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 .
This action is responsive to communications filed on 12/21/2023. As per claim on 12/21/2023
Claims 1-10 are currently pending.
Claims 1 and 6 are independent claims.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 5, 6 objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 3, “object” should be “objects”.
In Claim 5, “universal console” should be “universal control console”.
In claim 6, line 7, “remote console interface” should be “remote control interface”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Prior Art
Listed herein below are the prior art references relied upon in this office action:
Fisher et al. (US 2007/0191966 A1, which has a priority date of 10/20/2005), referred to as Fisher herein.
Dangler et al. (US 5,283,861, which has a priority date of 08/31/1990), referred to as Dangler herein.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fisher.
Regarding Claim 1, Fisher teaches a universal control console for remotely managing operation of a plurality of theatrical objects, (Firstly, “There may also be two nodes assigned to an `operating controller`. The operating controller can monitor data from each winch, share that data with all other axes, and also displays that data.” (¶ 0016), meaning the operating controller node functions as the universal control console. A single centralized interface that monitors, manages, and displays the status and operation of all connected theatrical objects across the entire system. Secondly, “Full-function scalability is provided from one to many machines, wherein neither processor nor device boundaries exist but rather each device has to option of exchanging its operational data with that any other device at any time, in real time.” (Abstract), meaning the system remotely manages operation of plurality of theatrical objects, with the operating controller node able to communicate with and control every device on the network in real time. Lastly, “techniques are provided for coordinating the moving of objects, such as is part of a theatrical performance on a stage in performance venues such as theaters, arenas, concert halls, auditoriums, schools, clubs, convention centers and television studios, and wherein examples of these objects include theatrical props, cameras, stunt persons (e.g., "wirework"), lighting, scenery, drapery and other equipment.” (¶ 0005), explicitly disclosing that the system controls a plurality of theatrical objects, including props, lighting, scenery, and etc., from a single operating controller. Additionally, Fig 1 shows all devices and nodes on the network visible to the operator at the operating controller console);
the universal control console comprising: a theatrical object operably coupled to a local controller, (“A machine that moves an object is referred to as an `axis` in the implementation… An axis driver controls a machine that moves an object. Thus, an axis controller is a machine controller. Logically, each `axis` is a process that runs under the QNX real time operating system (O/S),” (¶ 0013 - 0014), meaning each theatrical object is operably coupled to its own dedicated axis node, which serves as the local controller. This local controller comprises a processor running the QNX real-time OS, a control process (axis drive), and a communication interface);
the local controller having a local user interface and a local control interface; (“The table allows the system operator to view what is going on in the network from an operator interface (e.g.; a display monitor), screen shot 100 allows the system operator to look at all the different network modes, their addresses, what they are doing, how many processes they are running, and inter-device communications.” (¶ 0026) and “each device has to option of exchanging its operational data with that any other device at any time, in real time.” (Abstract), meaning each local axis node has both: a local user interface (the per node display and interaction capability visible through the operator interface) and a local control interface (the real time network interface through which each node exchanges operational data with every other node, including the operating controller));
a remote control system having a remote control interface and a remote user interface, the remote user interface being disposed on the universal control console; (“There may also be two nodes assigned to an `operating controller`. The operating controller can monitor data from each winch, share that data with all other axes, and also displays that data.” (¶ 0016)”, meaning the operating controller node constitutes the remote control system. It has a network interface serving as the remote control interface through which it communicates with all local axis nodes and the Navigator graphical user interface serving as the remote user interface, which is physically disposed on the operating controller console. Additionally, Fig 1 shows the Navigator system screenshot displayed on the operating controller console; thus, the remote user interface is disposed on the universal control console);
communication between the remote control interface and the local control interface operably coupling the remote control system to the local control system and enabling control of the theatrical object by the remote user interface. (“Full-function scalability is provided from one to many machines, wherein neither processor nor device boundaries exist but rather each device has to option of exchanging its operational data with that any other device at any time, in real time.” (Abstract), meaning the real time NAV: Net network provides the communication link between the operating controller node’s network interface (remote control interface) and each axis node’s network interface (local control interface), operably coupling the remote control system to each local controller and enabling the operator to control every theatrical object from the Navigator GUI remote user interface. Additionally, “a node can go off line and then come back on line….Since every machine has its own node, if a node goes offline, the network is still present and functioning as a collection of the remaining on line nodes.” (¶ 0020), this reinforces that the real time network communication is always active and operably coupling the remote and local interfaces);
therefore, Fisher anticipates all the limitation of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 2, Fisher teaches the universal control console of claim 1, wherein the remote user interface comprises at least one of a display screen, a push button, a slider, and a rotary knob. (“An emergency stop, such as single manually pushed button, can function in the system of the implementation to turn the power off simultaneously to all machines. When power is turned off to all machines, then a conventional mechanical brake on each machine activates to stop all movement.” (¶ 0023), meaning the remote user interface of the operating controller console includes at least a manually pushed button as one of its input controls. Additionally, Fig 1 shows the Navigator system graphical user interface screenshot displayed on the operating controller console, which depicts a display screen as another element of the remote user interface. This satisfies the conditional limitation of the claim).
Regarding Claim 3, Fisher teaches the universal control console of claim 1, wherein the plurality of theatrical object comprises at least one of a stage machine, a lighting component, an audio component, a pyrotechnic component, and a video component. (“techniques are provided for coordinating the moving of objects, such as is part of a theatrical performance on a stage in performance venues such as theaters, arenas, concert halls, auditoriums, schools, clubs, convention centers and television studios, and wherein examples of these objects include theatrical props, cameras, stunt persons (e.g., "wirework"), lighting, scenery, drapery and other equipment.” (¶ 0005) and “Such venues employ machines, such as winches, hoists, battens, or trusses to move various objects relative to a stage or floor.” (¶ 0011), meaning the plurality of theatrical objects controlled by the system includes, lighting and stage machinery such as winches, hoists, and battens used to move scenery and props. Thus, disclosing stage machines and lighting component. This satisfies the conditional limitation of the claim).
Regarding Claim 5, Fisher teaches the universal console of claim 1, wherein the remote user interface includes an emergency stop interface configured to stop operation of the plurality of theatrical objects. (“An emergency stop, such as single manually pushed button, can function in the system of the implementation to turn the power off simultaneously to all machines. When power is turned off to all machines, then a conventional mechanical brake on each machine activates to stop all movement.” (¶ 0023) and “The row labeled "ESC _s.sub.--13" and those labeled "estop" are emergency stop controller devices. These devices, for instance, can prevent theatrical objects from colliding if a system operator pushes an emergency stop button that causes a removing of power from the corresponding machine is moving. Then, brakes are applied in the absence of power and movement stops.” (¶ 0030), meaning the remote user interface of the operating controller console includes an emergency stop button (a manually pushed button) that when activated, removes power from and stops operation of all machines connected to the system, simultaneously. Additionally, Fig 1 shows nodes labeled “ESC-s--13” and “estop” in the network table. These are the emergency stop controller nodes accessible from the operating controller console. Thus, this directly teaches a remote user interface that includes an emergency stop interface configured to stop operation of the plurality of the theatrical objects).
Regarding Claim 6, a method claim that incorporates the system of claim 1, is being rejected using the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 7, it is being rejected using the same reasons as claim 2.
Regarding Claim 9, it is being rejected using the same reasons as claim 3.
Regarding Claim 10, it is being rejected using the same reasons as claim 5.
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.
Claim(s) 4, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher in view of Dangler.
Regarding Claim 4, Fisher does not explicitly disclose the remote user interface mimicking the local user interface.
However, Dangler teaches the universal control console of claim 1, wherein the remote user interface mimics the local user interface. (“The first processor console transmits to the second processor console an identification of a panel template for display on the second display screen. The second processor console receives the panel template identification, determines if the panel template identification identifies a panel stored in the second storage means and displays the panel on the second display screen if the identification identifies a panel stored in the second storage device, and requests transmission of the identified panel template if the second storage device does not contain the identified panel template.” (Abstract), meaning the first (local) processor console transmits its panel template to the second (remote) processor console, which then displays the identical panel template on its screen. Additionally, “A general object of the present invention is to provide efficient remote control of a local processor and an application running on the local processor, and parallel display of application panels on a local processor console and a remote processor console.” (Col 3, line 32-36). Thus, the remote user interface displays the same interface as the local user interface);
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the theatrical object automation control system of Fisher with the remote console panel mirroring system of Dangler to achieve a universal control console wherein the remote user interface mimics the local user interface of each theatrical object’s local controller.
The motivation for doing so would have been, as stated by Dangler “to provide remote control and parallel display of the foregoing object yet provide flexibility and standardization in the implementation.” (Col 3, line 37-40), to provide flexibility and allow the remote operator to control theatrical objects from a location distant from those objects while interacting with a consistent, standardized interface they are already trained on at the local theatrical object controller. Also, reducing operator error during live performances, eliminating the need to learn a separate accurate, intuitive control of complex stage machinery, lighting, and other theatrical objects from a centralized remote console. Therefore, yielding predictable results using known, well-understood remote console techniques with no change in the function of either component.
Regarding Claim 8, it is being rejected under the same rationale as claim 4.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANDNI PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-9661. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-4pm, every other Friday off.
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, Scott Baderman can be reached at (571)272-3644. 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.
/CHANDNI PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 2118
/SCOTT T BADERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights