Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 7, 10, 11, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160292917 (hereinafter “Dorner”) in view of US 20200033610 (hereinafter “Haseltine”).
Regarding claim 1, Dorner discloses a show effect system (Fig. 1, 100) of an amusement park, the show effect system comprising:
a display (Fig. 1A, 110 and 130) configured to project one or more virtual images;
a mirror (Fig. 1A, 120) configured to deflect the one or more virtual images;
one or more sensors (Fig. 1A, 140) configured to transmit guest data based on guest detection in a viewing area, wherein the guest data comprises location and/or orientation data indicative of a guest relative to the mirror (Para. 0024 and 0038);
one or more actuators coupled with and configured to adjust positioning of the display and/or the mirror (Para. 0037);
a beam splitter (Fig. 1A, 120 – further explanation below) positioned between the viewing area and the mirror, wherein the beam splitter is configured to:
reflect light from the viewing area as reflected imagery back to the viewing area (Para. 0036); and
enable transmission of the one or more virtual images deflected off the mirror through the beam splitter to the viewing area as transmitted imagery (Para. 0036); and
one or more controllers (Fig. 7, 665; Para. 0052) communicatively coupled to the one or more sensors, and to at least the one or more actuators or the display, wherein the one or more controllers is configured to instruct the one or more actuators to adjust a position and/or an orientation of the display, the mirror, or both, based on the guest data.
Dorner does not disclose a mirror and a beam splitter as separate entities; rather, the type of mirror (half-silvered) is inherently a beam splitter (Para. 0037). The court has held that the use of one-piece construction vs multi-piece construction is merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. In the instant case, having a beam splitter separately in front of a mirror would have the same effect as making them integral. See MPEP 2144 – In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965).
If there is any doubt in the examiner’s interpretation, alternatively, Haseltine also discloses a visual effect system that has separate components of a mirrored reflector (Fig. 2E, 118) and beam splitter (Fig. 2E, 260, Para. 0044) to create a three-dimensional viewing affect. Thus, this is a known configuration in the visual effects art that would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date.
Regarding claim 2, modified Dorner further discloses the guest data comprises guest height data (Dorner: Claim 1), and wherein the one or more controllers (Dorner: Fig. 7, 665) is configured to instruct the one or more actuators (Dorner: Para. 0037) to adjust the position and/or the orientation of the display, the mirror, or both based on the guest height data.
Regarding claim 3, modified Dorner further discloses one or more controllers is configured to estimate a guest perspective based on the guest height data (Dorner: Para. 0052 and 0053).
Regarding claim 4, modified Dorner further discloses one or more controllers is configured to instruct the one or more actuators to adjust the position and/or the orientation of the display, the mirror, or both to superimpose the reflected imagery and the transmitted imagery on one another based the guest perspective (Dorner: Para. 0032).
Regarding claim 5, modified Dorner further discloses one or more controllers is configured to:
generate image data based on the guest data;
transmit the image data to the display; and
instruct the display to project the one or more virtual images based on the image data (Dorner: Fig. 7; Para. 0021).
Regarding claim 7, modified Dorner further discloses an additional actuator (Haseltine: Fig. 2E, 265; Para. 0042) coupled to the beam splitter and communicatively coupled to the one or more controllers, wherein the one or more controllers is configured to instruct the one or more actuators to adjust a position and/or an orientation of the beam splitter based on the guest data (Haseltine: Para. 0042). Haseltine discloses that the actuators may selectively adjust the lengths in response to the viewer moving in order to preserve 3D imaging. Thus, it would be obvious to have actuators coupled to the beam splitter in order to preserve the 3D effect for the viewer during movement.
Regarding claim 10, modified Dorner further discloses the display comprises a two- dimensional display, a three-dimensional display, or a volumetric display (Dorner: Para. 0023).
Regarding claim 11, modified Dorner further discloses the beam splitter comprises a visual barrier (Dorner: Para. 0028).
Regarding claim 18, Dorner discloses an attraction system (Fig. 1A, 100) comprising:
a viewing area for a guest (Fig. 1A, 116),
a beam splitter configured to reflect an appearance of the guest toward the viewing area (Fig. 1A, 120 – further explanation below);
a mirror positioned on an opposite side of the beam splitter from the viewing area (Fig. 1A, 120);
a display configured to project one or more virtual images onto the mirror such that the mirror deflects the one or more virtual images through the beam splitter (Fig. 1A, 110 and 130); and
one or more actuators configured to move the mirror and/or the display to adjust an apparent depth of the one or more virtual images (Para. 0037).
