DETAILED ACTION
This is a first action final Office Action on the merits for U.S. App. 18/543,176. Receipt of the RCE filed on 01/07/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 are examined.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submissions filed on 01/07/2026 and 12/29/2025 have been entered. As a note, the claims filed on 12/29/2025 did not amend or change the status of any of the claims previously presented on 09/10/2025 and thus were not noted in the Advisory Action as such a claim set were not “proposed amendments.”
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 and 4-9 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Giglio et al. (U.S. Patent 5,765,314) in view of Bittermann (DE 202009006703) and Biles (U.S. Patent 5,329,323), or in the alternative in view of Bittermann, Biles, and Magpuri (U.S. Publication 2007/0193123) as previously presented.
Regarding claim 1, Giglio et al. disclose a venue (#10) comprising:
an exterior structure (#60) having a spherical or hemispherical shape (see figure 2);
a theater area (#172) inside the exterior structure (see figure 1), the theater area including an interior curved surface (the curved surface formed by elements #44);
an audience seating area (#12) positioned in the theater area (see figure 1);
a first plurality of displays positioned to facilitate providing a first display along the interior curved surface and in front of, to the side, above, and behind at least a portion of the audience seating area (col. 4, ll. 53-56 disclose the displays #44 surround the entire seating areas #12 so as to be above, and around such seats and are provided along such an interior curved surface).
However, Giglio et al. do not disclose a second plurality of LEDs positioned to facilitate providing a second display around at least a majority of the spherical-like shape of the exterior structure or that the first plurality of displays comprise LEDs as well. Bittermann discloses that such venues can comprise of a perimeter formed by four sides made up of image/video display areas, where such areas can comprise of projection screens or LED walls, where the ceiling and/or floor of such a venue can also comprise of such displays and the displays can be provided on the inside, inside and outside, or only outside of the venue using different techniques. See paragraphs 6 and 7 of the English translation. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided LEDs on the exterior of the dome of Giglio et al., as taught in Bittermann, in order to further entice customers to come to the venue and provide displays and advertisements during use of the venue. It would have also been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the projection screens and projectors of Giglio et al. for LED walls and displays, as taught in Bittermann, in order to provide easier and clearer displays and images for the users of the venue while also updating the display technology of such a system.
Furthermore, Giglio et al. do not disclose the first display comprises a composite image formed by light from a front screen and light from a back screen, with the front screen being transparent and in front of the back screen. However, such composite imagery is known and used in the art. Biles teaches that front #16 and rear #18 screens can be used to product the sensation of 3-dimensional viewing, where the front screen #16 comprises a plurality of perforations so that the screen reflects a sufficient amount of foreground image and transmits a sufficient amount of the background image for visualization by an audience of viewers. The back screen #18 is positioned so as to be viewed simultaneously with the front projection screen and is capable of absorbing any of the foreground image transmitted from the front projection screen. Col. 2, ll. 25-42. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the first display with front and rear displays within the interior of Giglio et al., where the front screen comprises of perforations so as to be semi-transparent and together with the rear display to form 3-d imagery, as taught in Biles, in order to provide a more immersive sensation and viewing for the audience of the venue of Giglio et al. As explained above, Bittermann teaches that projection screens and LED displays can be used in place of one another and Biles teaches of preventing image bleed from the front screen to the rear and thus the prior art would benefit from the updated technology of using a rear LED display that would prevent reflecting or showing the front projected image thereon.
Regarding the limitations defining “the audience seating area having a plurality of levels of seating,” each area #14, #16, #18, and #20 of Giglio et al. can be considered a different “level” of seating and thus meet such limitations as broadly defined. However, if the Examiner is considered to over broadly interpret the term “level” and for compact prosecution purposes, though claim 8 of Giglio et al. disclose the floor of the audience theater area can be tiered, Giglio et al. do not specifically disclose the seating area comprises of a plurality of different heights of rows for the seating of individuals. Giglio et al. do disclose the theater floor #172 can be reshaped and moved in order to maximize performance area and sight lines. It is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Magpuri, that circular theaters which comprise of moveable floors #60 can comprise of a seating area #55 so as to be surrounded by a 360 degree display #40, where such seats in the seating area comprise of gradually tiered seats (see paragraph 61) and the floor #60 can move with three degrees of freedom in order to give the viewers a heightened view and experience of the images (see paragraphs 14 and 20). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the seating area of Giglio et al. with different rows of seating at different heights, as taught in Magpuri, in order to provide better viewing experiences for each user depending on the position of the user and the location of the display being focused on, where the movement of the seating area floor (as taught in Giglio et al. and Magpuri) and the ability of such seats to rotate (as taught in Giglio et al.) would allow for a heightened experience of the activities being conducted.
