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 .
Status
The filing on 11/17/2025 amended claims 1, 9, 15, and 23. Claims 1-3, 5-9, 2. 11-18, 20-25, and 27-36 are pending and rejected on new grounds of rejections necessitated by the amendments of claims 1, 9, 15, and 23.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 2. 11-18, 20-25, and 27-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 (and, similarly, 9, 15, and 23) is amended to limit the screen “positionable to cause the sound waves emitted by the plurality of sound wave emitters to reflect off the screen, in multiple directions toward the viewer seating area including away from the viewer seating area.” Claim 1 (and, similarly, 9, 15, and 23) also recites the sound emitter “positioned at a location that is offset from any focal point” of the screen. The claim language of claims 1, 9, 15, and 23 directly the claimed invention to the Fig. 19 of the Specification. The above claim language and the Fig. 19 do not support the amended claim limitations that the screen “is positionable to cause the sound waves emitted by the plurality of sound wave emitters to reflect off the screen, in multiple directions toward the viewer seating area including away from the viewer seating area.” No where in the specification that discussed the concave screen as shown in Fig. 19 reflect sound away from the viewer seating area.
For the purpose of examination, the claim language “in multiple directions toward the viewer seating area including away from the viewer seating area” is interpreted as “in multiple directions toward the viewer seating area in non-parallel spreading directions.”
Claim Rejections - AIA 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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been 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, 5, 8, 9, 11, 14-18, 20, 23-25, 27, 31, and 33-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US 20030038925 A1) in view of Cope (US 20090021162 A1) and in further view of Choi ‘210 (US 20180047210 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Choi teaches a theatre (Fig. 5-6) comprising: a viewer seating area (13; Fig. 5-6); a screen (1) configured to output, toward the viewer seating area (13; Fig. 5-6), light representing a visual presentation, wherein a top edge of the screen (1) is tilted vertically towards the viewer seating area (13) to direct more light from the screen (1) to the viewer seating area (13); and a plurality of sound wave emitters (3) positionable between the viewer seating area (13) and the screen (1; Fig. 5-6), at least one sound wave emitter (3) of the plurality of sound wave emitters (3) postionable between the viewer seating area (13) and the screen (1) being positioned at a location that is offset from any focal point (F1) of the screen (1; Fig. 5), the plurality of sound wave emitters comprising a first loudspeaker (3 on the right) positioned on a right-hand side of the theatre and a second loudspeaker (3 on the left) and positioned on a left-hand side of the theatre, the second loudspeaker (3 on the left) being a separate structure from the first loudspeaker (3 on the right), the plurality of sound wave emitters (3) being configured to output, toward the screen (1), sound waves corresponding to at least a portion of sound for the visual presentation, wherein the screen (1) is positionable to cause the sound waves emitted by the plurality of sound wave emitters to reflect off the screen, in multiple directions toward the viewer seating area including away from the viewer seating area.
Choi does not teach the screen (1) being an active display comprising light emitting elements configured to output, toward the viewer seating area (13).
Cope teaches an active/emissive large screen for large theater ([0026], [0055]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Choi with Cope; because it provides superior image reproduction.
Neither Choi nor Cope teaches the top edge of the active display is closer in horizontal distance to a vertical plane at a front edge of the viewer seating area (13) than a bottom edge of the active display.
Choi ‘210 teaches the top edge of the display (1) is closer in horizontal distance to a vertical plane at a front edge of the viewer seating area (13) than a bottom edge of the display (1; Fig. 1 and 2).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Choi and Cope with Choi ‘210; because it allows greater immersion sensation from the viewers.
Choi further teaches the screen (1) being positioned between 14 feet and 45 feet from a front seat in the viewer seating area (13; [0060], [0061], [0077]), but neither Choi nor Cope teaches the active display has a width in a range of 40 feet to 100 feet.
Having the active display with a width in a range of 40 feet to 100 feet requires only routine skills in the art.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the theater such that the active display/screen has the width in a range of 40 feet to 100 feet; because it is a question of design choice. Furthermore, changes in size and proportion without affecting the functionality of the apparatus is prima facie obvious, 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), the Federal Circuit 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.
