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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 30 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,523,358 (“ ‘358 “) in view of Xiang CN108648633A (“Xiang”).
Claim 1, of ‘358 recites the limitations of above claim 30, namely “a wall module of a modular LED wall, the wall module comprising: an array of LED panels; a truck for supporting the array of LED panels and providing mobility to the array of LED panels relative to a stage surface, the truck comprising; a support assembly including a first support base fixed to the array of LED panels, a second support base engageable with the first support base, and a plurality of ball bearings arranged between the first and second support bases to allow relative movement of the first and second support bases in a plane parallel to the stage surface; and a plurality of omnidirectional wheels in communication with the at least one motor and arranged to enable omnidirectional movement of the truck along the stage surface”, except “at least one motor; at least one sensor; and a controller in communication with the at least one motor and the at least one sensor, the controller being operative to control the at least one motor to move the plurality of omnidirectional wheels in response to feedback from the at least one sensor.
However, in a similar field of portable display system, Xiang discloses a truck (base 1) including a motor 7 in communication with wheels (4)(Fig. 1; page 2, 2nd par.; page 3, 2nd par.). Therefore, 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 to form ‘358’s truck with at least one motor and the omnidirectional wheels communicate with the motor for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated in using known electric means as a motor to easily manipulate the movement of the truck upon a surface via the electric motor and not by a human effort.
Xiang also discloses at least one sensor (sensor 9); and a controller (8) in communication with the at least one motor (7), and the at least one sensor (9), the controller being operative to control the at least one motor in response to feedback from the at least one sensor (the controller, upon feedback from the sensor will communicate with the motor accordingly)(Fig. 1; in conjunction to pages 2, 2nd-4th pars.; page3, 1st-5th par.). Therefore, 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 to form ‘358’s with at least one sensor; and the controller in communication with the at least one motor, and the at least one sensor, the controller being operative to control the at least one motor in response to feedback from the at least one sensor for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated in utilizing known computerize means as a controller communicate with a motor and sensor while manipulate the movement of the display wall in precise and controlled manner along the stage surface.
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.
Claims 16-18, 20-21 and 23-29 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wickstrum et al US 10,963,207 (“Wickstrum”) in view of Xiang CN108648633A (“Xiang”) and Altaras et al US 2021/0237264 (“Altaras”).
As per claim 16, Wickstrum discloses a wall module of a modular LED wall (system 101)(Figs. 1A-3E, and 7A-8; at least 3:39-5:3 and 5:63-6:44), the wall module comprising:
an array of LED panels (led panels 124)(Figs. 1A, 1E, 1D, 3A, 2D and 3E; 3:42-57);
a truck for supporting the array of LED panels and providing mobility to the array of LED panels relative to a stage surface (rolling base 105 for supporting the LED panels 124)(Figs. 1A-1E; 3A-3B, 3D, 3E and 7A; 3:54-61), the truck comprising: a plurality of omnidirectional wheels and arranged to enable omnidirectional movement of the truck along the stage surface (casters 128)(Figs. 1A-1E; 4:42-57);
a support base fixed to the array of LED panels (base assembly 107)(Figs. 1B, 1C, 1E, 3A, and 3E; 3:39-5:16);
and at least one actuator (such as actuator 118; Figs. 7A and 7B; 5:62+; and/or clamping/alignment means 108/116/114; Figs. 1B, 1D, 1E, 2, 3A, 3C, 3D, and 3E; 3:8-17; 3:54-4:20); and a controller in communication with the at least a motor, the at least one actuator (3:48+ “one or more power supplies 106, and one or more motors, controllers, and switches for actuating video units 103”), the controller being operative to control the at least one motor and the at least one actuator (3:48-49 in conjunction to at least Figs. 1A-1E and 7A-7B, the system includes a motor (not shown), an actuator (e.g., 118) to communicate with controller and switches (not shown)); to mate an alignment surface of the wall module with an alignment surface of a second wall module (note Figs. 1A, 1B, 1D and 1E in conjunction to 3:54-4:20 regarding alignment means/pattern 108).
Wickstrum is not specific regarding the truck comprising the at least one motor and the omnidirectional wheels communicate with the motor.
Wickstrum is not specific regarding at least one actuator operable to adjust a height of the support base to enable leveling the array of LED panels relative to the stage surface; at least one sensor; and the controller in communication with the at least one motor, the at least one actuator, and the at least one sensor, the controller being operative to control the at least one motor and the at least one actuator to connect the wall module with another wall module in response to feedback from the at least one sensor.