Regarding claim 4, Giglio et al. in view of Bittermann and Biles, or in the alternative in view of Bittermann, Biles, and Magpuri, render obvious the interior curved surface has a spherical-like shape (See figure 1 of Giglio et al., where such an interior curved surface #44 extends 360 degrees and is rounded so as to be considered a spherical segment and thus “spherical-like” as defined. Alternatively, Magpuri discloses spherical segments, as depicted in figure 2, or semi-spherical shapes, as depicted in figure 18, can be used for such an interior curved surface and it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a semi-spherical spherical-like curved interior surface for the venue of Giglio et al., as taught in Magpuri, in order to provide a heightened visual experience as needed by the performer at the time of use of the venue.).
Regarding claim 5, Giglio et al. in view of Bittermann and Biles, or in the alternative in view of Bittermann, Biles, and Magpuri, render obvious a stage (Giglio et al.; #24) positioned in the theater area (see figure 1 of Giglio et al.).
Regarding claim 6, Giglio et al. in view of Bittermann and Biles, or in the alternative in view of Bittermann, Biles, and Magpuri, render obvious the stage is movable (col. 4, ll. 38-56 of Giglio et al. disclose the stage #24 is hydraulically controlled in order to move the stage to different tiered heights).
Regarding claim 7, Giglio et al. in view of Bittermann and Biles, or in the alternative in view of Bittermann, Biles, and Magpuri, render obvious the audience seating area is arranged in a curved orientation and at least partially encircles the stage (see figure 1 of Giglio et al.).
Regarding claim 8, Giglio et al. in view of Bittermann and Biles, or in the alternative in view of Bittermann, Biles, and Magpuri, render obvious the second plurality of LEDs are positioned to facilitate providing the second display substantially around an entirety of the spherical-like shape of the exterior structure (paragraphs 6 and 7 of Bittermann disclose the second display of LEDs can be provided on all of the perimeter walls and ceiling of the venue exterior, where such features would be provided within Giglio et al., as explained above, in order to provide such a display substantially around an entirety of the exterior as defined.).
Regarding claim 9, Giglio et al. in view of Bittermann and Biles, or in the alternative in view of Bittermann, Biles, and Magpuri, render obvious an interior structure (Giglio et al., the structure used to form and separate corridor #50 and theater area #172) positioned inside the exterior structure (see figure 1 of Giglio et al.), the interior structure defining the theater area (see figure 1 of Giglio et al., where the inner structure forming the corridor #50 forms the inner theater area of the venue); and open space positioned between the exterior structure and the interior structure (the space within the corridor #50 of Giglio et al. which allows workers to move through the venue as needed ).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Giglio et al. in view of Bittermann, Biles, and Magpuri, as previously presented.
Regarding claim 2, Giglio et al. in view of Bittermann, Biles, and Magpuri render obvious a mezzanine area positioned inside the exterior structure, outside the theater area, and at least partially beneath the audience seating area (Giglio et al. teach at col. 7, ll. 17-27 that such a theater building #10 can comprise of front of house spaces which can include concession areas and rest rooms, which can be considered the mezzanine area located inside the exterior surface and outside the theater area as defined. Though Giglio et al. do not specifically disclose the mezzanine is located at least partially beneath the audience seating area, Magpuri disclose the seating area can be located at a similar area as exit/entry doors #22 and #24 or the seating area can be raised such that stairs #140 are required to access the seating area above an entry door #20 and thus provide the seating area above a front entrance area of the venue. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the mezzanine of Giglio et al. to be at least partially below the seating area, such as by raising the seating area and providing access to the seating area through the use of stairs as taught in Magpuri, since Magpuri teaches the height of the seating area compared to an entry area can be changed to be at the same level or above and below one another and yield the same predictable result of providing an enjoyable experience to users of the venue while providing an easy entry and egress to the seating area.).
Regarding claim 3, Giglio et al. in view of Bittermann, Biles, and Magpuri render obvious the mezzanine area provides at least one of a bar, a lounge, dining, food and beverage sales, additional seating, or merchandise sales (Giglio et al. teach at col. 7, ll. 17-27 that such a theater building #10 can comprise of front of house spaces which can include concession areas, which concession areas are considered the food and beverage sales as defined).
Claims 10, 12-17, and 19 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Giglio et al. in view of Bittermann, as previously presented.
Regarding claim 10, Giglio et al. disclose a venue (#10) comprising:
an exterior structure (#60) having a spherical or hemispherical shape (see figure 2);
a theater area (#172) inside the exterior structure (see figure 1),
a stage (#24) positioned in the theater area (see figure 1); and
an audience seating area (#12) positioned in the theater area (see figure 1).
However, Giglio et al. do not disclose a plurality of LEDs positioned to facilitate providing a display substantially around an entirety of the spherical or hemispherical shape of the exterior structure. Bittermann discloses that such venues can comprise of a perimeter formed by four sides made up of image/video display areas, where such areas can comprise of projection screens or LED walls, where the ceiling and/or floor of such a venue can also comprise of such displays and the displays can be provided on the inside, inside and outside, or only outside of the venue using different techniques. See paragraphs 6 and 7 of the English translation. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided LEDs on substantially the entirety of the exterior of the dome of Giglio et al., as taught in Bittermann, in order to further entice customers to come to the venue and allow different designs and advertisements to be displayed thereon during use.
Furthermore, Giglio et al. do not disclose the first display comprises a composite image formed by light from a front screen and light from a back screen, with the front screen being transparent and in front of the back screen. However, such composite imagery is known and used in the art. Biles teaches that front #16 and rear #18 screens can be used to product the sensation of 3-dimensional viewing, where the front screen #16 comprises a plurality of perforations so that the screen reflects a sufficient amount of foreground image and transmits a sufficient amount of the background image for visualization by an audience of viewers. The back screen #18 is positioned so as to be viewed simultaneously with the front projection screen and is capable of absorbing any of the foreground image transmitted from the front projection screen. Col. 2, ll. 25-42. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the first display with front and rear displays within the interior of Giglio et al., where the front screen comprises of perforations so as to be semi-transparent and together with the rear display to form 3-d imagery, as taught in Biles, in order to provide a more immersive sensation and viewing for the audience of the venue of Giglio et al. As explained above, Bittermann teaches that projection screens and LED displays can be used in place of one another and Biles teaches of preventing image bleed from the front screen to the rear and thus the prior art would benefit from the updated technology of using a rear LED display that would prevent reflecting or showing the front projected image thereon.
Regarding claim 12, Giglio et al. in view of Bittermann and Biles render obvious the theater area has an interior curved surface (See figure 1 of Giglio et al., where the theater comprises an interior curved surface #44 that extends 360 degrees).
Regarding claim 13, Giglio et al. in view of Bittermann and Biles render obvious the plurality of LEDS are a first plurality of LEDs and the display is a first display, further comprising a second plurality of LEDs positioned to facilitate providing a second display in front of, to the side, above, and behind at least a portion of the audience seating area (Figure 1 and col. 4, ll. 53-56 of Giglio et al. disclose the displays #44 surround the entire seating areas #12 and are provided above, in front of, to the side and behind the seating area #12, except Giglio et al. disclose the use of projectors and screens for such displays. As explained above, Bittermann discloses that such venues can comprise of a perimeter formed by four sides made up of image/video display areas, where such areas can comprise of projection screens or LED walls, where the ceiling and/or floor of such a venue can also comprise of such displays and the displays can be provided on the inside, inside and outside, or only outside of the venue using different techniques. See paragraphs 6 and 7 of the English translation. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the projection screens and projectors of Giglio et al. for LED walls and displays, as taught in Bittermann, in order to provide easier and clearer displays and images for the users of the venue as well as to update the technology of the displays of Giglio et al.).
Regarding claim 14, Giglio et al. in view of Bittermann and Biles render obvious the stage is movable (col. 4, ll. 38-56 of Giglio et al. disclose the stage #24 is hydraulically controlled in order to move the stage to different tiered heights).
Regarding claim 15, Giglio et al. in view of Bittermann and Biles render obvious the audience seating area is arranged in a curved orientation (see figure 1 of Giglio et al.).
Regarding claim 16, Giglio et al. in view of Bittermann and Biles render obvious an interior structure (Giglio et al.; #42) positioned inside the exterior structure (see figure 1 of Giglio et al.), the interior structure defining the theater area (see figure 1 of Giglio et al.), the interior structure having a spherical-like shape (see figure 1 of Giglio et al.).
Regarding claim 17, Giglio et al. in view of Bittermann and Biles render obvious an open space positioned between the exterior structure and the interior structure (the space within the corridor #50 of Giglio et al. which allows workers to move through the venue as needed can be considered the open space between the exterior structure and interior structure formed by the inner walls of such a corridor #50).
