DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-5 and 7-21 have been considered but are moot because the arguments are directed to an added claim limitation which was not presented earlier and thus necessitated the new ground of rejection as presented in this Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7-12, 16 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Adams; Scott et al., US 20250178733 A1] in view of [Sundholm; Goran, US 20120075112 A1].
Regarding claim 1:
Adams discloses:
1. A system [Adams: Fig.1; Fig.4: system 400] comprising:
a first cabin component (101) [Adams: Fig.1; ¶ 0020: “The electrophoretic surface display 102 is shown as being integrated into the surface of an aircraft component, namely, a passenger cabin wall”; ¶ 0022: “ By way of non-limiting examples, the electrophoretic surface display 102 may be integrated into a cabin wall, a luggage bin, a seatback, a portion of a flight deck, a cabin floor, a cabin overhead area, or a divider between aircraft sections”; ¶ 0023: “The electrophoretic surface display 102 may be present on any surface of the airplane to show images in proximity to individual or groups of passengers, e.g., on the cabin wall, floor, ceiling, overhead bin, lavatory interior or door, tray cart surfaces, seat back, tray table, window shades, or overhead area”; Examiner: Any one of the recited elements (e.g., cabin wall, a luggage bin, a seatback, etc.) is construed as the claimed “first cabin component”.] for an interior of an aircraft [Adams: Fig.1; ¶ 0020: “FIG. 1 is an illustration 100 an electrophoretic surface display 102 inside an aircraft”] comprising:
a first external surface (102) [Adams: Figs.1-3; ¶ 0020: “The electrophoretic surface display 102 is shown as being integrated into the surface of an aircraft component, namely, a passenger cabin wall”; ¶ 0022] [Adams: Fig.1; ¶ 0020: “The electrophoretic surface display 102 is shown as being integrated into the surface of an aircraft component, namely, a passenger cabin wall”; para. ¶ “para. 0023: “The electrophoretic surface display 102 may be present on any surface of the airplane to show images in proximity to individual or groups of passengers, e.g., on the cabin wall, floor, ceiling, overhead bin, lavatory interior or door, tray cart surfaces, seat back, tray table, window shades, or overhead area”];
a first display device (104) [Adams: Fig.1: electrophoretic surface display 102; Fig.4: electrophoretic surface display 410] integrated into the first external surface (102) [[Adams: Figs.1-3; ¶ 0020: “The electrophoretic surface display 102 is shown as being integrated into the surface of an aircraft component, namely, a passenger cabin wall”; ¶ 0022] [Adams: Fig.1; para. 0020: “The electrophoretic surface display 102 is shown as being integrated into the surface of an aircraft component, namely, a passenger cabin wall”; para. 0023: “The electrophoretic surface display 102 may be present on any surface of the airplane to show images in proximity to individual or groups of passengers, e.g., on the cabin wall, floor, ceiling, overhead bin, lavatory interior or door, tray cart surfaces, seat back, tray table, window shades, or overhead area”];
and a first controller (106) [Adams: Fig.4: system 400; Examiner: The system 400 is construed as the claimed “controller”] electrically coupled to the first display device (104) [Adams: Fig.1: electrophoretic surface display 102; Fig.4: electrophoretic surface display 410],
wherein the first controller (106) [Adams: Fig.4: system 400; Examiner: The system 400 is construed as the claimed “controller”] comprises one or more processors (108) [Adams: Fig.4: processor 402] configured to execute program instructions stored in memory (110) [Adams: Fig.4: persistent memory 404; ¶ 0031: “The persistent memory 404 can store program instructions which, when executed by the electronic processor 402, may configure the electronic processor 402 to perform actions as disclosed herein, e.g., as shown and described in reference to FIG. 5”],
wherein the program instructions are configured to cause the one or more processors (108) [Adams: Fig.4: processor 402] to:
apply a first voltage to the first display device (104) [Adams: Fig.1: electrophoretic surface display 102; Fig.4: electrophoretic surface display 410; ¶ 0041: “The electronic controller 406 provides electronic signals to the electrophoretic surface display 410. Such electronic signals activate the electrodes of the electrophoretic surface display 410 to remove or erase one or more current image(s) and present or display one or more different image(s).”; Examiner: Adam’s teaches applying electronics signals to an electrophoretic display to erase one image and display another. As electrophoretic displays necessarily use different voltages or waveforms to produce different images, the claimed voltage limitations are inherently disclosed.],
wherein the first display device (104) [Adams: Fig.1: electrophoretic surface display 102; Fig.4: electrophoretic surface display 410] displays a veneer [Adams: ¶ 0023: “The electrophoretic surface display 102 may display any of a variety of informational and/or decorative images. For example, the electrophoretic surface display 102 may display any, or any combination, of: a meal menu, connecting flight information, signage, advertisements, or decorative images such as artwork or optical illusions. The electrophoretic surface display 102 may be present on any surface of the airplane to show images in proximity to individual or groups of passengers, e.g., on the cabin wall”; Examiner: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation , displaying a veneer represent a decorative display content since it’s merely an aesthetic display content.] on a first side of the first cabin component as a first image corresponding to the first voltage [Adams: Fig.1: electrophoretic surface display 102; Fig.4: electrophoretic surface display 410; ¶ 0041: “The electronic controller 406 provides electronic signals to the electrophoretic surface display 410. Such electronic signals activate the electrodes of the electrophoretic surface display 410 to remove or erase one or more current image(s) and present or display one or more different image(s).”; Examiner: Adam’s teaches applying electronics signals to an electrophoretic display to erase one image and display another. As electrophoretic displays necessarily use different voltages or waveforms to produce different images, the claimed voltage limitations are inherently disclosed.];
and apply a second voltage to the first display device (104) [Adams: Fig.1: electrophoretic surface display 102; Fig.4: electrophoretic surface display 410; ¶ 0041: “The electronic controller 406 provides electronic signals to the electrophoretic surface display 410. Such electronic signals activate the electrodes of the electrophoretic surface display 410 to remove or erase one or more current image(s) and present or display one or more different image(s).”; Examiner: Adam’s teaches applying electronics signals to an electrophoretic display to erase one image and display another. As electrophoretic displays necessarily use different voltages or waveforms to produce different images, the claimed voltage limitations are inherently disclosed.],
wherein the first display device (104) [Adams: Fig.1: electrophoretic surface display 102; Fig.4: electrophoretic surface display 410] displays [Adams: Fig.1: electrophoretic surface display 102; Fig.4: electrophoretic surface display 410; ¶ 0041: “The electronic controller 406 provides electronic signals to the electrophoretic surface display 410. Such electronic signals activate the electrodes of the electrophoretic surface display 410 to remove or erase one or more current image(s) and present or display one or more different image(s).”; Examiner: Adam’s teaches applying electronics signals to an electrophoretic display to erase one image and display another. As electrophoretic displays necessarily use different voltages or waveforms to produce different images, the claimed voltage limitations are inherently disclosed.]
However, Adams does not expressly disclose:
wherein the first display device (104) displays an arrow pointing to a nearest exit of the aircraft on the first side of the first cabin component as a second image corresponding to the second voltage, wherein the second voltage is applied in an emergency. (Emphasis added).
Sundholm discloses:
wherein the first display device (104) [Sundholm: Figs.1-9: display apparatus 1; ¶ 0023: “The display element 2 is preferably so-called electronic paper, i.e. an e-paper display element, e.g. an electrophoretic display element”] displays an arrow [Sundholm: ¶ 0030: “The image displayed by the display can be e.g. an arrow in different directions, a pictogram of a person and a door in different directions, various verbal messages such as Fire, etc.”] pointing to a nearest exit of the aircraft on the first side of the first cabin component as a second image corresponding to the second voltage [Sundholm: ¶ 0038: “According to one preferred embodiment the control system CS is an emergency exit guidance system, an evacuation system or a fire alarm system”; ¶ 0054: “According to one preferred embodiment the display apparatus 1 is fitted to switch from a first operating mode to a second operating mode on the basis of an indication of fire. In the first operating mode the display can display some other information and in the second operating mode the display shows emergency exit information or other alarm information. The display information can be information given by a dynamic emergency exit guidance system, in which case in the second operating mode the display is arranged to show an image or other information suited to the situation”], wherein the second voltage is applied in an emergency [Sundholm: ¶ 0023: “The display element 2 is preferably so-called electronic paper, i.e. an e-paper display element, e.g. an electrophoretic display element”; ¶ 0041: “ According to one preferred embodiment the display apparatus 1 is fitted to switch from a first operating mode to a second operating mode on the basis of an indication of an emergency”; ¶ 0054: “According to one preferred embodiment the display apparatus 1 is fitted to switch from a first operating mode to a second operating mode on the basis of an indication of fire. In the first operating mode the display can display some other information and in the second operating mode the display shows emergency exit information or other alarm information”; Examiner: Electrophoretic displays inherent require different voltage to display different images.].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the aircraft cabin display system of Adams to display emergency exit guidance information, such as directional arrows, as taught by Sundholm in order to provide passengers with evacuation guidance during emergency conditions using the existing aircraft cabin display surfaces.
Regarding claim 2:
Adams in view of Sundholm discloses:
2. The system of claim 1, further comprising:
a second cabin component (102) [Adams: Figs.1-3; ¶ 0020: “The electrophoretic surface display 102 is shown as being integrated into the surface of an aircraft component, namely, a passenger cabin wall”; ¶ 0022: “The electrophoretic surface display 102 may be integrated into any component of the aircraft. By way of non-limiting examples, the electrophoretic surface display 102 may be integrated into a cabin wall, a luggage bin, a seatback, a portion of a flight deck, a cabin floor, a cabin overhead area, or a divider between aircraft sections”; ¶ 0023: “The electrophoretic surface display 102 may be present on any surface of the airplane to show images in proximity to individual or groups of passengers, e.g., on the cabin wall, floor, ceiling, overhead bin, lavatory interior or door, tray cart surfaces, seat back, tray table, window shades, or overhead area”; Examiner: Any one of the other recited elements (e.g., cabin wall, a luggage bin, a seatback, etc.) is construed as the claimed “second cabin component”] for the interior of the aircraft [Adams: Figs.1-3; ¶ 0020: “FIG. 1 is an illustration 100 an electrophoretic surface display 102 inside an aircraft”] comprising:
a second external surface (202) [Adams: Figs.1-3; ¶ 0020: “The electrophoretic surface display 102 is shown as being integrated into the surface of an aircraft component, namely, a passenger cabin wall”; ¶ 0022] [Adams: Fig.1; ¶ 0020: “The electrophoretic surface display 102 is shown as being integrated into the surface of an aircraft component, namely, a passenger cabin wall”; para. ¶ “para. 0023: “The electrophoretic surface display 102 may be present on any surface of the airplane to show images in proximity to individual or groups of passengers, e.g., on the cabin wall, floor, ceiling, overhead bin, lavatory interior or door, tray cart surfaces, seat back, tray table, window shades, or overhead area”], the second external surface (202) [Adams: Figs.1-3; ¶ 0020: “The electrophoretic surface display 102 is shown as being integrated into the surface of an aircraft component, namely, a passenger cabin wall”; ¶ 0022] [Adams: Fig.1; ¶ 0020: “The electrophoretic surface display 102 is shown as being integrated into the surface of an aircraft component, namely, a passenger cabin wall”; para. ¶ “para. 0023: “The electrophoretic surface display 102 may be present on any surface of the airplane to show images in proximity to individual or groups of passengers, e.g., on the cabin wall, floor, ceiling, overhead bin, lavatory interior or door, tray cart surfaces, seat back, tray table, window shades, or overhead area”] comprising a second display device (204) [Adams: Fig.1: electrophoretic surface display 102; Fig.4: electrophoretic surface display 410] integrated into the second external surface (202) [Adams: Figs.1-3; ¶ 0020: “The electrophoretic surface display 102 is shown as being integrated into the surface of an aircraft component, namely, a passenger cabin wall”; ¶ 0022] [Adams: Fig.1; ¶ 0020: “The electrophoretic surface display 102 is shown as being integrated into the surface of an aircraft component, namely, a passenger cabin wall”; para. ¶ “para. 0023: “The electrophoretic surface display 102 may be present on any surface of the airplane to show images in proximity to individual or groups of passengers, e.g., on the cabin wall, floor, ceiling, overhead bin, lavatory interior or door, tray cart surfaces, seat back, tray table, window shades, or overhead area”];
and a second controller (206) [Adams: Fig.4: system 400; Examiner: The system 400 is construed as the claimed “controller”] electrically coupled to the second display device (204) [Adams: Fig.1: electrophoretic surface display 102; Fig.4: electrophoretic surface display 410],
wherein the second controller (206) [Adams: Fig.4: system 400; Examiner: The system 400 is construed as the claimed “controller”] comprises one or more processors (108) [Adams: Fig.4: processor 402] configured to execute program instructions stored in memory (110) [Adams: Fig.4: persistent memory 404; ¶ 0031: “The persistent memory 404 can store program instructions which, when executed by the electronic processor 402, may configure the electronic processor 402 to perform actions as disclosed herein, e.g., as shown and described in reference to FIG. 5”]
wherein the program instructions are configured to cause the one or more processors (108) [Adams: Fig.4: processor 402] to:
apply the first voltage to the second display device (204) [Adams: Fig.1: electrophoretic surface display 102; Fig.4: electrophoretic surface display 410; ¶ 0041: “The electronic controller 406 provides electronic signals to the electrophoretic surface display 410. Such electronic signals activate the electrodes of the electrophoretic surface display 410 to remove or erase one or more current image(s) and present or display one or more different image(s).”; Examiner: Adam’s teaches applying electronics signals to an electrophoretic display to erase one image and display another. As electrophoretic displays necessarily use different voltages or waveforms to produce different images, the claimed voltage limitations are inherently disclosed.],
wherein the second display device (204) [Adams: Fig.1: electrophoretic surface display 102; Fig.4: electrophoretic surface display 410] displays the first image corresponding to the first voltage [Adams: Fig.1: electrophoretic surface display 102; Fig.4: electrophoretic surface display 410; ¶ 0041: “The electronic controller 406 provides electronic signals to the electrophoretic surface display 410. Such electronic signals activate the electrodes of the electrophoretic surface display 410 to remove or erase one or more current image(s) and present or display one or more different image(s).”; Examiner: Adam’s teaches applying electronics signals to an electrophoretic display to erase one image and display another. As electrophoretic displays necessarily use different voltages or waveforms to produce different images, the claimed voltage limitations are inherently disclosed.];
and apply the second voltage to the second display device (204) [Adams: Fig.1: electrophoretic surface display 102; Fig.4: electrophoretic surface display 410; ¶ 0041: “The electronic controller 406 provides electronic signals to the electrophoretic surface display 410. Such electronic signals activate the electrodes of the electrophoretic surface display 410 to remove or erase one or more current image(s) and present or display one or more different image(s).”; Examiner: Adam’s teaches applying electronics signals to an electrophoretic display to erase one image and display another. As electrophoretic displays necessarily use different voltages or waveforms to produce different images, the claimed voltage limitations are inherently disclosed.],
wherein the second display device (204) [Adams: Fig.1: electrophoretic surface display 102; Fig.4: electrophoretic surface display 410] displays the second image corresponding to the second voltage [Adams: Fig.1: electrophoretic surface display 102; Fig.4: electrophoretic surface display 410; ¶ 0041: “The electronic controller 406 provides electronic signals to the electrophoretic surface display 410. Such electronic signals activate the electrodes of the electrophoretic surface display 410 to remove or erase one or more current image(s) and present or display one or more different image(s).”; Examiner: Adam’s teaches applying electronics signals to an electrophoretic display to erase one image and display another. As electrophoretic displays necessarily use different voltages or waveforms to produce different images, the claimed voltage limitations are inherently disclosed.].
Regarding claim 7:
Adams discloses:
7. The system of claim 1.
However, Adams does not expressly disclose:
wherein the first display device integrated into the first external surface is fabricated from materials that are self-extinguishing when exposed to a flame while located in a vertical orientation.
The Examiner takes official notice that materials used in aircraft cabin interior components are required to comply with Federal Aviation Administration flammability requirements, including vertical burn test specified in 14 C.F.R. §25.853 and corresponding appendix F.
These regulatory requirements require that aircraft interior materials be self-extinguishing when exposed to a flame while positioned in a vertical orientation, such that materials ceases burning after removal of the flame source and exhibits limited burn length and flame time.
Thus, aircraft interior components such as panels, placards, display assemblies, or other cabin structures must be fabricated from materials that exhibit self-extinguishing behavior when exposed to flame in vertical orientation in order to comply with FAA safety regulations governing aircraft cabin materials.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fabricate the aircraft cabin components of Adams in view of Sundholm from materials that are self-extinguishing when exposed to a flame in vertical orientation in order to comply with known FAA flammability safety requirements applicable to aircraft cabin interior materials and thereby enhance aircraft passenger safety.
Documentary Evidence:
[Chapman Christopher L et al., EP 4079507 A1]: ¶ 0009: “In some embodiments, at least one of the veneer panel assembly, the aviation honeycomb layer, or the back panel may be configured to pass flame requirements tests as set forth in 14 C.F.R. § 25.853 and corresponding Appendix F.”
[Letourneau Thomas C, WO 9956268 A2]: p.2, lines 1-10: “Additional FAA requirements and tests must also be passed before an advertising placard may be used in aircraft passenger cabins. In the vertical burn test of 14 C.F.R. § 25.853, Appendix F(b)(4) for example, an advertising placard is applied to an overhead luggage compartment door, or to another specific component to which the placard is to be applied, and the door and placard are exposed to fire. Specifically, the door and placard are orientated vertically % inch above a burner with a 1 V.sub.2 inch flame. The flame is maintained for sixty seconds. Once the flame is removed, the sample must not continue burning for more than fifteen seconds, and the burn length must not exceed six inches on average. The test is performed on a minimum of three samples.”
Regarding claim 8:
Adams discloses:
8. The system of claim 1.
However, Adams does not expressly disclose:
wherein the first display device is self-extinguishing after ignition.
The Examiner takes official notice that materials used in aircraft cabin interior components are required to comply with Federal Aviation Administration flammability requirements, including those set forth in 14 C.F.R. § 25.853 and corresponding appendix F.
These FAA flammability requirements require that materials used in aircraft cabin interiors exhibit self-extinguishing behavior after ignition, meaning that the material must cease burning after removal of flame source in order to reduce fire propagation within the aircraft cabin environment.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fabricate the aircraft cabin display device of Adams in view of Sundholm from materials that are self-extinguishing after ignition in order to comply with known FAA flammability safety requirements applicable to aircraft cabin interior components and thereby enhance aircraft and passenger safety.
Documentary Evidence:
[Chapman Christopher L et al., EP 4079507 A1]: ¶ 0009: “In some embodiments, at least one of the veneer panel assembly, the aviation honeycomb layer, or the back panel may be configured to pass flame requirements tests as set forth in 14 C.F.R. § 25.853 and corresponding Appendix F.”
[Letourneau Thomas C, WO 9956268 A2]: p.2, lines 1-10: “Additional FAA requirements and tests must also be passed before an advertising placard may be used in aircraft passenger cabins. In the vertical burn test of 14 C.F.R. § 25.853, Appendix F(b)(4) for example, an advertising placard is applied to an overhead luggage compartment door, or to another specific component to which the placard is to be applied, and the door and placard are exposed to fire. Specifically, the door and placard are orientated vertically % inch above a burner with a 1 V.sub.2 inch flame. The flame is maintained for sixty seconds. Once the flame is removed, the sample must not continue burning for more than fifteen seconds, and the burn length must not exceed six inches on average. The test is performed on a minimum of three samples.”
Regarding claim 9:
Adams discloses:
9. The system of claim 1.
However, Adams does not expressly disclose:
wherein the first display device has an average burn length not exceeding 6 inches after ignition.
The Examiner takes official notice that materials used in aircraft cabin interior components are required to comply with Federal Aviation Administration flammability requirements, including those set forth in 14 C.F.R. § 25.853 and corresponding appendix F.
These FAA flammability requirements specify that materials used in aircraft cabin interiors must satisfy certain flammability performance criteria, including limitations on burn length after ignition. In particular, the FAA vertical burn test requires that the average burn length of tested materials must not exceed 6 inches after ignition.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fabricate the aircraft cabin display device of Adams in view of Sundholm from materials that exhibit an average burn length not exceeding 6 inches after ignition in order to comply with known FAA flammability safety requirements applicable to aircraft cabin interior components and thereby enhance aircraft and passenger safety.
Documentary Evidence:
[Chapman Christopher L et al., EP 4079507 A1]: ¶ 0009: “In some embodiments, at least one of the veneer panel assembly, the aviation honeycomb layer, or the back panel may be configured to pass flame requirements tests as set forth in 14 C.F.R. § 25.853 and corresponding Appendix F.”
[Letourneau Thomas C, WO 9956268 A2]: p.2, lines 1-10: “Additional FAA requirements and tests must also be passed before an advertising placard may be used in aircraft passenger cabins. In the vertical burn test of 14 C.F.R. § 25.853, Appendix F(b)(4) for example, an advertising placard is applied to an overhead luggage compartment door, or to another specific component to which the placard is to be applied, and the door and placard are exposed to fire. Specifically, the door and placard are orientated vertically % inch above a burner with a 1 V.sub.2 inch flame. The flame is maintained for sixty seconds. Once the flame is removed, the sample must not continue burning for more than fifteen seconds, and the burn length must not exceed six inches on average. The test is performed on a minimum of three samples.”
Regarding claim 10:
Adams discloses:
10. The system of claim 1.
However, Adams does not expressly disclose:
wherein the first display device has an average flame time after removal of a flame source not exceeding 15 seconds after ignition.
The Examiner takes official notice that materials used in aircraft cabin interior components are required to comply with Federal Aviation Administration flammability requirements, including those set forth in 14 C.F.R. § 25.853 and corresponding appendix F.
These FAA flammability requirements specify that materials used in aircraft cabin interiors must satisfy certain flammability performance criteria, including limitations on flame time after removal of a flame source. In particular, the FAA vertical burn test requires that the average flame time after removal of the flame source must not exceed 15 seconds after ignition.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fabricate the aircraft cabin display device of Adams in view of Sundholm from materials that exhibit an average flame time after removal of a flame source not exceeding 15 seconds in order to comply with known FAA flammability safety requirements applicable to aircraft cabin interior components and thereby enhance aircraft and passenger safety.
Documentary Evidence:
[Chapman Christopher L et al., EP 4079507 A1]: ¶ 0009: “In some embodiments, at least one of the veneer panel assembly, the aviation honeycomb layer, or the back panel may be configured to pass flame requirements tests as set forth in 14 C.F.R. § 25.853 and corresponding Appendix F.”
[Letourneau Thomas C, WO 9956268 A2]: p.2, lines 1-10: “Additional FAA requirements and tests must also be passed before an advertising placard may be used in aircraft passenger cabins. In the vertical burn test of 14 C.F.R. § 25.853, Appendix F(b)(4) for example, an advertising placard is applied to an overhead luggage compartment door, or to another specific component to which the placard is to be applied, and the door and placard are exposed to fire. Specifically, the door and placard are orientated vertically % inch above a burner with a 1 V.sub.2 inch flame. The flame is maintained for sixty seconds. Once the flame is removed, the sample must not continue burning for more than fifteen seconds, and the burn length must not exceed six inches on average. The test is performed on a minimum of three samples.”
Regarding claim 11:
Adams discloses:
11. The system of claim 1.
However, Adams does not expressly disclose:
wherein the first display device has drippings that do not continue to flame for more than 3 seconds after falling after ignition.
The Examiner takes official notice that materials used in aircraft cabin interior components are required to comply with Federal Aviation Administration flammability requirements, including those set forth in 14 C.F.R. § 25.853 and corresponding appendix F.
These FAA flammability requirements specify that materials used in aircraft cabin interiors must satisfy certain flammability performance criteria, including limitations on flaming drippings after ignition. In particular, the FAA vertical burn test requires that drippings from the material must not continue to flame for more than 3 seconds after falling.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fabricate the aircraft cabin display device of Adams in view of Sundholm from materials having drippings that do no continue to flame for more than 3 seconds after falling after ignition in order to comply with known FAA flammability safety requirements applicable to aircraft cabin interior components and thereby enhance aircraft and passenger safety.
Documentary Evidence:
[Chapman Christopher L et al., EP 4079507 A1]: ¶ 0009: “In some embodiments, at least one of the veneer panel assembly, the aviation honeycomb layer, or the back panel may be configured to pass flame requirements tests as set forth in 14 C.F.R. § 25.853 and corresponding Appendix F.”
[Letourneau Thomas C, WO 9956268 A2]: p.2, lines 1-10: “Additional FAA requirements and tests must also be passed before an advertising placard may be used in aircraft passenger cabins. In the vertical burn test of 14 C.F.R. § 25.853, Appendix F(b)(4) for example, an advertising placard is applied to an overhead luggage compartment door, or to another specific component to which the placard is to be applied, and the door and placard are exposed to fire. Specifically, the door and placard are orientated vertically % inch above a burner with a 1 V.sub.2 inch flame. The flame is maintained for sixty seconds. Once the flame is removed, the sample must not continue burning for more than fifteen seconds, and the burn length must not exceed six inches on average. The test is performed on a minimum of three samples.”
Regarding claim 12:
Adams in view of Sundholm discloses:
12. The system of claim 1,
wherein the second image comprises an emergency exit instruction [Adams: Fig.3: “EXIT”; ¶ 0030: “Note that embodiments such as are illustrated according to FIG. 3 have the benefit of being able to change functional information in the aircraft itself, as shown in FIG. 3, an exit location, and may continue to display such functional information in an emergency situation when power is lost.”].
Regarding claim 16:
The limitations of claim 16 have been addressed in the discussion of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 21:
Adams in view of Sundholm discloses:
21. The system of claim 1, wherein the second voltage is applied to the first display device upon a determination that the aircraft has made an emergency landing [Adams: Fig.3; ¶ 0028: “As another example, electrophoretic displays that may ordinarily show decorative images may be repurposed to display information, e.g., in an emergency. As yet another example, electrophoretic displays can provide information to passengers while the passengers remain seated, thereby reducing aisle congestion, which may increase safety. As yet another example, displaying decorative images may have the effect of soothing stressed passengers.”; 0030: “FIG. 3 have the benefit of being able to change functional information in the aircraft itself, as shown in FIG. 3, an exit location, and may continue to display such functional information in an emergency situation when power is lost. This presents a clear advantage over changeable displays based on LED or LCD technology.”; Examiner: Adams uses an electrophoretic display. Changing the displayed image necessarily requires applying different voltage waveform. ].
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Adams; Scott et al., US 20250178733 A1] in view of [Sundholm; Goran, US 20120075112 A1] and further in view of [Oh; Jongsu et al., US 20220301501 A1].
Regarding claim 3:
Adams in view of Sundholm discloses:
3. The system of claim 2, further comprising configured to execute program instructions stored in memory (110) [Adams: Fig.4: persistent memory 404],
wherein the program instructions are configured to cause the one or more processors (108) [Adams: Fig.4: processor 402] to:
transmit first voltage data correlated to the first image to the first controller (106) [Adams: Fig.1: electrophoretic surface display 102; Fig.4: electrophoretic surface display 410; ¶ 0041: “The electronic controller 406 provides electronic signals to the electrophoretic surface display 410. Such electronic signals activate the electrodes of the electrophoretic surface display 410 to remove or erase one or more current image(s) and present or display one or more different image(s).”; Examiner: Adam’s teaches applying electronics signals to an electrophoretic display to erase one image and display another. As electrophoretic displays necessarily use different voltages or waveforms to produce different images, the claimed voltage limitations are inherently disclosed.];
and transmit second voltage data correlated to the second image to the second display device (204) [Adams: Fig.1: electrophoretic surface display 102; Fig.4: electrophoretic surface display 410; ¶ 0041: “The electronic controller 406 provides electronic signals to the electrophoretic surface display 410. Such electronic signals activate the electrodes of the electrophoretic surface display 410 to remove or erase one or more current image(s) and present or display one or more different image(s).”; Examiner: Adam’s teaches applying electronics signals to an electrophoretic display to erase one image and display another. As electrophoretic displays necessarily use different voltages or waveforms to produce different images, the claimed voltage limitations are inherently disclosed.].
However, Adams in view of Sundholm does not expressly disclose:
a main controller coupled to the first controller (106) and the second controller (206), the main controller comprising one or more processors (108).
Oh discloses:
a main controller [Oh: Fig.3: main controller 300] coupled to the first controller (106) [Oh: Fig.3: driver IC 200-1 and/or micro pixel controller 130-1] and the second controller (206) [Oh: Fig.3: driver IC 200-2 and/or micro pixel controller 130-2], the main controller [Oh: Fig.3: main controller 300] comprising one or more processors (108) [Oh: ¶ 0097: “ For example, the main controller 300 may include … a graphic processor”].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the concept above of Oh in the invention of Adams to yield the predictable results of providing a central interface for monitoring and managing the entire display system.
Regarding claim 4:
Adams in view of Sundholm discloses:
4. The system of claim 2.
However, Adams in view of Sundholm does not expressly disclose:
further comprising a user interface device configured to transfer first voltage data and second voltage data.
Oh discloses:
further comprising a user interface device [Oh: Fig.3: input interface 420; ¶ 0089: “ The input device 420 may also include a button or a touch pad provided in one area of the display apparatus 1, and in a case in which a display panel 100 is implemented as a touch screen, the input device 420 may include the touch pad provided on a front surface of a display panel 100. In addition, the input device 420 may also include a remote controller”] configured to transfer first voltage data and second voltage data [Oh: ¶ 0090: “The input device 420 may receive various commands for controlling the display apparatus 1 from a user to perform power on/off, volume adjustment, channel adjustment, screen adjustment, various setting changes, and the like of the display apparatus 1”; Examiner: Change of channel necessarily causes change of image which causes the driving voltages for Adams electrophoretic display to change to cause different images to be displayed].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the concept above of Oh in the invention of Adams to yield the predictable results of enabling users to control the display devices.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Adams; Scott et al., US 20250178733 A1] in view of [Sundholm; Goran, US 20120075112 A1] and further in view of [Schmieder; Valerie L. et al., US 20060179458 A1].
Regarding claim 5:
Adams in view of Sundholm discloses:
5. The system of claim 2,
wherein the first cabin component (101) [Adams: Fig.1; para. 0020: “The electrophoretic surface display 102 is shown as being integrated into the surface of an aircraft component, namely, a passenger cabin wall”] is a table [Adams: ¶ 0023: “The electrophoretic surface display 102 may be present on any surface of the airplane to show images in proximity to individual or groups of passengers, e.g., on the cabin wall, floor, ceiling, overhead bin, lavatory interior or door, tray cart surfaces, seat back, tray table, window shades, or overhead area.”: “tray table”],
However, Adams in view of Sundholm does not expressly disclose:
wherein the second cabin component (102) is a cabinet.
Schmieder discloses:
wherein the second cabin component (102) is a cabinet [Schmieder: Fig.1; ¶ 0012: “FIG. 1 is a front perspective view of a media center in accordance with the present invention, with the cabinet in a use position”; ¶ 0027].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the concept above of Schmieder in the invention of Adams to yield the predictable results of creating a focal point and providing added storage and thereby enhancing user experience.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Adams; Scott et al., US 20250178733 A1] in view of [Sundholm; Goran, US 20120075112 A1] and further in view of [Spencer; Stephen et al., US 20200369361 A1].
Regarding claim 13:
Adams in view of Sundholm discloses:
13. The system of claim 1.
However, Adams in view of Sundholm does not expressly disclose:
wherein the program instructions are configured to identify a passenger and cause the one or more processors (108) to change the first image to the second image based on a predetermined preferred image of the passenger.
Spencer discloses:
wherein the program instructions are configured to identify a passenger and cause the one or more processors (108) to change the first image to the second image based on a predetermined preferred image of the passenger [Spencer: ¶ 0028: “Additionally, the display member 20 can incorporate capacitive touch sensors which will allow the passenger to interact with the window display 12 to change the image on the display 12”].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the concept above of Spencer in the invention of Adams to yield the predictable results of enabling a passenger to change the image and thereby enhancing user experience.
Claim(s) 14 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Adams; Scott et al., US 20250178733 A1] in view of [Sundholm; Goran, US 20120075112 A1] and further in view of [Lau; Jonathan Howkan, US 20250264937 A1].
Regarding claim 14:
Adams in view of Sundholm disclose:
14. The system of claim 1.
However, Adams in view of Sundholm does not expressly disclose:
wherein the program instructions are configured to cause the one or more processors (108) to obtain a trained artificial intelligence (Al) model and/or machine learning (ML) model and, based on passenger output data, infer the second image.
Lau discloses:
wherein the program instructions are configured to cause the one or more processors (108) to obtain a trained artificial intelligence (Al) model and/or machine learning (ML) model and, based on passenger output data, infer the second image [Lau: ¶ 0006: “In accordance with an aspect of the disclosure, a method for generating a customized content item includes: detecting a user interest of a user in an object; based on the detecting of the user interest, determining an interest level corresponding to the object; obtaining a content item to be presented to the user; based on the interest level corresponding to the object being greater than a predetermined threshold interest level, providing information about the object along with the content item to a generative artificial intelligence (AI) model to obtain the customized content item; and presenting the customized content item to the user using an augmented reality (AR) device”].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the concept above of Lau in the invention of Adams to yield the predictable results of providing image or content to the passenger that is based on the passenger’s interest and thereby enhancing user experience.
Regarding claim 19:
The limitations of claim 19 have been addressed in the discussion of claim 14 above.
Claim(s) 15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Adams; Scott et al., US 20250178733 A1] in view of [Sundholm; Goran, US 20120075112 A1], [Lau; Jonathan Howkan, US 20250264937 A1] and further in view of [Kallergis; Konstantin et al., US 20230312131 A1].
Regarding claim 15:
Adams in view of Sundholm and Lau discloses:
15. The system of claim 14.
However, Adams in view of Sundholm and Lau does not expressly disclose:
wherein the trained artificial intelligence (Al) model and/or machine learning (ML) model is configured to recognize an emergency landing, and display a second image that includes an emergency instruction.
Kallergis discloses:
[Kallergis: ¶ 0049: “The system 1 further comprises a display device 7 configured to display the live monitoring data and the recommended remedial procedure to the cockpit crew 12 in case of a fire alarm. Hence, the crew 12 is able to receive a live feed of the affected portion in the cargo compartment 10 to visually countercheck if there is a fire or not. In addition, emergency procedures are automatically displayed to the crew 12 on the display, e.g. navigation recommendation for an emergency landing and/or a recommended reachable airport, evacuation and/or rescue management information, medical information of specific passengers and so on. The crew 12 are thus able to directly act in case of a fire warning and do not have to make elaborate manual checks of flight manuals or the like. The crew 12 can thus react much more effectively and swiftly in case of a fire alarm.”].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the concept above of Kallergis in the invention of Adams in view of Lau to yield the predictable results of enhancing aircraft and passenger safety.
Furthermore, Adams in view of Sundholm, Lau and Kallergis disclose:
The invention as discussed above.
However, Adams in view of Sundholm, Lau and Kallergis does not expressly disclose:
The trained artificial intelligence (Al) model and/or machine learning (ML) model.
The Examiner takes official notice that is old and well known in the art to use AI or ML models in the detection of events and provide output to a user pertaining the event.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the concept above of in the invention of Adam in view of Lau and Kallergis to yield the predictable results of automating events via AI or ML models.
Documentary Evidence:
[Barcia; Peter et al., US 20250118184 A1]: Abstract: “An embodiment related to a system, comprising: a processor; a sensor; an image sensor; a display; and a communication module; wherein the processor is configured to measure a physiological characteristic of a passenger of a vehicle; capture an image of the passenger of a vehicle; process the physiological characteristic of the passenger and determine whether the physiological characteristic is outside a predefined threshold; process the image, via the processor comprising an image processing algorithm and artificial intelligence, for extracting a feature; detect the health emergency and a severity of the health emergency based on the feature extracted; generate an alert signal; display the alert signal and at least one of a detail of the health emergency of the passenger; and an action based on the health emergency and a severity of the health emergency. In an embodiment, the system is configured to be a component of the vehicle.”
Regarding claim 20:
The limitations of claim 20 have been addressed in the discussion of claim 15 above.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Adams; Scott et al., US 20250178733 A1] in view of [Sundholm; Goran, US 20120075112 A1] and further in view of [Liu; Shu-Cheng et al., US 20250218409 A1].
Regarding claim 17:
Adams in view of Sundholm discloses:
17. The method of claim 16.
However, Adams in view of Sundholm does not expressly disclose:
further comprising, before applying the first voltage, transmitting a first voltage data corresponding to the first image to a first controller (106) or a user interface device.
Liu discloses:
further comprising, before applying the first voltage, transmitting a first voltage data corresponding to the first image to a first controller (106) or a user interface device [Abstract: “The signal processor is further configured to output multiple first voltage data according to the first image signal. The signal processor is configured to receive the first voltage data from the image processor, and is configured to convert the first voltage data into a first driving signal. The first driving signal is configured to cause the driving circuit to provide the driving voltages to the pixel circuits”; Examiner: Any one of the output multiple first voltage data is construed as the claimed “first voltage data” which are applied before the “first driving signal” ].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the concept above of Liu in the invention of Adams to yield the predictable results of driving the electrophoretic display device.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Adams; Scott et al., US 20250178733 A1] in view of [Sundholm; Goran, US 20120075112 A1], [Liu; Shu-Cheng et al., US 20250218409 A1] and further in view of [Huang; Shih-I et al., US 20130229260 A1].
Regarding claim 18:
Adams in view of Sundholm and Liu discloses:
18. The method of claim 17.
However, Adams in view of Sundholm and Liu does not expressly disclose:
wherein transmitting the first voltage data comprises transmitting the first voltage data wirelessly.
Huang discloses:
wherein transmitting the first voltage data comprises transmitting the first voltage data wirelessly [Huang: ¶ 0055: “In Steps 402 to 412 and Steps 502 to Steps 214, the textual data, image data or request signal is often transmitted/received wirelessly, however, the textual data, image data or request signal may also be transmitted/received wiredly”].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the concept above of Huang in the invention of Adams in view of Liu to yield the predictable results of reducing wire clutter.
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.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Koosha Sharifi-Tafreshi whose telephone number is (571)270-5897. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8AM to 5PM EST.
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, Nitin Patel can be reached at (571) 272-7677. 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.
/KOOSHA SHARIFI-TAFRESHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2628