DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This correspondence is in response to applicant’s reply filed on 02/20/2026. Claims 1-6 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 02/20/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tennagels et al. (DE 102015009302) in view of Maxwell (U.S. Pat. 11188725).
Regarding claim 1, Tennagels discloses a communal connecting media system comprising: a support structure 2; a display housing 6 disposed atop the support structure 2; and mesh 26 attached to the support structure 2, where the mesh 26 is for securing padlocks 3 to.
Regarding claim 1, Tennagels is discussed above, and teaches the communal connecting media system. However, Tennagels fails to teach at least one electronic visual display disposed within the display housing 6. Maxwell teaches a connecting media system for memorializing significant moments, using visible insignias, such as “love locks,” (see discussion in col. 3, lines 31-34), comprising an electronic visual display 40, where the at least one electronic visual display 40 is for displaying text and imagery that is viewable from within viewing distance of the media system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communal connecting media system of Tennagels to have an electronic visual display, in order to provide a means to record and display information about the significant event, in a special location, or on a blockchain record, as taught to be desirable by Maxwell (see discussion in col. 2, lines 16-20).
Regarding claim 2, Maxwell discloses the communal connecting media system, where the electronic visual display(s) 40 is viewable from substantially all around the periphery of the support structure 2.
Regarding claim 3, Tennagels discloses the communal connecting media system, where the support structure 2 comprises connected cubical elements (as seen in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, Tennagels discloses the communal connecting media system, further comprising: a receiver 9 for receiving media content; a computer 7 in communication with the receiver 9 and the electronic visual display(s) 40, where the computer 7 is capable of: (a) determining whether media content received by the receiver 9 is displayable on the electronic visual display(s) 40 according to predetermined criteria for making that determination; (b) determining a sequence for displaying displayable media content on the electronic visual display(s) 40 according to predetermined criteria for making that determination; and (c) displaying displayable media content on the electronic visual display(s) 40 in that sequence (as discussed in paras. [0082] & [0084]).
Regarding claim 5, Tennagels discloses a communal connecting media system comprising: a support structure 2; a display housing 6 disposed atop the support structure 2; a receiver 9 for receiving media content; a computer 7 in communication with the receiver 9; a plurality of inhabitable dwellings disposed within the vicinity of the support structure 2 (as discussed in para. [0016]), where each such dwelling has a designated user 4 associated therewith; and where each designated user 4 is enabled to transmit media content to the receiver 9 for potential display (as discussed in para. [0094]).
Regarding claim 5, Tennagels is discussed above, and teaches the communal connecting media system. However, Tennagels fails to teach at least one electronic visual display disposed within the display housing 6. Maxwell teaches a connecting media system for memorializing significant moments, using visible insignias, such as “love locks,” (see discussion in col. 3, lines 31-34), comprising an electronic visual display 40; where the computer 7 (of Tennagels) is capable of: (a) determining whether media content received by the receiver 9 is displayable on the visual display(s) 40 according to predetermined criteria for making that determination; (b) determining a sequence for displaying displayable media content on the visual display(s) 40 according to predetermined criteria for making that determination; and (c) displaying displayable media content on the visual display(s) 40 in that sequence; and where each designated user 4 is enabled to transmit media content to the receiver 9 for potential display on the visual display(s) 40 (see discussion in col. 3, lines 38-43 of Maxwell).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communal connecting media system of Tennagels to have an electronic visual display, in order to provide a means to record and display information about the significant event, in a special location, or on a blockchain record, as taught to be desirable by Maxwell (see discussion in col. 2, lines 16-20).
Regarding claim 6, Tennagels discloses the communal media system, further comprising a media content transmitter 8 disposed within each dwelling, where each such transmitter 8 is enabled to transmit media content to the receiver 9 for potential display on the visual display(s) 40.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 MICHAEL D MCDUFFIE whose telephone number is (571)272-3832. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8AM-4:30PM.
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.
/Michael McDuffie/Examiner, Art Unit 3632 19-Mar-26
/TERRELL L MCKINNON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3632