Regarding claim 19, Giglio et al. disclose a venue (#10) comprising:
an exterior structure (#60) having a spherical or hemispherical shape (see figure 2);
an interior structure (#42) inside the exterior structure (see figure 1), the interior structure having a spherical or hemispherical shape (see figure 1), the interior structure defining a theater area (#172);
an audience seating area (#12) positioned in the theater area (see figure 1);
a first plurality of displays positioned to facilitate providing a first display along an interior curved surface of the audience seating area (col. 4, ll. 53-56 disclose the displays #44 surround the entire seating areas #12 and are provided along such an interior curved surface).
However, Giglio et al. do not disclose a second plurality of LEDs positioned to facilitate providing a second display around at least a majority of the spherical-like shape of the exterior structure or that the first plurality of displays comprise LEDs as well. Bittermann discloses that such venues can comprise of a perimeter formed by four sides made up of image/video display areas, where such areas can comprise of projection screens or LED walls, where the ceiling and/or floor of such a venue can also comprise of such displays and the displays can be provided on the inside, inside and outside, or only outside of the venue using different techniques. See paragraphs 6 and 7 of the English translation. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided LEDs on the exterior of the dome of Giglio et al., as taught in Bittermann, in order to further entice customers to come to the venue as well as provide displays and advertisements during use of the venue. It would have also been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the projection screens and projectors of Giglio et al. for LED walls and displays, as taught in Bittermann, in order to provide easier and clearer displays and images for the users of the venue as well as to update the display technology of such displays of Giglio et al.
Furthermore, Giglio et al. do not disclose the first display comprises a composite image formed by light from a front screen and light from a back screen, with the front screen being transparent and in front of the back screen. However, such composite imagery is known and used in the art. Biles teaches that front #16 and rear #18 screens can be used to product the sensation of 3-dimensional viewing, where the front screen #16 comprises a plurality of perforations so that the screen reflects a sufficient amount of foreground image and transmits a sufficient amount of the background image for visualization by an audience of viewers. The back screen #18 is positioned so as to be viewed simultaneously with the front projection screen and is capable of absorbing any of the foreground image transmitted from the front projection screen. Col. 2, ll. 25-42. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the first display with front and rear displays within the interior of Giglio et al., where the front screen comprises of perforations so as to be semi-transparent and together with the rear display to form 3-d imagery, as taught in Biles, in order to provide a more immersive sensation and viewing for the audience of the venue of Giglio et al. As explained above, Bittermann teaches that projection screens and LED displays can be used in place of one another and Biles teaches of preventing image bleed from the front screen to the rear and thus the prior art would benefit from the updated technology of using a rear LED display that would prevent reflecting or showing the front projected image thereon.
Claims 11, 18, and 20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Giglio et al. in view of Bittermann, Biles, and Magpuri, as previously presented.
Regarding claim 11, Giglio et al. in view of Bittermann and Biles render obvious a mezzanine area positioned inside the exterior structure and outside the theater area, where Giglio et al. teach at col. 7, ll. 17-27 that such a theater building #10 can comprise of front of house spaces which can include concession areas and rest rooms, which can be considered the mezzanine area located inside the exterior surface and outside the theater area as defined. Though Giglio et al. do not specifically disclose the mezzanine is located at least partially beneath the audience seating area, Magpuri disclose the seating area can be located at a similar height as exit/entry doors #22 and #24, as depicted in figure 1, or the seating area can be raised such that stairs #140 are required to access the seating area above an entry door #20, as depicted in figure 23, and thus provide the seating area above a front entrance area of the venue. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the mezzanine of Giglio et al. to be at least partially below the seating area, such as by raising the seating area and providing access to the seating area through the use of stairs as taught in Magpuri, since Magpuri teaches the height of the seating area compared to an entry area can be changed to be at the same level or above and below one another and yield the same predictable result of providing an enjoyable experience to users of the venue while providing an easy entry and egress to the seating area.