Regarding claim 9, Choi teaches a method (Fig. 5-6) comprising: providing by a screen (1), on a front portion thereof, light representing a visual presentation toward a viewer seating area (13; Fig. 5-6) in a theatre (Fig. 5-6), wherein a top edge of the screen (1) is tilted vertically towards the viewer seating area (13) to direct more light from the screen (1) to the viewer seating area (13) (Fig. 5-6); emitting, by plurality of sound wave emitters (3) positioned between the viewer seating area (13) and the screen (1; Fig. 5-6), sound waves corresponding to sound for the visual presentation toward the screen (1), at least one sound wave emitter (3) of the plurality of sound wave emitters (3) positioned between the viewer seating area (13) and the screen (1) being positioned at a location that is offset from any focal point (F1) of the screen (1; Fig. 5), the plurality of sound wave emitters comprising a first loudspeaker (3 on the right) positioned on a right-hand side of the theatre and a second loudspeaker (3 on the left) positioned on a left-hand side of the theatre, the second loudspeaker (3 on the left) being a separate structure from the first loudspeaker (3 on the right); and reflecting, off the screen (1), the sound waves from the plurality of sound wave emitters (3) in multiple directions toward the viewer seating area including away from the viewer seating area (13; Fig. 5-6).
Choi does not teach the screen (1) being light emitting display being an active display having a matrix of light emitting elements.
Cope teaches an active/emissive large screen, light emitting display having a matrix of light emitting elements, for large theater ([0026], [0055]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Choi with Cope; because it provides superior image reproduction.
Neither Choi nor Cope teaches the top edge of the active display is closer in horizontal distance to a vertical plane at a front edge of the viewer seating area (13) than a bottom edge of the active display.
Choi ‘210 teaches the top edge of the display (1) is closer in horizontal distance to a vertical plane at a front edge of the viewer seating area (13) than a bottom edge of the display (1; Fig. 1 and 2).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Choi and Cope with Choi ‘210; because it allows greater immersion sensation from the viewers.
Choi further teaches the screen (1) being positioned between 14 feet and 45 feet from a front seat in the viewer seating area (13; [0060], [0061], [0077]), but neither Choi nor Cope teaches the active display has a width in a range of 40 feet to 100 feet.
Having the active display with a width in a range of 40 feet to 100 feet requires only routine skills in the art.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the theater such that the active display/screen has the width in a range of 40 feet to 100 feet; because it is a question of design choice. Furthermore, changes in size and proportion without affecting the functionality of the apparatus is prima facie obvious, 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), the Federal Circuit 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.
Regarding claim 15, Choi teaches a theatre (Fig. 5-6) sound system comprising: plurality of sound wave emitters (3) positionable between viewer seating area (13; Fig. 5-6) in a theatre and a screen (1; Fig. 5-6), the screen (1) provides light representing a visual presentation toward the viewer seating area (13; Fig. 5-6), wherein a top edge of the screen (1) is tilted vertically towards the viewer seating area (13) to direct more light from the screen (1) to the viewer seating area (13), the plurality of sound wave emitters comprising: a first loudspeaker (3 on the right) positioned on a right-hand side of the theatre and a second loudspeaker (3 on the left) positioned on a left-hand side of the theatre, the second loudspeaker (3 on the left) being a separate structure from the first loudspeaker (3 on the right), the plurality of sound wave emitters (3) being configured to output sound waves corresponding to at least a portion of sound for the visual presentation toward the screen (1) that is positionable to cause the sound waves to reflect off the screen in multiple directions toward the viewer seating area including away from the viewer seating area (13; Fig. 5-6); wherein at least one sound wave emitter (3) of the plurality of sound wave emitters (3) positionable between the viewer seating area (13) in the theatre and the screen (1) is positionable at a location that is offset from any focal point (F1) of the screen (1; Fig. 5).
Choi does not teach the screen (1) being an active display comprising light emitting elements configured to output, toward the viewer seating area (13).
Cope teaches an active/emissive large screen for large theater ([0026], [0055]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Choi with Cope; because it provides superior image reproduction.
Neither Choi nor Cope teaches the top edge of the active display is closer in horizontal distance to a vertical plane at a front edge of the viewer seating area (13) than a bottom edge of the active display.
Choi ‘210 teaches the top edge of the display (1) is closer in horizontal distance to a vertical plane at a front edge of the viewer seating area (13) than a bottom edge of the display (1; Fig. 1 and 2).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Choi and Cope with Choi ‘210; because it allows greater immersion sensation from the viewers.
Choi further teaches the screen (1) being positioned between 14 feet and 45 feet from a front seat in the viewer seating area (13; [0060], [0061], [0077]), but neither Choi nor Cope teaches the active display has a width in a range of 40 feet to 100 feet.
Having the active display with a width in a range of 40 feet to 100 feet requires only routine skills in the art.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the theater such that the active display/screen has the width in a range of 40 feet to 100 feet; because it is a question of design choice. Furthermore, changes in size and proportion without affecting the functionality of the apparatus is prima facie obvious, 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), the Federal Circuit 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.
Regarding claim 23, Choi teaches a cinema screen (1; Fig. 5-6) comprising: a screen (1) positionable to provide light representing a visual presentation toward a viewer seating area (13; Fig. 5-6) in a theatre (Fig. 5-6), the screen (1) having a surface that is configured for causing sound waves emitted from plurality of sound wave emitters (3) to reflect off the surface in multiple directions toward the viewer seating area (13) including away from the viewer seating area (13; Fig. 5-6), the plurality of sound wave emitters positioned between the viewer seating area (13) and the screen (1), at least one sound wave emitter (3) of the plurality of sound wave emitters (3) positioned between the viewer seating area (13) and the screen (1) being positioned at a location that is offset from any focal point (F1) of the screen (1; Fig. 5), the plurality of sound wave emitters comprising a first loudspeaker (3 on the right) positioned on a right-hand side of the theatre and a second loudspeaker (3 on the left) positioned on a left-hand side of the theatre, the second loudspeaker (3 on the left) being a separate structure from the first loudspeaker (3 on the right), the sound waves corresponding to at a least a portion of sound for the visual presentation, wherein a top edge of the screen (1) is tilted vertically towards the viewer seating area (13) to direct more light from the screen (1) to the viewer seating area (13) (Fig. 5-6).
Choi does not teach the screen (1) being an active display/light emitting display comprising light emitting elements configured to output, toward the viewer seating area (13).
Cope teaches an active/emissive large screen or light emitting display for large theater ([0026], [0055]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Choi with Cope; because it provides superior image reproduction.
Neither Choi nor Cope teaches the top edge of the active display is closer in horizontal distance to a vertical plane at a front edge of the viewer seating area (13) than a bottom edge of the active display.
Choi ‘210 teaches the top edge of the display (1) is closer in horizontal distance to a vertical plane at a front edge of the viewer seating area (13) than a bottom edge of the display (1; Fig. 1 and 2).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Choi and Cope with Choi ‘210; because it allows greater immersion sensation from the viewers.
Choi further teaches the screen (1) being positioned between 14 feet and 45 feet from a front seat in the viewer seating area (13; [0060], [0061], [0077]), but neither Choi nor Cope teaches the active display has a width in a range of 40 feet to 100 feet.
Having the active display with a width in a range of 40 feet to 100 feet requires only routine skills in the art.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the theater such that the active display/screen has the width in a range of 40 feet to 100 feet; because it is a question of design choice. Furthermore, changes in size and proportion without affecting the functionality of the apparatus is prima facie obvious, 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), the Federal Circuit 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.
Regarding claims 2 and 16, Choi further teaches the active display/screen is positionable such that the active display/screen is configured to reflect the sound waves toward the viewer seating area (13; Fig. 5-6).
Regarding claims 3 and 17, Choi further teaches the plurality of sound wave emitters (3) are configured to output sound waves along a sound dispersion path directed toward a surface of the active display/screen/light emitting display (1; Fig. 5-6).
Regarding claims 8, 14, 18, and 24, Choi further teaches the plurality of sound wave emitters (3) include plurality of loudspeakers positionable/positioned in front of the active display/screen/light emitting display (1; Fig. 5-6).
Regarding claim 25, neither Choi, Cope nor Choi ‘210 explicitly teaches the distance between the front seat of the viewer seating area (13) and the active display/screen/light emitting display is between a quarter to a half of the width of the active display/screen/light emitting display, or the plurality of sound wave emitters include at least three sound wave emitters positioned in front of the active display/screen/light emitting display.
It is well known in the art that the theater speakers used are array of drivers (sound wave emitters). Furthermore, having the distance between the front seat of the viewer seating area (13) and the active display/screen/light emitting display is between a quarter to a half of the width of the active display/screen/light emitting display requires only routine skills in the art.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the screen (1) such that the distance between the front seat of the viewer seating area (13) and the screen (1) is between a quarter to a half of the width of the active display/screen/light emitting display; because it is a question of design choice. Furthermore, changes in size and proportion without affecting the functionality of the apparatus is prima facie obvious, 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), the Federal Circuit 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.
Regarding claims 5, 11, 20, and 27, Choi further teaches at least one sound wave emitter/loudspeaker (3) of the plurality of sound wave emitters/loudspeakers (3) is positionable/positioned above a floor of the theatre (Fig. 6) and outside of a line of sight of the active display/screen/light emitting display (1) for viewers in the viewer seating area (13; Fig. 5-6).
Regarding claim 31, Choi further teaches the first loudspeaker (3 on the right) is positioned in front of a right-hand side of the active display/screen, and wherein the second loudspeaker (3 on the left) is positioned in front of a left-hand side of the active display/screen (1; Fig. 5-6).
Regarding claim 33, Choi further teaches the active display comprises a quadratic surface ([0026]).
Regarding claim 34, Choi further teaches the active display is a curved active display ([0026]).
Regarding claim 35, the combination of Choi, Cope and Choi ‘210 consequently results in the active display further comprises a plurality of reflective surfaces (1120 of Cope) in segments that are configured for reflecting, toward the viewer seating area (13), the sound waves from the plurality of sound wave emitters in multiple directions.
Regarding claim 36, Choi further teaches the first loudspeaker (right speaker 3) is configured to output a first set of sound waves toward a first portion of the active display (1), the first portion comprising a right-hand edge of the active display (1), and wherein the second loudspeaker (left speaker 3) is configured to output a second set of sound waves toward a second portion of the active display (1), the second portion comprising a left-hand edge of the active display (1; Fig. 5 and 9; [0069]-[0070], [0093]).
Claims 7, 13, 22, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Cope and Choi ‘210 and further view of Tan (US 20060126023 A1).
Regarding claims 7, 13, 22, and 29, neither Choi, Cope nor Choi ‘210 explicitly teaches the active display/screen comprises: an optically diffusing surface between the light emitting elements and the viewer seating area (13; Fig. 5-6), the optically diffusing surface having perforations; and an optical element between the light emitting elements and the optically diffusing surface.
Tan teaches an electroluminescent display having an optically diffusing surface (18) between the light emitting elements (22, 28, 34) and the viewer seating area (13), the optically diffusing surface having perforations (38); and an optical element (14) between the light emitting elements (22, 28, 34) and the optically diffusing surface (18).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Choi, Cope and Choi ‘210 with Tan; because electroluminescent display is more power/energy efficient.
Claim 6, 12, 21, 28, 30, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Cope and Choi ‘210 and in further view of Peace (US 20190045320 A1).
Regarding claims 6, 12, 21, and 28, neither Choi, Cope nor Choi ‘210 teaches additional sound wave emitter/loudspeaker is positionable at a back position of the theatre such that the viewer seating area (13) is between the active display/screen/light emitting display and the at least one sound wave emitter/loudspeaker.
