DETAILED ACTION
This FINAL action is in response to Application No. 18/784,887 filed 7/25/2024 which claims priority from Provisional Application No. 63/517,886 filed 8/4/2023. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The amendment presented on 7/13/2026 which provides amendments to claims 1, 2, 9, 10, 13, 16, and 18029, cancelation of claims 11-12 and 17, and new claims 21-23, is hereby acknowledged. Claims 1-10, 13-16, and 18-23 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1, 10, and 16 have been considered, however, the amendment(s) to the claims necessitated a new consideration and search resulting in new prior art cited below.
With respect to Candelore, Applicant’s arguments stem from the assertion that the aircraft skylight is out of reach of a seated passenger, and therefore, a touch screen user interface as in Candelore would not be operable in the aircraft.
However, Applicant’s disclosure provides no guidance on the distance the skylight would be from a passenger let alone the idea that the passenger must be seated. A passenger that stands up in the cabin during a flight is certainly capable of reaching a touch screen skylight mounted on the ceiling of the aircraft. In addition, and as shown in the citations below, Candelore does provide an embodiment where the sunroof is controlled by a separate device. See the rejections below.
With respect to Applicant’s discussion of Figure 1, Applicant appears to be asserting that the figure shows that the skylights are geometrically asymmetrical and have non-uniform layout configurations which provide different visual effects for passengers.
However, the Examiner submits this is not apparent from the Figure, nor is it apparent from the disclosure. While the specification does describe the display frame 104 could “vary in size, direction, and orientation”, the specification only describes and labels one display frame 104 at [0042] and in Figure 1. Whether the display frames vary within the same aircraft is not distinguished from whether the display frames vary from aircraft to aircraft. In the figure, the display frames in the same aircraft appear to be symmetrical rather than asymmetrical, all appearing to have 6 sides, factoring in the perspective of the distant display frames. Based on Figure 1 and disclosure, one of ordinary skill in the art would have the understanding that while the design of the display frames could vary, the display frames throughout the same aircraft are symmetrical.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: it appears “…preloaded imagery stored on the at least one memory storage device...” was intended. Appropriate correction is required.
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 2-8, 21, and 22 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.
Regarding claim 2, “the curved display screen has a geometric shape comprising 5 or more side edges” does not appear supported by the specification. The specification describes that it is the “display frame” that has “at least 4 connected sides” and “is orientated such that an approximate hexagon shape is created around the curved display screen” (See specification at [0042]). The specification is silent to the number of side edges on the “curved display screen” itself.
Regarding claims 21 and 22, there does not appear to be support for any of the limitations of the claims in the specification. First, there is no discussion of a portion of the plurality of screens in an aircraft, let alone a first portion or second portion, that they are visibly distinct and mirroring one another, or located on a first or second side of the aircraft. Second, there is no discussion of screens facing a particular direction, aside from downward from the ceiling, let alone toward a front or back of an aircraft. See specification at [0041]-[0042] and Figure 1.
The dependent claims not mentioned inherit the deficiencies of their parent claims.
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 1-9 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.
Regarding claim 1, “a user interface within reach of a user” is indefinite for being subjective. The specification does not provide a definition of a distance that is “within reach of a user”.
The dependent claims not mentioned inherit the deficiencies of their parent claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 9, 10, 16, 18, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kodati (US 2022/0324575 A1), in view of Candelore (US 2017/0240047 A1), and further in view of Santos (US 12,358,623 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Kodati teaches a … screen skylight for an aircraft comprising:
a … display screen configured as an overhead panel which is substantially conformed to a ceiling of an aircraft cabin; More specifically, an aircraft cabin includes a monitor disposed in the ceiling structure and conforms to the general shape of the ceiling, a controller to render images on the monitor, and cameras to capture real-time streaming environmental (external) images and renders them on the monitor (Kodati, abstract, [0032]).
a camera configured to provide a real-time external view from the aircraft. More specifically, the overhead monitors 200, 202 may display an environmental (external) image stream as captured by one or more environmental (external) cameras (Kodati, [0035]).
a memory storage device, wherein the camera and the memory storage device are communicatively coupled with the … display screen; More specifically, Figure 1 depicts a memory and cameras communicatively coupled to the overhead monitors (Kodati, [0027]).
a user interface…operatively coupled with the camera and the memory storage device; wherein the … display screen is configured to display 1) a live video feed from the camera, 2) preloaded imagery stored on the memory storage device. More specifically, cameras capture real-time streaming environmental images and renders them on the monitor. At the passenger's request, the controller may render a selection of mood affective images, for example to promote sleep if desired (Kodati, abstract, [0026]).
