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
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent App. No. 2016/0154435 to Yanagisawa (Yanagisawa).
PNG
media_image1.png
756
524
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1: Yanagisawa discloses an in-flight entertainment system kit comprising a display assembly (See Annotated Fig. A), wherein the display assembly comprises: a flexible support board (See Annotated Fig. A); and a flexible display screen (See Annotated Fig. A) installed on a passenger side surface (See Annotated Fig. A) of the flexible support board (See Annotated Fig. A).
Regarding Claim 2: Yanagisawa discloses an in-flight entertainment system kit according to claim 1, wherein the flexible support board (See Annotated Fig. A) is formed with a central body portion (See Annotated Fig. A) and an edge portion (See Annotated Fig. A) surrounding the central body portion; and the flexible display screen and electronic parts (See Annotated Fig. A) for the flexible display screen are installed in the central body portion.
Regarding Claim 3: Yanagisawa discloses an in-flight entertainment system kit according to claim 2, wherein the flexible support board comprises a flexible first support plate (See Annotated Fig. A) and a flexible second support plate (See Annotated Fig. A) overlapping to each other, the flexible display screen is installed on a passenger side surface (See Annotated Fig. A) of the first support plate, and the electronic parts (See Annotated Fig. A) are installed between the first and second support plates.
Regarding Claim 5: Yanagisawa discloses an in-flight entertainment system kit according to claim 2, wherein the in-flight entertainment system kit further comprises a flexible adaptation layer (See Annotated Fig. A), the display assembly is installed to a target installation position via the flexible adaptation layer, and the flexible adaptation layer is installed to the edge portion (See Annotated Fig. A) of the flexible support board and is on a side opposite to the flexible display screen (See Annotated Fig. A).
Regarding Claim 11: Yanagisawa discloses a passenger seat, wherein a rear surface of a backrest of the passenger seat (See para. 0350) is installed with an in-flight entertainment system kit according to claim 1.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 7, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanagisawa in view of US Patent No. 10,793,038 to Chang et al. (Chang).
Regarding Claims 7, 19 and 20: Yanagisawa does not disclose a transparent cover; however, Chang teaches a transparent cover (See Col. 6, lines 33-39) and the transparent cover is installed to the display assembly to cover at least a portion of a passenger side surface of the display assembly. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Yanagisawa by using a cover similar to that taught by Chang to protect the underlying display device from damage, dirt and debris.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanagisawa.
Regarding Claim 8: Yanagisawa does not disclose that the flexible support board is made of one of the following materials or a combination thereof: plant fiber, porous material, thermoplastic molding material, and silicone rubber. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art and a time before the effective date of invention to make the flexible support board is made out of some combination of plant fiber, porous material, thermoplastic molding material, and silicone rubber. Courts have held that it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.1 Here, the intended use of the material is to allow the flexible support board to be flexible and to allow electrical components to be coupled thereto. Plant fiber, porous material, thermoplastic molding material, and silicone rubber are well-known and commercially available at a time before the effective date of the invention. Moreover, it is well-within the level of skill in the art to utilize the known and commercially available materials to produce a part suited for the intended use thereof. The use of such material on a flexible support board such as the one from Yanagisawa would not produce any new unexpected results. Therefore, it would be obvious for a person skilled in the art at a time before the effective date of the instant invention to choose plant fiber, porous material, thermoplastic molding material, and silicone rubber to construct the flexible support board.
Claim(s) 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanagisawa in view of US No. 11,772,797 to Maurmaier et al. (Maurmaier).
Regarding Claims 14 and 15: Yanagisawa discloses a passenger seat but does not disclose an aircraft. However, Maurmaier teaches an aircraft that includes seats. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Yanagisawa by installing the seat of Yanagisawa into an aircraft similar to that taught by Maurmaier to enable a passenger to use a different flexible display device based on their preferences.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17 and 18 are allowed.
Claims 4, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13 and 21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Reasons for Allowable Subject Matter
None of the cited prior art, considered alone or in combination, discloses or teaches:
the in-flight entertainment system kit according to claim 2, wherein a notch portion is provided at the edge portion of the flexible support board, the notch portion extends from an upper edge of the edge portion toward the central body portion so that a receiving space with an upward opening is formed between a target installation position and the display assembly when the in-flight entertainment system kit is installed to the target installation position;
the in-flight entertainment system kit according to claim 2, wherein the in- flight entertainment system kit further comprises elastic bands, and the elastic bands are installed to the edge portion of the flexible support board and on a side opposite to the flexible display screen;
the in-flight entertainment system kit according to claim 1, wherein the display assembly further comprises a fabric layer, which covers, around the flexible display screen, the passenger side surface of the flexible support plate;
the in-flight entertainment system kit according to claim 1, wherein a seal is installed around an edge of the flexible display screen;
the passenger seat according to claim 11, wherein the rear surface of the backrest is provided with a plurality of installation seats spaced apart from each other; and the in-flight entertainment system kit is provided with a plurality of installation pins spaced apart from each other, and the plurality of installation pins are installed to the plurality of installation seats respectively;
the passenger seat according to claim 11, wherein the rear surface of the backrest is provided with two first installation pipes, and the two first installation pipes extend along a longitudinal direction of the backrest and are spaced apart from each other in a width direction of the backrest; and the in-flight entertainment system kit is provided with two second installation pipes spaced apart from each other, and the two second installation pipes are installed to the two first installation pipes, respectively; or
the in-flight entertainment system kit according to claim 2, wherein the display assembly further comprises a fabric layer, which covers, around the flexible display screen, the passenger side surface of the flexible support plate.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In addition to the references used in this rejection and those cited in the PTO-892, the following references are very relevant to the claimed invention: US 11702206, 10556549, 20060113827.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERET C MCNICHOLS whose telephone number is (571)270-7363. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00 - 5:00 (Eastern).
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at 571-272-4797. 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.
ERET C. MCNICHOLS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3632
/ERET C MCNICHOLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632
1 See MPEP 2144.07.