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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 100, found in paragraph 0020 line 1, and 200, found in paragraph 0021 line 1. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 610 and 645. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: lines 3-4: "Add one more claim with facial recognition – thoughts? I added to the sensor claims as biometric sensors which covers facial, iris, etc." should be removed. Appropriate correction is required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS. —Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Applicant is advised that should claim 34 be found allowable, claims 38 and 39 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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) 1-4, 7, 14-18, 21, and 28-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(2) as being anticipated by Allen et al. (US 11,338,107).
Regarding claim 1, Allen et al. discloses an attraction comprising:
a defined area (Figure 1, element 100)
at least one processor (Figure 2, element 202, 220) in communication with one or more sensors (Figure 2, element 280) positioned to detect locations of one or more people in said defined area (Column 31, line 27-50) and one or more special effects (Figure 1, element 142a-142e) in said defined area, wherein said one or more special effects in said defined area are configured to be triggered responsive to people being detected by said one or more sensors at one or more pre-established locations within said defined area (Column 9, line 27-33); and
wherein said one or more special effects are selectively triggered by said at least one processor only if it is determined by said at least one processor (Figure 2, element 202) and/or one or more sensors that (i) a person has not previously experienced said one or more special effects based on a feature or item unique to a person or (ii) a person has experienced said one or more special effects previously based on a feature or item unique to a person and a pre-established amount of time has passed since a person last experienced said one or more special effects.
Allen et al. discloses the same/equivalent structure as claimed in a processor-based control subsystem (Figure 2, element 202), and therefore provides the required structure for performing the function of selectively triggering the special effects. Within the control subsystem, the processor (Figure 2, element 220) works together with the nontransitory system memory (Figure 2, element 222) to store instructions and data for controlling the apparatus. It follows that Allen et al. contains sufficient structure to perform the function of determining if a person has experienced a special effect and selectively triggering one or more special effects should condition (i) or (ii) occur. Therefore, Allen et al. anticipates the broadest reasonable interpretation of the apparatus claim by disclosing significant structure for performing the function of the contingent step along with the other recited claim limitations. Examiner directs applicant to MPEP section 2111.04(II) – Contingent Limitations – “[t]he broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. The system claim interpretation differs from a method claim interpretation because the claimed structure must be present in the system regardless of whether the condition is met and the function is actually performed.”
Regarding claim 2, Allen et al. discloses the attraction of claim 1 wherein said sensors include one or more of the following: heat sensors, location sensors (Column 4, line 19-21), proximity sensors, infrared sensors, pressure sensors, temperature sensors, force sensors, vibration sensors, piezo sensors, fluid property sensors, humidity sensors, strain sensors, photo optic sensors, weight sensors, ultrasonic sensors, IR sensors, biometric sensors and touch sensors.
Regarding claim 3, Allen et al. discloses the attraction of claim 1 further comprising sensors integrated into tangible articles (Column 48, line 2) utilized by guests within said defined area, said sensors configured to activate special effects.
Regarding claim 4, Allen et al. discloses the attraction of claim 1 wherein said at least one processor is configured to communicate with mobile phones of guests within or proximate said defined area (Column 16, line 65).
Regarding claim 7, Allen et al. discloses the attraction of claim 1 wherein said at least one processor includes a central processor and one or more remote processors in communication therewith (Column 19, line 48-51).
Regarding claim 14, Allen et al. discloses a system comprising:
at least one processor (Figure 2, element 202, 220);
a defined attraction area (Figure 1, element 100) having one or more sensors (Figure 2, element 280) and one or more special effects (Figure 1, element 142a-142e), each in communication with said at least one processor, said one or more sensors positioned and configured to detect the identity of persons (Column 12, line 4-8) entering said defined attraction area and determine the location (Column 4, line 19-21) of identified persons entering said defined attraction area; and
wherein upon confirming an identify of a person entering said defined attraction area and determining, via said at least one processor (Figure 2, element 202, 220) and/or one or more sensors, that said identified person (i) has not previously experienced said one or more special effects or (ii) a person has experienced said one or more special effects previously and a pre-established amount of time has passed since a person last experienced said one or more special effects, said at least one processor configured to trigger said one or more of said special effects within said defined attraction area.
Allen et al. discloses the same/equivalent structure as claimed in a processor-based control subsystem (Figure 2, element 202), and therefore provides the required structure for performing the function of selectively triggering the special effects. Within the control subsystem, the processor (Figure 2, element 220) works together with the nontransitory system memory (Figure 2, element 222) to store instructions and data for controlling the apparatus. It follows that Allen et al. contains sufficient structure to perform the function of confirming an identify of a person entering said defined attraction area and determining if a person has experienced a special effect and selectively triggering one or more special effects should condition (i) or (ii) occur. Therefore, Allen et al. anticipates the broadest reasonable interpretation of the apparatus claim by disclosing significant structure for performing the function of the contingent step along with the other recited claim limitations. Examiner directs applicant to MPEP section 2111.04(II) – Contingent Limitations – “[t]he broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. The system claim interpretation differs from a method claim interpretation because the claimed structure must be present in the system regardless of whether the condition is met and the function is actually performed.”
Regarding claim 15, Allen et al discloses the system of claim 14 wherein said sensors include one or more of the following: heat sensors, location sensors (Column 4, line 19-21), proximity sensors, infrared sensors, pressure sensors, temperature sensors, force sensors, vibration sensors, piezo sensors, fluid property sensors, humidity sensors, strain sensors, photo optic sensors, weight sensors, ultrasonic sensors, IR sensors, biometric sensors and touch sensors.
Regarding claim 16, Allen et al. discloses the system of claim 14 further comprising sensors integrated into tangible articles (Column 48, line 2) utilized by guests within said defined area, said sensors configured to activate special effects.
Regarding claim 18, Allen et al. discloses the system of claim 14 wherein said at least one processor is configured to communicate with mobile phones of guests within or proximate said defined area (Column 16, line 65).
Regarding claim 21, Allen et al. discloses the system of claim 14 wherein said at least one processor includes a central processor and one or more remote processors in communication therewith (Column 19, line 48-51).
Regarding claim 28, Allen et al. discloses a system comprising:
one or more processors including a central processor and one or more remote processors in communication therewith (Column 19, line 48-51);
a defined attraction area (Figure 1, element 100) having one or more sensors (Figure 2, element 280) and one or more special effects (Figure 1, element 142a-142e), each in communication with said at least one or more processors, said one or more sensors positioned and configured to detect persons (Column 12, line 4-8) entering said defined attraction area and determine the location (Column 4, line 19-21) of persons entering said defined attraction area; and
wherein upon confirming a person entering said defined attraction area and determining, via said at least one processor (Figure 2, element 202, 220) and/or one or more sensors, that said person (i) has not previously experienced said one or more special effects or (ii) a person has experienced said one or more special effects previously and a pre-established amount of time has passed since a person last experienced said one or more special effects, said at least one processor configured to trigger said one or more of said special effects within said defined attraction area.
Allen et al. discloses the same/equivalent structure as claimed in a processor-based control subsystem (Figure 2, element 202) and remote processors in communication therewith (Column 19, line 48-51), and therefore provides the required structure for performing the function of selectively triggering the special effects. Within the control subsystem, the processor (Figure 2, element 220) works together with the nontransitory system memory (Figure 2, element 222) to store instructions and data for controlling the apparatus. It follows that Allen et al. contains sufficient structure to perform the function of confirming an identify of a person entering said defined attraction area and determining if a person has experienced a special effect and selectively triggering one or more special effects should condition (i) or (ii) occur. Therefore, Allen et al. anticipates the broadest reasonable interpretation of the apparatus claim by disclosing significant structure for performing the function of the contingent step along with the other recited claim limitations. Examiner directs applicant to MPEP section 2111.04(II) – Contingent Limitations – “[t]he broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. The system claim interpretation differs from a method claim interpretation because the claimed structure must be present in the system regardless of whether the condition is met and the function is actually performed.”
Regarding claim 29, Allen et al discloses the system of claim 28 wherein said sensors include one or more of the following: heat sensors, location sensors (Column 4, line 19-21), proximity sensors, infrared sensors, pressure sensors, temperature sensors, force sensors, vibration sensors, piezo sensors, fluid property sensors, humidity sensors, strain sensors, photo optic sensors, weight sensors, ultrasonic sensors, IR sensors, biometric sensors and touch sensors.
Regarding claim 30, Allen et al. discloses the system of claim 28 further comprising sensors integrated into tangible articles (Column 48, line 2) utilized by guests within said defined area, said sensors configured to activate special effects.
Regarding claim 31, Allen et al. discloses the system of claim 28 wherein said at least one processor is configured to communicate with mobile phones of guests within or proximate said defined area (Column 16, line 65).
Claim(s) 22-26 and 34-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(1) and (2) as being anticipated by Weston (US 2020/0276510).
Regarding claim 22, Weston discloses an attraction (Paragraph 0018, line 1-2) comprising:
a defined area (Paragraph 0020, line 1-3)
at least one processor (Paragraph 0025, line 1-2) in communication with one or more sensors (Paragraph 0021, line 1-3) positioned to detect locations of one or more people in said defined area and one or more special effects (Paragraph 0021, line 11-13) in said defined area, wherein said one or more special effects in said defined area are configured to be triggered responsive to people being detected by said one or more sensors at one or more pre-established locations within said defined area (Paragraph 0022, line 7-9);
wherein said one or more special effects are selectively triggered by said at least one processor (Paragraph 0025, line 1-3) only if it is determined by said at least one processor and/or one or more sensors that (i) a person has not previously experienced said one or more special effects based on a feature or item unique to a person or (ii) a person has experienced said one or more special effects previously based on a feature or item unique to a person and a pre-established amount of time has passed since a person last experienced said one or more special effects; and
wherein said at least one processor utilizes artificial intelligence (paragraph 0088, line 1) and/or machine learning programming to monitor and control said one or more special effects.
Additionally, Weston discloses the same/equivalent structure as claimed in the one or more computer processors (Paragraph 0025, line 1-3), and therefore provides the required structure for performing the function of selectively triggering the special effects. The one or more processors are configured to execute computer readable instructions for a smart room controller to operate smart rooms and associated peripheral devices. It follows that Weston contains sufficient structure to perform the function of determining if a person has experienced a special effect and selectively triggering one or more special effects should condition (i) or (ii) occur. Therefore, Weston anticipates the broadest reasonable interpretation of the apparatus claim by disclosing significant structure for performing the function of the contingent step along with the other recited claim limitations. Examiner directs applicant to MPEP section 2111.04(II) – Contingent Limitations – “[t]he broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. The system claim interpretation differs from a method claim interpretation because the claimed structure must be present in the system regardless of whether the condition is met and the function is actually performed.”
Regarding claim 23, Weston discloses the attraction of claim 22, wherein said sensors include one or more of the following: heat sensors, location sensors, proximity sensors (Paragraph 0028, line 7-8), infrared sensors, pressure sensors, temperature sensors, force sensors, vibration sensors, piezo sensors, fluid property sensors, humidity sensors, strain sensors, photo optic sensors, weight sensors, ultrasonic sensors, IR sensors, biometric sensors and touch sensors.
Regarding claim 24, Weston discloses the attraction of claim 22, further comprising sensors integrated into tangible articles (Paragraph 0041, line 1-5) utilized by guests within said defined area, said sensors configured to activate special effects.
Regarding claim 25, Weston discloses the attraction of claim 22 wherein said at least one processor is configured to communicate with mobile phones of guests (Paragraph 0027 line 1-5) within or proximate said defined area.
Regarding claim 26, Weston discloses the attraction of claim 25 wherein said at least one processor is configured to transmit mission clues to mobile phones (Paragraph 0109, line 6-9) of guests within said defined area.
Regarding claim 34, Weston discloses an attraction (Paragraph 0018, line 1-2) comprising:
a defined area (Paragraph 0020, line 1-3)
at least one processor (Paragraph 0025, line 1-2) in communication with one or more sensors (Paragraph 0021, line 1-3) positioned to detect locations of one or more people in said defined area and one or more special effects (Paragraph 0021, line 11-13) in said defined area, wherein said one or more special effects in said defined area are configured to be triggered responsive to people being detected by said one or more sensors at one or more pre-established locations within said defined area (Paragraph 0022, line 7-9); and
wherein said at least one processor is configured to communicate with mobile phones (Paragraph 0027, line 1-5) of people within or proximate to said defined area and transmit mission clues to said mobile phones (Paragraph 0109, line 6-9) of people within or proximate to said defined area.
Regarding claim 35, Weston discloses the attraction of claim 34. Additionally, Weston discloses the same/equivalent structure as claimed in the one or more computer processors (Paragraph 0025, line 1-3), and therefore provides the required structure for performing the function of selectively triggering the special effects. The one or more processors are configured to execute computer readable instructions for a smart room controller to operate smart rooms and associated peripheral devices. It follows that Weston contains sufficient structure to perform the function of determining if a person has experienced a special effect and selectively triggering one or more special effects should condition (i) or (ii) occur. Therefore, Weston anticipates the broadest reasonable interpretation of the apparatus claim by disclosing significant structure for performing the function of the contingent step along with the other recited claim limitations. Examiner directs applicant to MPEP section 2111.04(II) – Contingent Limitations – “[t]he broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. The system claim interpretation differs from a method claim interpretation because the claimed structure must be present in the system regardless of whether the condition is met and the function is actually performed.”
Regarding claim 36, Weston discloses the attraction of claim 34, wherein said sensors include one or more of the following: heat sensors, location sensors, proximity sensors (Paragraph 0028, line 7-8), infrared sensors, pressure sensors, temperature sensors, force sensors, vibration sensors, piezo sensors, fluid property sensors, humidity sensors, strain sensors, photo optic sensors, weight sensors, ultrasonic sensors, IR sensors, biometric sensors and touch sensors.
Regarding claim 37, Weston discloses the attraction of claim 34, further comprising sensors integrated into tangible articles (Paragraph 0041, line 1-5) utilized by guests within said defined area, said sensors configured to activate special effects.
Regarding claim 38, Weston discloses the attraction of claim 34 wherein said at least one processor is configured to communicate with mobile phones of guests (Paragraph 0027 line 1-5) within or proximate said defined area.
Regarding claim 39, Weston discloses the attraction of claim 38 wherein said at least one processor is configured to transmit mission clues to mobile phones (Paragraph 0109, line 6-9) of guests within said defined area.
Regarding claim 40, Weston discloses the attraction of claim 34 wherein said at least one processor is configured to run artificial intelligence and/or machine learning instructions for controlling special effects (paragraph 0088, line 1).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 5-6, 19-20, and 32-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen et al. (US 11,338,107) in view of Weston (US 2020/0276510).
Regarding claim 5, Allen et al. discloses the attraction of claim 1 but does not disclose at least one processor configured to transmit mission clues to mobile phones of guests within said defined area.
Furthermore, Weston teaches at least one processor configured to transmit mission clues to mobile phones of guests within said defined area. Weston reveals that it is known in the art of interactive attractions to transmit mission clues to mobile pheons of guests in order to guide users on what to do next. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to have modified the attraction of Allen et al. to incorporate the transmission of clues of Weston to provide a customized user experience to guide patron on what to do next.
Regarding claim 6, Allen et al. discloses the attraction of claim 1 but does not disclose at least one processor configured to run artificial intelligence and/or machine learning instructions for controlling special effects.
Furthermore, Weston teaches at least one processor configured to run artificial intelligence instructions for controlling special effects (paragraph 0088, line 1). Weston reveals that it is known in the art of interactive attractions to use artificial intelligence to customize the responses of the attraction to a patron interacting in the space. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to have modified the attraction of Allen et al. to incorporate the artificial intelligence instructions of Weston to provide a customized user experience to each patron.
Regarding claim 19, Allen et al. discloses the system of claim 14 but does not disclose at least one processor configured to transmit mission clues to mobile phones of guests within said defined area.
Furthermore, Weston teaches at least one processor configured to transmit mission clues to mobile phones of guests within said defined area. Weston reveals that it is known in the art of interactive attractions to transmit mission clues to mobile pheons of guests in order to guide users on what to do next. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to have modified the system of Allen et al. to incorporate the transmission of clues of Weston to provide a customized user experience to guide patron on what to do next.
Regarding claim 20, Allen et al. discloses the system of claim 14 but does not disclose at least one processor configured to run artificial intelligence and/or machine learning instructions for controlling special effects.
Furthermore, Weston teaches at least one processor configured to run artificial intelligence instructions for controlling special effects (paragraph 0088, line 1). Weston reveals that it is known in the art of interactive attractions to use artificial intelligence to customize the responses of the attraction to a patron interacting in the space. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to have modified the system of Allen et al. to incorporate the artificial intelligence instructions of Weston to provide a customized user experience to each patron.
Regarding claim 32, Allen et al. discloses the system of claim 28 but does not disclose at least one processor configured to transmit mission clues to mobile phones of guests within said defined area.
Furthermore, Weston teaches at least one processor configured to transmit mission clues to mobile phones of guests within said defined area. Weston reveals that it is known in the art of interactive attractions to transmit mission clues to mobile pheons of guests in order to guide users on what to do next. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to have modified the system of Allen et al. to incorporate the transmission of clues of Weston to provide a customized user experience to guide patron on what to do next.
Regarding claim 33, Allen et al. discloses the system of claim 28 but does not disclose at least one processor configured to run artificial intelligence and/or machine learning instructions for controlling special effects.
Furthermore, Weston teaches at least one processor configured to run artificial intelligence instructions for controlling special effects (paragraph 0088, line 1). Weston reveals that it is known in the art of interactive attractions to use artificial intelligence to customize the responses of the attraction to a patron interacting in the space. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to have modified the system of Allen et al. to incorporate the artificial intelligence instructions of Weston to provide a customized user experience to each patron.
Claim(s) 8-11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen et al. (US 11,338,107) in view of Bergdale et al. (US 2015/0084741).
Regarding claim 8, Allen et al. discloses a method comprising:
utilizing at least one processor (Figure 2, element 202, 220) in communication with one or more sensors (Figure 2, element 280) and special effects (Column 31, line 27-50);
positioning one or more sensors in a defined area, said one or more sensors configured to determine a location of one or more people in said defined area (Column 4, line 19-21);
positioning one or more special effects in said defined area (Column 4, line 39-43).
Allen et al. does not disclose a method using the at least one processor receiving outputs of said one or more sensors determining if a person in said defined area has experienced said one or more special effects based on a feature or item unique to a person or a last time a person experienced said one or more special effects; and responsive to said at last one processor and/or one or more sensors determining (i) a person in said defined area not having experienced the one or more special effects previously or (ii) a person has experienced said one or more special effects previously and a pre-established amount of time has passed since a person last experienced said one or more special effects, triggering at least one of said one or more special effects.
However, Bergdale et al. discloses a system and method for electronic ticket validation in an automated turnstile using a proximity detector comprised of a computer processor (Figure 6, element 201) and a proximity sensor (Figure 6, elements 100, 101, and 102) for determining the validity of a ticket. Upon verification that the user’s credentials are valid and the ticket has not already been used, the object ticket is encrypted a unique on-time identifier (paragraph 0037, line 1-15), and the user is permitted entry. Upon validation, the computer (Figure 6, element 201) sends a command to a turnstile controller (Figure 6, element 204), which actuates the turnstile motor (Figure 6, element 205) for entry (see [0016] and [0026]). Bergdale et al. also teaches a method of assigning a predetermined lock time (Paragraph 0043, line 1), where the validation and assignment of a ticket to a device will unlock after that predetermined time has passed to prevent the ticket from being used on multiple devices.
Bergdale et al. reveals that it is known in the art of electronic passes to determine if a user has experienced an effect, or if a predetermined amount of time has passed via a computer processor and proximity sensors to validate tickets. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to have modified the method of Allen et al. to incorporate the computer processor and proximity sensors of Bergdale et al.to allow only valid ticket holders into an attraction.
Regarding claim 9, Allen et al. in view of Bergdale et al. discloses the method of claim 8. Allen et all further discloses utilizing one or more of the following: heat sensors, location sensors, proximity sensors (Column 4, line 19-21), infrared sensors, pressure sensors, temperature sensors, force sensors, vibration sensors, piezo sensors, fluid property sensors, humidity sensors, strain sensors, photo optic sensors, weight sensors, ultrasonic sensors, IR sensors, biometric sensors and touch sensors.
Regarding claim 10, Allen et al. in view of Bergdale et al. discloses the method of claim 8. Allen et all further discloses integrating sensors into tangible articles including an air conditioning unit, wall control unit (Figure 1, element 182a), deadbolt, key card, room service menu, dumb waiter, tv controller, door knob, shower, faucet, and/or mat.
Regarding claim 11, Allen et al. in view of Bergdale et al. discloses the method of claim 10. Allen et all further discloses triggering said special effects responsive to use of said tangible articles (Column 16, line 55-64).
Regarding claim 13, Allen et al. in view of Bergdale et al. discloses the method of claim 10. Allen et al. additionally discloses a method wherein said at least one processor includes a central processor and one or more remote processors in communication therewith (Column 19, line 48-51).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen et al. (US 11,338,107) in view of Bergdale et al. (US 2015/0084741) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Weston (US 2020/0276510).
Regarding claim 12, Allen et al. in view of Bergdale et al. discloses the method of claim 8 but does not disclose utilizing at least one processor configured to run artificial intelligence and/or machine learning instructions for controlling special effects.
Furthermore, Weston teaches at least one processor configured to run artificial intelligence instructions for controlling special effects (paragraph 0088, line 1). Weston reveals that it is known in the art of interactive attractions to use artificial intelligence to customize the responses of the attraction to a patron interacting in the space. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to have modified the attraction of Allen et al. in view of Bergdale et al. to incorporate the artificial intelligence instructions of Weston to provide a customized user experience to each patron.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen et al. (US 11,338,107) in view of Comploi (US 2017/0021282).
Regarding claim 17, Allen at al. discloses the system of claim 14 but does not disclose one or more sensors include biometric sensors relying on passive facial recognition detectors and iris scanners.
Furthermore, Comploi teaches an attraction using one or more sensors including biometric sensors relying on passive facial recognition detectors and iris scanners (Paragraph 0024, line 17). Comploi reveals that it is known in the art of interactive attractions to use biometric sensors relying on passive facial recognition detectors and iris scanners to recognize the identity of patrons in the attraction space. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to have modified the system of Allen et al. to incorporate the biometric sensors relying on passive facial recognition detectors and iris scanners instructions of Comploi to provide a customized user experience to each patron.
Claim(s) 27 and 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weston (US 2020/0276510) in view of Allen et al. (US 11,338,107).
