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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informality:
Paragraph 18 states, “selecting a gesture from a gesture . . . .” It is assumed that the preceding quote is replaced with, “selecting a gesture from a gesture storage . . . .”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, and 18–21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 recites a processor that has “storage for storing instructions . . . wherein the instructions perform operations” a) through m). None of the operations a) through m) narrow the recited “processor” because most any processor is capable of storing operations a) through m). It is assumed that “storage for storing instructions” is replaced with, “storage, wherein the storage stores instructions.”
Claim 18 limitations seemingly narrow claim 17. Moreover, if claim 18 were to depend on claim 17, then claim 18 would avoid one rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). It is assumed that “The system of claim 10” is replaced with, “The system of claim 17 . . . .”
Claim 19 limitations seemingly narrow claim 18. Moreover, if claim 19 were to depend on claim 18, then claim 19 would avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). It is assumed that “The system of claim 11” is replaced with, “The system of claim 18 . . . .”
Claim 20 limitations seemingly narrow claim 19. Moreover, if claim 20 were to depend on claim 19, then claim 20 would avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). It is assumed that “The system of claim 12” is replaced with, “The system of claim 19 . . . .”
Claim 21 states, “A computer-implemented method for gesture and show control system . . . .” Correct grammar requires an article immediately preceding “gesture.” It is assumed that “A computer-implemented method for gesture and show control system,” is replaced with “A computer-implemented method for a gesture and show control system . . . .”
Suggestions to claims 2, 4–6, 10–13, and 15–21, are in the last portion of the section, Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112. All suggestions are assumed. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Overall, the instant claim set is replete with limitations that fail to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(b), stemming largely from antecedent bases missing; or, from recitations of an indefinite article, expressly or implicitly, that causes uncertainty around whether the indefinite article introduces a limitation (never before introduced) or intends to reference something previously introduced. Not all rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are discussed below but all such rejections, even if unexpressed, motivate suggestions at the end of this section, and the suggestions are assumed.
Claims 2, 4–6, 10–13, 15–21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation, "the in-costume and on-performer electronics.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation, "the gesture and show controller.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation, "a gesture” in step (k)(1). It is unclear whether this limitation introduces a gesture that is different to a gesture in step (k).
Claim 20 recites the limitation, “the network connectivity alerts the gesture and show controller of other characters.” The preceding quote comprises the interpretation, “the network connectivity alerts the gesture and show controller belonging to other characters.” But such an interpretation causes an insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation, “the gesture and show controller” of other characters because this particular “gesture and show controller” was not already introduced with an indefinite article. Replacing “of” with “if” is suggested.
Claim 20 recites the limitation, “other characters in close proximity.” But the reference thing(s) or person(s) to which other characters are in close proximity is unclear.
The following suggestions are assumed:
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the power management comprises components to operate the costume and show controller, the audio subsystem, the one or more than one control sensor, the one or more than one visual indicator, and the one or more than one on-performer control.
4. The system of claim 1, wherein the costume and show controller comprises one or more than one processor that has storage, wherein the storage stores instructions executable on the one or more than one processor for operating and controlling a puppet, wherein the instructions perform operations including:
a) retrieving a time from an internal clock;
b) determining a beginning of data processing;
c) reading sensor data from one or more than one sensor input;
d) determining a new scene number if a new state exists;
e) inputting one or more than one scene modifier and one or more than one beat modifier for selecting a next sound bite;
f) inputting one or more than one stored previous cue modifier for selecting the next sound bite;
g) inputting one or more than one nearby character modifier for selecting the next sound bite;
h) inputting one or more than one nearby character identification, if there is one or more than one different character nearby the puppeted walk-around character performer, into the one or more than one nearby character modifier;
i) inputting one or more than one seasonal modifier for selecting the next sound bite;
j) pre-processing gesture sensor data from the one or more than one sensor;
k) selecting a gesture from a gesture storage by:
1) determining if either of the gesture or a second gesture is active;
2) determining if the performer has met all conditions for the gesture;
3) determining if a mouth actuator is engaged;
4) progressing to a next gesture in the gesture storage if none of the above conditions are met;
l) determining from the selected gesture, a playback status, and a lockout status if a next cue is found for selecting a next sound; and
m) playing back the next sound.
5. The system of claim 1, wherein the audio subsystem comprises one or more than one audio amplifier, and optionally one or more than one audio transceiver, so that a puppet can interact with the guests at a venue.