Dorner does not disclose a mirror and a beam splitter as separate entities; rather, the type of mirror (half-silvered) is inherently a beam splitter (Para. 0037). The court has held that the use of one-piece construction vs multi-piece construction is merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. In the instant case, having a beam splitter separately in front of a mirror would have the same effect as making them integral. See MPEP 2144 – In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965).
If there is any doubt in the examiner’s interpretation, alternatively, Haseltine also discloses a visual effect system that has separate components of a mirrored reflector (Fig. 2E, 118) and beam splitter (Fig. 2E, 260, Para. 0044) to create a three-dimensional viewing affect. Thus, this is a known configuration in the visual effects art that would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date.
Regarding claim 19, modified Dorner further discloses one or more sensors configured to detect a position of the guest within the viewing area and generate position data based on the positioning (Dorner: Fig. 1A, 140; Para. 0024 and 0038); and
one or more controllers communicatively coupled to the one or more actuators, wherein the one or more controllers is configured to instruct the one or more actuators to move the display, the mirror, or both to adjust the apparent depth based on the position data (Dorner: Fig. 7, 665; Para. 0052).
Regarding claim 20, modified Dorner further discloses one or more controllers (Dorner: Fig. 7, 665; Para. 0052; Haseltine: Fig. 1, 160) coupled to the one or more actuators (Dorner: Para.0037; Haseltine: Para. 0042), wherein the one or more controllers are configured to perform operations comprising:
determining a first distance between the guest and the beam splitter; and
instructing the one or more actuators to adjust a second distance between the display and the mirror based on the first distance (Dorner: Para. 0038; Haseltine: Para. 0048). Though neither Dorner nor Haseltine explicitly disclose determining a first distance between the guest and the beam splitter to adjust a second distance between the display and the mirror, this limitation is intended use of the components. If a prior art structure is inherently capable of performing the intended use as recited, then it shifts the burden to applicant to establish that the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. See MPEP 2114 - In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In the instant case, the controllers of both Dorner and Haseltine are entirely capable of determining distances respective to the viewer and communicating with the actuators to make adjustments. This type of distance-based adjustment with respect to the viewer is well-known in the visual effects art, and would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dorner in view of Haseltine, as applied to claim 1, and in further view of US 20130083291 (hereinafter “Smithwick 2013”).
Regarding claim 6, modified Dorner discloses all the limitations of claim 1, but is silent regarding one or more tracks movably coupled to the mirror and/or the display, wherein the one or more controllers is configured to instruct the one or more actuators to adjust the position and/or the orientation of the display, the mirror, or both along the one or more tracks. Smithwick 2013 discloses a 3D display system with linear actuators that move along a track in order to keep alignment of the projectors with the viewers head/eyes (Para. 0039). Thus, it would be obvious to position the actuators on tracks in order to maintain the 3D illusion with the viewer’s eyes during movement.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dorner in view of Haseltine, as applied to claim 1, and in further view of US 20120313839 (hereinafter “Smithwick 2012”).
Regarding claim 8, modified Dorner discloses all the limitations of claim 1, but does not disclose one or more physical objects positioned along with the display and the mirror on a side of the beam splitter opposite the viewing area. Smithwick, in the analogous art visual effect systems discloses that traditional Pepper’s ghost displays often have a physical object or prop (Fig. 1A, 112) in the display scene that the ghost may “walk” through. Thus, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to add a physical object on the other side of the beam splitter for the desired visual effect.
Regarding claim 9, modified Dorner further discloses a light source (Dorner: Fig. 2, 135a and 135b) communicatively coupled to the one or more controllers, wherein the one or more controllers is configured to instruct modulating the light source to adjust visibility from the viewing area of the one or more physical objects through the beam splitter (Dorner: Para. 0027).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMANTHA M BERRY whose telephone number is (571)272-0925. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-5.
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, Eugene Kim can be reached at (571) 272-4463. 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.
/S.M.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3711
/EUGENE L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights