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)(4) because the specification refers to system 100 for drawing 1, however, the object in drawing 1 annotates item 300 as the system and not 100.
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.
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.
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) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siddharth (SG-195397-A1), in view of Kuo (US-8212744-B2).
Siddharth teaches:
In regards to claim 1, Siddharth teaches a system, comprising: (abstract)
a projection surface comprising: (fig(s) 3-5, pg(s) 3-5, ‘teaches a ‘opacity layer’, ‘privacy layer’, and a ‘base layer’)
a first layer comprising a material that prevents reflection of light, (line 5 page 4, ‘rigidity layer made of glass, poly carbonate or acrylic.’; fig(s) 3-5, ‘base layer’)
a second layer comprising a transparent image forming material, and (page 5; ‘ recites in the second layer a film may be provided up to 99% reduction of UV light transmission.; ‘polyester layer’’)
a third layer comprising a privacy screen filter, (‘the invention comprises a ‘privacy layer shown in figure 3.’)
wherein the second layer is provided between the first layer and the third layer; and (fig(s) 3-5, ‘comprises a second layer or more as shown in fig. 4 as known to those in the art and disclosed in the specification these layers may be interchanged or placed according to function and needed configuration.’)
a light source configured to emit light on the projection surface to create an image on the projection surface, (14 fig(s) 1-2, ‘show a front and rear projection screen orientation’)
wherein the light source faces the first layer, (14 fig. 1)
wherein the third layer causes the projection surface to appear translucent from a viewpoint of the light source emitting the light at the projection angle. (fig(s) 3-5, ‘opacity layer’; page 4, ‘the layer can vary the intensity of transmitted light passing though it.’)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Siddharth to provide a system to display 3D images or video to provide volumetric illusion of objects which is selectively operable to display props, objects, images or video.
Siddharth does not teach:
wherein the light is emitted at a projection angle on the projection surface, and
Kuo teaches:
wherein the light is emitted at a projection angle on the projection surface, and (118 fig. 2, ‘shows and image source projected at an angle to a see-through screen 102 for a rear projection screen which can be implemented in a front projection screen therefore it is known in the art.’)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Kuo to provide an angle light projection source for a system to display 3D images or video to provide volumetric illusion of objects which is selectively operable to display props, objects, images or video.
In regards to claim 2, Siddharth & Kuo teach a system of claim 1, (see claim rejection 1) Siddharth teaches wherein a first clear adhesive material is provided between the first layer and the second layer, and wherein a second clear adhesive material is provided between the second layer and the third layer. (Siddharth: page 3, ‘recites: various layers can be placed one after another and may be glued together using standard or UV clear glue or other adhesive.’)
In regards to claim 3, Siddharth & Kuo teach a system of claim 1, (see claim rejection 1) Siddharth teaches wherein the projection surface further comprises a fourth layer comprising a plexiglass material, and wherein the third layer is provided between the second layer and the fourth layer. (Siddharth: figure 4, ‘shows 4 or more layers that can comprise the screen.; 10-19 page 5)
In regards to claim 4, Siddharth & Kuo teach a system of claim 3, (see claim rejection 3) Siddharth teaches wherein a first clear adhesive material is provided between the first layer and the second layer, wherein a second clear adhesive material is provided between the second layer and the third layer, and wherein a third clear adhesive material is provided between the third layer and the fourth layer. (Siddharth: page 3, ‘recites: various layers can be placed one after another and may be glued together using standard or UV clear glue or other adhesive.’)
In regards to claim 5, Siddharth & Kuo teach a system of claim 1, (see claim rejection 1) Kuo teaches wherein the viewpoint is a first viewpoint, wherein the projection angle is a first projection angle, and wherein the third layer causes the projection surface to appear transparent from a second viewpoint of a guest at a second projection angle different than the first projection angle. (Kuo: 118 fig. 2, ‘shows and image source projected at an angle to a see-through screen 102 for a rear projection screen which can be implemented in a front projection screen therefore it is known in the art.’; page 4; ‘essentially shows an angled camera projection angle, and the viewers/observers angle which is different.’)
In regards to claim 6, Siddharth & Kuo teach a system of claim 1, (see claim rejection 1) Siddharth & Kuo teach wherein the third layer prevents a portion of the light from being projected on an additional surface. (Kuo: fig(s) 3-5, ‘opacity layer’; page 4, ‘the layer can vary the intensity of transmitted light passing though it.’; Siddharth: page 5; ‘ recites in the second layer a film may be provided up to 99% reduction of UV light transmission.; ‘polyester layer’’)
In regards to claim 7, Siddharth & Kuo teach a system of claim 1, (see claim rejection 1) Siddharth teach wherein the light source comprises an image projector. (14 fig(s) 1-2, ‘projector’)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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) 8-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Siddharth (SG-195397-A1).
In regards to claim 8, Siddharth teaches a transparent projection surface comprising: (abstract)
a first layer comprising a material that prevents reflection of light; (line 5 page 4, ‘rigidity layer made of glass, poly carbonate or acrylic.’; fig(s) 3-5, ‘base layer’)
a second layer comprising a transparent image forming material; and (page 5; ‘ recites in the second layer a film may be provided up to 99% reduction of UV light transmission.; ‘polyester layer’’)
a third layer comprising a privacy screen filter, , (‘the invention comprises a ‘privacy layer shown in figure 3.’)
wherein the second layer is provided between the first layer and the third layer, and (fig(s) 3-5, ‘comprises a second layer or more as shown in fig. 4 as known to those in the art and disclosed in the specification these layers may be interchanged or placed according to function and needed configuration.’)
wherein the first layer is configured to receive light emitted by a light source. (14 fig. 1)
In regards to claim 9, Siddharth teaches a transparent projection surface of claim 8, further comprising: a fourth layer comprising a clear material, wherein the third layer is provided between the second layer and the fourth layer. (Siddharth: page 3, ‘recites: various layers can be placed one after another and may be glued together using standard or UV clear glue or other adhesive.’)
In regards to claim 10, Siddharth teaches a transparent projection surface of claim 9, (see claim rejection 9) wherein the clear material comprises: a plexiglass material, or a glass material. (Siddharth: line 5 page 4, ‘rigidity layer made of glass, poly carbonate or acrylic.’; fig(s) 3-5, ‘base layer’)
In regards to claim 11, Siddharth teaches a transparent projection surface of claim 9, (see claim rejection 9) wherein a first clear adhesive material is provided between the first layer and the second layer, and wherein a second clear adhesive material is provided between the second layer and the third layer. (Siddharth: page 3, ‘recites: various layers can be placed one after another and may be glued together using standard or UV clear glue or other adhesive.’)
In regards to claim 12, Siddharth teaches a transparent projection surface of claim 10, (see claim rejection 10) wherein a third clear adhesive material is provided between the third layer and the fourth layer. . (Siddharth: page 3, ‘recites: various layers can be placed one after another and may be glued together using standard or UV clear glue or other adhesive.’)
In regards to claim 13, Siddharth teaches a transparent projection surface of claim 9, wherein the first layer has a first width, and wherein the second layer has a second width. (fig(s) 3-5, ‘teaches layers with different widths.’)
In regards to claim 14, Siddharth teaches a transparent projection surface of claim 12, (see claim rejection 12) Siddharth teaches wherein the third layer has a third width, and wherein the fourth layer has a fourth width. (fig 4, ‘teaches layers with different widths.’)
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.
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) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siddharth (SG-195397-A1), in view of Kuo (US-8212744-B2).
Siddharth teaches:
In regards to claim 15, Siddharth teaches a transparent projection surface of claim 12, (see claim rejection 12)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Siddharth to provide a system to display 3D images or video to provide volumetric illusion of objects which is selectively operable to display props, objects, images or video.
Siddharth does not teach:
wherein the light is emitted at a projection angle on the transparent projection surface.
Kuo teaches:
wherein the light is emitted at a projection angle on the transparent projection surface. (118 fig. 2, ‘shows and image source projected at an angle to a see-through screen 102 for a rear projection screen which can be implemented in a front projection screen therefore it is known in the art.’)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Kuo to provide an angle light projection source for a system to display 3D images or video to provide volumetric illusion of objects which is selectively operable to display props, objects, images or video.
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.
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) 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siddharth (SG-195397-A1), in view of Kuo (US-8212744-B2).
Siddharth teaches:
In regards to claim 16, Siddharth teaches a method for manufacturing a projection surface, the method comprising: (abstract)
providing a first layer comprising a material that prevents reflection of light; (line 5 page 4, ‘rigidity layer made of glass, poly carbonate or acrylic.’; fig(s) 3-5, ‘base layer’)
providing a second layer comprising a transparent material; and and (page 5; ‘ recites in the second layer a film may be provided up to 99% reduction of UV light transmission.; ‘polyester layer’’)
providing a third layer comprising a privacy screen filter, (‘the invention comprises a ‘privacy layer shown in figure 3.’)
wherein the second layer is provided between the first layer and the third layer, (fig(s) 3-5, ‘comprises a second layer or more as shown in fig. 4 as known to those in the art and disclosed in the specification these layers may be interchanged or placed according to function and needed configuration.’)
wherein the third layer comprises a plurality of elements, (fig(s) 3-5)
wherein the plurality of elements cause the third layer to appear translucent when viewed from a first direction that is parallel to the projection angle, and . (fig(s) 3-5, ‘opacity layer’; page 4, ‘the layer can vary the intensity of transmitted light passing though it.’)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Siddharth to provide a system to display 3D images or video to provide volumetric illusion of objects which is selectively operable to display props, objects, images or video.
Siddharth does not teach:
wherein the plurality of elements cause the third layer to appear transparent when viewed from a second direction that is not parallel to the projection angle.
Kuo teaches:
wherein the plurality of elements cause the third layer to appear transparent when viewed from a second direction that is not parallel to the projection angle. (118 fig. 2, ‘shows and image source projected at an angle to a see-through screen 102 for a rear projection screen which can be implemented in a front projection screen therefore it is known in the art.’; ‘opacity layer’; page 4; ‘essentially shows an angled camera projection angle, and the viewers/observers angle which is different.’)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Kuo to provide an angle light projection source for a system to display 3D images or video to provide volumetric illusion of objects which is selectively operable to display props, objects, images or video.
In regards to claim 17, Siddharth & Kuo teach a method of claim 16, (see claim rejection 16) Siddharth teaches further comprising: providing a first clear adhesive material between the first layer and the second layer; and providing a second clear adhesive material between the second layer and the third layer. (Siddharth: page 3, ‘recites: various layers can be placed one after another and may be glued together using standard or UV clear glue or other adhesive.’)
In regards to claim 18, Siddharth & Kuo teach a method of claim 16, (see claim rejection 16) Siddharth teaches further comprising: providing a fourth layer comprising a plexiglass material, wherein the third layer is provided between the second layer and the fourth layer. (Siddharth: figure 4, ‘shows 4 or more layers that can comprise the screen.; 10-19 page 5)
In regards to claim 19, Siddharth & Kuo teach a method of claim 18, (see claim rejection 18) Siddharth teaches further comprising: providing a first clear adhesive material between the first layer and the second layer; providing a second clear adhesive material between the second layer and the third layer; and providing a third clear adhesive material between the third layer and the fourth layer. (Siddharth: page 3, ‘recites: various layers can be placed one after another and may be glued together using standard or UV clear glue or other adhesive.’)
In regards to claim 20, Siddharth & Kuo teach a method of claim 18, (see claim rejection 18) wherein the material that prevents reflection of light comprises: an anti-reflective material, or an anti-glare material. (Siddharth: page 5; ‘ recites in the second layer a film may be provided up to 99% reduction of UV light transmission.; ‘polyester layer’’)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references cited Smithwick (US-8857994), Duffy (US 2016/0165221), Coley (US-9110364), Kuo (US-7554730), Smithwick (US-9132361), and McNelley (US-6481851) references further describe a 3D projection apparatus as described by the claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN C BUTLER whose telephone number is (571)270-3973. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Stephanie E Bloss can be reached at (571)272-3555. 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.C.B/Examiner, Art Unit 2852
/STEPHANIE E BLOSS/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852