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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. PGPub. 2020/0270885 (Hemminga ‘885).
Re Claim 1: Hemminga ‘885 a multimedia experience facility comprising: a first presentation unit (135, Figure 1c, paragraph [0044]) - a second presentation unit (135, Figure 1c, paragraph [0044]) - an auditorium (100) having a base area, wherein the first presentation unit and the second presentation unit are assigned to the auditorium (Figure 1A; paragraphs [0041, 0044]) - an audience area (120), wherein the audience area (120) is arranged inside the auditorium (100) and wherein the audience area (120) has a substructure and a plurality of seats accommodated thereon and wherein the arrangement of the seats establishes a main viewing direction in the audience area (120; paragraphs [0041-0044]0 wherein a bearing apparatus is arranged in the auditorium, by means of which the substructure of the audience area can be pivoted relative to the base area of the auditorium in terms of its orientation such that the main viewing direction is oriented to the first presentation unit in a first configuration and the main viewing direction is oriented to the second presentation unit in a second configuration (Figures 1C, 3; paragraphs [0041-0044, 0065]).
Re Claim 4: Hemminga ‘885 disclose the facility substantially as claimed, in supra, including that the substructure of the audience area is freely rotatable relative to the base area of the auditorium by an unlimited number of revolutions (Figure 3; paragraph [0065]).
Re Claim 5: Hemminga ‘885 disclose the facility substantially as claimed, in supra, including that a sliding contact, which provides electrical transmission, is formed between the substructure of the audience area and the base area of the auditorium (Figure 5C; paragraph [0071]).
Re Claim 6: Hemminga ‘885 disclose the facility substantially as claimed, in supra, including that the sliding contact has first poles for electrical power transmission and further poles for electrical signal transmission (Figures 5C-5D; paragraphs [0071-0075]).
Re Claim 9: Hemminga ‘885 disclose the facility substantially as claimed, in supra, including that a third presentation unit is formed, wherein the first presentation unit (2) and the third presentation unit are arranged in a first circular segment of the auditorium with respect to the base area of the auditorium, and the second presentation unit is arranged in a second circular segment of the auditorium, wherein the first circular segment spans a first circular segment angle between 1400 and 180 (Figures 1C, 3; paragraphs [0041-0044, 0065]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2 and 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hemminga ‘886 as applied to claims 1, 4-6, and 9 above, and further in view of U.S. PGPub. 2014/0235362 (Fox et al. ‘362).
Re Claim 2: Hemminga ‘885 disclose the facility substantially as claimed, in supra, with the exception of including that a plurality of seating groups are formed, wherein the seating groups each comprise a plurality of the seats, wherein the seats combined into a seating group are jointly accommodated on the substructure so as to be displaceable and/or pivotable relative to the substructure. Fox et al. ‘362 disclose grouping seats together in select audience areas that contain motion seats (paragraphs [0030, 0033]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the facility of Hemminga ‘885, in view of the teachings of Fox et al. ‘362, to include groupings of motion seats for the basic reason of combining known elements to yield the predictable result of allowing patrons to experience more or less engagement in their experience.
Re Claim 10: Hemminga ‘885 in view of Fox et al. ‘362 disclose the facility substantially as claimed, in supra, including that the second presentation unit comprises a display surface, which is configured in a dome shape, the display surface having an opening angle between 1800 and 220* as viewed in cross section (Fox et al. ‘362: Figure 1; paragraphs [0017, 0072]).
Re Claim 11: Hemminga ‘885 in view of Fox et al. ‘362 disclose the facility substantially as claimed, in supra, including that the display surface comprises a plurality of light-emitting diodes (Fox et al. ‘362: paragraph [0004])).
Re Claim 12: Hemminga ‘885 in view of Fox et al. ‘362 disclose the facility substantially as claimed, in supra, including that the light-emitting diodes are arranged on a support structure, wherein the support structure is perforated and the light- emitting diodes are arranged at a light-emitting-diode distance from one another such that a plurality of continuous recesses are formed from a surface of the display surface to a rear side of the support structure (Fox et al. ‘362: paragraphs [0004, 0019, 0028, 0044]).
Re Claim 13: Hemminga ‘885 in view of Fox et al. ‘362 disclose the facility substantially as claimed, in supra, including that the display surface is configured as a projection surface and wherein a plurality of projectors are arranged in the auditorium, at least one of the projectors being arranged behind the display surface, wherein an opening is formed in the display surface, through which the projector projects onto an opposite region of the display surface (Fox et al. ‘362: paragraphs [0004, 0019, 0045]; Figures 2-5).
Re Claim 14: Hemminga ‘885 in view of Fox et al. ‘362 disclose the facility substantially as claimed, in supra, including that the display surface is configured as a projection surface and wherein a plurality of projectors are arranged in the auditorium, the image being partially blacked out by at least one of the projectors at a certain angular position of the substructure of the audience area (Fox et al. ‘326: paragraphs [0004, 0019, 0045]; Figures 2-5).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. References C-E on PTO-892 have been cited as illustrating the art at the time of invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDSAY M MAGUIRE whose telephone number is (571)272-6039. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:30 to 5:00.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571) 270-3614. 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.
Lindsay Maguire
11/17/25
/LINDSAY M MAGUIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619