However, while Kodati does not explicitly describe the overhead monitor as “curved”, Kodati does state that the overhead monitor is installed in an aircraft and may be embodied in ultrathin OLED screens that conform to the general shape of the ceiling [of an aircraft] (Kodati, [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention given the teachings of Kodati, a display screen mounted to the ceiling of an aircraft that displays a view external to the aircraft via cameras or alternatively provides selections of stored images would include that the display screen is a curved display screen. With Kodati disclosing that the display screen is mounted in a way that it conforms to the shape of the ceiling, one of ordinary skill in the art of implementing a display screen mounted to the ceiling of an aircraft that displays a view external to the aircraft via cameras or alternatively provides selections of stored images would include that the display screen is a curved display screen because one of ordinary skill in the art understands that the shape of the ceiling of the fuselage of an aircraft is curved. One would therefore be motivated to combine these teachings as in doing so would create this display screen mounted to the ceiling of an aircraft.
However, Kodati may not explicitly teach or obviously suggest every aspect of
[the user interface] within reach of a user;
[the display screen is configured to display] 3) an augmented reality mode showing a fully or partially simulated environment …;
and wherein the user interface is configured to allow a user to: select between the live video feed, the preloaded imagery, or the augmented reality mode to be displayed on the curved display screen…
Candelore discloses a camera on a vehicle captures an image of the surroundings, and the image is presented in a window of the vehicle that is established by a display such as an OLED display or transparent LCD display. The image from the camera is presented on the display according to the angle of the camera with respect to the vehicle, such that an occupant of the vehicle sees the image on the window substantially in the same relative location with respect to the surroundings as the occupant would see looking at the objects in the image through the window. In other embodiments images from a database are presented on the window superimposed onto background objects seen through the window (Candelore, abstract). The display 50 can be controlled by device 12 which could be a separate consumer electrics device, such as a telephone, tablet, notebook computer, watch, etc. (Candelore, [0029], [0047], user interface within reach). Curved active windows could be sunroofs and could be transparent or opaque regular displays mounted on the dome roof of the vehicle (Candelore, [0003], [0006], [0067]-[0068]). A user interface, that may be presented on any of the displays shown, could be used to select from “Live view from Camera” (live video feed), “Still images from Camera” (preloaded imagery), and “Fun Superimposition from Database” (augmented reality mode) (Candelore, Figures 4-5, [0059]-[0063]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention given the teachings of Kodati and Candelore, a curved display screen mounted to the ceiling of a vehicle that can display a live view external to the vehicle or stored images based on a user selection would include the user interface to be within reach of a user and provide options for selecting between a live video feed, preloaded imagery, or an augmented reality mode to be displayed. With Kodati and Candelore suggesting curved vehicle ceiling display screens that display a live view external to the vehicle or stored images based on user selection, and with Candelore also disclosing those selections in addition to a selection for an augmented reality mode on a user interface that is within reach, such as a consumer electronics device communicating with the display, one of ordinary skill in the art of implementing a curved display screen mounted to the ceiling of a vehicle that can display a live view external to the vehicle or stored images based on a user selection would include the user interface to be within reach of a user and provide options for selecting between a live video feed, preloaded imagery, or an augmented reality mode to be displayed in order to offer real time information according to the preferences of passengers during travel which can present comfort and entertainment during long trips. One would therefore be motivated to combine these teachings as in doing so would create this curved display screen mounted to the ceiling of a vehicle.
However, Kodati and Candelore may not explicitly teach every aspect of
[the augmented reality mode] with interactive capabilities; and
interact with the interactive capabilities of the fully or partially simulated environment when the augmented reality mode has been selected.
Santos discloses an augmented reality (AR) system for an aircraft. Operations determine an AR indicia to be displayed, and where the AR indicia is to be rendered on a display device. Operations display renderings of the AR indicias to augment the real-world objects viewed by the passenger through the window (Santos, abstract). The embodiment of Figure 4 shows an AR display 432 is controlled with a user interface on a seat video display 410 separate from the AR display (Santos, col 4, lines 13-49). The user interface on the seat video display can be used to steer indicia’s, such as a POI selection cursor, on the AR display (Santos, col 6, lines 6-12, col 8, lines 57-62). Information associated with a viewable POI may be displayed responsive to the system receiving a command from a user, such as the user providing an input selection through the seat video display unit (Santos, col 7, line 10-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention given the teachings of Kodati and Candelore with Santos that a display screen mounted to the interior of a vehicle that can display a live view external to the vehicle or augmented reality based on a user selection would include being able to interact with the interactive capabilities of the fully or partially simulated environment when the augmented reality mode has been selected. With Kodati, Candelore, and Santos suggesting vehicle display screens that simulate vehicle windows and display a live view external to the vehicle or stored images based on user selection, with Kodati and Santos suggesting the vehicle being an aircraft, with Candelore and Santos disclosing the vehicle view selections including an augmented reality view, and with Santos additionally disclosing the ability to interact with points of interest presented in the augmented reality mode using a user interface that is within reach, one of ordinary skill in the art of implementing a display screen mounted to the interior of a vehicle that can display a live view external to the vehicle or augmented reality based on a user selection would include being able to interact with the interactive capabilities of the fully or partially simulated environment when the augmented reality mode has been selected in order to allow passengers to access detailed information related to the augmentations of Candelore. One would therefore be motivated to combine these teachings as in doing so would create this display screen mounted to the interior of a vehicle.
Regarding claim 2, Kodati, Candelaore and Santos suggest the curved screen skylight of claim 1, however, may not explicitly teach every aspect of wherein the curved display screen has a geometric shape comprising 5 or more side edges.
The references applied do not explicitly teach wherein the curved display screen has a geometric shape comprising 5 or more sides, however, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to limit the curved display screen having a shape comprising 5 or more sides because this modification does not provide an advantage, is not used for a particular purpose, and does not solve a particular problem; the specification does nothing to remedy these deficiencies (See Specification at [0042]). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected applicant’s invention to perform equally well with displays having 4 or more sides as specified in the Specification and in Kodati (Figure 2A, the overhead monitors 200, 202). Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Kodati, Candelaore and Santos to obtain the invention as specific in the claim.
Regarding claim 9, Kodati suggests the curved screen skylight of claim 1, wherein the augmented reality is stored on the memory storage device. More specifically, a user interface, that may be presented on any of the displays shown, could be used to select from “Live view from Camera” (live video feed), “Still images from Camera” (preloaded imagery), and “Fun Superimposition from Database” (augmented reality mode from storage) (Candelore, Figures 4-5, [0059]-[0063]).
Regarding claim 10, this claim recites the method substantially performed by the curved screen skylight of claim 1, therefore, the same rationale of rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 16, Kodati teaches a … screen skylight system for an aircraft comprising: a plurality of… display screens configured to be at least partially embedded into an aircraft ceiling in a spaced configuration; at least one memory storage device configured to communicatively connect at least one external camera of the aircraft and at least one user interface to each of the plurality of … display screens; wherein the plurality of… display screens are each configured to display at least one of: a live video feed from the one or more external cameras, preloaded imagery stored on the memory storage device. More specifically, each aircraft cabin includes a monitor disposed in the ceiling structure and conforms to the general shape of the ceiling is at least partially embedded using a flush mount, a controller to render images on the monitor, and cameras to capture real-time streaming environmental (external) images and renders them on each monitor (Kodati, abstract, [0032], [0033], Figure 2B, display screens 200 and 202). The overhead monitors 200, 202 may display an environmental (external) image stream as captured by one or more environmental (external) cameras (Kodati, [0035]). Figure 1 depicts a memory and cameras 110 communicatively coupled to the overhead monitors (Kodati, [0027]). Cameras capture real-time streaming environmental images and renders them on the monitor. At the passenger's request, the controller may render a selection of mood affective images, for example to promote sleep if desired (Kodati, abstract, [0026]).
However, while Kodati does not explicitly describe the overhead monitor as “curved”, Kodati does state that the overhead monitor is installed in an aircraft and may be embodied in ultrathin OLED screens that conform to the general shape of the ceiling [of an aircraft] (Kodati, [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention given the teachings of Kodati, a display screen mounted to the ceiling of an aircraft that displays a view external to the aircraft via cameras or alternatively provides selections of stored images would include that the display screen is a curved display screen. With Kodati disclosing that the display screen is mounted in a way that it conforms to the shape of the ceiling and at least partially embedded using a flush mount in the ceiling, one of ordinary skill in the art of implementing a display screen mounted to the ceiling of an aircraft that displays a view external to the aircraft via cameras or alternatively provides selections of stored images would include that the display screen is a curved display screen because one of ordinary skill in the art understands that the shape of the ceiling of the fuselage of an aircraft is curved. One would therefore be motivated to combine these teachings as in doing so would create this display screen mounted to the ceiling of an aircraft.
However, Kodati may not explicitly teach or obviously suggest every aspect of
[the plurality of display screens are each configured to display] an augmented reality mode showing a fully or partially simulated environment …;
wherein the at least one user interface is configured to enable a selection between the live video feed, the preloaded imagery, or the augmented reality mode.