With respect the omnidirectional wheels communicate with the at least one motor, in a similar field of portable display system, Xiang discloses a truck (base 1) including a motor 7 in communication with wheels (4)(Fig. 1; page 2, 2nd par.; page 3, 2nd par.). Therefore, 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 to form Wickstrum’s truck with at least one motor and the omnidirectional wheels communicate with the motor for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated in using known electric means as a motor to easily manipulate the movement of the truck upon a surface via the electric motor and not by a human effort.
Xiang also discloses at least one sensor (sensor 9); and a controller (8) in communication with the at least one motor (7), and the at least one sensor (9), the controller being operative to control the at least one motor in response to feedback from the at least one sensor (the controller, upon feedback from the sensor will communicate with the motor accordingly)(Fig. 1; in conjunction to pages 2, 2nd-4th pars.; page3, 1st-5th par.). Therefore, 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 to form Wickstrum’s with at least one sensor; and the controller in communication with the at least one motor, and the at least one sensor, the controller being operative to control the at least one motor in response to feedback from the at least one sensor for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated in utilizing known computerize means as a controller communicate with a motor and sensor while manipulate the movement of the display wall in precise and controlled manner. Within the modified Wickstrum- Xiang the actuator (as taught by Wickstrum) would have communicate with controller, the motor and sensor (as taught by Xiang) while the module wall connect with another wall (as taught by Wickstrum).
With respect at least one actuator operable to adjust a height of the support base to enable leveling relative to the stage surface, in a field utilizing movable truck means, Altaras discloses, at least one actuator operable to adjust a height of a support base to enable leveling relative to the stage surface (leveling of a support base’s height within a truck (truck 710/720, supports a support base fixed thereto; Fig. 7, the support base supports element 130) relative to a stage surface via actuators 730 and 740, in response to a sensor feedback data)(Fig. 7 and [0059], in conjunction to at least [0055], [0057], and [0060], regarding the sensor means ). Therefore, 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 to form Wickstrum- Xiang’s at least one actuator operable to adjust a height of the support base to enable leveling relative to the stage surface for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated in utilizing known mechanical leveling means to insure that the wall module is level while position upon a stage surface. Within the modified Wickstrum, the base would have supported the array of LED panels (as taught by Wickstrum).
Within the modified Wickstrum-Xiang-Altaras, the controller in communication with the at least one motor (as taught by Xiang), the at least one actuator (as taught by Altaras and/or Wickstrum), and the at least one sensor (as taught by Xiang and/or Altaras), the controller being operative to control the at least one motor and the at least one actuator to connect the wall module with another wall module (as taught by Wickstrum) in response to feedback from the at least one sensor (as taught by Xiang and/orAltaras). In addition, per MPEP 2114 under II. manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Accordingly, the examiner maintains his previous position as set forth in the previous office action, that the prior art is fully capable to perform “wherein the controller in communication with the at least one motor, the at least one actuator, and the at least one sensor, the controller being operative to control the at least one motor and the at least one actuator to connect the wall module with another wall module in response to feedback from the at least one sensor”, since the prior art includes all the structure claimed, namely a controller in communication with, a sensor, a motor, and an actuator, as set forth above.
As per claim 17, with respect to wherein the controller is operative to automatically align the wall modules in response to the feedback from the at least one sensor, note Xiang’s Figs. 1 and 3 in conjunction to page 2, 2nd -4th pars. and page 3,2nd -5th pars. regarding the controller 8 in communication with the sensor 9 to move the base (via motor-to-wheels). Note Wickstrum’s Figs. 1A, 1B, 1D and 1E, in conjunction to 3:54-4:20 regarding alignment means 108 in facilitating the connection of two LEDs module walls. Therefore, 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 to form Wickstrum’s controller is operative to automatically in response to the feedback from the at least one sensor for similar reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 16. In addition, as mentioned above “manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art”, the examiner maintains his position that the modified Wickstrum by at least the teaching of Xiang is fully capable to perform as claimed since the prior art includes all the structure claimed, namely a controller communicate with a sensor.
As per claim 18, with respect to wherein the controller is operative to automatically control the at least one motor to move the omnidirectional wheels in response to the feedback from the at least one sensor, note Xiang’s Figs. 1 and 3 in conjunction to page 2, 2nd -4th pars. And page 3,2nd -5th pars. regarding the controller 8 in communication with the motor 7 to move wheels 4 upon a surface. Therefore, 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 to form Wickstrum’s wherein the controller is operative to automatically control the at least one motor to move the omnidirectional wheels in response to the feedback from the at least one sensor for similar reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 16. Within the modified Wickstrum the wheels are omnidirectional wheels (caster 128 as taught by Wickstrum; Figs. 1A-1E; 4:53-57).
As per claim 20, with respect to wherein the controller is operative to automatically control the at least one actuator to level the plurality of LED panels in response to the feedback from the at least one sensor, note Altaras’s Fig. 7, the support base supports element 130, leveled relative to a stage surface via actuators 730 and 740, in response to a sensor feedback data)([0059], in conjunction to at least [0055], [0057], and [0060], regarding the sensor means). Therefore, 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 to form Wickstrum’s wherein the controller is operative to automatically control the at least one actuator to level the plurality of LED panels in response to the feedback from the at least one sensor for similar reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 16.
As per claim 21, with respect to wherein the controller is operative to control the at least one actuator with a precision that enables leveling of the array of LED panels by a distance, note Altaras’s Fig. 7, the support base supports element 130, leveled relative to a stage surface via actuators 730 and 740, in response to a sensor feedback data)([0059], in conjunction to at least [0055], [0057], and [0060], regarding the sensor means). Therefore, 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 to form Wickstrum’s wherein the controller is operative to control the at least one actuator with a precision that enables leveling of the array of LED panels by a distance for similar reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 16.
With respect to “a distance of a single pixel of the LED panels”, the examiner takes the position that the alignment of the units 103 with each other within Wickstrum, to align the LED displays, is such a distance as claimed. Furthermore, the examiner maintains his position that the modified Wickstrum is fully capable to perform as claimed since the prior art includes all the structure claimed, namely a controller communicate with an actuator to level the module LED wall.
As per claim 23, with respect to further comprising at least one clamp configured to clamp the alignment surfaces together, note Wickstrum’s Figs. 1A, 1B, 1D and 1E in conjunction to 3:54-4:20 regarding alignment means/pattern 108 and the use of clamps 116.
As per claim 24, with respect to wherein the controller is operative to automatically control the at least one clamp, it would have been obvious to electronically coupled the clamp within the controller to insure a controlled and automated connection between two module wall in an automated, efficient and accurate operation mode. Once more as mentioned above “A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim”. Thus, the examiner maintains his position that the modified Wickstrum by at least the teaching of Xiang is fully capable to perform as claimed since the prior art includes all the structure claimed, namely a controller and a clamp.
As per claim 25, with respect to wherein the controller is operative to provide guidance to a human operator of the at least one clamp based on the feedback from the at least one sensor, note Xiang’s Figs. 1 and 3 in conjunction to page 2, 2nd -4th pars. and page 3,2nd -5th pars. regarding the controller 8 in communication with the sensor 9 to move the base (via motor-to-wheels). Note Wickstrum’s Figs. 1A, 1B, 1D and 1E in conjunction to 3:54-4:20 regarding alignment means/pattern 108 and the use of clamps 116. Therefore, 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 to form Wickstrum’s wherein the controller is operative to provide guidance to a human operator based on the feedback from the at least one sensor for similar reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 16.
As per claim 26, with respect to wherein the at least one sensor comprises at least one proximity sensor arranged to detect proximity of the wall modules, note Xiang’s Figs. 1 and 3 in conjunction to page 2, 2nd -4th pars. And page 3,2nd -5th pars. regarding the controller 8 in communication with the sensor 9 to move the base (via motor-to-wheels) based upon proximity thereof (e.g., page 3, 4th par. ”installed with human body infrared pyroelectric sensor, when there is person close to, human body infrared pyroelectric sensor senses that there is a person, the signal sent to the single-chip microcomputer control chip”). Therefore, 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 to form Wickstrum’s wherein the at least one sensor comprises at least one proximity sensor arranged to detect proximity for similar reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 16.
Within the modified Wickstrum such detection of proximity would have been related the wall modules (as taught by Wickstrum).
As per claim 27, with respect to wherein the at least one proximity sensor includes multiple types of sensors configured to detect proximity of the wall modules at different respective distances, the examiner takes the position that Xiang’s pyroelectric sensor, is such multiple types of sensors configured to detect proximity. Therefore, 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 to form Wickstrum’s wherein the at least one proximity sensor includes multiple types of sensors configured to detect proximity at different respective distances for similar reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 16. Within the modified Wickstrum such detection of proximity would have been related the wall modules (as taught by Wickstrum).
As per claims 28, 29, with respect to wherein the at least one sensor comprises at least one sensor configured to detect a marker on the other wall module (claim 28), and wherein the at least one sensor comprises at least one sensor configured to detect a marker on the stage surface (claim 29), note Xiang’ page 3, 3rd and 4th pars. “the controller 8 is provided with a control chip of the single-chip microcomputer 10, a motor controller 11, a display module 12, an interface module 13, a power module 14, the single-chip microcomputer control chip 10 type AT89S51, said single-chip microcomputer control chip 10 are respectively connected to the motor controller 11, a display module 12, an interface module 13, human body infrared pyroelectric sensor (9) and a power supply module 14, the motor controller 11 connected motor 7.The invention is installed with human body infrared pyroelectric sensor, when there is person close to, human body infrared pyroelectric sensor senses that there is a person, the signal sent to the single-chip microcomputer control chip, single-chip microcomputer control chip control the motor controller to work so as to drive the rotating platform to rotate”. The examiner construed the sensor to detect the position of a human being as “a marker” to inform the controller regarding such “marker” to control the operation of the device. Therefore, 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 to form Wickstrum’s wherein the at least one sensor comprises at least one sensor configured to detect a marker on the other wall module; wherein the at least one sensor comprises at least one sensor configured to detect a marker on the stage surface for similar reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 16. In addition, it is further noted that it has been held that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Exparte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). The examiner takes the position that the sensor means of Xiang is fully capable to detect “a marker” to provide date to a controller for operation of the device.
Claim 19 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wickstrum, Xiang and Altaras as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Percy US 2004/0049960 (“Percy”).
As per claim 19, the modified Wickstrum is not specific regarding wherein the controller is operative to control the at least one motor to move the omnidirectional wheels according to remote control by a human operator.
However, in the field utilizing movable trucks means, Percy discloses wherein a controller is operative to control at least one motor to move the wheels according to remote control by a human operator (controller unit 120 controlling motor 114 to operate the truck’s wheels 146 via a remote control 120A communicate with receiver 116)(Figs. 1-4; [0028]-[0039]). Therefore, 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 to form the modified Wickstrum’s wherein the controller is operative to control the at least one motor to move the omnidirectional wheels according to remote control by a human operator for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated by Percy’s suggestion to remotely controlled the movement of the truck upon a surface while the truck supported a display (note at least [0037] as the display is LED type). Within the modified Wickstrum the wheels are omnidirectional wheels (caster 128 as taught by Wickstrum; Figs. 1A-1E; 4:53-57).
Claim(s) 33-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perkins et al US 2013/0181884 (“Perkins”) in view of Wickstrum and Altaras
As per claim 33, Perkins discloses a wall module of a modular LED wall (wall from by a plurality of microtile/units 1)(at least Figs. 1-3B and 7; paragraphs [0017], [0023], [0044]-[0053], [0056] and [0060]-[0073]), the wall module comprising:
an array of LED panels (units 1)(Figs. 1 , 2 and 3B; [0017], [0023], [0044]-[0046] and [0053]); at least one sensor (construed as a pair of LEDs 26 and photodetectors 28)(Fig. 2; [0049]-[0053] and [0064]-[0068]); and a controller (system controller 7) in communication with the at least one sensor (26/28), the controller being operative to control the at the array of LED panels in response to feedback from the at least one sensor (control system 7 received feedback from sensors 26/28 to self-organize, alignment, of the units 1 with each other, according to such data received)(Figs. 1 and 3B in conjunction to [0051]-[0052], and [0059]-[0069]).
Perkins is not specific regarding a truck for supporting the array of LED panels and providing mobility to the array of LED panels along a stage surface, the truck comprising: a support base fixed to the array of LED panels; at least one actuator operable to adjust a height of the support base to enable leveling the array of LED panels relative to the stage surface.
Perkins is not specific regarding the controller in communication with the at least one actuator and the at least one sensor, the controller being operative to control the at least one actuator to level the array of LED panels in response to feedback from the at least one sensor.
With respect to a truck for supporting the array of LED panels and providing mobility to the array of LED panels along a stage surface, and a support base fixed to the array of LED panels, in a similar field of wall module of a modular LED wall devices, Wickstrum discloses a truck for supporting an array of LED panels and providing mobility to the array of LED panels along a stage surface (modular LED wall with plurality of LED panels, system 101 formed by a plurality of LED panels 124, supported by a truck (rolling base 105 with casters 128; Figs. 1A, 1B, 1D and 1E; 3:39-4:57; and a support base fixed to the array of LED panels (base assembly 107)(Figs. 1B, 1C, 1E, 3A, and 3E; 3:39-5:16). Therefore, 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 to form Perkins’ with a truck for supporting the array of LED panels and providing mobility to the array of LED panels along a stage surface and a support base fixed to the array of LED panels for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated by Wickstrum’s suggestions to use such means to allow readily movement of the modular LED wall from one installation to another (1:20+), while the LED module wall is firmly supported thereof via a support base fixed to the LED panels.
