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 communication is in response to application No. 19/053,661, filed on 2/14/2025. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 1-3, 6, 8-9, 14 and 16-19 have been rejected as follows. Claims 4-5, 7, 10-13, 15 and 20 are objected to.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
They include photographs of the claimed invention which are capable of illustration by other medium such as ink drawings. Photographs, including photocopies of photographs, are not ordinarily permitted in utility and design patent applications. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(1).
The application file contains some drawings executed in color. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2).
Color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via the via USPTO patent electronic filing system, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph [0027], line 9, “frame 120” is inconsistent with “frame 102” and “LED display screen 120” previously described.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ford 2020 (PremierFoodTrucks.com reference V on PTO-892).
Regarding claim 1, Ford 2020 discloses a portable food concession vehicle (lobster truck) comprising a frame (chassis, see annotated Figure 1 below) at least two ground engaging wheels (see annotated Figure 1 below) rotatably mounted to the frame and selectively operable to move the portable food concession vehicle along an associated ground surface; a first service station (see annotated Figure 1 below):
1) supported to the frame (supported by chassis, see annotated Figure 1 below); and
2) forming an opening (see annotated Figure 1 below) designed to serve associated food (lobster truck) and/or beverages (see LED menu) from inside the portable food concession vehicle to associated customers outside the portable food concession vehicle; a first LED display screen (see annotated Figure 1 below, and equipment list on website): 1) supported to the frame (see annotated Figure 1 below); a first awning (see annotated Figure 1 below): 1) supported to the frame (see annotated Figure 1 below); and 2) selectively adjustable into: (a) a first condition where the first awning is positioned so that the first LED display screen is visible (when awning is in the open position as seen in annotated Figure 1 & Figure 3 below) to the associated customers outside the portable food concession vehicle; and (b) a second condition where the first awning is positioned to cover (when awning is lowered down in the closed position as seen in Figure 2 below) the first LED display screen. Ford 2020 discloses the invention essentially as claimed, however Ford 2020 does not expressly disclose that the first LED display screen has a display planar surface area of at least 6 square feet.
However, section 2144.04 IV. A. of the MPEP sets forth the Federal Circuit case of In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), which held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Therefore, it 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 to construct the display screen having a planar surface area of at least 6 square feet with a reasonable expectation of success since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Ford 2020 would not operate differently with a planar surface area of the claimed size and since Ford 2020 discloses a device that is sized to be visibly displayed while mounted to the side of a food trailer the device would function appropriately having a LED display screen planar surface area of at least 6 square feet.
Figure 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
538
784
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 2:
PNG
media_image2.png
394
859
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Ford 2020 further discloses wherein when the first awning (see annotated Figure 1 above) is in the first condition (awning is in the open position as seen in annotated Figure 1 above) the first awning is positioned overhead to at least partially protect the associated customers outside the portable food concession vehicle from sun and/or rain.
Regarding claim 3, Ford 2020 further discloses wherein when the first awning (see annotated Figure 1 above) is in the second condition (awning is lowered down in the closed position as seen in Figure 2 above) the first awning is positioned to cover the opening in the first service station (see annotated Figure 1 & Figure 2 above).
Regarding claim 6, Ford 2020 further discloses wherein the first awning (see annotated Figure 3 below) has a first awning portion (see annotated Figure 3 below) having a first side and a second side (see annotated Figure 3 below); the first awning has a second awning portion (see annotated Figure 3 below) having a first side and a second side (see annotated Figure 3 below); the first side of the first awning portion is pivotally attached to the frame (see annotated Figure 3 below); the first side of the second awning portion is pivotally attached to the second side of the first awning portion (see annotated Figure 3 below); and when the first awning is in the first condition, the second awning portion is folded onto the first awning portion (via pivotal attachment).
Figure 3:
PNG
media_image3.png
761
719
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ford 2020 (PremierFoodTrucks.com reference V on PTO-892) in view of Yoneoka et al (US Patent No. 9,445,484).
Regarding claim 8, Ford 2020 discloses a second LED display screen (see annotated Figure 1 & Figure 3 above): 1) supported to the frame (supported by chassis, see annotated Figure 1 above); and 2) having a display planar surface; a second awning (see annotated Figure 1 & Figure 3 above): 1) supported to the frame (chassis, see annotated Figure 1 above); and 2) selectively adjustable into (a) a first condition where the second awning is positioned so that the second LED display screen is visible (awning is in the open position as seen in annotated Figure 1 & Figure 3 above) to the associated customers outside the portable food concession vehicle; and (b) a second condition where the second awning is positioned to cover (awning is lowered down in the closed position as seen in Figure 2 above) the second LED display screen. However, Ford 2020 does not expressly disclose a display planar surface area of at least 6 square feet and wherein a lighting control system is selectively operable to create a continuous image simultaneously using the first and second LED display screens.
Ford 2020 discloses the invention essentially as claimed as discussed above and Ford 2020 further discloses a second LED display screen (annotated Figure 1 & Figure 3 above) with a planar surface. It 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 to construct the display screen having a planar surface area of at least 6 square feet with a reasonable expectation of success since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Ford 2020 would not operate differently with a planar surface area of the claimed size and since Ford 2020 discloses a device that is sized to be visibly displayed while mounted to the side of a food trailer the device would function appropriately having a LED display screen planar surface area of at least 6 square feet.
Yoneoka et al teaches a multi-screen LED display having a lighting control system (column 1, lines 7-10) that is selectively operable to create a continuous image simultaneously using first and second LED display screens in the analogous field of the claimed invention of multi-screen displays for enhanced visual effects.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the LED displays of Ford 2020 with the lighting control system as taught by Yoneoka et al. Doing so would allow a user to control the images on multiple display screens for enhancing the visual effects for attracting viewers/customers.
Claims 9, 14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ford 2020 (PremierFoodTrucks.com reference V on PTO-892) in view of Applicant’s Prior Art Figure 1 and Yoneoka et al (US Patent No. 9,445,484).
Regarding claims 9 and 16, Ford 2020 discloses a portable food concession vehicle (lobster truck) comprising a frame (chassis, see annotated Figure 1 above) at least two ground engaging wheels (see annotated Figure 1 above) rotatably mounted to the frame and selectively operable to move the portable food concession vehicle along an associated ground surface; a first service station (see annotated Figure 1 above):
1) supported to the frame (supported by chassis, see annotated Figure 1 above); and
2) forming an opening (see annotated Figure 1 above) designed to serve associated food (lobster truck) and/or beverages (see LED menu) from inside the portable food concession vehicle to associated customers outside the portable food concession vehicle; a first LED display screen (see annotated Figure 1 above, and equipment list on website): 1) supported to the frame (see annotated Figure 1 above); and 2) having a display planar surface; a second LED display screen (see annotated Figure 1 & Figure 3 above): 1) supported to the frame (supported by chassis, see annotated Figure 1 above); and 2) having a display planar surface; a first awning (see annotated Figure 1 above): 1) supported to the frame (see annotated Figure 1 above); and 2) selectively adjustable into: (a) a first condition where the first awning is positioned so that the first LED display screen is visible (when awning is in the open position as seen in annotated Figure 1 & Figure 3 above) to the associated customers outside the portable food concession vehicle and is positioned overhead to at least partially protect the associated customers outside the portable food concession vehicle from sun and/or rain; and (b) a second condition where the first awning is positioned to cover (when awning is lowered down in the closed position as seen in Figure 2 above) the first LED display screen and is positioned to cover the opening in the first service station (see annotated Figure 1 & Figure 2 above); a second awning (see annotated Figure 1 & Figure 3 above): 1) supported to the frame (chassis, see annotated Figure 1 above); and 2) selectively adjustable into (a) a first condition where the second awning is positioned so that the second LED display screen is visible (awning is in the open position as seen in annotated Figure 1 & Figure 3 above) to the associated customers outside the portable food concession vehicle and is positioned overhead to at least partially protect the associated customers outside the portable food concession vehicle from sun and/or rain; and (b) a second condition where the second awning is positioned to cover (awning is lowered down in the closed position as seen in Figure 2 above) the second LED display screen. Ford 2020 discloses the invention essentially as claimed, however:
Ford 2020 does not expressly disclose a second service station 1) supported to the frame; and 2) forming an opening designed to serve associated food and/or beverages from inside the portable food concession vehicle to the associated customers outside the portable food concession vehicle; when the second awning is in the second condition the second awning is positioned to cover the opening in the second service station.