Candelore discloses a camera on a vehicle captures an image of the surroundings, and the image is presented in a window of the vehicle that is established by a display such as an OLED display or transparent LCD display. The image from the camera is presented on the display according to the angle of the camera with respect to the vehicle, such that an occupant of the vehicle sees the image on the window substantially in the same relative location with respect to the surroundings as the occupant would see looking at the objects in the image through the window. In other embodiments images from a database are presented on the window superimposed onto background objects seen through the window (Candelore, abstract). The display 50 can be controlled by device 12 which could be a separate consumer electrics device, such as a telephone, tablet, notebook computer, watch, etc. (Candelore, [0029], [0047], user interface within reach). Curved active windows could be sunroofs and could be transparent or opaque regular displays mounted on the dome roof of the vehicle (Candelore, [0003], [0006], [0067]-[0068]). A user interface, that may be presented on any of the displays shown, could be used to select from “Live view from Camera” (live video feed), “Still images from Camera” (preloaded imagery), and “Fun Superimposition from Database” (augmented reality mode) (Candelore, Figures 4-5, [0059]-[0063]). More than one window in the same vehicle may include the active window as described above (Candelore, [0052], [0067]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention given the teachings of Kodati and Candelore, a curved display screen skylight system for the ceiling of a vehicle including a plurality of displays in a spaced configuration that can display a live view external to the vehicle or stored images based on a user selection would include the user interface to provide options for selecting between a live video feed, preloaded imagery, or an augmented reality mode to be displayed. With Kodati and Candelore suggesting a plurality of vehicle display screens that display a live view external to the vehicle or stored images based on user selection, with Kodati disclosing the plurality of displays in a spaced configuration in each aircraft cabin, and with Candelore also suggesting a plurality of displays with selections for all of a live view, prerecorded imagery, or an augmented reality mode on a user interface, one of ordinary skill in the art of implementing a curved display screen skylight system for the ceiling of a vehicle including a plurality of displays in a spaced configuration that can display a live view external to the vehicle or stored images based on a user selection would include the user interface to provide options for selecting between a live video feed, preloaded imagery, or an augmented reality mode to be displayed in order to offer real time information according to the preferences of passengers during travel which can present comfort and entertainment during long trips. One would therefore be motivated to combine these teachings as in doing so would create this curved display screen skylight system for the ceiling of a vehicle.
However, Kodati and Candelore may not explicitly teach every aspect of
[the augmented reality mode] with interactive capabilities.
Santos discloses an augmented reality (AR) system for an aircraft. Operations determine an AR indicia to be displayed, and where the AR indicia is to be rendered on a display device. Operations display renderings of the AR indicias to augment the real-world objects viewed by the passenger through the window (Santos, abstract). The embodiment of Figure 4 shows an AR display 432 is controlled with a user interface on a seat video display 410 separate from the AR display (Santos, col 4, lines 13-49). The user interface on the seat video display can be used to steer indicia’s, such as a POI selection cursor, on the AR display (Santos, col 6, lines 6-12, col 8, lines 57-62). Information associated with a viewable POI may be displayed responsive to the system receiving a command from a user, such as the user providing an input selection through the seat video display unit (Santos, col 7, line 10-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention given the teachings of Kodati and Candelore with Santos that a curved display screen skylight system for the interior of a vehicle with a plurality of displays that can each display a live view external to the vehicle or augmented reality based on a user selection would include being able to interact with the interactive capabilities of the fully or partially simulated environment when the augmented reality mode has been selected. With Kodati, Candelore, and Santos suggesting vehicle display screens that simulate vehicle windows and display a live view external to the vehicle or stored images based on user selection, with Kodati, Candelore, and Santos suggesting there can be a plurality of independently controlled displays in the vehicle, with Kodati and Santos suggesting the vehicle being an aircraft, with Candelore and Santos disclosing the vehicle view selections including an augmented reality view, and with Santos additionally disclosing the ability of each passenger to interact with points of interest presented in the augmented reality mode using a user interface, one of ordinary skill in the art of implementing a curved display screen skylight system for the interior of a vehicle with a plurality of displays that can display a live view external to the vehicle or augmented reality based on a user selection would include being able to interact with the interactive capabilities of the fully or partially simulated environment when the augmented reality mode has been selected in order to allow passengers to access detailed information related to the augmentations of Candelore. One would therefore be motivated to combine these teachings as in doing so would create this curved display screen skylight system for the interior of a vehicle with a plurality of displays.
Regarding claim 18, Kodati, Candelore, and Santos suggests the curved screen skylight of claim 16 wherein each of the plurality of curved display screens comprise a display frame configured to create an edge around each curved display screen and attach it to the aircraft ceiling. More specifically, a cowling/frame disposed around each display surface of the overhead monitor 200, 202 (that is to say along the bottom surface) may hold the overhead monitor 200, 202 in place via positive contact between the display surface of the overhead monitor 200, 202 and the ceiling structure (Kodati, [0033], [0036], [0042]).
Regarding claim 23, Kodati, Candelore, and Santos suggest the curved screen skylight system of claim 16 wherein: the at least one user interface is instead a plurality of user interfaces; each user interface of the plurality of user interfaces is communicatively connected to one or more curved display screens of the plurality of curved display screens; and each curved display screen of the plurality of curved display screens can be individually controlled by its connected user interface. More specifically, Kodati suggests individual displays for each cabin of the aircraft that display content upon user request (Kodati, [0027], [0033], [0034]), Candelore suggests multiple displays within a vehicle controlled by individual user interfaces (Candelore, [0051]), and Santos discloses individually controllable displays (Santos, col 2, lines 45-48).
Claim(s) 3, 5-8, 13-15, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kodati, Candelaore, and Santos, and further in view of Thornton et al. (US 2022/0281581 A1, hereinafter “Thornton”).