6. The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more than one control sensor comprises:
a) one or more than one switch operably connected to the costume and show controller;
b) one or more than one sensor operably connected to the costume and show controller; and
c) one or more than one actuator and actuator sensor operably connected to the costume and show controller to make a puppet appear more lifelike to the guests at a venue.
10. The system of claim 1, further comprising in-costume hardware, wherein the in-costume hardware comprises:
a) one or more than one speaker;
b) the one or more than one visual indicator;
c) a mouth actuator and a mouth [addition of “a mouth” avoids a 35 U.S.C. 112(b) violation by claim 15] actuator sensor;
d) a scene selector; and
e) one or more than one on-performer control.
12. The system of claim 10, wherein the one or more than one visual indicator is used to indicate to the performer that a gesture or audio playback has been completed, or that the gesture or an audio playback is able to be used.
13. The system of claim 10, wherein the mouth actuator is used to open a mouth of a puppet, so that an audio playback can match the mouth movement.
14. The system of claim 10, wherein the scene selector is used by the performer in a show navigation to advance to a next scene or to a previous scene.
15. The system of claim 10, wherein the one or more than one on-performer control is used by the performer in combination with the mouth actuator sensor to activate a sound playback to the guests.
16. The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more than one control sensor, the costume and show controller, one or more than one on-board audio amplifier and one or more than one speaker, enable the performer to trigger sound bites using gestures and makes the system entirely self-contained within a costume or a puppet.
17. The system of claim 1, wherein the system further comprises an area wide show control, the area wide show control comprising a gesture and show controller and a wireless radio.
18. The system of claim 17, wherein the wireless radio provides network connectivity to one or more than one wired, wireless or both wired and wireless network and external control systems.
19. The system of claim 18, wherein the network connectivity is used for triggering environmental cues, area wide audio control cues, theatrical lighting control cues, special effects cues, animatronic effects control cues, and show and environmental related cues and sequences.
20. The system of claim 19, wherein the network connectivity alerts the gesture and show controller if at least a second character is in close proximity to the puppeted walk-around character performer, and transmits the at least second character’s identification to the gesture and show controller for processing.
21. A computer-implemented method for a gesture and show control system for a puppeted walk-around character performer used for engaging directly with guests, the method comprising the steps of:
a) retrieving a time from an internal clock;
b) determining a beginning of data processing;
c) reading sensor data from one or more than one sensor input;
d) determining a new scene number if a new state exists;
e) inputting one or more than one scene modifier and one or more than one beat modifier for selecting a next sound bite;
f) inputting one or more than one stored previous cue modifier for selecting the next sound bite;
g) inputting one or more than one nearby character modifier for selecting the next sound bite;
h) inputting one or more than one nearby character identification, if there is one or more than one different character nearby the puppeted walk-around character performer, into the one or more than one nearby character modifier;
i) inputting one or more than one seasonal modifier for selecting the next sound bite;
j) pre-processing gesture sensor data from one or more than one sensor; [claim 4 depends on claim 1 that introduced “control sensor,” whereas claim 21 is independent]
k) selecting a gesture from a gesture storage by:
1) determining if the gesture or a second gesture is active;
2) determining if the performer has met all conditions for the gesture;
3) determining if a mouth actuator is engaged;
4) progressing to a next gesture in the gesture storage if none of the above conditions are met;
l) determining from the selected gesture, a playback status, and a lockout status if a next cue is found for selecting a next sound; and
m) playing back the next sound.
Additionally, claims 4 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 4 and 21 recite steps k) through m). They do not relate logically to each other to render clear how, or if, step m) occurs, because step m) recites, “the selected next sound” without sufficient antecedent basis, since no step (positively) selects a next sound upon a condition occurring. Also, the lead-in to steps k)1) through k)4), “selecting a gesture from a gesture storage by:” asserts that steps k)1) through k)4) reveal which condition(s) occur(s) to result in “selecting a gesture.” However, no step recites (positively) selecting a gesture upon a condition occurring. Also, step l) recites “the selected gesture” without sufficient antecedent basis because no step provides a condition that occurs, and that thereafter results in (positively) selecting a gesture. No suggestion is contemplated to overcome the rejection bases in this paragraph. The suggestions to claims 4 and 21, above, are not intended to overcome the rejection bases in this paragraph.
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.
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.
Claims 1–3, 6, and 17–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Irmler et al. (US 9483115 B2) in view of Eck at al. (US 8517788 B2).
As to claim 1, Irmler, filed May 31, 2013, has the common joint inventor David Frederick Beaudry (the same inventor as the inventor of the instant application). Even though the instant application’s Application Data Sheet received September 20, 2024, lists David Beaudry as the inventor, it is assumed that David Frederick Beaudry and David Beaudry refer to the same person.