Regarding claim 27, Weston discloses the attraction of claim 22 but does not disclose the at least one processor including a central processor and one or more remote processors in communication therewith.
However, Allen et al. teaches at least one processor including a central processor and one or more remote processors in communication therewith (Column 19, line 48-51). Allen reveals that it is known in the art of interactive attractions to use a central processor and one or more remote processors in communication therewith to allow computers in the networked system to be controlled and operated by a facility in which the attraction is located. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to have modified the system of Weston to incorporate the central processor and one or more remote processors in communication therewith of Allen et al. to allow for remote facility control of special effects in the attraction.
Regarding claim 41, Weston discloses the attraction of claim 34 but does not disclose the at least one processor including a central processor and one or more remote processors in communication therewith.
However, Allen et al. teaches at least one processor including a central processor and one or more remote processors in communication therewith (Column 19, line 48-51). Allen reveals that it is known in the art of interactive attractions to use a central processor and one or more remote processors in communication therewith to allow computers in the networked system to be controlled and operated by a facility in which the attraction is located. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to have modified the system of Weston to incorporate the central processor and one or more remote processors in communication therewith of Allen et al. to allow for remote facility control of special effects in the attraction.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 8, and 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7, and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,673,066. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 8. and 14 under examination are anticipated, respectively, by claims 1, 7, and 15 of the reference patent. Every limitation in the application under examination claims is recited in the conflicting reference patent claims, and the difference between the claims are highlighted below by bolding all limitations that differ, italicizing additional limitations, and underlining limitations that will be addressed below.
Instant Application 18/333,489
US Patent 11,673,066
An attraction comprising:
a defined area;
at least one processor in communication with one or more sensors positioned to detect locations of one or more people in said defined area and one or more special effects in said defined area, wherein said one or more special effects in said defined area are configured to be triggered responsive to people being detected by said one or more sensors at one or more pre-established locations within said defined area; and
wherein said one or more special effects are selectively triggered by said at least one processor only if it is determined by said at least one processor and/or one or more sensors that (i) a person has not previously experienced said one or more special effects based on a feature or item unique to a person or (ii) a person has experienced said one or more special effects previously based on a feature or item unique to a person and a pre-established amount of time has passed since a person last experienced said one or more special effects.
An attraction comprising:
a room;
a central controller in communication with one or more sensors positioned to detect locations of one or more people in said room and one or more special effects in said room, wherein said one or more special effects in said room are configured to be triggered responsive to people being detected by said one or more sensors at one or more pre-established locations within said room; and
wherein said one or more special effects are selectively triggered by said central controller only if it is determined by said central controller and/or one or more sensors that (i) a person has not previously experienced said one or more special effects based on a feature or item unique to a person or (ii) a person has experienced said one or more special effects previously based on a feature or item unique to a person and a pre-established amount of time has passed since a person last experienced said one or more special effects.
As show in the mapping above, claim 1 of the instant application differs from claim 1 of the reference patent in that it recites a “defined area” rather than a “room, and “one or more processors” rather than a “central controller.” However, the instant disclosure at paragraph [0020] shows that a “room” falls within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the category encompassed by “defined area,” and the instant disclosure at paragraph [0020] shows that a “central controller” falls within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the category encompassed by “one or more processors.” Thus, the “room” of the reference patent claim 1 anticipates the “defined area” of claim 1 of the instant application and the “central controller” of the reference patent claim 1 anticipates the “one or more processors” of claim 1 of the instant application.
Instant Application 18/333,489
US Patent 11,673,066
A method comprising:
utilizing at least one processor in communication with one or more sensors and special effects;
positioning one or more sensors in a defined area, said one or more sensors configured to determine a location of one or more people in said defined area; positioning one or more special effects in said defined area; via said at least one processor receiving outputs of said one or more sensors determining if a person in said defined area has experienced said one or more special effects based on a feature or item unique to a person or a last time a person experienced said one or more special effects; and responsive to said at last one processor and/or one or more sensors determining (i) a person in said defined area not having experienced the one or more special effects previously or (ii) a person has experienced said one or more special effects previously and a pre-established amount of time has passed since a person last experienced said one or more special effects, triggering at least one of said one or more special effects.
A method comprising:
utilizing a central controller in communication with one or more sensors and special effects;
positioning one or more sensors in a room, said one or more sensors configured to determine a location of one or more people in said room; positioning one or more special effects in said room; via said a central controller receiving outputs of said one or more sensors determining if a person in said room has experienced said one or more special effects based on a feature or item unique to a person or a last time a person experienced said one or more special effects; and responsive to said a central controller and/or one or more sensors determining (i) a person in said room not having experienced the one or more special effects previously or (ii) a person has experienced said one or more special effects previously and a pre-established amount of time has passed since a person last experienced said one or more special effects, triggering at least one of said one or more special effects.
As show in the mapping above, claim 8 of the instant application differs from claim 7 of the reference patent in that it recites a “defined area” rather than a “room, and “one or more processors” rather than a “central controller.” However, the instant disclosure at paragraph [0020] shows that a “room” falls within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the category encompassed by “defined area,” and the instant disclosure at paragraph [0020] shows that a “central controller” falls within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the category encompassed by “one or more processors.” Thus, the “room” of the reference patent claim 7 anticipates the “defined area” of claim 8 of the instant application and the “central controller” of the reference patent claim 7 anticipates the “one or more processors” of claim 8 of the instant application.
Instant Application 18/333,489
US Patent 11,673,066
A system comprising:
at least one processor;
a defined attraction area having one or more sensors and one or more special effects, each in communication with said at least one processor, said one or more sensors positioned and configured to detect the identity of persons entering said defined attraction area and determine the location of identified persons entering said defined attraction area; and
wherein upon confirming an identify of a person entering said defined attraction area and determining, via said at least one processor and/or one or more sensors, that said identified person (i) has not previously experienced said one or more special effects or (ii) a person has experienced said one or more special effects previously and a pre-established amount of time has passed since a person last experienced said one or more special effects, said at least one processor configured to trigger said one or more of said special effects within said defined attraction area.
A system comprising:
a central controller;
a defined attraction area having one or more biometric sensors, one or more location sensors and one or more special effects, each in communication with said central controller, said one or more biometric sensors positioned and configured to detect the identity of persons entering said defined attraction area and said one or more location sensors positioned and configured to determine the location of identified persons entering said defined attraction area; and
wherein upon confirming an identify of a person entering said defined attraction area and determining, via said central controller and/or one or more sensors , that said identified person (i) has not previously experienced said one or more special effects or (ii) a person has experienced said one or more special effects previously and a pre-established amount of time has passed since a person last experienced said one or more special effects, said central controller configured to trigger said one or more of said special effects within said defined attraction area.
As show in the mapping above, claim 14 of the instant application differs from claim 15 of the reference patent in that it recites “one or more processors” rather than a “central controller,” and that it recites “one or more sensors” rather than “one or more biometric sensors” and “one or more location sensors.” However, the instant disclosure at paragraph [0020] shows that a “central controller” falls within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the category encompassed by “one or more processors,” paragraph [0005] shows that a “location sensor” falls within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the category encompassed by “sensor,” and paragraph [0029] shows that a “biometric sensor” falls within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the category encompassed by “sensor.” Thus, the “the “central controller” of the reference patent claim 15 anticipates the “one or more processors” of claim 14 of the instant application and the “the “location sensor” and “biometric sensor” of the reference patent claim 15 anticipates the “sensor” of claim 14 of the instant application.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KALYN G YOUNGER whose telephone number is (571)272-0733. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 AM-5 PM.
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, Nicholas Weiss can be reached at (571) 270-1775. 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.
/K.G.Y./Examiner, Art Unit 3711
/NICHOLAS J. WEISS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711