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 .
Applicant’s Submission of a Response
Applicant’s submission of a response on 2/17/2026 has been received and considered. In the response, Applicant amended claims 1, 4, 9, 11, 16 and 19 – 20. Therefore, claims 1 – 20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 – 4, 9 – 14, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coffey et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0076484 A1) in view of Borke et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0279433) and Arntsen et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0211624 A1).
As per claim 1, Coffey et al. discloses an assembly, comprising: at least one processor programmed with instructions to: at least one virtual object in a virtual computer simulation space to a real-world location on a stage (identifying one or more virtual effects for display in the real-world venue, virtual effects can be in a form of simulated human, animated characters, simulated furniture, artwork, or other objects or props, see Fig. 3 and [0042]); and the at least one virtual object in the virtual computer simulation space (a virtual-world simulator is implemented within a real-world venue including one or more objects or structures, see Fig. 1A and [0015], the real-world venue may take the form of a personal residence, a theme park attraction, a game environment, or a film or broadcast studio, see [0016]), a visible geometric shape to indicate the at least one virtual object (the virtual object can be in many forms, for example in Fig. 1D the virtual object is a geometric shape).
However, Coffey et al. does not expressly disclose correlate a location of at least one virtual object in a virtual computer simulation space to a real-world location and at least one laser device to project and based on a person approaching or overlapping the visible geometric shape, project at least one indication the person is approaching or overlapping the visible geometric shape.
Borke et al. teaches a calibration technique map for a virtual simulated space to real world space, wherein one or more projectors may be set up to project on a given area (e.g., a clean room, manufacturing floor, or otherwise). Also, one or more sensors may be placed into known positions (e.g., locked/stationary or else with positions that may be determined, such as through “inside-out tracking”, which will be understood by those skilled in the art), and arranged to view some portion of the projection area (see Fig. 5 and [0016]).
Arntsen et al. teaches a laser/projection-based system in which an object detector optically senses the presence of an object (including a person or a body part of a person) within a detection region (hazard zone) defined relative to a region illuminated by the projector, and responsive to detecting the presence of the object in that region, a visible light source (e.g., red laser) is controlled to illuminate the body part or object that has entered the region as a warning, prompting the person to move out of the region (see [0088] – [0089]). The visible warning light is turned on as a warning when a body part or object extends across (i.e., overlaps) the monitored region.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the projector of Coffey et al. with a laser projector device to project images in view of Borke et al. as it would allow virtual objects to be projected in a more accurate and precise location in the real-world venue. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified the assembly of Coffey in view of Borke et al. to determine when a person or object is approaching a hazard zone relative to a region illuminated by the projector in view of Arntsen et al. in order to improve safety and awareness within the real-world venue.
As per claim 2, Coffey et al. discloses the visible geometric shape is a primitive shape that is not configured as the virtual object (the virtual object can be in many forms, for example in Fig. 1D the virtual object is a geometric shape).
As per claim 3, Coffey et al. discloses the primitive shape is a rectangle (the virtual object or structure can be configured varies shapes and sizes, see [0015] – [0016]).
As per claim 4, Coffey et al. in view of Borke et al. and Arntsen et al. teaches the processor is configured to control the laser device to project at least one warning marker onto the real-world location responsive to a person approaching or within the real-world location based on the location of the at least one virtual object in the virtual computer simulation space. As set forth above for claim 1, Arntsen et al. teaches projecting a visible warning indication (i.e., a warning marker) responsive to a person approaching or being within a region defined by projected light. Therefore, it would have been obvious, for the reasons set forth in claim 1, to project the warning marker onto the real-world location responsive to a person approaching or being within the real-world location associated with the location of the at least one object, in order to warn the person of their proximity to the indicated virtual-object location.
As per claims 9 and 10, Coffey et al. discloses correlating a coordinate system of the laser device to a coordinate system of the stage, wherein the processor is programmed with instructions to correlate the coordinate system of the laser device to a coordinate system of the virtual computer simulation space (see [0020] – [0022]).
As per claims 11 – 14 and 19, the instant claim is a method in which corresponds to the assembly of claims 1 – 3 and 9 – 10. Therefore, it is rejected for the reasons set forth above.
As per claim 20, the instant claim is an apparatus in which corresponds to the assembly of claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected for the reasons set forth above.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coffey et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0076484 A1) in view of Borke et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0279433) and Arntsen et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0211624 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Rueb (US Pub. No. 2018/0104788 A1).
As per claim 5, Coffey et al. does not expressly disclose the laser device comprises at least one laser emitter and at least one movable mirror configured to reflect light from the laser emitter at demanded angles.
Rueb teaches aligning a laser projector assembly for projecting a laser image onto a work surface (see Fig. 2 – 6, [0007] and [0016]). The assembly includes a laser source that generates a laser beam. The laser beam is projected through a focusing lens toward a beam splitter. The assembly includes a galvo assembly (electromechanical instrument used to deflect a light beam by rotating mirrors) that can move to reflect the laser properly (see Fig. 1 and [0016] – [0020]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the projector of Coffey et al. in view of Borke et al. and Arntsen et al. with a laser projector device to project images in view of Rueb as it would allow virtual objects to be projected in a more accurate and precise location in the real-world venue.
As per claim 15, the instant claim is a method in which corresponds to the assembly of claim 5. Therefore, it is rejected for the reasons set forth above.
Examiner’s Note
Claims 6 – 8 and 16 – 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art of record (Coffey et al., Borke et al., Arntsen et al., and Rueb) alone or in combination does not teach or reasonably suggest a sound stage comprising a motion capture (MoCap) stage and plural infrared (IR) reflectors mounted on at least one surface of the MoCap stage (claims 6 and 16); plural IR reflectors configured to be attached to at least one actor on the MoCap stage (claims 7 and 17) and at least one IR detector configured to detect reflections of IR light from the plural IR reflectors but not to detect light from the laser device, the at least one IR detector for providing signals representing locations on the MoCap stage to the at least one processor (claims 8 and 18).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 – 5, 9 – 15, 19 and 20 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to all of the references being used in the current rejection. Applicant's arguments directed to Coffey et al. in view of Borke et al. have been addressed as part of the rejection of the claims. Examiner directs Applicant to the teachings of Arnsten et al.
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 ANKIT B DOSHI whose telephone number is (571)270-7863. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri. ~8:30 - ~5:30.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at 571-272-4430. 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.
/ANKIT B DOSHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights