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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 9 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 9 and 17 should end with a period. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 the limitation “a headset at each of the plurality of personal cinema experience area seats including two embedded mini screens and a lens one or more speakers at each of a seat” is confusing.
Claim 3 the limitation “wherein at each of a seat associated with speakers that play a program sound track to the seat occupant” is confusing.
Claim 5, one of the alternatives “subtitling for a different language” is repeating.
Claim 20, the limitation “the DCI is at a base of a seat” appears to be incomplete it does not refer to any structure.
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 1-10, 13 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Schwab, US 2017/0318975 in view of Perry, US 2014/0364208 in view of Silverman et al., US 2019/0020911.
Regarding claim 1, Schwab discloses a digital video system at a cinema, comprising:
a plurality of personal cinema experience area seats for viewing at least one of a program playing the cinema or stream able to the cinema, each of a seat plurality of personal cinema experience area seats is positioned at a selected area of the cinema (paragraph 26, 54 and 62);
and a headset with one or more speakers (paragraph 3).
Schwab is silent about a headset at each of the plurality of personal cinema experience area seats including two embedded mini screens and a lens; and a DCI compliant cinema player for each seat of the plurality of personal cinema experience area seat.
In an analogous art, Perry discloses a headset two embedded mini screens and a lens and speakers (fig. 3 and 7a-7b, paragraph 139).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schwab’s system with the teachings of Perry. The motivation would have been to provide a more immerse experience for the benefit of providing a more engaging and interactive viewing experience.
Schwab and Perry are silent about a DCI compliant cinema player for each seat of the plurality of personal cinema experience area seat.
In an analogous art, Perry discloses a DCI compliant cinema player (paragraph 3 and 29).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schwab and Perry’s system with the teachings of Silverman. This is standard. The motivation would have been to use industry specification for the benefit of properly distribute and play the content (paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 2, Schwab, Perry and Silverman disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the speakers are provided in a headphone (Schwab paragraph 3, Perry fig. 3 and 7a-7b, paragraph 139).
Regarding claim 3, Schwab, Perry and Silverman disclose the system of claim 1, wherein at each of a seat associated with speakers that play a program sound track to the seat occupant (Schwab paragraph 34; Silverman paragraph 26).
Regarding claim 4, Schwab, Perry and Silverman disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the program is a video with audio that includes other related information synchronized with it (Schwab paragraph 34; Silverman paragraph 26).
Regarding claim 5, Schwab, Perry and Silverman disclose the system of claim 2, wherein the related information is selected from at least one of: a special visual signal channel for the visually impaired; subtitling for a different language; a multimedia channel; a visual signal channel for the visually impaired; and subtitling for a different language (Schwab paragraph 34; Silverman paragraph 26).
Regarding claim 6, Schwab, Perry and Silverman disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the program is one or more of: a long program; and a short program (Schwab paragraph 54; Silverman paragraph 15).
Regarding claim 7, Schwab, Perry and Silverman disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the personal cinema experience area is an area of the cinema wherein viewers of a program can select one or more programs to view (Schwab paragraph 54; Silverman paragraph 15-17).
Regarding claim 8, Schwab, Perry and Silverman disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the personal cinema experience area provides a private experience for viewing a program (Schwab paragraph 54; Silverman paragraph 15).
Regarding claim 9, Schwab, Perry and Silverman disclose the system of claim 1, wherein each of a seat of the plurality provides a seat occupant with a similar DCI quality experience for a personal cinema experience (Schwab paragraph 54; Silverman paragraph 15-17);
Regarding claim 10, Schwab, Perry and Silverman disclose the system of claim 1, wherein each of a seat of the plurality includes an individual viewer control of a user interface (Schwab paragraph 44).
Regarding claim 13, Schwab, Perry and Silverman disclose the system of claim 8, wherein each of a user interface runs on a tablet (Perry paragraph 28 and 159; Silverman paragraph 40).
Regarding claim 18, Schwab, Perry and Silverman disclose the system of claim 13, further comprising: a movement mechanism that allows 1 movement of a display screen in order for individual to see the display screen at a desired position (Schwab paragraph 41).
Regarding claim 19, Schwab, Perry and Silverman disclose the system of claim 18, wherein the movement mechanism allows a viewer to adjust a position of a display screen for improved viewing (Schwab paragraph 41).
Regarding claim 20, Schwab, Perry and Silverman disclose the system of claim 13, wherein the DCI is at a base of a seat (Schwab paragraph 34; Perry paragraph 29).
Claim 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Schwab in view of Perry in view of Silverman in view of Chong et al., US 2019/0394362.
Regarding claim 11, Schwab, Perry and Silverman disclose the system of claim 1.
Schwab, Perry and Silverman are silent about each of a seat of the plurality is associated with an individual emissive screen.
In an analogous art, Chong discloses the use of emissive screen (paragraph 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schwab, Perry and Silverman’s system with the teachings of Chong. The motivation would have been to provide more vibrant and accurate colors for the benefit of providing quality of service.
Claims 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Schwab in view of Perry in view of Silverman in view of Hattingh et al., US 2016/0080710.
Regarding claim 12, Schwab, Perry and Silverman disclose the system of claim 9.
Schwab, Perry and Silverman are silent about wherein each of an emissive screen is compliant with DCI display rules relative to a visual quality experience (DCI/CTP compliance).
In an analogous art, Hattingh discloses wherein each of an emissive screen is compliant with DCI display rules relative to a visual quality experience (DCI/CTP compliance) (paragraph 126-127).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schwab, Perry and Silverman’s system with the teachings of Hattingh. The motivation would have been to implement security features for the benefit of preventing piracy.
Regarding claim 15, Schwab, Perry, Silverman and Hattingh disclose the system of claim 12, wherein a viewer is able to view programs available at the cinema by selecting a title and playing it (Schwab paragraph 54).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Schwab in view of Perry in view of Silverman in view of Pontual et al., US 2016/0360255.
Regarding claim 14, Schwab, Perry and Silverman disclose the system of claim 8.
Schwab, Perry and Silverman are silent about wherein each of a user interface allows a viewer to browse through one or more of a: day; time; and a list of programs shown at cinema as well as those available to be streamed to the cinema.
In an analogous art, Pontual discloses wherein each of a user interface allows a viewer to browse through one or more of a: day; time; and a list of programs shown at cinema as well as those available to be streamed to the cinema (paragraph 126-127).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schwab, Perry and Silverman’s system with the teachings of Pontual. This is standard. The motivation would have been to give the user a way to select the program for the benefit of providing the media.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Schwab in view of Perry in view of Silverman in view of Palakollu, US 2023/0258946.
Regarding claim 16, Schwab, Perry and Silverman disclose the system of claim 13.
Schwab, Perry and Silverman are silent about wherein a viewer is able to pause a program.
In an analogous art, Palakollu discloses wherein each seat includes active seat localization that determines if the seat has been moved and prevents any further playback (paragraph 71).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schwab, Perry and Silverman’s system with the teachings of Palakollu. This is standard. The motivation would have been to give control to the user for the benefit of providing quality of service.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Schwab in view of Perry in view of Silverman in view of Pitschel et al., US 2014/0215086.
Regarding claim 17, Schwab, Perry and Silverman disclose the system of claim 13.
Schwab, Perry and Silverman are silent about wherein each seat includes active seat localization that determines if the seat has been moved and prevents any further playback.
In an analogous art, Pitschel discloses wherein each seat includes active seat localization that determines if the seat has been moved and prevents any further playback (paragraph 25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schwab, Perry and Silverman’s system with the teachings of Pitschel. The motivation would have been to implement security features for the benefit of preventing theft.
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