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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/26/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., entertainers, adoring fans, personal videos, athletes etc.) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The newly added limitations “wherein said venue is a stadium or television studio and wherein the one or more display screens or surfaces comprises or consist of a wall in the stadium or television studio” is met by Yi. Yi teaches that the screen or surface can be placed in any wall of a stadium, room or hall (paragraph 19), meeting the claim language. Also, the first clause “wherein said venue is a stadium or television studio” is met by the new cited reference Bustamante. Bustamante teaches the use of a smartphone in the stadium (paragraph 32-33 and 54), meeting all the claim limitations.
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 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.
Claims 1, 5, 7-9, 11-12, 16 and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bustamante et al., US 2021/0289236 in view of Yi et al., US 2020/0226971.
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Bustamante discloses a remote engagement system for a live event occurring at a venue, comprising:
at least one interactive input and output device located at the venue comprising one or more display screens or surfaces, said at least one interactive input and output device providing visual output to at least one intended recipient located at the venue, said at least one interactive input and output device being configured to permit the at least one intended recipient located at the venue to input images and/or video and optionally text and/or sounds for transmission to one or more user devices of a plurality of user devices, wherein said venue is a stadium or television studio (paragraph 32-33 and 54); and a controller for
(i) receiving a plurality of signals each of said plurality of signals contains at least one of recorded video, images, or text for said at least one intended recipient, said signals being transmitted from the plurality of user devices, wherein at least some of the user devices of a plurality of user devices are located remotely from each other and from the venue (paragraph 32-33 and 54);
(ii) controlling the at least one interactive input and output device located at the venue to display at least some of the plurality of recorded video, images, or text received from the plurality of user devices on the one or more display screens or surfaces, wherein the at least one intended recipient is provided as visual output the at least some of the recorded video, images, or text on the one or more display screens or surfaces (paragraph 32-33 and 54); and
(iii) transmitting signals containing the images and/or video and optionally text and/or sounds input by the at least one intended recipient located at the venue using the at least one interactive input and output device to a selected user device of the plurality of user devices from which the selected video, images, or text originated (paragraph 32-33 and 54),
wherein the at least one interactive input and output device is configured to allow said intended recipient at the venue to select one or more of the displayed video, images, or text intended for said intended recipient on the one or more display screens or surfaces, and to transmit said signals containing images and/or video and optionally text and/or sounds input by the at least one intended recipient to the user device from which the selected video, images, or text originated (paragraph 32-33 and 54).
Bustamante is silent about wherein the one or more display screens or surfaces comprises or consist of a wall in the stadium or television studio.
In an analogous art, Yi discloses wherein the one or more display screens or surfaces comprises or consist of a wall in the stadium or television studio (figures 3-7; paragraph 19).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify, at the time of filing, Bustamante’s system with the teachings of Yi. The motivation would have been to utilize a structural member as support for the screen for the benefit of having a stable display.
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Bustamante and Yi disclose the system of claim 4, wherein said wall is in a tunnel or room of the stadium (Bustamante paragraph 32-33 and 54; Yi figures 3-7; paragraph 19).
Regarding claim 7, Bustamante and Yi disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more display screens or surfaces comprises a plurality of display screens or surfaces on different walls in the stadium or television studio, wherein the at least one intended recipient located at the venue includes a plurality of intended recipients located at different locations in the venue, and wherein said interactive input and output device displays said recorded video, images, or text transmitted from the plurality of user devices are displayed at selected display screens or surfaces of the plurality of display screens or surfaces depending on the intended recipient of the plurality of intended recipients (Bustamante paragraph 32-33 and 54; Yi figures 3-7; paragraph 19).
Regarding claims 8 and 19, Bustamante and Yi disclose the system of claim 1, wherein said live event is televised or streamed over the internet (Bustamante paragraph 32-33, 46 and 54; Yi figures 3-7; paragraph 19 and 23).
Regarding claims 9 and 20, Bustamante and Yi disclose the system of claim 1, wherein at least some of the user devices are operable only by a single user at a time of a plurality of users (Bustamante paragraph 32-33 and 54; Yi figures 3-7; paragraph 19).
Regarding claims 11 and 21, Bustamante and Yi disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one interactive input and output device further comprises one or more speakers that output a sound (Bustamante paragraph 32-33 and 54; Yi figures 3-7; paragraph 19).
Regarding claim 22, Bustamante and Yi disclose the system of claim 1, wherein at least one of the plurality of display screens or surfaces is in a different room of the stadium or television studio as compared to other display screens or surfaces of the plurality of display screens or surfaces (Bustamante paragraph 32-33 and 54; Yi figures 3-7; paragraph 19).
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OSCHTA I MONTOYA whose telephone number is (571)270-1192. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8 am - 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nathan Flynn can be reached on 571-272-1915. 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.
OM
Oschta Montoya
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2421
/OSCHTA I MONTOYA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421