Regarding claim 18, Giglio et al. in view of Bittermann and Biles render obvious the plurality of LEDs are a first plurality of LEDs and the display is a first display, further comprising an interior structure (Giglio et al.; #42) positioned inside the exterior structure (see figure 1 of Giglio et al.), the interior structure defining the theater area (see figure 1 of Giglio et al.), the interior structure having a spherical-like shape (see figure 1 of Giglio et al.) such that the theater area has an interior curved surface (see figure 1, where structure #42 assists in supporting and forming interior curved surface #44); a mezzanine area positioned inside the exterior structure and outside the theater area (Giglio et al. teach at col. 7, ll. 17-27 that such a theater building #10 can comprise of front of house spaces which can include concession areas and rest rooms, which can be considered the mezzanine area located inside the exterior surface and outside the theater area as defined); and a second plurality of LEDs positioned along the interior curved surface to facilitate providing a second display in front of, to the side, above, and behind at least a portion of the audience seating area (Figure 1 and col. 4, ll. 53-56 of Giglio et al. disclose the displays #44 surround the entire seating areas #12 and are provided above, in front of, to the side and behind the seating area #12, except Giglio et al. disclose the use of projectors and screens for such displays. As explained above, Bittermann discloses that such venues can comprise of a perimeter formed by four sides made up of image/video display areas, where such areas can comprise of projection screens or LED walls, where the ceiling and/or floor of such a venue can also comprise of such displays and the displays can be provided on the inside, inside and outside, or only outside of the venue using different techniques. See paragraphs 6 and 7 of the English translation. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the projection screens and projectors of Giglio et al. for LED walls and displays, as taught in Bittermann, in order to provide easier and clearer displays and images for the users of the venue as well as to update the technology of the displays of Giglio et al.).
Though Giglio et al. do not specifically disclose the mezzanine is located at least partially beneath the audience seating area, Magpuri disclose the seating area can be located at a similar area as exit/entry doors #22 and #24 or the seating area can be raised such that stairs #140 are required to access the seating area above an entry door #20 and thus provide the seating area above a front entrance area of the venue. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the mezzanine of Giglio et al. to be at least partially below the seating area, such as by raising the seating area and providing access to the seating area through the use of stairs as taught in Magpuri, since Magpuri teaches the height of the seating area compared to an entry area can be changed to be at the same level or above and below one another and yield the same predictable result of providing an enjoyable experience to users of the venue while providing an easy entry and egress to the seating area.
Regarding claim 20, Giglio et al. in view of Bittermann and Biles render obvious a stage (Giglio et al.; #24) positioned in the theater area (see figure 1 of Giglio et al.); and a mezzanine area positioned inside the exterior structure and outside the theater area (Giglio et al. teach at col. 7, ll. 17-27 that such a theater building #10 can comprise of front of house spaces which can include concession areas and rest rooms, which can be considered the mezzanine area located inside the exterior surface and outside the theater area as defined); wherein the audience seating area is arranged in a curved orientation (see figure 1 of Giglio et al.).
Though Giglio et al. do not specifically disclose the mezzanine is located at least partially beneath the audience seating area, Magpuri disclose the seating area can be located at a similar area as exit/entry doors #22 and #24 or the seating area can be raised such that stairs #140 are required to access the seating area above an entry door #20 and thus provide the seating area above a front entrance area of the venue. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the mezzanine of Giglio et al. to be at least partially below the seating area, such as by raising the seating area and providing access to the seating area through the use of stairs as taught in Magpuri, since Magpuri teaches the height of the seating area compared to an entry area can be changed to be at the same level or above and below one another and yield the same predictable result of providing an enjoyable experience to users of the venue while providing an easy entry and egress to the seating area.
Regarding the limitations defining “the audience seating area having a plurality of levels of seating, each area #14, #16, #18, and #20 can be considered a different “level” of seating and thus meet such limitations as broadly defined. However, if the Examiner is considered to over broadly interpret the term “level” and for compact prosecution purposes, though claim 8 of Giglio et al. disclose the floor of the audience theater area can be tiered, Giglio et al. do not specifically disclose the seating area comprises of a plurality of different heights of rows for the seating of individuals. Giglio et al. do disclose the theater floor #172 can be reshaped and moved in order to maximize performance area and sight lines. It is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Magpuri, that circular theaters which comprise of moveable floors #60 can comprise of a seating area #55 so as to be surrounded by a 360 degree display #40, where such seats in the seating area comprises of gradually tiered seats (see paragraph 61) and the floor #60 can move with three degrees of freedom in order to give the viewers a heightened view and experience of the images (see paragraphs 14 and 20). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the seating area of Giglio et al. with different rows of seating at different heights, as taught in Magpuri, in order to provide better viewing experiences for each user depending on the position of the user and the location of the display being focused on, where the movement of the seating area floor (as taught in Giglio et al. and Magpuri) and the ability of such seats to rotate (as taught in Giglio et al.) would allow for a heightened experience of the activities being conducted.
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 5, 7, 8, and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 10,895,084 in view of Biles, as previously presented.
Claim 1 of the present application is defined within claim 14 of U.S. Patent ‘084 except for the shapes of the interior surface and exterior structure; however, claim 5 or 7 of U.S. Patent ‘084 define the shape of such an interior surface and exterior structure where it would have been obvious to use such shapes within the invention of claim 14 in order to provide an aesthetic and shape as needed by the end user. Furthermore, Biles teaches the obviousness of using front and rear displays to form 3-D imagery and it would have been obvious to apply within U.S. Patent ‘084 for a more immersive experience.
