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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oosthock et al. (US 2022/0084442) in view of Choo et al. (GB 2617667 A).
Regarding claim 1, Oosthock et al. disclose an electronic shelf label (Figures 4-5), comprising a power supply (Figure 5, 38 is a power supply.), a screen (Figure 5 is a screen, and paragraph [0057].), a master control chip (Figure 4, 21 is a master control chip.), an antenna circuit (Figure 4, 27 is an antenna, and paragraph [0064].), a screen driving circuit (Figure 4, 25 is a screen driving circuit.) and a RGB lamp circuit (Figure 4, 12 is a RGB lamp circuit, and paragraph [0058].), wherein the power supply is connected to the screen through the screen driving circuit (Figures 4-5, the power supply 38 is connected to interface 10 which is then connected to screen driving circuit 25 which is connected to the screen 5. See also paragraph [0057].), the power supply is also connected to the master control chip (Figures 4-5, the power supply 38 is connected to interface 10 which is then connected to master control 21.), control ends of the screen driving circuit are respectively connected to a control end of the screen (Figure 4 shows that a control end of 25 is connected to a control end of 5. See paragraph [0063].), the signal input of the screen is connected to a signal output of the master control chip (Figure 4, the signal input of the screen 5 is connected to a signal output of master control chip 21 [output of 25 which is a part of 21.]. See paragraph [0063].), the master control chip is in communication connection with the antenna circuit (Figure 4, master control chip 21 is communicatively connected to the antenna 27.), and an indication signal output of the master control chip is connected to a signal input of the RGB lamp circuit (Figure 4 shows an “indication signal output” of master control chip 21 is connected to a signal input of the RGB lamp circuit 12. See paragraph [0066].).
Oosthock et al. fail to teach a multi-screen electronic shelf label, comprising a plurality of screens, and thus also fails to teach control ends of the screen driving circuit are respectively connected to control ends of the plurality of screens, each signal input of each of the plurality of screens is connected to a signal output of the master control chip.
Choo et al. disclose a multi-screen electronic shelf label (Figure 3), comprising a plurality of screens (Figure 3 shows a plurality of screens 208A-N.), control ends of a screen driving circuit are respectively connected to control ends of the plurality of screens (Figure 3 shows that control ends CLK, DATA of 204 [screen driving circuit] are respectively connected to control ends of the plurality of screens 208A-N in serial.), each signal input of each of the plurality of screens is connected to a signal output of a master control chip (Figure 3 shows that each signal input of each of the screens 208A-N is connected to a signal output of master control chip 202.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to “one of ordinary skill” in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the plurality of screen teachings of Choo et al. in the electronic shelf label taught by Oosthock et al. The motivation to combine would have been in order to allow for multiple displays to be multiplexed to a single controller, thus allowing for decreased manufacturing cost (See page 2, lines 16-20 and page 3, lines 1-2 of Choo et al.)
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oosthock et al. (US 2022/0084442) in view of Choo et al. (GB 2617667 A) and further in view of Huang (CN 216034820 U).
Regarding claim 2, Oosthock et al. and Choo et al. disclose the multi-screen electronic shelf label according to claim 1.
Oosthock et al. and Choo et al. fail to teach wherein the antenna circuit comprises a second inductor, a third inductor, a first capacitor, a second capacitor, a third capacitor and an antenna, wherein a first end of the second inductor is respectively connected to an ANT pin of the master control chip and a first end of the first capacitor, a second end of the second inductor is respectively connected to a first end of the third inductor and a first end of the second capacitor, a second end of the third inductor is respectively connected to a first end of the third capacitor and the antenna and thereby is grounded; a second end of the first capacitor, a second end of the second capacitor and a second end of the third capacitor are grounded.
Huang discloses wherein an antenna circuit comprises a second inductor (Figure 8, L6), a third inductor (Figure 8, L5), a first capacitor (Figure 8, C6), a second capacitor (Figure 8, C5), a third capacitor (Figure 8, C18) and an antenna (Figure 8, ANT2), wherein a first end of the second inductor is respectively connected to an ANT pin of a master control chip and a first end of the first capacitor (Figure 8, first end of L6 is connected to ANT pin of U3 [master control chip] and a first end of C6.), a second end of the second inductor is respectively connected to a first end of the third inductor and a first end of the second capacitor (Figure 8, a second end of L6 is connected to a first end of L5 and a first end of C5.), a second end of the third inductor is respectively connected to a first end of the third capacitor and the antenna and thereby is grounded (Figure 8, a second end of L6 is connected to a first end of C18 and the antenna ANT2 and is thereby grounded.); a second end of the first capacitor, a second end of the second capacitor and a second end of the third capacitor are grounded (Figure 8 shows the second end of C6, C5 and C18 are grounded.).
Thus, the combination of Oosthock et al. and Choo et al. and Huang each disclose an antenna circuit. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the antenna circuit of Huang could have been substituted for the antenna circuit of the combination of Oosthock et al. and Choo et al. because both provide an antenna circuit for communication. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out the substitution. Finally, the substitution achieves the predictable result of providing an antenna circuit.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the antenna circuit of Huang for the antenna circuit of the combination of Oosthock et al. and Choo et al. according to known methods to yield the predictable result of providing an antenna circuit.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The primary reasons for indicating allowable subject matter is the inclusion of the limitations reciting “wherein a P0.07 pin of the master control chip is respectively connected to a serial clock (SCK) pin of each of the plurality of screens, a P0.08 pin of the master control chip is respectively connected to a serial digital interface (SDI) pin of each of the plurality of screens, a P0.05 pin of the master control chip is respectively connected to a serial data output (SDO) pin of each of the plurality of screens, and a P0.06 pin of the master control chip is respectively connected to a chip selection (CS) pin of each of the plurality of screens” which, in combination with the other recited features, is not taught and/or suggested either singularly or in combination within the prior art.
In the closest prior art, Qu (CN 210519861 U) discloses in Figure 1, for example, shows a control chip with a P0.07 pin, P0.08 pin, P0.05 pin, and P0.06 pin, however, fails to teach specific connections as claimed above.
Claims 4-5 are objected to due to their dependency from claim 3.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cho et al. (EP 2937830 A1) disclose an electronic shelf label tag and system comprising a plurality of display screens (Figures 2 and 4).
Jung et al. (US 2018/0121778) disclose an electronic shelf label comprising a plurality of display screens (Figure 2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN G SHERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2941. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 4pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, AMR AWAD can be reached at (571)272-7764. 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.
/STEPHEN G SHERMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
16 June 2026
Prosecution Insights