Irmler teaches a gesture and show control system (“walk-around character control system 100 that includes a walk-around character costume 110 that may be worn by a performer . . . to provide a show or interaction with visitor(s) 102” at column 7, line 19–24) for a puppeted walk-around character performer used for engaging directly with guests. The system comprises:
b) a costume and show controller (“an onboard and/or offboard controller/computer system 150 for providing control signals 128” at column 7, line 37–38);
c) an audio subsystem (“sound system 114 . . . positioned inside a head or torso of the costume 110” at column 7, line 34–36) operably connected to the costume and show controller;
d) one or more than one control sensor (“robotics (or special effect mechanisms) 112 . . . positioned inside a head or torso of the costume 110” at column 7, line 33–36; or “transceiver or wireless transmitter 118 used to receive such signals 128 and to transmit trigger signals 127 for processing by the show controller 150” at column 7, line 40–42; or “pressure sensors 122” at column 8, line 36–44; or “eye tracking sensors 124” at column 9, line 13–27) operably connected to the costume and show controller;
e) one or more than one visual indicator (“an operator of a context input device, such as a wireless communication device with a touchscreen providing an iconographic listing of available contexts, may [select] . . . context-related icons/input” at column 2, line 28–37) operably connected to the costume and show controller; and
f) one or more than one on-performer control (“trigger mechanisms 120 may include one or more pairs of spaced apart pressure sensors 122 such as on two different fingers . . . of one or both of the gloves of the costume 110” at column 8, line 36–39; or “eye tracking sensors 124” at column 9, line 14; or a “control system” at column 2, line 43–53) operably connected to the costume and show controller.
Irmler does not expressly teach power management. Eck ‘788 does.
Eck ‘788 teaches a gesture and show control system (“performer 102 wear[s] a costume 110 . . . with movable portions. The performer also wears/supports a performer-worn control system/assembly 120. The control system 120 is operable to articulate and control motorized animated features on the mobile, self-contained costume 110” at column 6, line 20–22) for a puppeted walk-around character performer used for engaging directly with guests. The system comprises:
a) power management (“battery packs or other mobile power elements . . . 124 to provide power for the control system 120 components and the actuators 146” at column 6, line 46–48).
Additionally, “[t]he control system 120 also includes a belt pack character controller assembly 130 provided on the belt 122 . . . . The controller assembly 130 provides power and control signals to output devices such as actuators 146 and, to this end, a plurality of power/communication wires may be run from the controller 130 to the head (or costume or prop) junction box 142 via a wire harness 134, which is connected to the controller assembly 130 via a belt pack connection 132.” (column 6, line 54–63).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Irmler in view of Eck ‘788, by employing power management operably connected to the costume and show controller, and that is also operably connected to the audio subsystem, as taught by Eck ‘788, to provide electricity to electrically powered components of the gesture and show control system.
As to claim 2, Irmler as modified by the rejection to claim 1 above, essentially already teaches that the power management comprises components to operate the costume and show controller, the audio subsystem, the one or more than one control sensor, the one or more than one visual indicator, and the one or more than one on-performer control.
In any event, Eck ‘788 teaches the power management (“system 120 includes one or more battery packs or other mobile power elements . . . 124 to provide power for the control system 120 components and the actuators 146”). (column 6, line 45–48). And Eck ‘788 teaches various components to operate the costume and show controller, the audio subsystem, the one or more than one control sensor, the one or more than one visual indicator, and the one or more than one on-performer control:
“finger paddles 126, signal wires 127, and switch boxes 128 to allow the performer 102 to turn puppet mode on and off,” column 6, line 51–53;
“controller assembly 130 provides power and control signals to output devices such as actuators 146 and, to this end, a plurality of power/communication wires may be run from the controller 130 to the head (or costume or prop) junction box 142 via a wire harness 134, which is connected to the controller assembly 130 via a belt pack connection 132,” column 6, line 57–63;
“costume portion 210 may include components mounted in a character head, a portion of a costume, and/or a prop tethered or otherwise associated with the control portion 230, and the junction box 220 may be adapted for ready connection of power/control wiring from the control portion 230 to wiring/devices in the head, prop, or costume portion 210 via a connector/connection assembly 232 (e.g., a connection that may allow a character head to simply be plugged into/together or otherwise attached to the control portion 230),” column 7, line 38–47;
“power conditioner(s) 244 in the control enclosure 240,” column 8, line 10–11;
“controller 250 may also include . . . A/D converters,” column 8, line 33–40;
“One switch may provide a master power disconnect signal to the control power source,” column 11, line 47–48;
“wire harness generally is adapted to contain all wires needed to connect signals from character controller to other costume locations . . . . . . . In some cases, arm mounted control switches are provided that may include two manual switches and enclosures (one each mounted on a forearm of the left and right arms of a performer) with tactile feedback to allow a performer know when a change in a switch position has occurred,” column 19, line 13–25.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Irmler, already modified to reject claim 1, by employing components to operate the costume and show controller, the audio subsystem, the one or more than one control sensor, the one or more than one visual indicator, and the one or more than one on-performer control, as taught by Eck ‘788, to ensure that the gesture and control system functions as intended.
