DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 8, 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norris et al. (US 20150139439 A1; hereafter Norris) in view of Frayne et al. (US 10012841 B1; hereafter Frayne).
Regarding claims 8 and 27, Norris discloses a system, comprising:
a first sound source adapted to output a first sound that is audible at the first location (location for exhibit A) and inaudible at the second location (location for exhibit B; see [0096]); and
a second sound source adapted to output a second sound that is audible at the second location (location for exhibit B) and inaudible at the first location (location for exhibit A).
Norris fails to show a light source. Norris teaches a general museum that includes several exhibitions. One skilled in the art would have expected that the exhibitions could include well known type, such as the ones generating by a light source accompanying sound effect. Frayne teaches an advanced display, generating visual by a light source, allowing user interaction detected by a camera (col. 8, lines 28-34) in addition to providing 2D and 3D image (col. 4, lines 22-49). No separate camera is needed. Frayne teaches a beam splitter and a retroreflector. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Norris by utilizing the advanced display as taught in Frayne in order to enhancing the visual effect of an exhibition while capturing the user interaction and to limit the sound generation within an area of an exhibition generated by a display while not leaking the sound generation to another exhibition generated by the light source.
Claims 8, 9, 13, 16 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voris et al. (US 20180117465 A1; hereafter Voris) in view of Norris.
Regarding claims 8, 13 and 16, Voris discloses a system, comprising:
a first light source (Fig. 2C, 260) to emit first light (Fig. 2C, 261C), at least a portion of the first light processed to provide a first image at a first location (e.g., the location of flying bird shown in Fig. 2C);
a second light source (260) to emit second light (Fig. 2C, 261C), at least a portion of the second light processed to provide a second image at a second location (e.g., ocean noise, or the location of flying bird at a different location, [0052], [0053]) different from the first location;
a first sound source to output a first sound that is audible at the first location (as illustrated in Fig. 2A, speaker 252 and/or 256 generates a first sound representing the flying bird), and
a second sound source to output a second sound that is audible at second location (the second location reads on the location of the flying bird flying to other side other than the location as shown in Fig. 2C, or the ocean noise; furthermore, given the proximity of speaker 256 to the flying bird, the sound generated from speaker 256 is audible at the flying bird location as shown in Fig. 2C).
Voris fails to show that the first sound source is inaudible at the second location and the second sound source is inaudible at the first location. Voris teaches mounting general speakers (250, 252, 254, 256) on the walls for providing sound effect. However, general speakers are restricted to be mounted on certain locations in order to provide the sound effect. In Voris, the general speakers are placed at locations for providing spatial sound effect. For example, for simulating a flying bird flying from left to right, one skilled in the art would have expected that left and right speakers are required to be mounted at specific and distinct locations relative to each. Norris teaches ultrasonic transducer that is not as limited as the general speakers in terms of mounting location. The ultrasonic transducer could direct the beam to a specific area without requiring the ultrasonic transducer to be mounted at specific location. Furthermore, the ultrasonic transducer could generate sound that is focused for a specific area. No spillage of the sound based on the ultrasound control. Such characteristics would benefit the user who would prefer privacy. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Voris in view of Norris by replacing the general speakers with ultrasonic transducer in order to relax on the speaker position placement and providing sound generating in a limited area corresponding to the image.
Regarding claims 9 and 29, Voris discloses a camera and video data for detecting user motion/action ([0043], e.g.), but fails to explicitly show that responsive to the determination of the guest has interacted with the first/second image, cause the first/second sound source to output the first/second sound. The claimed limitation reads on a scenario when the user is playing a particular game that would generate sound after detecting the user interacting with an image. Voris teaches a general interactive game system which is able to generate both visual and audio effect depending on the multimedia content, including well known game that requires interacting with a visual image and then generating the corresponding sound effect, without generating any unexpected result. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Voris by playing well known game, including one that requiring interacting with a visual image before generating a sound effect, because it is a matter of user preference.
Claim(s) 1-3, 17, 18, 20-23, 25, 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frayne et al. (US 010012841 B1, hereafter Frayne) in view of Smalley (US 20160282808 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Frayne discloses a system, comprising:
a first light source to emit a first light (310 in Fig. 16, col. 9, line 43-51, e.g.), at least a portion of the first light processed to provide a first image at a first location (e.g., location for Image A in Fig. 16);
a second light source to emit a first light (310), at least a portion of the second light processed to provide a second image at a second location (e.g., location for Image B in Fig. 16); and
a controller (150) configured to:
receive a first signal from the first light source (camera or other tracking sensor responding to the first light source, col. 8, lines 28-59), the first signal indicating that the first light source has emitted the first light (the signal from the camera or other tracking sensor responding to the emitted light from the first light source); and
receive a second signal from the second light source (camera or other tracking sensor responding to the first light source, col. 8, lines 28-59), the second signal indicating that the second light source has emitted the second light (camera or other tracking sensor responding to the second light source, col. 8, lines 28-59),
Frayne teaches a general interactive experience with the first and second images at the respective first and second locations, but fails to show a corresponding sound source for each of the first and second images after receiving the corresponding first and second signals. Smalley teaches that a user prefers to have multi-sense experience involving vision, hearing and touch ([0001], [0002]). The hearing could be implemented by directed audio technology wherein a sound is audible in only a limited volume of space while it is inaudible outside of the space ([0001]). The claimed “output the first sound” “after receiving the first signal” and “output the second sound” “after receiving the second signal” is a specific interactive experience that generates sound corresponding to the interaction with the corresponding visual object (such as pop a ballon at a first location with a needle first, then hears the corresponding sound effect; then pop another ballon at a second location different from the first location, then hears the corresponding sound effect). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Frayne in view of Smalley by incorporating directed audio technology generating corresponding sound effects with the detected visual interaction with the virtual objects, such as generating sound effect after detecting a specific visual interaction, in order to create a more realistic user experience when interacting with one or more virtual objects with corresponding sound effect.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Frayne and Smalley discussed above meets the claimed feature. Smalley teaches the directed audio technology with the claimed audible area and inaudible area.
