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 .
Response to Amendment
The finality of that action dated 10/2/25 is withdrawn since it fails to address claim 19. Current office action is an response to amendment filed on 12/30/25, which has been entered.
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) 1-5, 7-10, and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Harada et al. (JPH0720320A).
Regarding claim 1, Harada discloses a projection system for an entertainment venue, the projection system comprising: a display having a first display surface and a second display surface, wherein the first display surface is associated with a first viewing side and the second display surface is associated with a second viewing side (note Fig. 1); a light transmission system comprising a plurality of light transmitters (1) extending between the first display surface (2) and the second display surface (4); and an image source (5) configured to project imagery onto the first display surface, wherein the first display surface comprises a surface treatment (7, 8; last paragraph, page 6 of the translated text) configured to reflect a first portion of light from the imagery for presentation to a viewing side (8) associated with the first display surface, and wherein each of the plurality of light transmitters is configured to direct a second portion of the light from the imagery projected onto the first display surface to the second display surface for presentation to an additional viewing side associated with the second display surface (3, 4), and the light transmission system is configured to modify an orientation of the imagery projected onto and reflected by the first display surface before presenting the imagery through the second display surface (as shown in Fig. 2, the positional order of the fiber optics has been altered or reversed from left-to-right to right-to-left; also note 1st paragraph, page 5, of the translated text).
Regarding claim 2, Harada discloses that each light transmitter of the plurality of light transmitters comprises a first end positioned adjacent the first display surface, a second end positioned adjacent the second display surface, and a body extending between the first end and the second end (note optical fiber 1).
Regarding claim 3, Harada discloses the image source is a projector (note projector 5).
Regarding claim 4, Harada discloses each light transmitter of the plurality of light transmitters is arranged in a woven arrangement and configured to emit different imagery from the second display surface than the imagery reflected from the first display surface (as shown in Fig. 2, the positional order of the fiber optics has been altered or reversed from left-to-right to right-to-left; also note 1st paragraph, page 5, of the translated text).
Regarding claim 5, Harada discloses each light transmitter of the plurality of light transmitters is a fiber optic cable (note optical fiber 1).
Regarding claim 7, Harada inherently discloses a support assembly positioned between the first display surface and the second display surface, wherein the support assembly is configured to provide support for each light transmitter of the plurality of light transmitters of the light transmission system. That is, the fiber optics bundle 1 in Figs. 1 and 2 are inherently held together by some sort of support means.
Regarding claim 8, Harada discloses the support assembly defines a plurality of channels, and wherein each channel of the plurality of channels is configured to receive one or more light transmitters of the plurality of light transmitters and direct the one or more light transmitters of the plurality of light transmitters therethrough (as shown in Figs. 1 and 2, the fiber optics are held together by some sort of adhesive).
Regarding claim 9, Harada discloses the plurality of light transmitters of the light transmission system is arranged such that the imagery projected onto the first display surface and transmitted through the light transmission system is flipped horizontally before being presented through the second display surface (as shown in Fig. 2, the positional order of the fiber optics has been altered or reversed from left-to-right to right-to-left; also note 1st paragraph, page 5, of the translated text).
Regarding claim 10, Harada inherently discloses the light transmission system is configured to modify a size, a shape, an orientation, an intensity, or any combination thereof of the imagery projected onto the first display surface before presenting the imagery through the second display surface. That is, the fiber tubes in Harada inherently modifies many attributes of the transmitted image since the tubes are not perfect transmitters. For instance, the size of the display image is being modified as illustrated in Fig. 2.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, see rejection for claims 1, 4 and 9.
Regarding claim 14, Harada discloses that the first end of each light transmitter of the plurality of light transmitters is spaced a first distance apart from one another, the second end of each light transmitter of the plurality of light transmitters is spaced a second distance apart from one another, and the first distance is greater than the second distance as claimed (see Fig. 2).
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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harada et al. (JPH0720320A).
Regarding claim 6, Harada does not disclose that each light transmitter of the plurality of light transmitters is an acrylic light tube as claimed. The examiner takes Official Notice that using plastic fiber optic or the acrylic light tube as claimed is well known in the art. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the well known acrylic light tube as the light tubes in Harada to perform the well known functions as claimed.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harada et al. (JPH0720320A) in view of Fang et al. (TWM487456U) .
Regarding claim 15, Harada does not disclose that the first ends of the plurality of light transmitters are collectively arranged in a first shape, the second ends of the plurality of light transmitters are collectively arranged in a second shape, and the first shape is different than the second shape. Fang, from the similar field of endeavor, teaches that the use of different shapes of fiber tubes (note Fig. 7 to Fig. 9). Thus, in view of these different shapes, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ different shapes of tubes for the front and rear screens of Harada. The selection would have been a matter of obvious design choice in view of the fiber tubes shapes in Fig. 7-9 of Fang.
Claim(s) 11, 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harada et al. (JPH0720320A) in view of Li (2016/0307227).
Regarding claim 11, Harada does not disclose one or more sensors configured to collect data indicative of one or more parameters of a guest area in which the projection system is disposed; and a controller communicatively coupled to the one or more sensors and configured to operate the projection system based on the data from the one or more sensors. Li, from the similar field of endeavor, teaches a passing observer sensitive publication system showing one or more sensors and a projector (par. 27). By using the sensors and projector, a passerby can be advertisement with information that is relevant to the passerby. Since the system of Li requires a projector or any conventional projection display system, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to include Li into Harada to perform the well known functions as claimed.
Regarding claim 16, see rejection to claims 1 and 11.
Regarding claim 17, Li discloses the one or more parameters comprise a location of each of the guests positioned within the guest area, and wherein the controller is configured to control the operation of the display based on the location of each of the guests (par. 32).
Regarding claim 18, Harada does not disclose a shaker communicatively coupled to the controller and to the first display surface and the second display surface, wherein the controller is configured to operate the shaker to shake the first display surface and the second display surface based on the data from the one or more sensors. The examiner takes Official Notice that using shakers or vibrator in amusement park ride to simulate movement is well known in the art. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the well known shaker or vibrator into Harada to perform the well known functions as claimed.
Regarding claim 19, Harada discloses that the plurality of light transmitters is configured to direct light associated with the imagery projected onto the first display surface to the second display surface such that the imagery projected onto the first display surface is not mirrored when presented on the second display surface (as shown in Fig. 2, the positional order of the fiber optics has been altered or reversed from left-to-right to right-to-left; also note 1st paragraph, page 5, of the translated text).
Regarding claim 20, Li discloses an image controller communicatively coupled to the controller and to the image source, wherein the image controller is configured to render the imagery projected onto the first display surface (note Fig. 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/30/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument that the scattering and/or dispersing light in Harada is not the same as "a surface treatment configured to reflect a first portion of light" as claimed, the examiner disagrees. According to last paragraph, page 6 of the translated text, the incident surface 2 of the fibers can be treated with different materials, such as an acrylic plate, a prism sheet, a diffusion sheet, or the like. These sheets, being fixed on the surface 2, is configured to reflect and transmit portions of the light projected by the projector 5. Therefore, the sheets in Harada still meets the claimed limitation when interpreted broadly.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Harada does not disclose "the light transmission system is configured to modify an orientation of the imagery projected onto and reflected by the first display surface before presenting the imagery through the second display surface," as generally recited by amended independent claim 1, the examiner disagrees. As set forth in the rejection above, Figure 2 of Harada clearly shows that the positional order of the fiber optics has been altered or reversed from left-to-right to right-to-left. The similar descriptions can also be found in 1st paragraph, page 5, of the translated text. As illustrated in Fig. 2, the left-to-right positional order of the Chinese character “警”has been changed to right-to-left. This position reversal clearly meets the claimed limitation.
In view of above arguments, it is believed that Harada, alone, and in combination with Li or Fang, still meets the claimed invention. As a result, the prior art rejections as maintained.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL LEE whose telephone number 571-272-7349. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday from 9:00 am to 6:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, John Miller, can be reached on 571-272-7353. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MICHAEL LEE/ Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 2422