Regarding claim 3, Kodati, Candelaore, and Santos suggest the curved screen skylight of claim 2 comprising a display frame disposed around a perimeter of the … display screen. More specifically, the overhead monitor may be framed by a cowling disposed around the bottom display surface. The cowling may be sized to completely cover any border region of the display surface and more realistically present the display surface as an overhead window (Kodati, [0036]).
However, while Kodati suggests the display screen itself may be curved to conform with the curved shape of an aircraft ceiling, Kodati may not explicitly teach every aspect of
[the frame is] configured to conform to the curvature of the overhead panel such that the display frame frames the curved display screen.
Thornton discloses a window display assembly that has a curved contour that substantially matches the curved contour of the fuselage of an aircraft (Thornton, abstract). Figures 4 and 5 depict the window display assembly as having a panel/frame 11 that is curved with the shape of the aircraft fuselage. Additionally shown, pertaining to the panel/frame 11, is that there is a flange portion that overlaps the outer edge of display screen 20 (which is attached to outer surface 40) (Thornton, [0030]-[0031], Figure 5, the flanges serve to embed the curved display screen within the panel/frame and fuselage).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention given the teachings of Kodati, Candelaore, and Santos with Thornton, a display screen mounted to the ceiling of an aircraft that includes a frame to give a realistic impression of a real window would include that the display screen and [frame is] configured to conform to the curvature of the overhead panel such that the display frame frames the curved display screen. With Kodati and Thornton suggesting framed aircraft display screens that provide window functions, with Kodati additionally suggesting that the display screen could be curved, and with Thornton also disclosing a curved display screen framed by a curved panel/frame, one of ordinary skill in the art of implementing a display screen mounted to the ceiling of an aircraft that includes a frame to give a realistic impression of a real window would include that the display screen and [frame is] configured to conform to the curvature of the overhead panel such that the display frame frames the curved display screen because having a curved display framed by a curved frame gives the virtual window a more realistic window appearance. One would therefore be motivated to combine these teachings as in doing so would create this curved display screen mounted to the ceiling of an aircraft.
Regarding claim 5, Kodati, Candelaore, and Santos with Thornton suggest the curved screen skylight of claim 3 comprising flanges which extend around a perimeter of the display frame and overlap an outer edge of the curved display screen. More specifically, Figures 4 and 5 depict the window display assembly as having a panel/frame 11 that is curved with the shape of the aircraft fuselage. Additionally shown, pertaining to the panel/frame 11, is that there is a flange portion that overlaps the outer edge of display screen 20 (which is attached to outer surface 40) (Thornton, [0030]-[0031], Figure 5, the flanges serve to embed the curved display screen within the panel/frame and fuselage).
Regarding claim 6, Kodati, Candelaore, and Santos with Thornton suggest the curved screen skylight of claim 5 wherein the flanges are configured to embed the curved display screen within the overhead panel. More specifically, Figures 4 and 5 depict the window display assembly as having a panel/frame 11 that is curved with the shape of the aircraft fuselage. Additionally shown, pertaining to the panel/frame 11, is that there is a flange portion that overlaps the outer edge of display screen 20 (which is attached to outer surface 40) (Thornton, [0030]-[0031], Figure 5, the flanges serve to embed the curved display screen within the panel/frame and fuselage).
Regarding claim 7, Kodati, Candelaore, and Santos with Thornton suggest the curved screen skylight of claim 5 wherein a viewable width is created in between the flanges such that the curved display screen displays either the preloaded imagery or the live video feed within the viewable width. More specifically, Figures 4 and 5 depict the window display assembly as having a panel/frame 11 that is curved with the shape of the aircraft fuselage. Additionally shown, pertaining to the panel/frame 11, is that there is a flange portion that overlaps the outer edge of display screen 20 (which is attached to outer surface 40) (Thornton, [0030]-[0031], Figure 5, the flanges serve to embed the curved display screen within the panel/frame and fuselage and creates the viewable width and length).
However, while Kodati, Candelaore, Santos, and Thornton may not explicitly teach every aspect of
… the viewable width is in a range of 15 inches to 25 inches wide…
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, that the viewable width is in a range of 15 inches to 25 inches wide because this modification does not provide an advantage, is not used for a particular purpose, and does not solve a particular problem; the specification does nothing to remedy these deficiencies. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the display screen dimensions shown in Figure 4 of Kodati and Figures 2 or 6 of Thornton. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the viewable width to obtain the invention with the specific dimensions in the claim.
Regarding claim 8, Kodati, Candelaore, and Santos with Thornton suggest the curved screen skylight of claim 5, wherein a viewable length is created in between the flanges such that the curved display screen displays either the preloaded imagery or the live video feed within the viewable length. More specifically, Figures 4 and 5 depict the window display assembly as having a panel/frame 11 that is curved with the shape of the aircraft fuselage. Additionally shown, pertaining to the panel/frame 11, is that there is a flange portion that overlaps the outer edge of display screen 20 (which is attached to outer surface 40) (Thornton, [0030]-[0031], Figure 5, the flanges serve to embed the curved display screen within the panel/frame and fuselage and creates the viewable width and length).
However, while Kodati, Candelaore, Santos, and Thornton may not explicitly teach every aspect of
… the viewable length is in a range of 35 inches to 55 inches long...
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, that the viewable length is in a range of 35 inches to 55 inches long because this modification does not provide an advantage, is not used for a particular purpose, and does not solve a particular problem; the specification does nothing to remedy these deficiencies. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the display screen dimensions shown in Figure 4 of Kodati and Figures 2 or 6 of Thornton. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the viewable length to obtain the invention with the specific dimensions in the claim.
Regarding claim 13, Kodati, Candelore, and Santos suggest the curved screen skylight of claim 10 comprising disposing a display frame around the curved display screen. More specifically, the overhead monitor may be framed by a cowling disposed around the bottom display surface. The cowling may be sized to completely cover any border region of the display surface and more realistically present the display surface as an overhead window (Kodati, [0036]). Additionally, curved active windows could be sunroofs and could be transparent or opaque regular displays mounted on the dome roof of the vehicle (Candelore, [0003], [0006], [0067]-[0068]).
However, while Kodati, Candelore, and Santos suggests the display screen itself may be curved to conform with the curved shape of a ceiling, Kodati may not explicitly teach every aspect of
conforming the display frame to an overhead panel, such that the display frame encloses an outer portion of the curved display screen.
Thornton discloses a window display assembly that has a curved contour that substantially matches the curved contour of the fuselage of an aircraft (Thornton, abstract). Figures 4 and 5 depict the window display assembly as having a panel/frame 11 that is curved with the shape of the aircraft fuselage. Additionally shown, pertaining to the panel/frame 11, is that there is a flange portion that overlaps the outer edge of display screen 20 (which is attached to outer surface 40) (Thornton, [0030]-[0031], Figure 5, the flanges serve to embed the curved display screen within the panel/frame and fuselage).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention given the teachings of Kodati, Candelore, and Santos with Thornton, a method of having a display screen mounted to the ceiling of a vehicle that includes a frame to give a realistic impression of a real window would include that the display screen and [frame is] configured to conform to the curvature of the overhead panel such that the display frame frames the curved display screen. With Kodati, Candelore, and Thornton disclosing vehicle displays that are either windows or represent windows, with Kodati and Thornton suggesting framed aircraft display screens that provide window functions, with Kodati additionally suggesting that the display screen could be curved, and with Thornton also disclosing a curved display screen framed by a curved panel/frame, one of ordinary skill in the art of implementing a method of having a display screen mounted to the ceiling of a vehicle that includes a frame to give a realistic impression of a real window would include that the display screen and [frame is] configured to conform to the curvature of the overhead panel such that the display frame frames the curved display screen because having a curved display framed by a curved frame gives the virtual window a more realistic window appearance in a vehicle. One would therefore be motivated to combine these teachings as in doing so would create this curved display screen mounted to the ceiling of an aircraft.
However, Kodati, Candelore, and Santos with Thornton may not explicitly teach every aspect of the curved display portion has a geometric shape comprising 5 or more side edges.
The references applied do not explicitly teach wherein the curved display portion has a geometric shape comprising 5 or more sides, however, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to limit the curved display portion having a shape comprising 5 or more sides because this modification does not provide an advantage, is not used for a particular purpose, and does not solve a particular problem; the specification does nothing to remedy these deficiencies (See Specification at [0042]). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected applicant’s invention to perform equally well with displays having 4 or more sides as specified in the Specification and in Kodati (Figure 2A, the overhead monitors 200, 202). Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Kodati, Candelaore and Santos with Thornton to obtain the invention as specific in the claim.
Regarding claim 14, Kodati, Candelore, and Santos with Thornton suggest the curved screen skylight of claim 13 comprising embedding the curved display screen into the overhead panel and securing the curved display screen using flanges extending from the overhead panel. More specifically, Figures 4 and 5 depict the window display assembly as having a panel/frame 11 that is curved with the shape of the aircraft fuselage. Additionally shown, pertaining to the panel/frame 11, is that there is a flange portion that overlaps the outer edge of display screen 20 (which is attached to outer surface 40) (Thornton, [0030]-[0031], Figure 5, the flanges serve to embed the curved display screen within the panel/frame and fuselage).
Regarding claim 15, Kodati, Candelore, and Santos with Thornton suggest the curved screen skylight of claim 13 comprising conforming the curved display screen to the overhead panel such that a standup height is substantially maintained inside the aircraft cabin. More specifically, the overhead monitors are described and depicted as flush mounted, resulting in no substantial change in the height of the ceiling in the aircraft (Kodati, [0033], [0040]).
Regarding claim 20, Kodati, Candelaore, and Santos suggest the curved screen skylight system of claim 16, however, may not explicitly teach every aspect of comprising flanges configured to extend from the aircraft ceiling and secure each of the plurality of curved display screens to the aircraft ceiling such that each curved display screen appears to be substantially embedded within the aircraft ceiling.