Peace further teaches at least one sound wave emitter/loudspeaker (320, 420-1, 420-2, 420-3, 520-1, 520-2, 350, 450-1, 450-2, 550-1, 550-2, 550-3, surround speakers corresponding to 260) of the plurality of sound wave emitters/loudspeakers (320, 420-1, 420-2, 420-3, 520-1, 520-2, 350, 450-1, 450-2, 550-1, 550-2, 550-3, surround speakers corresponding to 260) is positionable at a back position of the theatre (Fig. 3-5) such that the viewer seating area (13) (Fig. 3-5) is between the active display/screen/light emitting display (310, 410, 510) and the at least one sound wave emitter/loudspeaker (320, 420-1, 420-2, 420-3, 520-1, 520-2, 350, 450-1, 450-2, 550-1, 550-2, 550-3, surround speakers corresponding to 260).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Choi, Cope and Choi ‘210 with Peace; because it provides surround sound experience.
Regarding claim 30, neither Choi, Cope nor Choi ‘210 teaches the first loudspeaker is positioned in front of a first edge of the active display/screen, and wherein the second loudspeaker is positioned in front of a second edge of the active display/screen that is opposite the first edge.
Peace further teaches the first loudspeaker (450-1, 550-1) is positioned in front of a first edge of the active display/screen, and wherein the second loudspeaker (450-2, 550-2) is positioned in front of a second edge of the active display/screen (1; 310, 410, 510) that is opposite the first edge (Fig. 4B and 5).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Choi, Cope and Choi ‘210 with Peace; because it provides surround sound experience.
Regarding claim 32, neither Choi, Cope nor Choi ‘210 teaches the plurality of sound wave emitters further comprises a third loudspeaker positioned between the first loudspeaker and the second loudspeaker, wherein the active display/screen is positionable to reflect sound waves outputted by the third loudspeaker from a center of the active display/screen to the viewer seating area (13).
Peace teaches the plurality of sound wave emitters further comprises a third loudspeaker (550-3) positioned between the first loudspeaker (450-1, 550-1) and the second loudspeaker (450-2, 550-2), wherein the active display/screen (1; 310, 410, 510) is positionable to reflect sound waves outputted by the third loudspeaker (550-3) from a center of the active display/screen (1; 310, 410, 510) to the viewer seating area (13).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Choi, Cope and Choi ‘210 with Peace; because it provides surround sound experience.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1, 9, 15, and 23 have been fully considered but are found not persuasive; hence the rejection/s of all pending claims are maintained.
Applicant/s argue,
Without acquiescing to the propriety of the rejection, and solely to advance prosecution, independent claim 1 is amended to recite that "the active display is positionable to cause the sound waves emitted by the plurality of sound wave emitters to reflect off the active display in multiple directions toward the viewer seating area including away from the viewer seating area." None of the cited art teaches at least this feature. For example, the Office Action cited Choi as allegedly teaching a screen that "is positionable to reflect, in multiple directions including toward the viewer seating area, the sound waves from the plurality of sound wave emitters." But Choi does not teach an active display that causes sound waves to "reflect off the active display in multiple directions toward the viewer seating area including away from the viewer seating area," as claimed. Choi instead focuses on maximizing audio directed toward the audience using a spherical screen that is specifically designed to reflect both light and sound directly toward the seating area, with central speakers 3 placed at the focal point to create a precise stereoscopic effect. See, e.g., Choi, Abstract and paragraphs [0070] and [0093]. Nowhere does Choi teach or describe an active display reflecting sound waves "in multiple directions ... including away from the viewer seating area." For at least this reason, amended claim 1 is patentable over Choi.
Further, in the Response to Arguments on page 17, the Office Action stated that paragraphs [0084] and [0093] of Choi "should be interpreted as alternative embodiment/s [to Figs. 5-6] or the term 'at' in paragraphs [0084] and [0093] should be interpreted as in the 'vicinity of' rather 'coinciding' with the focal point F1. Fig. 5 and paragraph [0039] clearly teach the speakers 3 are positioned offset to a focal point of the screen." Applicant respectfully disagrees with this interpretation. Paragraph [0084] of Choi is not an alternative embodiment to Fig. 5 of Choi. Instead, paragraph [0084] falls under the "EXAMPLE" that begins at paragraph [0073]. The preceding paragraph [0072] of Choi states "Referring now to FIGS. 5 and 6, an example of the present invention will be described." Thus, it is clear that the description of paragraph [0084], which states "[s]ince the central speakers are arranged at the focal point F1 of the spherical screen 1, the sound from the central speakers 3 is also reflected from the spherical screen 1 in a horizontal direction toward viewers," is not an alternative embodiment to Fig. 5 but is instead describing the embodiment of Fig. 5. Therefore, as paragraph [0084] and Fig. 5 of Choi teach that "the central speakers 3 are arranged at the focal point F1of the spherical screen 1," Choi teaches away from the claimed feature of independent 1 which recites: "at least one sound wave emitter of the plurality of sound wave emitters postionable between the viewer seating area and the active display being positioned at a location that is offset from any focal point of the active display." Paragraph [0093] of Choi further teaches "central speakers 3 ... are located at the focal point F1 of the spherical screen 1." Nowhere does Choi teach sound wave emitters "being positioned at a location that is offset from any focal point of the active display," as recited in amended claim 1. For at least these reasons, amended claim 1 is patentable over Choi.
The Office Action further alleged, on page 17 in the Response to Arguments, that paragraph [0039], which states "[c]entral speakers 3 are arranged at both sides of the projector 2, respectively," clearly teaches that "the speakers 3 are positioned offset to a focal point of the screen." Applicant respectfully disagrees. Central speakers 3 are only described in Choi as being arranged at both sides of the projector 2 because the speakers and projector cannot be positioned in the same physical space. Clearly, the central speakers 3 arranged at both sides of the projector 2 still teaches positioning the central speakers 3 at the focal point of the screen - for instance, paragraph [0043] of Choi states that "[i]n the present invention, the optical configuration of the spherical screen 1... and the optical relation between the spherical screen 1 and the central speaker 3 are very important." The speakers in Choi are exclusively referred to as centralspeakers. As Choi describes, at length, the central speakers 3 being positioned at the focal point of the screen, and does not depict or describe the central speakers 3 as being offset from the focal point, Choi is silent as to sound wave emitters "being positioned at a location that is offset from any focal point of the active display," as recited in amended claim 1. For at least these reasons, amended claim 1 is patentable over Choi. (Remarks; p. 10-13).
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As Fig. 5 and paragraph [0039] show the “[a] projector 2 is located at the focal point F1 of the spherical screen 1. Central speakers 3 are arranged at both sides of the projector 2, respectively.” The paragraphs [0084] and [0093] should be interpreted as alternative embodiment/s or the term “at” in paragraphs [0084] and [0093] cannot be interpreted as “coinciding” with the focal point F1. It must be interpreted as in the “vicinity of.”. Both speakers cannot physically occupy the same position. Fig. 5 and paragraph [0039] clearly teach the speakers 3 are positioned offset to a focal point of the screen. Furthermore, as acknowledge by the applicant/s “Choi instead focuses on maximizing audio directed toward the audience using a spherical screen that is specifically designed to reflect both light and sound directly toward the seating area, with central speakers 3 placed at the focal point to create a precise stereoscopic effect.” The stereoscopic effects must mean the speakers are separated by a distance and located to the left and to the right of the focal point. (Note, the spherical screen has only one focal point). Having the speakers separated by a distance also means the sound waves reflected by the screen toward the seating area in non-parallel spreading directions.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAO-LUAN Q LE whose telephone number is (571)270-5362. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday; 9:00AM-5:00PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Minh-Toan Ton can be reached on (571) 272 230303. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
Or faxed to:
(571) 273-8300, (for formal communications intended for entry)
Or:
(571) 273-7490, (for informal or draft communications, please label “PROPOSED” or “DRAFT”)
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to:
Customer Service Window
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
/BAO-LUAN Q LE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882
Prosecution Insights