Claim 2 of the present application is defined within claim 14 of U.S. Patent ‘084 in view of claim 5 or 7 and Biles, as explained above, where claim 4 of U.S. Patent ‘084, which claims 5, 7, and 14 depend from, defines such a mezzanine area.
Claim 3 of the present application is defined within claim 14 of U.S. Patent ‘084 in view of claim 5 or 7 and Biles, as explained above, where claim 4 of U.S. Patent ‘084, which claims 5, 7, and 14 depend from, defines such a mezzanine area and where the Examiner takes Official notice that the mezzanine of theaters refers to the area where patrons can purchase drinks or snacks during intermission or before or after the show and it would have been obvious to have provided such a bar within the mezzanine of claim 14 of U.S. Patent ‘084 in order to properly serve the patrons of such a theater.
Claim 4 of the present application is defined within claim 14 of U.S. Patent ‘084 in view of claim 5 or 7 and Biles, as explained above, where claim 5 or 7 of U.S. Patent ‘084, teach such a shape for the interior surface.
Claim 5 of the present application is defined within claim 14 of U.S. Patent ‘084 in view of claim 5 or 7 and Biles, as explained above, where claim 4 of U.S. Patent ‘084, which claims 5, 7, and 14 depend from, defines such a stage positioning.
Claim 6 of the present application is defined within claim 14 of U.S. Patent ‘084 in view of claim 5 or 7 and Biles, as explained above, where although such claims of U.S. Patent ‘084 do not disclose such a stage is movable, the Examiner takes Official Notice that such stages of theaters are movable in order to allow for moving of certain scenery or actors to provide more engaging entertainment.
Claim 7 of the present application is defined within claim 14 of U.S. Patent ‘084 in view of claim 5 or 7 and Biles, as explained above, in further view of claim 8 of U.S. Patent ‘084, which teaches the shape and positioning of the audience seating area relative to the stage.
Claim 8 of the present application is defined within claim 14 of U.S. Patent ‘084 in view of claim 5 or 7 and Biles, as explained above, where claim 4, from which claims 5, 7, and 14 depend from, define the display of the exterior surface extends along a majority thereof and it would have been obvious to have included more of such LEDs to extend over more of the exterior structure for a bigger image display and also since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Claim 9 of the present application is defined within claim 14 of U.S. Patent ‘084 in view of claim 5 or 7 and Biles, as explained above, where claim 4, from which claims 5, 7, and 14 depend from, define the interior structure and open space as defined.
Claim 10 of the present application is defined within claim 14 of U.S. Patent ‘084 except for the shapes of the exterior structure; however, claim 5 or 7 of U.S. Patent ‘084 define the shape of such an exterior structure where it would have been obvious to use such shapes within the invention of claim 14 in order to provide an aesthetic and shape as needed by the end user. Furthermore, though claim 4 of U.S. Patent ‘084, from which claims 5, 7, and 14 depend from, only define the display of LEDs is provided “along a majority” and not specifically “around an entirety,” it would have been obvious to have included more of such LEDs to extend over an entirety of the exterior structure for a bigger image display and also since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Furthermore, Biles teaches the obviousness of using front and rear displays to form 3-D imagery and it would have been obvious to apply within U.S. Patent ‘084 for a more immersive experience.
Claim 11 of the present application is defined within claim 14 of U.S. Patent ‘084 in view of claim 5 or 7 and Biles, as explained above, where claim 4 of U.S. Patent ‘084, which claims 5, 7, and 14 depend from, defines such a mezzanine area.
Claim 12 of the present application is defined within claim 14 of U.S. Patent ‘084 in view of claim 5 or 7 and Biles, as explained above, where claim 5 or 7 of U.S. Patent ‘084, defines the shape of such a theater area.
Claim 13 of the present application is defined within claim 14 of U.S. Patent ‘084 in view of claim 5 or 7 and Biles, as explained above, where claim 14 of U.S. Patent ‘084, teaches such first and second displays and the obviousness of using LEDs for such displays.
Claim 14 of the present application is defined within claim 14 of U.S. Patent ‘084 in view of claim 5 or 7 and Biles, as explained above, where although such claims of U.S. Patent ‘084 do not disclose such a stage is movable, the Examiner takes Official Notice that such stages of theaters are movable in order to allow for moving of certain scenery or actors to provide more engaging entertainment.
Claim 15 of the present application is defined within claim 14 of U.S. Patent ‘084 in view of claim 5 or 7 and Biles, as explained above, in further view of claim 8 of U.S. Patent ‘084, which teaches the shape of the audience seating area.
Claim 16 of the present application is defined within claim 14 of U.S. Patent ‘084 in view of claim 5 or 7 and Biles, as explained above, where claim 5 or 7 teaches the shape for such an interior structure.
Claim 17 of the present application is defined within claim 14 of U.S. Patent ‘084 in view of claim 5 or 7 and Biles, as explained above, where claim 4 of U.S. Patent ‘084, which claims 5, 7, and 14 depend from, defines such an open space.
Claim 18 of the present application is defined within claim 14 of U.S. Patent ‘084 in view of claim 5 or 7 and Biles, as explained above, where claim 4 of U.S. Patent ‘084, which claims 5, 7, and 14 depend from, defines such a mezzanine area and claim 14 defines the use of such two displays and the obviousness of using LEDs for such displays.
Claim 19 of the present application is defined within claim 14 of U.S. Patent ‘084 except for the shapes of the interior surface and exterior structure; however, claim 5 or 7 of U.S. Patent ‘084 define the shape of such an interior surface and exterior structure where it would have been obvious to use such shapes within the invention of claim 14 in order to provide an aesthetic and shape as needed by the end user. Furthermore, claim 14 discloses the obviousness of using LEDs for such first and second displays. Moreover, Biles teaches the obviousness of using front and rear displays to form 3-D imagery and it would have been obvious to apply within U.S. Patent ‘084 for a more immersive experience.
Claim 20 of the present application is defined within claim 14 of U.S. Patent ‘084 in view of claim 5 or 7 and Biles, as explained above, where claim 4 of U.S. Patent ‘084, which claims 5, 7, and 14 depend from, defines such a stage and mezzanine area and where claim 8 defines the obviousness of curving such a seating area.
Claims 1-8, 10-16 and 18-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 5-7, 9, 18, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,891,833 in view of Biles, as previously presented.
Claim 1 of the present application is broader than but entirely defined in claim 9 of U.S. Patent ‘833 except for the composite image limitations. Biles teaches the obviousness of using front and rear displays to form 3-D imagery and it would have been obvious to apply within U.S. Patent ‘833 for a more immersive experience.
Claim 2 of the present application is broader than but entirely defined in claim 9 of U.S. Patent ‘833 in view of Biles.
Claim 3 of the present application is defined in claim 9 of U.S. Patent ‘833 in view of Biles and claim 8 which defines the mezzanine and bar limitations.
Claim 4 of the present application is broader than but entirely defined in claim 9 of U.S. Patent ‘833 in view of Biles.
Claim 5 of the present application is defined in claim 9 of U.S. Patent ‘833 in view of Biles and claim 5 of U.S. Patent ‘833, which teaches the use and placement of such a stage.
Claim 6 of the present application is defined in claim 9 of U.S. Patent ‘833 in view of Biles and claim 5 of U.S. Patent ‘833, which teaches the use and placement of such a stage and where the Examiner takes Official Notice that such stages of theaters are movable in order to allow for moving of certain scenery or actors to provide more engaging entertainment.
Claim 7 of the present application is defined in claim 9 of U.S. Patent ‘833 in view of Biles and claim 6 of U.S. Patent ‘833, which teaches the shape and placement of such a seating area.
Claim 8 of the present application is defined in claim 9 of U.S. Patent ‘833 in view of Biles, where although claim 9 of U.S. Patent ‘833 only defines the display of LEDs is provided “along at least a majority” and not specifically “around an entirety,” such a range of claim 9 is considered to cover the entirety because of the term “at least” and it would have been obvious to have included more of such LEDs to extend over an entirety of the exterior structure for a bigger image display and also since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Claim 10 of the present application is broader than but entirely defined in claim 18 or 20 of U.S. Patent ‘833. Alternatively, claim 9 of U.S. Patent ‘833 defines the display of LEDs is provided “along at least a majority” and not specifically “around an entirety,” such a range of claim 9 is considered to cover the entirety because of the term “at least” and it would have been obvious to have included more of such LEDs to extend over an entirety of the exterior structure for a bigger image display and also since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Furthermore, Biles teaches the obviousness of using front and rear displays to form 3-D imagery and it would have been obvious to apply within U.S. Patent ‘833 for a more immersive experience.
Claim 11 of the present application is broader than but entirely defined in claim 9 of U.S. Patent ‘833 in view of Biles.
Claim 12 of the present application is broader than but entirely defined in claim 9 of U.S. Patent ‘833 in view of Biles.