Ford 2020 does not expressly disclose that the first and second LED display screens have a display planar surface area of at least 6 square feet.
Ford 2020 does not expressly disclose that a lighting control system is selectively operable to create a continuous image simultaneously using the first and second LED display screens.
Ford 2020 discloses the invention essentially as claimed as discussed above; however, Ford 2020 does not expressly disclose a second service station. Applicant’s Prior Art Figure 1 teaches a concession vehicle (10, Fig. 1) having multiple service stations (12, Fig. 1) forming an opening designed to serve associated food and/or beverages from inside the portable food concession vehicle to the associated customers outside the portable food concession vehicle in the analogous field of the claimed invention of portable food trailers.
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 concession vehicle of Ford 2020 to include a second service station (a duplicate of the first service station of Ford 2020 including second LED display and awning) as taught by Applicant’s Prior Art Figure 1. Doing so would provide food and beverage service to more customers in an efficient manner at an outdoor fair, festival or carnival event resulting in faster service and higher volume of sales.
Ford 2020 discloses the invention essentially as claimed as discussed above and Ford 2020 further discloses a second LED display screen (annotated Figure 1 & Figure 3 above) with a planar surface. It 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 to construct the display screen having a planar surface area of at least 6 square feet with a reasonable expectation of success since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Ford 2020 would not operate differently with a planar surface area of the claimed size and since Ford 2020 discloses a device that is sized to be visibly displayed while mounted to the side of a food trailer the device would function appropriately having a LED display screen planar surface area of at least 6 square feet.
Ford 2020 discloses the invention essentially as claimed as discussed above; however, Ford 2020 does not expressly disclose a lighting control system. Yoneoka et al teaches a multi-screen LED display having a lighting control system (column 1, lines 7-10) that is selectively operable to create a continuous image simultaneously using first and second LED display screens in the analogous field of the claimed invention of multi-screen displays for enhanced visual effects.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the LED displays of Ford 2020 with the lighting control system as taught by Yoneoka et al. Doing so would allow a user to control the images on multiple display screens for enhancing the visual effects for attracting viewers/customers.
Regarding claims 14 and 17, Ford 2020 in view of Applicant’s Prior Art Figure 1 and Yoneoka et al discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claims 9 and 16 above, and further discloses wherein: each of the first and second awnings has:1) a first awning portion (see annotated Figure 3 above) having a first side and a second side (see annotated Figure 3 above); and 2) a second awning portion (see annotated Figure 3 above) having a first side and a second side (see annotated Figure 3 above); each of the first sides of the first awning portions are pivotally attached to the frame (see annotated Figure 3 above); each of the first sides of the second awning portions are pivotally attached to the corresponding second sides of the first awning portions (see annotated Figure 3 above); when the first awning is in the first condition, the second awning portion of the first awning is folded onto the first awning portion (via pivotal attachment) of the first awning; and when the second awning is in the first condition, the second awning portion of the second awning is folded onto the first awning portion (analogous to 1st awning, via pivotal attachment, see Figure 3 above) of the second awning.
Regarding claim 18, Ford 2020 in view of Applicant’s Prior Art Figure 1 and Yoneoka et al discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 17 above, and further discloses the portable food concession vehicle (see annotated Figure 1 & Figure 3 above) provided with a pair of distinct sides (driver and passenger sides of trailer body) and a pair of distinct ends (front and back ends); and positioning the first service station, the second service station, the first LED display screen, the second LED display screen, the first awning and the second awning on one of the sides (positioned on passenger side of trailer, see annotated Figure 1 & Figure 3 above) of the portable food concession vehicle.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ford 2020 (PremierFoodTrucks.com reference V on PTO-892) in view of Applicant’s Prior Art Figure 1 and Yoneoka et al (US Patent No. 9,445,484) further in view of Truck 2014 (UsedFoodTrucks.com reference U on PTO-892).
Regarding claim 19, Ford 2020 in view of Applicant’s Prior Art Figure 1 and Yoneoka et al discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 17 above including providing the portable food concession vehicle (see annotated Figure 1 & Figure 3 above) with a pair of distinct sides (driver and passenger sides of trailer body) and a pair of distinct ends (front and back ends); and positioning the first service station, the first LED display screen and the first awning on one of the sides of the portable food concession vehicle (positioned on passenger side of trailer, see annotated Figure 1 & Figure 3 above). However, Ford 2020 in view of Applicant’s Prior Art Figure 1 and Yoneoka et al does not expressly disclose positioning the second service station, the second LED display screen and the second awning on one of the ends of the portable food concession vehicle.
Truck 2014 teaches a portable food truck (2014 used trailer, see Figure 4 below) with first and second service stations (see annotated Figure 4 below) and positioning the second service station on one of the ends (vehicle back end, see annotated Figure 4 below) of the portable food concession vehicle in the analogous field of the claimed invention of portable food trailers.
Figure 4:
PNG
media_image4.png
675
959
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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 location of the second service station (including second LED display screen and the second awning) of Ford 2020 in view of Applicant’s Prior Art Figure 1 and Yoneoka et al to an end of the vehicle as taught by Truck 2014. Doing so would provide convenient food and beverage service to more customers in an efficient manner at an outdoor fair, festival or carnival event resulting in faster service and higher volume of sales.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5, 7, 10-13, 15 and 20 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 reason for indication of allowable subject matter in claims 4 and 10 is the combination of a portable food concession vehicle having adjustable awnings to protect LED display screens with the inclusion of the details of the frame structure construction in relation to the LED display screen as defined by “the frame includes a first vertical column positioned on a first wall and having an outer surface spaced from the longitudinal axis a maximum distance D1; the frame includes a second vertical column positioned on the first wall longitudinally spaced from the first vertical column and having an outer surface spaced from the longitudinal axis a maximum distance D2; the first LED display screen is positioned on the first wall between the first and second vertical columns; the first LED display screen has an outer surface with a first end juxtaposed to the first vertical column and spaced from the longitudinal axis a maximum distance D3; the outer surface of the first LED display screen has a second end juxtaposed to the second vertical column and spaced from the longitudinal axis a maximum distance D4; D3 is within 5 inches of D1; and D4 is within 5 inches of D2”. The primary reason for indication of allowable subject matter in claims 7, 15 and 20 is the combination of a portable food concession vehicle having adjustable awnings to protect LED display screens with the inclusion of where “the first LED display screen is positioned vertically above the opening in the first service station; and the second LED display screen is positioned vertically above the opening in the second service station”. The closest prior art of Ford 2020 does not disclose the vertical column construction and LED display screen relationship as claimed. Applicant’s portable food concession vehicle structure is constructed to be capable of supporting the types and sizes of LED display screens desired to provide enhanced advertising quality and interest over the known advertising surfaces on the outer edge of an awning. Such limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record. Claims 5 and 11-13 contain allowable subject matter by virtue of dependency as they depend from claims 4 and 10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chang (US Patent No. 12,443,383) and Kim et al (US Patent No. 11,955,045) disclose control systems for a continuous image simultaneously using LED multi-screen displays to be old and well known. Weidow, III (US Patent No. 7,048,318) discloses pullout light-diffusing awnings 26 as a sun reduction device that can be deployed above electronic whiteboards to shade them from direct sunlight and enhance visibility. Mathiasen et al (US 2019/0166427), Gonzalez (US 2010/0023372) and Kalil (US Patent No. 11,599,015) disclose awnings for protecting display screens on the side of a vehicle. Schantz et al (US Patent No. 4,453,350) discloses an awning type of marquee for a portable food concession vehicle. Lin (CN 206124870) discloses a portable catering vehicle body 1 with display screens 35, 41 and a protective rain shield/awning 31.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Denise L Esquivel whose telephone number is (703)756-5825. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Thursday 7:30 am-5:00 pm, alternate Fridays 7:30 am-4:00 pm.
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, Amy Weisberg can be reached at 571-270-5500. 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.
/D.L.E./Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/AMY R WEISBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights