DETAILED ACTION1
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
Claim 1 recites several frames that are coupled to and supporting…set[s of] LED panels. The term panel is intended by applicant to refer to an entire LED screen. This is to say the panel is a screen having a plurality of LED pixels that collectively show an image. A large number of these LED screens are then mounted on a frame to create a larger display. While claims are read in light of the specification, it is also inappropriate to import limitations from the specification, when other reasonable interpretations are possible and consistent with the relevant art. Applicant does not define the term panel in their specification. Nor is the term panel a term of art in the field. Rather other terms are used to refer to the entire display screen. For example, U.S. 2022/0022330 to Dewaele refers to each individual screen in such a display as a “tile.” They can also be called monitors. Thus, there is no presumption that the panel is an entire screen. In view of this, examiner has determined the broadest reasonable interpretation of panel is broader than merely a LED display screen as a whole. Another potential interpretation is that each panel is the region of an individual pixel within an LED screen. These regions each contain one red, one green, and one blue LED in a distinct panel area. Thousands of such regions are bound together by a frame to collectively form an LED screen. In other words, a frame supporting a set of LED panels can be defined as a single LED screen. Applicant is free to amend the claim to explicitly define the term panel consistent with their intent.
CLAIM OBJECTIONS
Claims 1-9 are objected to because of an informality. Claim 1 recites a first frame assembly coupled to and supporting a first set LED panels. Grammtically the word ‘of’ is required after the word set. Claims 2-9 are objected to based on their dependence. Appropriate correction is required.
REJECTIONS UNDER 35 USC 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(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.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the second frame assembly is separated from the first frame assembly by sliding (i) the first member away from the first frame assembly, and (ii) the second member from the third frame assembly. The step of the second frame assembly is separated from the first frame assembly is repeating language from claim 1. Claim 2 then recites two limitations further limiting this step from claim 1. Step (i) recites sliding…the first member away from the first frame assembly. This is clear. Next claim 2 recites and (ii) the second member from the third frame assembly. Grammatically, this appears to be a continuation of the sliding phrase. In other words, step (ii) is sliding the second member from the third frame assembly. This phrase is indefinite. First, claim 1 never establishes any connection or reference between the second member and the third frame. As such, it is unclear what movement is occurring. (It is possible in view of claim 4, that claim 2 intended to recite ‘from the second frame assembly.’) Second, it is unclear if the second member is being slid away from the third frame or is being slid having started closer to the third frame. Both interpretations are possible based on the current language. Claim 2 cannot be substantively examined due to these ambiguities. Claim 4 is rejected based on its dependence and contains the second issue from claim 2.
REJECTIONS UNDER 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.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. 2021/0080999 to Bryant.
Claim 1 recites a method of configuring a multi-configuration LED display assembly. Bryant relates to assembling and configuring such a multi-LED display. See Bryant [0005]-[0006] and Fig. 4. Claim 1 recites providing a mounting system…[with] a first frame assembly coupled to and supporting a first set LED panels as well as second and third frame[s] that also both support respective sets of LED panels. Figure 4 of Bryant shows a mounting system (10) with a first frame (100), as well as a second frame (200A) and a third frame (200B). See Bryant [0075]-[0080]. Each display device can be an LED display. See Bryant [0109]-[0110]. Examiner takes Official Notice that LED displays contain a plurality of individual pixel panels that each have a single red, green, and blue LED. These panels are collectively coupled to the outer frame of the display. As such, each of the three monitors shown in figure 4 constitutes a frame assemble coupled to and supporting a..set of LED panels.
Claim 1 also recites a first hinge assembly hingeably coupling the second frame assembly to the first frame assembly as well as a second hinge assembly hingeably coupling the third frame assembly to the first frame assembly. Bryant teaches both displays are attached to the main housing (the first frame) by hinge assemblies (500). See Bryant [0081] and Figs. 6 and 8. Claim 1 further recites that each hinge assembly defined by (i) a first hinge member, (ii) a first member extending from the first hinge member in a first direction and slidably coupled to the first frame assembly. Braynt teaches that the attachment arms (200) both contain both a hinge (500) and sliding rails (140, 142) that allow the monitors to slide into the central casing area and then out into an arm configuration. See Bryant Figs. 2 and 4 and [0081] & [0086]. The rails (140, 142) anticipate the third and fourth members. The two displays each exit the central first frame is two different direction[s] as recited as well.
Claim 1 then recites providing a simulator system operatively connected to the first set of LED panels, the second set of LED panels, and the third set of LED panels. Bryant teaches attaching the three displays to a laptop. This is a simulator system because it can simulate many things (e.g. simulation games). Finaly, claim 1 recites configuring the second frame assembly in relation to the first screen assembly by: (i) separating the second frame assembly from the first frame assembly via the first hinge assembly (which is accomplished when the screen is slid out from the central storage area); (ii) rotating the second frame assembly in relation to the first frame assembly; and (iii) pushing the second frame assembly back towards the first frame assembly. The final step occurs because when the screen passes the 45 degree angle the rotations begins pushing the second frame…back towards the first frame. This orientation is shown in figure 4.
Claim 3 duplicates the language of claim 1, but with the third frame. The third screen (200B) can also be slid out and rotated in the same manner as figure 6.
REJECTIONS UNDER 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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious2 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2021/0080999 to Bryant in view of U.S. D1,016,881 to Putterman.
Claim 5 recites the first frame assembly further includes a boom coupled proximate a top of the first frame assembly, the boom extending out from the first set of LED panels with a camera coupled to a distal end of the boom. Bryant does not explicitly teach a camera on a boom. But external laptop cameras designed to be mounted the top of a monitor are well known. Putterman shows one such example. See Putterman Fig. 1. It would have been obvious to mount an external laptop camera on the monitor of a laptop such as Bryant. See MPEP 2143(D).
Claims 6 and 7 recite the same features as claim 5, but merely recites the boom is coupled to the second frame and the third frame (rather than the first) respectively. It would have been equally obvious to mount the camera on any of the monitors. Claims 6-7 does not recite or require that a boom and camera be mounted on multiple monitors.
Claim 8 recites the camera has a 96-degree field of view. Various models of laptop cameras have different fields of view. Standard cameras run in the 80-90 degree range with wide cameras for conferences running above 90. The field of view of a laptop camera is a mere design choice based on the desired use. It would have been obvious to mount any desired angle range external camera on the laptop of Putterman. Finally, claim 9 recites the camera is operatively connected to the simulator system. Laptop cameras are designed to plug into laptops.
Claims 1 & 3 are alternately rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2021/0080999 to Bryant in view of U.S. 2022/0022330 to Dewaele.
Regarding claim 1, assuming arguendo that a panel must be an actual display screen and not merely a pixel region, the features of claim 1 would have been obvious over Bryant in view of Dewaele. As demonstrated in the anticipation rejection of claim 1, Bryant teaches a three-monitor display on rails with hinges. Dewaele teaches that tiled displays of multiple individual screens on a frame are known. It would have been obvious to scale up Bryant to allow multiple tiled displays to be mounted and hinged to allow for a larger screen system. Claim 3 is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claims 5-9 are alternately rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2021/0080999 to Bryant in view of U.S. 2022/0022330 to Dewaele and U.S. D1,016,881 to Putterman.
Claims 5-9 are rejected for the same reasons as in the primary rejection.
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to Moshe Wilensky whose telephone number is 571-270-3257. Mr. Wilensky’s supervisor, Sunil Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Examiner interviews are available via telephone or video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. Applicant may also use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
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. 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.
/MOSHE WILENSKY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
1 The following conventions are used in this office action. All direct claim quotations are presented in italics. All non-italic reference numerals presented with italicized claim language are from the cited prior art reference. All citations to “specification” are to the applicant’s published specification unless otherwise indicated. The use of the phrase “et al.” following a reference is used solely to refer to subsequent modifying references, and not to other listed inventors of the cited reference.
2 Hereafter all uses of the word “obvious” should be construed to mean “obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed.”
Prosecution Insights