Regarding claim 3, Frayne fails to show first and second ultrasonic transducers. Smalley teaches a plurality of ultrasonic transducers (420n in Fig. 4, [0029]) able to function as a first sound source or a second sound source for providing the directive sound effect. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify Frayne and Smalley by utilizing ultrasonic transducers for sound generation in order to control the sound generation to a limited area.
Regarding claims 21-23 and 25, Frayne teaches an advanced display allowing user interaction detected by a camera (col. 8, lines 28-34) in addition to providing 2D and 3D image (col. 4, lines 22-49). Frayne teaches the beam splitter (120) and retroreflector (130) with a retroreflective material (inherently included) and a reflective surface (as shown/illustrated).
Claims 17 and 30 correspond to claim 1 discussed above.
Regarding claim 18, Frayne teaches interaction with the image. See detail above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Frayne and Smalley meets the claimed features. Smalley teaches the directed audio technology for directing sound to a specific area. The claimed “selectively causing, … the first sound to be output … or the second sound to be output …” is met as the outputted sound is outputted to the area with the generated visual image. If the first image is not generated, the first sound would not be output. If the second image is not generated, the second sound would not be output. Such action reads on claimed “selectively causing …”.
Claim 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frayne and Smalley as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hu (US 20150193000 A1).
Regarding claim 26, Frayne teaches a camera, but fails to show light sensors. However, Frayne teaches various functionally equivalent sensors for detecting user motion (col. 8, lines 28-59). One skilled in the art would have expected that other well known sensors, including light sensors, could be used for detecting user action without generating any unexpected result. Hu teaches detecting user’s interactive motion by utilizing camera and a light sensor ([0017]). Hu teaches user’s gesture in a small area (keyboard area, e.g.). Although Hu fails to explicitly teach light sensors, plural light sensors could accurately detect user’s motion in a larger area. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of Frayne and Smalley in view of Hu by implementing light sensors in addition to camera in order to accurately detect user’s position and action in a large environment.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 6/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On p. 10-12, applicant argued that the combination of Norris and Frayne fails to meet the claimed features, such as first sound at the first location, second sound at the second location, a first image at the first location and the second image at the second location. The office disagrees. The claimed system as specified in claim 8 does not require the concurrent presence of the first and second images, and also the concurrent presence of the first and second sound sources for concurrently outputting the first and second sound respectively. Thus, Norris teaches outputting a first sound and a second sound, depending on user location. Frayne clearly illustrates, in Figs. 15, 16 and 20-23, first image at a first location and second image at a second location. It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “two discrete, independently operating sound sources”, “generating two independent floating images at two spatial distinct locations”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Norris teaches ultrasonic audio generation for a general museum. One skilled in the art, together with common sense, would have expected that a museum usually includes one or more applicable visual displays. By combining audio and visual effects, a patron of the museum would be enlightened and better educated/entertained/informed of the subject matter conveyed by the combination of audio and visual effects. Norris does not limit the ultrasonic audio generation for a museum for a particular or specific setting. One skilled in the art would have expected a reasonable success by combining the audio generation as taught in Norris with visual generation as taught in Frayne.
On p. 12-p., applicant argued that replacing speakers in Voris by Norris’s ultrasonic transducers is not a straightforward component swap. Using ultrasonic transducers for simulating the flying bird does not require that the ultrasonic transducers be mounted at the locations as shown in Voris. The beam direction of the ultrasonic transducers could be adjusted more freely while the directionality of the general speakers mounted to the wall as taught in Voris is more limited. For example, Voris teaches three distinct speakers, with one at each end of the wall and one at the center of the wall, mounted on the wall for simulating the flying bird. With ultrasonic transducers, no such requirement is needed. The user has more freedom for placing the ultrasonic transducers at a preferred location compared to the placement as shown in Voris for simulating the sound effect as shown in Fig. 2C. In Voris, when the bird is at the left side of the wall, a speaker is required at the left side of the wall, on the other end, another speaker is required at the right side of the wall for simulating the bird at the right side of the wall. As stated in paragraph [0046] of Voris, the speakers provide directionality of the sound and simulating the location of the sound. Ultrasonic transducers in Norris could perform the same directionality control and sound source placement control without the restriction of the speaker placement. Furthermore, Voris teaches a camera and other motion detection sensors for tracking user’s position (e.g., [0043]). Controlling the beam directionality at a specific location, in view of the teaching from Norris, is within the level of one skilled in the art. Thus, one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when combining Voris and Norris.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 PING LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-7522. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Vivian Chin can be reached at 571-272-7848. 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.
/PING LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2695
Prosecution Insights