As to claim 3, Irmler as modified to reject claim 2 above, already includes Eck ‘788’s teaching that the components are selected from the group consisting of: a battery (“battery packs or other mobile power elements . . . 124 to provide power for the control system 120 components and the actuators 146,” at column 6, line 46–48 of Eck ‘788), a power switch (“One switch may provide a master power disconnect signal to the control power source,” at column 11, line 47–48 of Eck ‘788), or a converter (“controller 250 may also include . . . A/D converters,” at column 8, line 38–40 of Eck ‘788).
As to claim 6, Irmler as modified to reject claim 1 above, teaches neither a switch, a sensor operably connected to the gesture and show controller, nor an actuator and actuator sensor operably connected to the gesture and show controller.
Irmler teaches that the one or more than one control sensor (“robotics (or special effect mechanisms) 112 . . . which may be partially or wholly positioned inside a head or torso of the costume 110,” or “transceiver or wireless transmitter 118 used to receive such signals 128 and to transmit trigger signals 127 for processing by the show controller 150,” or “pressure sensors 122,” or “eye tracking sensors 124,” column 7, line 33–36, 40–42; column 8, line 37; column 9, line 14) comprises:
a) one or more than one switch (“In some control assemblies, the trigger mechanism includes a pair of analog pressure sensors or switches, which are linked to a trigger processing module of a controller [150] (within the character and/or offboard (or remote/backstage),” column 4, line 41–44) operably connected to the costume and show controller (“an onboard and/or offboard controller/computer system 150 for providing control signals 128,” column 7, line 37–38);
b) one or more than one sensor (“trigger mechanisms 120 may also include a gesture recognition sensor 126 that transmits signals 127 to the controller 150 for processing by the trigger processing module 160. In one implementation of the system 100, an accelerometer is used as the sensor 126, and it is positioned in or on the glove of the costume 110,” column 9, line 41–46) operably connected to the costume and show controller; and
c) one or more than one actuator (“costume output such as audio playback or animation of the character's eyes, mouth, ears, and the like with onboard robotics,” column 4, line 29–31) and actuator sensor (“Such performer control typically will sense an affirmative action or movement of the performer, and, in response, a trigger (or sensor signal) processing module (or processor) will cause a controller to generate and transmit control signals (control is triggered) to the sound and/or animation components of the costume,” column 4, line 31–36) operably connected to the costume and show controller to make a puppet appear more lifelike to the guests at a venue.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Irmler, already modified to reject claim 1, by employing a switch operably connected to the costume and show controller as taught by Irmler, to conveniently send commands to the costume and show controller.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Irmler, already modified by the preceding paragraph, by employing a sensor operably connected to the costume and show controller as taught by Irmler, to register commands, gestured or triggered, by the puppeted walk-around character performer.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Irmler, already modified by the preceding paragraph, by employing an actuator operably connected to the costume and show controller as taught by Irmler, to sync puppet mouth movements to playback through the audio subsystem, thereby strengthening the illusion to onlookers or guests that the puppet is alive.
As to claim 17, Irmler as modified to reject claim 1 above, teaches a gesture and show controller.
Irmler, as modified to reject claim 1, does not expressly teach that the gesture and show controller is comprised by an area wide show control, nor does it expressly teach a wireless radio.
Eck ’788 teaches that the system of claim 1 comprises an area wide show control (“wayside control system or assembly 310” at column 9, line 3). And Eck ’788 teaches that the area wide show control comprises a gesture and show controller:
[T]he wayside system 310 is shown to include a real-time control portion 314 that may include a computer for providing remote control data 315 to an off-stage controller interface 312, which in turn transmits the data as a show control signal 320 to the performer-worn control system 340 . . . .
. . .
The off-stage or wayside controls may include a wireless interface to multiple character controllers and provide an interface to show control sources. . . . The show control sources may also provide synchronization with other show elements during show playback.
