DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 have been considered for patentability.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the wireless connections” lack proper antecedent basis. 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Specifically, Claim 1 is rejected for lack of enablement because therein it is claimed “a display apparatus positioned within the enclosure.” However, going through applicant’s description and drawings, it appears that the display is at best positioned against but outside of the enclosure. See Applicant’s Figures 11 and 13-14. Please clarify and/or correct the claims to claim subject matter that is enabled by applicant’s disclosure. The claims will be examined as best understood considering the specification.
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) 1-7, 9, 11-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Langlois (US Publication 2023/0231166), Siliprandi (WO 2023/089641) (from applicant’s IDS submitted on 08/20/2024) and further in view of Gilbert et al. (US Publication 2016/0140936).
In re Claim 1, Langlois discloses a portable display apparatus comprising: an enclosure 40, having top and base portions (See Figures 6-8); a computer processing unit (CPU) 170 (paragraph 0069, window-compatible computer inherently comprises a cpu), control logic (paragraph 0069, inherent in a windows-compatible computer), memory (paragraph 0069, inherent in a window-compatible computer), in communication with said CPU, wherein said CPU, control logic, and memory are located within the enclosure 40 (Figure 7); and an image generator (Figure 6), positioned within said enclosure (the telescoping portion 50, 140 positioned at least partially within the enclosure for connection, paragraph 0023), wherein said image generator comprises of a telescopic pole 50, 140 (paragraph 0023) for displaying a image above said enclosure (Figure 6); and a pulley system 100, 102 for stability and transport of said portable display apparatus.
Langlois does not explicitly disclose a display apparatus positioned against the enclosure, wherein the display apparatus comprises at least one screen. However, providing such was not new in the art. For example, Siliprandi discloses a portable display apparatus comprising a display 3 positioned against an enclosure 4, wherein the display comprises at least one screen. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art of portable electronics to have provided a display screen, as disclosed by Siliprandi, with the apparatus as otherwise disclosed in Langlois. The addition of another image display means would add to the functions of the apparatus by allowing more images to be displayed simultaneously.
Langlois also does not explicitly disclose a hologram generator. However, providing a hologram generator was not new in the art of portable electronics. For example, Gilbert discloses a hologram generator 110 (Figures 12-17) on a pole for generating an image. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art of portable electronics at a time before applicant’s effective filing date to have provided a hologram generator, like that disclosed in Gilbert, as the image generator as otherwise disclosed in Langlois. A hologram generator provides different aesthetic effects to a viewer that may be desirable. Gilbert, paragraph 0033. Gilbert also suggests that the hologram generator may be a substitute for other more traditional displays and may be attached to various types of structures and be portable. Gilbert, paragraphs 0034, 0038 and 0109. Langlois also suggests that other types of display apparatus can be used with and above the enclosure (such as a projector 150, Figure 5).
In re Claim 2, Langlois discloses wherein the display apparatus comprises a high- resolution media player 170 for displaying any one or more of: video, audio, images, QR codes, HTML, interactive media. Langlois, paragraph 0001.
In re Claim 3, Langlois discloses wherein said CPU is in communication with, and controls operation of digital, and electronic components or said portable display apparatus (inherent in that Langlois discloses in paragraph 0069 a window-compatible computer).
In re Claim 4, Langlois discloses wherein said telescopic pole 140 of said image generator extends from an upper bracket of said top portion of said enclosure (Figures 6 and 7).
In re Claim 5, Langlois discloses a pouch 30 located at the base of the enclosure 40. See Figure 1.
In re Claim 6, Langlois discloses a power source 130, 190 powering all elements of the apparatus. Langlois does not explicitly disclose wherein the power source is in the pouch. However, this would have been an obvious modification as a mere relocation of parts. See MPEP §2144.04 (VI)(C).
In re Claim 7, Langlois discloses a power source 130, 190 positioned within said enclosure 40 and for powering all powered elements of said portable display apparatus.
In re Claim 9, Langlois discloses a computer programmable product (windows compatible, paragraph 0069) which may include a non-transitory computer readable medium having control logic stored therein (inherent) for causing said CPU to operate said portable display apparatus.
In re Claim 11, Langlois discloses wherein said CPU (portable computer that is Windows-compatible, paragraph 0069) is configured to perform a predefined set of basic operations in response to receiving a corresponding basic instruction selected from a predefined native instruction set of code or said control logic (this function is inherent in every computer).
In re Claim 12, Langlois discloses computer programmable product (i.e. Windows, paragraph 0069), control logic (inherent in portable computer), methods, systems, elements configured for enabling full functioning of the portable display apparatus.
In re Claim 13, Langlois discloses a wearable media display system comprising: a structure 40 configured to be worn by a person (Figure 6); at least one image projector 70, 150 (Figure 6) attached to the structure; a media player 170 (Figure 5) operatively connected to the image projector; and a battery pack 190 for powering the system components.
Langlois does not explicitly disclose a display apparatus positioned against the enclosure, wherein the display apparatus comprises at least one screen. However, providing such was not new in the art. For example, Siliprandi discloses a portable display apparatus comprising a display 3 positioned against an enclosure 4, wherein the display comprises at least one screen. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art of portable electronics to have provided a display screen, as disclosed by Siliprandi, with the apparatus as otherwise disclosed in Langlois. The addition of another image display means would add to the functions of the apparatus by allowing more images to be displayed simultaneously.
Langlois also does not explicitly disclose a hologram generator. However, providing a hologram generator was not new in the art of portable electronics. For example, Gilbert discloses a hologram generator 110 (Figures 12-17) on a pole for generating an image. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art of portable electronics at a time before applicant’s effective filing date to have provided a hologram generator, like that disclosed in Gilbert, as the image generator as otherwise disclosed in Langlois. A hologram generator provides different aesthetic effects to a viewer that may be desirable. Gilbert, paragraph 0033. Gilbert also suggests that the hologram generator may be a substitute for other more traditional displays and may be attached to various types of structures and be portable. Gilbert, paragraphs 0034, 0038 and 0109. Langlois also suggests that other types of display apparatus can be used with and above the enclosure (such as a projector 150, Figure 5).
In re Claim 14, Langlois discloses wherein the structure may be made from a hard material (paragraph 0020) but does not explicitly disclose PVC board and a foam padding. However, the office takes official notice of facts outside the record that providing a PVC board support for rigidity and foam padding for user comfort were known improvements in the art of wearable portable electronics and backpacks before applicant’s effective filing date to provide a sturdy structure for supporting the electronics in the backpack while also improving user ergonomics.
In re Claim 15, Langlois discloses a pulley system 100, 102 with security straps for stabilizing the structure on the wearer. See Langlois, Figure 2.
In re Claim 16, Langlois as modified by Siliprandi discloses a display (3 in Siliprandi) on a structure. Siliprandi does not explicitly disclose a forward-facing and rear-facing display. (Siliprandi only appears to disclose a single display). However, the office takes official notice of facts outside the record that providing a second display on an opposite side was a known improvement in the art of wearable portable electronics and backpacks before applicant’s effective filing date to allow for the apparatus to be reversible and to function as a dual display system when placed on a surface (i.e. when not being worn by a user).
In re Claim 17, Langlois discloses a method of engaging consumers using a wearable media display system, the method ;comprising: providing a wearable structure (Figure 6) with at least one image projector 70, 150 (Figure 6); loading media content onto a media player 170 (Figure 5) connected to the image projector 70, 150; powering on the system components using a battery pack 190; displaying the media content on the image projector 70, 150 (paragraphs 0001, 0029, 0040-0041); and navigating to consumer locations while wearing the system to facilitate consumer engagement (paragraph 0001).
Langlois does not explicitly disclose a display apparatus positioned against the enclosure, wherein the display apparatus comprises at least one screen. However, providing such was not new in the art. For example, Siliprandi discloses a portable display apparatus comprising a display 3 positioned against an enclosure 4, wherein the display comprises at least one screen. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art of portable electronics to have provided a display screen, as disclosed by Siliprandi, with the apparatus as otherwise disclosed in Langlois. The addition of another image display means would add to the functions of the apparatus by allowing more images to be displayed simultaneously.
