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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2 and 6-23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 6-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Pub. 2016/0271503 by De-Gol.
Regarding claim 1, De-Gol discloses an attraction system for an amusement park (abstract), the attraction system comprising: an actuator (para. 23-25 – see movable screen drive); an enclosure coupled to the actuator, wherein the enclosure defines an interior space of the enclosure (para. 23-25 – see the movable screen enclosure area); a display coupled to the enclosure and positioned within the interior space, wherein the display is configured to output imagery from within the interior space of the enclosure (para. 23-25 – see the use of a screen in the area); and a guest area external to the interior space of the enclosure, wherein the actuator is configured to move the enclosure to drive movement of the display relative to the guest area for entertainment of one or more guests in the guest area (para. 23-25; fig. 3-4 – see the drive of the area relative to the viewers and the different paths that are taken by the viewers and the screens)
Regarding claim 2, De-Gol discloses the attraction system of claim 1, wherein the attraction system comprises an animated figure positioned within the interior space of the enclosure, the animated figure is configured to move within the interior space, and the actuator is configured to move the enclosure to drive collective movement of the display and the animated figure relative to the guest area (para. 3, 31 – see animatronics).
Regarding claim 6, De-Gol discloses the attraction system of claim 1, comprising a control system communicatively coupled to the actuator and the display, wherein the control system is configured Page 3 to control the actuator to move the enclosure and drive corresponding movement of the display, and the control system is configured to control the imagery output by the display (para. 23-25 – see the movement of the display as part of the ride).
Regarding claim 7, De-Gol discloses the attraction system of claim 6, comprising a sensor configured to detect a parameter of the guest area, wherein the control system is communicatively coupled to the sensor and is configured to control the actuator based on the parameter to facilitate viewing of the interior space by the one or more guests within the guest area (para. 33-38 – see the synchronized movement display and projection).
Regarding claim 21, De-Gol discloses the attraction system of claim 1, wherein the attraction system comprises one or more show effect components positioned within the interior space of the enclosure, the show effect components are configured to provide one or more show effects in coordination with movement of the one or more show effect components caused by corresponding movement of the enclosure via the actuator (para. 33-38 – see the synchronized movement display and projection).
Regarding claims 8-20 and 22-23, these claims are rejected by De-Gol as noted above regarding claims 1, 2, 6, 7 and 21 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER J IANNUZZI whose telephone number is (571)272-5793. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30AM-5:30PM EST.
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, EUGENE KIM can be reached at 571-272-4463. 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.
/PETER J IANNUZZI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