(column 9, line 13–18; column 10, line 34–46). The area wide show control of Eck ’788 also comprises a wireless radio:
The show control signals 320 may be broadcast to all receivers/controllers 342, 380, 390 within the performance area 304 and may be directed to all characters or to a subset . . . .
. . .
As shown, the performer-worn control system 340 includes a wireless receiver 342 operable to receive the show control signals 320.
. . .
The off-stage or wayside controls may include a wireless interface to multiple character controllers and provide an interface to show control sources. . . . The show control sources may also provide synchronization with other show elements during show playback.
(column 9, line 45–48; column 9, line 50–52; column 10, line 34–36).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Irmler, already modified to reject claim 1, by employing an area wide show control, as taught by Eck ’788, to permit an operator who is outside of the costume and whose attention is thus unburdened by tasks that do burden the performer, to further customize and enrich a guest’s interaction with the performer.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Irmler, already modified by the preceding paragraph, by employing a gesture and show controller (included in the area wide show control), as taught by Eck ’788, to permit an operator who is outside of the costume and whose attention is thus unburdened by tasks that do burden the performer, to further animate the costume worn by the performer, thereby further customizing and enriching a guest’s interaction with the performer.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Irmler, already modified by the preceding paragraph, by employing a wireless radio (included in the area wide show control), as taught by Eck ’788, to permit an operator who is outside of the costume and whose attention is thus unburdened by tasks that do burden the performer, to conveniently send commands to the costume worn by the performer, that animate the costume, and thereby enable a guest’s interaction with the performer to be further customized and enriched.
As to claim 18, Irmler as modified to reject claim 17 above, already teaches the wireless radio and at least implicitly teaches that the wireless radio provides network connectivity to wireless network and external control systems.
In any event, Eck ’788 teaches a wireless radio that provides network connectivity to wireless network and external control systems:
The wayside system 310 supports remote control or operation of a costume feature 378 such as character head mouth or movement of a prop by operation or actuation of an output device 374 (e.g., an actuator) provided on or within a costume 370 . . . . . . . [T]he wayside system 310 is shown to include a real-time control portion 314 that may include a computer for providing remote control data 315 to an off-stage controller interface 312, which in turn transmits the data as a show control signal 320 to the performer-worn control system 340 . . . . . . . The show control signals 320 may be broadcast to all receivers/controllers 342, 380, 390 within the performance area 304 and may be directed to all characters or to a subset . . . .
. . .
As shown, the performer-worn control system 340 includes a wireless receiver 342 operable to receive the show control signals 320.
. . .
The off-stage or wayside controls may include a wireless interface to multiple character controllers and provide an interface to show control sources. . . . . The show control sources may also provide synchronization with other show elements during show playback.
(column 9, line 8–48; column 9, line 50–52; column 10, line 34–46).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Irmler, already modified to reject claim 17, by employing an external control system, as taught by Eck ’788, to permit an operator who is outside of the costume and whose attention is thus unburdened by tasks that do burden the performer, to further customize and enrich a guest’s interaction with the performer.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Irmler, already modified by the preceding paragraph, by employing a wireless radio that provides network connectivity to wireless network and external control systems, as taught by Eck ’788, to permit an operator who is outside of the costume and whose attention is thus unburdened by tasks that do burden the performer, to conveniently send commands to the costume worn by the performer, that animate the costume, and thereby enable a guest’s interaction with the performer to be further customized and enriched, or to strengthen the illusion that the costume worn by the performer is alive.
As to claim 19, Irmler as modified to reject claim 18, already employs the network connectivity that triggers “character head mouth or movement of a prop,” “all receivers/controllers 342, 380, 390 within the performance area 304 and may be directed to all characters,” or “synchronization with other show elements during show playback.” (Eck ’788 column 9, line 9–10, 46–48; column 10, line 45–46). From this disclosure a person of ordinary skill would at once envisage all the cue and sequence species recited by claim 19. In any event, Eck ’788 teaches expressly that its disclosure of systems and apparatuses
may be applied to nearly any mobile or worn device with aspects or features that are driven or articulated by actuators or other output devices such as animatronics, puppets, animated props, lighting effects, and atmospheric effects while a major area of interest is worn costumes that have aspects or features such as eyes, ears, mouths, and so on that can be moved . . . .
(column 12, line 46–52).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to use the network connectivity to trigger the cue and sequence species recited by claim 19 (i.e., environmental cues, area wide audio control cues, theatrical lighting control cues, special effects cues, animatronic effects control cues, and show and environmental related cues and sequences) because the person of ordinary skill, by reading the Eck ’788 disclosure, would have at once envisaged the claimed cues and sequence. MPEP § 2131.02 (III). Additionally, the instant applicant does not allege an unexpected result of using the network connectivity to trigger any one of the cue and sequence species recited by claim 19.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Irmler and Eck ‘788, as applied to reject claim 1 above, and further in view of Robertson et al. (US 10338686 B2), Vyas et al. (US 10845975 B2), Vyas et al (US 10775880 B2), and Hooker et al. (US 11467675 B1).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Irmler, in view of Robertson, Vyas ‘975, Vyas ‘880, and Hooker.
As to claim 4, Irmler as modified to reject claim 1 above, already teaches the costume and show controller (“walk-around character control system 100 that includes a walk-around character costume 110 that may be worn by a performer/actor ( . . . activating the trigger mechanisms 120) to provide a show or interaction with visitor(s) 102” at column 7, line 19–24).
Irmler as modified to reject claim 1, expressly teaches neither a processor that has storage, nor the claimed operations.
Irmler itself teaches that the costume and show controller comprises a processor (“processor 152” or “CPU 152” at column 7, line 56–59) has storage (“memory or data storage 156” or “memory 156”) at column 7, line 67; column 8, line 1), wherein the storage stores instructions (“trigger processing module 160 (again, code or instructions executable by the processor 152” at column 8, line 14–16) executable on the one or more than one processor for operating and controlling a puppet.
As to claim 21, Irmler teaches some steps of a computer-implemented method for a gesture and show control system for a puppeted walk-around character performer used for engaging directly with guests (“walk-around character control system 100 that includes a walk-around character costume 110 that may be worn by a performer/actor ( . . . activating the trigger mechanisms 120) to provide a show or interaction with visitor(s) 102” at column 7, line 19–24). As explained below, Irmler teaches operations or steps, c), and e)–j).
Irmler does not, however, teach the other operations or steps.
As to claims 4 and 21, these claims recite essentially the same operations or steps, a) through m), and therefore rejections to these operations or steps apply to both claims 4 and 21. It is understood that to reject each claim 4 operations, the base combination of references is used that is Irmler as modified to reject claim 1; whereas to reject each claim 21 step, it is implied that Irmler as modified to reject claim 1 is replaced with the base starting reference, Irmler (unmodified).
Robertson teaches that a processor performs a), retrieving a time from an internal clock; and b), determining a beginning of data processing:
[C]ontrol assembly 100 is adapted to identify when a performer wearing the costume 110 performs one or more gestures (e.g., one embodiment is used to detect performance of one of 20 to 40 gestures). A gesture generally may be made up of movement of one, two, or more portions of the costume (or the performer's body parts) in a predefined manner over a predefined time period (e.g., over a period of less than one second up to 2 to 5 or more seconds with one embodiment using time periods of 2 seconds).
(column 8, line 19–27).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Irmler, already modified to reject claim 1, by configuring the processor to perform operation a) as taught by Robertson, to compare a gesture performed for a particular amount of time by the performer to the amount of time that is predefined for a gesture definition in storage, as taught by Robertson.
Irmler teaches that the processor performs operations, c) reading sensor data from one or more than one sensor input and d) determining a new scene number if a new state exists: “receive and process trigger signals 127 from the trigger mechanisms 120 to determine if a dialog navigation trigger has been initiated by the performer wearing the costume 110 (or if a trigger for robotics/effects 112 has been generated by the performed with trigger mechanism 120.” (column 8, line 20–24).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Irmler, already modified to reject claim 1, by configuring the processor to perform operations c) and d) as taught by Irmler, to enable the processor to use the particular gesture performed by the performer to trigger a new state and therefore a new scene number.
Irmler teaches expressly or implicitly, operations e)–i): “context input device 130 to generate the context selection signal 136.” (column 10, line 14–15). The scene modifier and beat modifiers, taught by Irmler, include
visitor-specific features 103 about a visitor 102 such as their age, whether they are celebrating a special occasion, and/or whether they are wearing a costume or clothes indicating they are fans of a show, a character, and the like.
. . .
[The scene modifier and beat modifier may be] . . . of a neutral/base context and a plurality of non-neutral contexts such as a birthday celebrant or a young child in one or more predefined costumes (e.g., a pirate, a prince/princess, and so on) or the contexts may be associated with a particular prop or toy “operated” by the host or operator (or an automated system may provide the context modulation in some cases). . . . “[C]ontext modulation” is not limited to selection of or modulation of which audio clips are utilized in the system 100. In some cases, the timing of show elements (including audio clips, special effects, the like) may be modulated as may be other show or output parameters such as amplitude (or volume), frequency, and the like may be modulated . . . .
. . . [C]ontext modulation may be used to control synthesis of a script or to combine one or more special effects. Further, an operator of the context input device 130 may choose two or more contexts for concurrent implementation to achieve a desired show context provided to a visitor/participant (e.g., select both “birthday” and “shy” to have birthday lines/audio clips and/or special effects for a shy child and so on).
(column 10, line 10–14, 30–37, 41–47, 50–57).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Irmler, already modified to reject claim 1, by configuring the processor to perform operations e)–j), to customize and enrich a guest’s interaction with the performer.
Vyas ‘975 also implicitly teaches operations g), inputting one or more than one nearby character modifier for selecting the next sound bite; and h), inputting one or more than one nearby character identification, if there is one or more than one different character nearby the puppeted walk-around character performer, into the one or more than one nearby character modifier. Vyas ‘975 teaches inputting a nearby guest modifier if a guest (“user 26”) is in close proximity to the puppeted walk-around character performer (performer wearing “animated character head 30”), and inputting the nearby guest’s identification (“identifier 22 in the wearable device 24”) into the nearby character modifier:
[T]he user 26 may visit the animated character head 30, which may be located in another portion of the amusement park. Another reader 20 positioned proximate to the animated character head 30 (e.g., coupled and/or inside to the animated character head 30 . . . ) may detect the identifier 22 in the wearable device 24 as the user 26 approaches the animated character head 30. The another reader 20 may provide a signal indicating that the wearable device 24 was detected proximate to the animated character head 30 to the computing system 16 (e.g., via a wireless or wired connection), the computing system 16 may then determine that the user 26 is approaching the animated character head 30 based on the signal, the computing system 16 may then access the information stored in the one or more databases 18, and the computing system 16 may then provide an output to control or influence the animated character head's 30 interaction with the user 26 based on the information. . . . [T]he computing system 16 may provide an output to the animated character head 30 that causes display of the information and/or a recommended interaction on the display 42 of the animated character head 30. . . .
In this manner, the interactive system 10 may provide a unique, personalized interactive experience between the user 26 and the animated character head 30. . . . [T]he identification system 12 may provide outputs directly to the animated character head 30 (e.g., the processor 36 of the animated character head 30 may process signals received directly from the identification system 12 to select and play an animation from the library).
(column 8, line 52–67; column 9, line 1–44).
Replacing the guest in Vyas ‘975 with a second character in claim 19 would have been an obvious rearrangement of parts or duplication of parts because the guest and second character share properties: both the guest and second character are visible and contextual from the reference frame of the guest who is proximate to the puppeted walk-around character. MPEP § 2144.04 (VI)(B)–(C). In other words, the guest is a being; the second character is also a being, at least in a fictional story; each is in close proximity to the puppeted walk-around character performer; and each one’s identification contributes to the context of the interaction between the puppeted walk-around character performer and the guest. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Irmler, already modified to reject claim 1, by configuring the processor to perform operations g) and h), as taught by Vyas ‘975, to include yet more contextual modification to the interaction between the puppet and the guest, and thereby provide a more “unique, personalized interactive experience” to the guest as taught by Vyas ‘975 at column 9, line 25–27.
Hooker teaches operation j), pre-processing gesture sensor data from the one or more than one sensor:
[G]esture detection module 215 enables one or more of EMG sensors 213 (e.g., EMG sensors 213B and 213C). Gesture detection module 215 collects data from each of EMG sensors 213A, 213B, and 213C. Gesture detection module 215 preprocesses the data and outputs the data to neural network 216 to assist neural network 216 in identifying the gesture.
(column 19, line 54–60).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Irmler, already modified to reject claim 1, by configuring the processor to perform operations j) as taught by Hooker, to increase the accuracy with which the system or method determines whether or which gesture, having a matching gesture predefined in the storage, was gestured by the performer, or, to increase the speed with which the processor processes the gesture performed by the performer.
Vyas ‘880 expressly or implicitly teaches operations k)–m), performed by either a processor or performer.