Claim 13 of the present application is broader than but entirely defined in claim 9 of U.S. Patent ‘833 in view of Biles.
Claim 14 of the present application is defined in claim 9 of U.S. Patent ‘833 in view of Biles, where the Examiner takes Official Notice that such stages of theaters are movable in order to allow for moving of certain scenery or actors to provide more engaging entertainment.
Claim 15 of the present application is defined in claim 9 of U.S. Patent ‘833 in view of Biles and claim 6, which defines such a seating arrangement.
Claim 16 of the present application is broader than but entirely defined in claim 9 of U.S. Patent ‘833 in view of Biles.
Claim 18 of the present application is broader than but entirely defined in claim 9 of U.S. Patent ‘833 in view of Biles.
Claim 19 of the present application is broader than but entirely defined in claim 9 of U.S. Patent ‘833 except for the composite image limitations. Biles teaches the obviousness of using front and rear displays to form 3-D imagery and it would have been obvious to apply within U.S. Patent ‘833 for a more immersive experience.
Claim 20 of the present application is defined in claim 9 of U.S. Patent ‘833 in view of Biles and claim 7, which defines the levels for the seating area, and claim 6, which defines the curved orientation of such a seating area.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that “Biles teaches a fundamentally incompatible absorption-based projection system that cannot be combined with Giglio and Bittermann as proposed by the Examiner” since “the claims explicitly require the back screen to comprise light-emitting diodes, while Biles’ back projection screen is specifically design to absorb light rather than emit it,” Biles teaches that such a rear screen is configured to absorb sufficient amounts of any first image #36 transmitted by the perforated front projection screen #16 thereby avoiding first image “bleed.” See col. 3, ll. 40-44. However, the absorption-based back projection screen of Biles is still capable of receiving and transmitting a background image so that it is visualized by the audience. See col. 2, ll. 35-39. Such projection screens work by reflecting light from the projector so as to display an image to be viewed by the viewers and thus such an absorption of the rear panel prevents the first image from showing on the second display screen. Giglio et al. was modified to include LEDs for the displays in place of the projector display screens in order to update the display technology of such a system and since both projectors and LED displays are taught in Bittermann as being substitutable for one another. Though not specifically disclosed in Bittermann, constructing an LED display so as to comprise of an anti-reflective coating and polarizing filter so as to provide a degree of anti-reflection glare for such displays was known and used before the present invention was made. See paragraph 34 of Youngquist et al. (U.S. Publication 2001/0022564). Thus, adding a front, display with perforations that is to work in conjunction with a projector, as taught in Biles, to the LED display system of Giglio et al. in view of Bittermann would provide a front semi-transparent display that works in conjunction with the rear LED display to produce a 3-dimensional image for viewers. One of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made would have the knowledge to form such a rear LED display of the prior art so that it removes the glare or ghost images, as required by the rear display of Biles, in order to properly prevent image bleed from the front projector screen to the rear display screen of such a system of the prior art and thus properly form a viewable 3-dimensional image as taught in Biles. The rejections are thus considered proper and are upheld.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that “the claimed composite display requires light emission, not absorption, where both the front screen and the back screen contribute light that combines to create the composite visual effect” where Biles instead comprises and uses an absorption-based back projection screen, the absorption-based back projection screen of Biles is still capable of receiving and transmitting a background image so that it is visualized by the audience. See col. 2, ll. 35-39. The absorption of the back screen is instead provided so as to prevent the front image from bleeding onto the image of the rear screen. The different images provided on the front and rear displays of Biles are provided so as to give the illusion of a 3-dimensinoal viewing and thus form a composite visual effect as broadly defined. Further regarding Applicant’s arguments that “LEDS are light-emitting devices that would create the very image bleed problem that Biles was specifically designed to prevent,” the LED display which forms the rear display of the prior art would form the background image of the effect, where one can provide known (at the time before the present invention was made) anti-reflective coatings so as to prevent glare and prevent image bleed from the image projected onto the front display and passing through the perforations of the front display and hitting the rear display. One of ordinary skill in the art can combine both projection and LED displays (which Bittermann teaches are substitutable for one another) in order to provide front and rear displays that can combine to form a 3-D image for viewing, as taught in Biles. The rejections are considered proper and are upheld.
In response to Applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Biles teaches of a method of providing a 3-D image using two separate displays and thus providing such a two display system of Biles within Giglio et al. would further enhance the entertainment provided to use of such a venue and thus provides proper motivation for such a modification.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE V ADAMOS whose telephone number is (571)270-1166. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 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, Brian D Mattei can be reached at (571) 270-3238. 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.
/THEODORE V ADAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635