Thornton discloses a plurality of window display assemblies that have a curved contour that substantially matches the curved contour of the fuselage of an aircraft (Thornton, abstract, Figure 2). Figures 4 and 5 depict the window display assembly as having a panel/frame 11 that is curved with the shape of the aircraft fuselage. Additionally shown, pertaining to the panel/frame 11, is that there is a flange portion that overlaps the outer edge of display screen 20 (which is attached to outer surface 40) (Thornton, [0030]-[0031], Figure 5, the flanges serve to embed the curved display screen within the panel/frame and fuselage).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention given the teachings of Kodati, Candelaore, and Santos with Thornton, a display screen mounted to the ceiling of an aircraft that includes a frame to give a realistic impression of a real window would include flanges configured to extend from the aircraft ceiling and secure the curved display screen to the aircraft ceiling such that the curved display screen appears substantially embedded within the aircraft ceiling. With Kodati and Thornton suggesting framed aircraft display screens that provide window functions, with Kodati additionally suggesting that the display screen could be curved, and with Thornton also disclosing a curved display screen framed by a curved panel/frame with flange portions that serve to embed the curved display screen within the paneling, one of ordinary skill in the art of implementing a display screen mounted to the ceiling of an aircraft that includes a frame to give a realistic impression of a real window would include flanges configured to extend from the aircraft ceiling and secure the curved display screen to the aircraft ceiling such that the curved display screen appears substantially embedded within the aircraft ceiling because having a curved display framed by a curved frame and embedded into the ceiling with flanges gives the virtual window a more realistic window appearance. One would therefore be motivated to combine these teachings as in doing so would create this curved display screen mounted to the ceiling of an aircraft.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kodati, Candelaore, and Santos with Thornton, and further in view of Van De Sluis (US 2023/0145323 A1, published 5/11/2023, hereinafter “Van”).
Regarding claim 4, Kodati, Candelaore, and Santos with Thornton suggest the curved screen skylight of claim 3, however, may not explicitly teach every aspect of wherein the display frame includes lighting elements which illuminate the display frame.
Van discloses a virtual window device functioning as a skylight mounted in a ceiling that displays an image of an external view using a camera (Van, abstract, [0003], [0005], [0034], [0037], [0040]). The virtual window device is surrounded by a frame with lighting elements such as in Figure 6a (Van, abstract, [0003], [0005], [0034], [0037], [0040], [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention given the teachings of Kodati, Candelaore, Santos and Thornton with Van, a display screen mounted to the ceiling of a space that includes a frame to give a realistic impression of a real window would include wherein the display frame includes lighting elements which illuminate the display frame. With Kodati and Van suggesting framed display screens that create virtual ceiling windows, and with Van additionally disclosing the framed of the virtual window device in a ceiling including lighting elements in the frame, one of ordinary skill in the art of implementing a display screen mounted to the ceiling of a space that includes a frame to give a realistic impression of a real window would include wherein the display frame includes lighting elements which illuminate the display frame in order to add even more realism to a virtual skylight where the light from the lighting elements in the frame mimic sunlight (Van, [0035]). One would therefore be motivated to combine these teachings as in doing so would create this curved display screen mounted to the ceiling of an aircraft.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kodati, Candelaore, and Santos, and further in view of Morales et al. (US 2011/0155851, hereinafter “Morales”).
Regarding claim 19, Kodati, Candelaore, and Santos suggests the curved screen skylight system of claim 16, however may not explicitly teach every aspect of wherein a radius of curvature of each of the plurality of curved display screens is less than a radius of curvature of the aircraft ceiling.
Morales discloses an aircraft observation window that has a radius of curvature smaller than the fuselage radius of curvature (Morales, Figure 5, bubble form vs normal window, [0013]-[0014]). The dimensions are such that an observer may may look out and have a greater angle of vision than a normal aircraft window (Morales, [0032], [0057]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention given the teachings of Kodati, Candelaore, and Santos with Morales, a curved display screen skylight system in an aircraft that shows a real view external to the aircraft would include wherein a radius of curvature of each of the plurality of curved display screens is less than a radius of curvature of the aircraft ceiling. With Kodati and Morales disclosing views external to an aircraft using either real or virtual windows, and with Morales disclosing a window with a radius of curvature less than a radius of curvature of the aircraft fuselage in order to provide a viewer with a greater field of view than a normal window, one of ordinary skill in the art of implementing a curved display screen mounted to an aircraft that displays a view external to the aircraft as real window would include wherein a radius of curvature of the curved display screen is less than a radius of curvature of the aircraft ceiling because this allows each display screen to increase the field of view while maintaining a window appearance that would provide the same increased field of view realistically. One would therefore be motivated to combine these teachings as in doing so would create this display screen mounted to the ceiling of an aircraft.