With respect at least one actuator operable to adjust a height of the support base to enable leveling relative to the stage surface, in a field utilizing movable truck means, Altaras discloses, at least one actuator operable to adjust a height of a support base to enable leveling relative to the stage surface (leveling of a support base’s height within a truck (truck 710/720, supports a support base fixed thereto; Fig. 7, the support base supports element 130) relative to a stage surface via actuators 730 and 740, in response to a sensor feedback data)(Fig. 7 and [0059], in conjunction to at least [0055], [0057], and [0060], regarding the sensor means ). Therefore, 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 to form Wickstrum- Xiang’s at least one actuator operable to adjust a height of the support base to enable leveling relative to the stage surface for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated in utilizing known mechanical leveling means to insure that the wall module is level while position upon a stage surface. Within the modified Wickstrum, the base would have supported the array of LED panels (as taught by Wickstrum).
As per claim 34, with respect to wherein the controller is operative to automatically control the at least one actuator to level the plurality of LED panels in response to the feedback from the at least one sensor, note Altaras’s Fig. 7, the support base supports element 130, leveled relative to a stage surface via actuators 730 and 740, in response to a sensor feedback data)([0059], in conjunction to at least [0055], [0057], and [0060], regarding the sensor means). Within the modified Perkins-Wickstrum- Altaras the automatically leveling of the truck (as taught by Altaras) would have automatically leveling the LED wall supported above the truck (as taught by Wickstrum). Therefore, 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 to form Perkins’ wherein the controller is operative to automatically control the at least one actuator to level the plurality of LED panels in response to the feedback from the at least one sensor for similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 33.
As per claim 35, with respect to wherein the controller is operative to control the at least one actuator with a precision that enables leveling of the array of LED panels by a distance of a single pixel of the LED panels, note Altaras’s Fig. 7, the support base supports element 130, leveled relative to a stage surface via actuators 730 and 740, in response to a sensor feedback data)([0059], in conjunction to at least [0055], [0057], and [0060], regarding the sensor means). Therefore, 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 to form Perkins’ wherein the controller is operative to control the at least one actuator with a precision that enables leveling of the array of LED panels for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 33.
With respect to “the array of LED panels by a distance of a single pixel of the LED panels”, the examiner takes the position that the self-organize/alignment of the units 1 with each other, as the control system 7 received feedback from sensors 26/28, e.g., Figs. 1 and 3B in conjunction to [0051]-[0052], and [0059]-[0069], within the device of Perkins, as such distance as claimed.
Examiner’s Comments
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior art is not specific regarding a wall module of a modular LED wall, the wall module comprising: an array of LED panels; a truck for supporting the array of LED panels; at least one motor; at least one sensor; a controller in communication with the at least one motor and the at least one sensor, and among other things “the truck comprising; a support assembly including a first support base fixed to the array of LED panels, a second support base engageable with the first support base, and a plurality of ball bearings arranged between the first and second support bases to allow relative movement of the first and second support bases in a plane parallel to the stage surface”, as claimed within independent claim 30.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 16 have been considered but are partially moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference or combination thereof applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument and they are partially not persuasive.
With respect to claim 16, applicant stated “ claim 16 as amended including at least "the truck comprising... a support base fixed to the array of LED panels" and "at least one actuator operable to adjust a height of the support base to enable leveling of the array of LED panels relative to the stage surface" and none of the cited references discloses such limitations (remarks pages 10-11).
With respect to “a support base fixed to the array of LED panels”, such limitations are taught by Wickstrum as base assembly 107 (Figs. 1B, 1C, 1E, 3A, and 3E; 3:39-5:16). Thus, applicant’s arguments that the cited references, fail to discloses such limitations, is not persuasive, as such limitations are taught by Wickstrum.
With respect to and "at least one actuator operable to adjust a height of the support base to enable leveling of the array of LED panels relative to the stage surface", such new limitations are taught by the newly cited reference to Altaras, and thus applicant’s arguments in that regard are moot.
With respect to dependent claims 17-21 and 23-29, as new specific arguments were provided, the examiner maintains his position that the claims are rejected over the prior art as set forth above.
With respect to claim 30, as the claim includes limitations not taught by the closest prior art, namely “the truck comprising; a support assembly including a first support base fixed to the array of LED panels, a second support base engageable with the first support base, and a plurality of ball bearings arranged between the first and second support bases to allow relative movement of the first and second support bases in a plane parallel to the stage surface”, applicant’s arguments to that end are moot.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIR ARIE KLAYMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7131. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 7:00 AM-4:30 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, Nicholas Weiss can be reached at 571-270-1775. 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.
/A.A.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3711 7/8/2026 /JOHN E SIMMS JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights