed as being used as part of an audio-visual system which displays images on the sound-transparent layer of the baffles (See Figure 3, projector 13) and which includes a control device (audio signal generating circuit 50, shown in Figure 10 and the portion of the projector or A/V source that send the audio signal to the screen audio generating circuit via Sin) which operatively communicates with the display system and the acoustic transducers of the baffles to control the display system and the acoustic transducer such that sound emitted by the at least one acoustic transducer is synchronized with the series of images. See ¶0009-0016 discussing generation and delivery of audio signals in A/V systems in general, ¶0045 indicating that the non-speaker portions of the AV system of the disclosure are the same as those in the previous discussion, and ¶0066-0078 describing the generation of individual transducer drive signals in response to the received audio signals. Since the disclosure of Sasaki is within the context of a home AV system playing from a video/audio source such as a DVD disc (see ¶0016), a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the audio is synchronized with the video unless specifically noted otherwise.
In Sasaki a projection system is utilized, and thus Sasaki does not teach a configuration in which the sound-transparent layer is configured as a controlled imaging layer, that imaging layer including OLED, QLEDs, or LCDs woven into or glued onto a fabric.
It is however known that imaging layers formed of emissive devices such as OLEDs which are woven into a fabric article have advantages over projected images in certain circumstances. Hill notes that because a screen using this configuration emits light instead of reflecting light, such a screen can be more easily seen in both dark and bright environments (see column 9 lines 39-58 discussing advantages of such a screen, column 11 line 38-42 discussing incorporation of LCDs or OLEDS in such a screen).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing would have found it obvious to have utilized such a woven fabric imaging display as the display surface of the system of Sasaki in situations where the display is to be used during both bright and dark ambient conditions, as such an emissive screen is better able to handle both of these ambient lighting environments as taught by Hill.
Claims 20-22 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki (US PG Pub 2005/ 0271230A1) in view of Small (US Patent 9,664,994 B1)
With regard to claims 20-22 and 25: The screen surface of Sakaki is shown as being planar, and thus is not disposed as being twice curved with the support structure comprising a plurality of plate shaped segments arranged to form a curved first surface (a plurality of segments are shown used for the screen assembly, but they are arranged to form a planar first surface) with the sound-transparent layer additionally being configured to form a curved projection surface.
It is however known in the art of projection screens to use twice-curced screen assemblies for certain types of projected content. Small indicates such a twice curved screen formed of a plurality of smaller panels, which like Sakaki is configured to allow sound from speakers to pass through the screen surface. Small teaches that such a screen assembly is useful for a virtual reality display (see column 2 lines 57-66. In such a structure the screen is assembled with some panel modules having speakers and other panel modules arranged as non-speaker units.
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing would have found it obvious to have configured the projection screen of Sakaki to take a twice-curved shape in order to allow for the screen to be used to display virtual reality content (movies or interactive games), utilizing baffle modules without acoustic transducers but which otherwise have the same structure in order to uniformly support the screen even in regions where no sound is required to be produced.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Leon W Rhodes Jr whose telephone number is (571)270-5774. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM - 6:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Walter Lindsay can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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.
/LEON W RHODES, JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2852