Claim(s) 21 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kodati, Candelaore, and Santos, and further in view of Howard et al. (US 2022/0314793 A1, hereinafter “Howard”).
Regarding claim 21, Kodati, Candelore, and Santos suggest the curved screen skylight system of claim 16, however, may not explicitly teach every aspect of wherein a first portion of the plurality of curved display screens face towards a front of the aircraft and a second portion of the plurality of curved display screens face towards a back of the aircraft, such that the first portion and second portion are visibly distinct and mirroring one another.
Howard discloses an overhead display system for a vehicle including a plurality of display units. The display units are arranged such that a pair of screens can be oriented in both a rearward-facing direction and a forward-facing direction. The system is configured as a module that can be readily installed in a roof structure of a vehicle, e.g., airplanes (Howard, abstract, [0002]). A first portion of the displays face the front of the vehicle and a second portion of the displays face the back of the vehicle (Howard, Figures 1A-1B, and 2). It is suggested that an implementation optionally does not include all four displays; some can be removed (Howard, Figure 3 [0028], [0036]). Therefore, referring to Figures 1B, 2, and 3, if displays 162 and 168 are removed, then the first portion of displays 166 on a first side 218 would be facing the front of the vehicle 208, and a second portion of displays 164 on a second side 216 would be facing the back of the vehicle 206.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention given the teachings of Kodati and Candelore with Santos that a curved display screen skylight system for the interior of a vehicle with a plurality of displays that can each display content would include that a first portion of the plurality of displays face towards the front of the vehicle while a second portion of the displays face towards the back of the vehicle and are visibly distinct and mirroring one another. With Kodati, Candelore, Santos and Howard suggesting a plurality of vehicle-mounted display screens for displaying content, with Kodati, Santos, and Howard suggesting the vehicle being an aircraft, with Kodati, Candelore and Howard suggesting the vehicle-mounted display screens can be mounted on a ceiling, and with Howard additionally suggesting that a first portion of the plurality of displays face towards the front of the vehicle while a second portion of the displays face towards the back of the vehicle and are visibly distinct and mirroring one another, one of ordinary skill in the art of implementing a curved display screen skylight system for the interior of a vehicle with a plurality of displays that can each display content would include that a first portion of the plurality of displays face towards the front of the vehicle while a second portion of the displays face towards the back of the vehicle and are visibly distinct and mirroring one another in order to accommodate increasingly developing modifications in passenger seating arrangements including seats that are improved with swivel capabilities (Howard, [0024]-[0025]). One would therefore be motivated to combine these teachings as in doing so would create this curved display screen skylight system for the interior of a vehicle with a plurality of displays.
Regarding claim 22, Kodati, Candelore, Santos and Howard suggest the curved screen skylight system of claim 21, wherein each curved display screen of the first portion is located on a first side of the aircraft and each curved display of the second portion is located on a second side of the aircraft. More specifically, it is suggested that an implementation optionally does not include all four displays; some can be removed (Howard, Figure 3 [0028], [0036]). Therefore, referring to Figures 1B, 2, and 3, if displays 162 and 168 are removed, then the first portion of displays 166 on a first side 218 would be facing the front of the vehicle 208, and a second portion of displays 164 on a second side 216 would be facing the back of the vehicle 206.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
Velten (US 2014/0085337 A1) – displays on walls and ceiling of an aircraft that include passenger options for “outside view”, “outside view with superimposable additional information (e.g. point of interest (POI), city names)”, and “Background effects or wallpaper options; examples: colour field; this can be unmoving or moving; the colour field can glow; different colours or even colour changes can be selected; Aquarium; Rain forest/autumn woods/winter landscape/desert”. “The passenger can "drag" window content from his corresponding first display region 28 on the interactive interior 44 onto his separate information area 48, his personal in-flight entertainment display, configured as a separate display in the seat. Then more extensive and more detailed accesses to the interactive content are available on the separate information area 48.” (Velton, [0070]-[0073], [0087]-[0095]).
Stavaeus (US 2010/00014009 A1) – curved display panel embedded in an aircraft ceiling.
Kathol (US 11,182,970 B1) – aircraft window displaying augmented reality.
Bachhuber (US 2010/00014009 A1) – curved display embedded in an aircraft ceiling.
Kim (US 2021/0006712 A1) – displays showing external view of an aircraft.
Boomgaarden (US 2015/0008282 A1) – ceiling mounted display in an aircraft simulating a night sky.
Brauer (US 2019/0258880 A1) – interior displays mimicking windows in an aircraft depicting a perspective of outside of the aircraft.
Johannessen (US 10,392,129 A1) – displays on walls and ceiling of an aircraft that display the external views.
Sizelove (US 2017/0286037 A1) – virtual window in an aircraft.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK F RIEGLER whose telephone number is (571)270-3625. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6:00pm, ET.
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, Kieu Vu can be reached at (571) 272-4057. 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.
/PATRICK F RIEGLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
Prosecution Insights