Langlois also does not explicitly disclose a hologram generator. However, providing a hologram generator was not new in the art of portable electronics. For example, Gilbert discloses a hologram generator 110 (Figures 12-17) on a pole for generating an image. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art of portable electronics at a time before applicant’s effective filing date to have provided a hologram generator, like that disclosed in Gilbert, as the image generator as otherwise disclosed in Langlois. A hologram generator provides different aesthetic effects to a viewer that may be desirable. Gilbert, paragraph 0033. Gilbert also suggests that the hologram generator may be a substitute for other more traditional displays and may be attached to various types of structures and be portable. Gilbert, paragraphs 0034, 0038 and 0109. Langlois also suggests that other types of display apparatus can be used with and above the enclosure (such as a projector 150, Figure 5).
In re Claim 20, Langlois disclose monitoring the battery 190 level during use. Langlois, paragraphs 0022, 0026, 0057, 0069.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Langlois (US Publication 2023/0231166), Siliprandi (WO 2023/089641) (from applicant’s IDS submitted on 08/20/2024), Gilbert et al. (US Publication 2016/0140936) and further in view of Carlson (US Patent 5,806,740).
In re Claim 8, Langlois discloses the limitations as noted above, and also discloses a supporter backer board (paragraph 0020), but does not explicitly disclose support straps for lifting and transporting said portable display apparatus, metal clips on said support straps, and a metal bracket positioned at said base of said enclosure. However, Carlson discloses support straps 602, 603, 635 (Figure 2) for lifting and transporting, metal clips 624, 626 on said support straps (See also various clips on straps in Figure 2), and a metal bracket 613 positioned at said base of said enclosure. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art of wearable portable electronics at a time before the effective filing date to have provided the support straps, metal clips and metal brackets as disclosed in Carlson with the apparatus as otherwise disclosed in Langlois to improve stability and ergonomics while carrying heavier loads with the apparatus.
Claim(s) 10 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Langlois (US Publication 2023/0231166), Siliprandi (WO 2023/089641) (from applicant’s IDS submitted on 08/20/2024), Gilbert et al. (US Publication 2016/0140936) and further in view of Roeding et al. (US Publication 2011/0029359).
In re Claim 10, Langlois discloses the limitations as noted above, as well as a computer programmable product (portable computer, paragraph 0069) which may include a non-transitory computer readable medium having control logic stored therein (inherent) but does not disclose wherein the control logic is for causing said CPU to capture consumer data from consumer mobile devices when the portable display apparatus is in close proximity with aforesaid consumer devices. However, Roeding discloses collecting consumer data via a wireless connection 209 (paragraph 0022); establishing wireless connections 209 with consumer mobile devices 101; and processing the collected consumer data to generate metrics (paragraph 0053). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art of portable electronics at a time before applicant’s effective filing date to have provided data collection as disclosed in Roeding with the method of engaging consumers as otherwise disclosed in Langlois to measure and evaluate audience engagement and presence in connection with a portable, wearable media display system.
In re Claim 18, Langlois as modified by Siliprandi and Gilbert above disclose the limitations of Claim 17, but do not explicitly disclose collecting consumer data via the wireless connections; establishing wireless connections with consumer mobile devices; and processing the collected consumer data to generate metrics. However, Roeding discloses collecting consumer data via a wireless connection 209 (paragraph 0022); establishing wireless connections 209 with consumer mobile devices 101; and processing the collected consumer data to generate metrics (paragraph 0053). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art of portable electronics at a time before applicant’s effective filing date to have provided data collection as disclosed in Roeding with the method of engaging consumers as otherwise disclosed in Langlois to measure and evaluate audience engagement and presence in connection with a portable, wearable media display system.
In re Claim 19, Roeding discloses adjusting the displayed content based on consumer interactions. Roeding, paragraphs 0029, 0065.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adrian S Wilson whose telephone number is (571)270-3907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9am to 5pm.
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, Allen L Parker can be reached at 303-297-4722. 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.
/ADRIAN S WILSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841