To start, Vyas ‘880 implicitly teaches that a processor performs operation k); it selects a gesture from a gesture storage by, k)2), determining if the performer met all conditions for the gesture: “[I]nputs may be processed by the processor 24 to select an animation from the library of animations stored in the memory 22." (column 4, line 36–38). To be clear, an “animation” in Vyas ‘880 comprises “syncing mechanical actuation (e.g., . . . jaw movement, . . .) with audio and/or lighting internal to the Animated Character Head.” (column 2, line 64–67; column 3, line 1–7).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Irmler, already modified to reject claim 1, by configuring the processor to perform operations k) and k)2) as taught by Vyas ‘880, to enable the performer to trigger the processor to select a gesture, and for that in turn to trigger the puppet to animate or play audio that the guest perceives.
Therefore, Vyas ‘880 must also implicitly teach that a processor selects a gesture by k)1), determining if either of the gesture or a second gesture is active, because the limitation k)1) is interpreted as: determining which gesture, amongst at least two gestures, the performer is gesturing.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Irmler, already modified to reject claim 1, by configuring the processor to perform operation k)1) as taught by Vyas ‘880, to enable the processor to identify correctly whether a performer is gesturing, and to enable the process to correctly identify the particular gesture, for a particular gesture to consistently cause the processor to play the sound that is the same one as the sound that the gesture storage assigned to a gesture definition approximating the particular gesture.
Vyas ‘880 teaches that the processor performs k)4), progressing to a next gesture in gesture storage if none of the conditions k)1)–k)3) are met:
The performer may then select multiple animations to be executed on the face of the Animated Character Head. The list of animations may be stored in a library of animations in a controller to cause the Animated Character head to execute the animations in a sequence or collectively at the same time (e.g., first blink, then flash a light, then say, “hello,” and finally smile).
. . .
In some embodiments, the multiple animations provided on the display 14 may be changed, modified, switched, delayed, or deleted by the performer via various inputs to the one or more sensors 50, thereby enabling efficient updates by the performer during interactions with guests.
(column 3, line 30–36; column 5, line 22–27). In other words, if the performer is not gesturing and if the performer has not properly gestured to trigger a particular gesture selection, and if the mouth actuator is not engaged (i.e., the “Animated Character head” is not animated), then the processor in Vyas ‘880 selects a next gesture in a queue of gestures.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Irmler, already modified to reject claim 1, by configuring the processor to perform operation k)4) as taught by Vyas ‘880, to enable the processor to identify correctly whether a performer is gesturing, and to enable the processor to correctly identify the particular gesture, for a particular gesture to consistently cause the processor to play the sound that is the same one as the sound that the gesture storage assigned to a gesture definition approximating the particular gesture.
Vyas ‘880 also teaches that the performer performs k)3), determining if a mouth actuator is engaged:
The display 14 [that the performer sees while wearing the Animated Character Head 10] may be utilized to provide various other information. For example, in some embodiments, an external camera 46 (e.g., physically separate from the Animated Character Head 10) may be provided to obtain images (e.g., still or moving images, such as video) of the currently playing animation (e.g., current movements or features of the Animated Character Head 10), which may be relayed to the Animated Character Head 10 (e.g., via wireless communication devices, such as transceivers) for display via the display 14 to provide feedback and to enable the performer to visualize the currently playing animation and/or the surrounding environment.
In certain embodiments, the Animated Character Head 10 may include one or more status sensors 74 configured to monitor a component status and/or a system status (e.g., to determine whether a performed animation does not correspond to the selected animation), and an indication of the status may be provided via the display 14.
(column 5, line 32–49). In short, the performer determines whether a mouth actuator is engaged, and if it is, the performer reasonably chooses not to trigger the processor to progress to a next gesture. To do otherwise would cause the puppet head to abruptly change to a different animation or sound while an instant before, the puppet head was yet to finish an animation sequence or was in the midst of an expression. And an abrupt shift in sound or expression before its programmed end, to another sound or expression, would betray the illusion that the puppet head is alive and underscore the puppet head’s robot innards. Claims 4 and 21 recite that a processor performs k)3), thereby automating the operations that a performer carries out in Vyas ‘880. Therefore, Vyas ‘880 implicitly teaches k)3) because automating a prior art manual process which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. MPEP § 2144.04 (III). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Irmler, already modified to reject claim 1, by configuring the processor to perform operation k)3) as taught by Vyas ‘880, to prevent betrayal of the illusion that the puppet head is alive in an interaction with the guest.
Vyas ‘880 teaches that the performer performs l), determining from the selected gesture, a playback status, and a lockout status if a next cue is found for selecting a next sound:
In certain embodiments, a handler may utilize the input device 38 (e.g., a tangible input system, . . . or the like) to provide an input and/or to select animations. The handler is a person other than the performer wearing the Animated Character Head 10, . . . . In such cases, the handler’s selections may be transmitted . . . to the Animated Character Head 10 . . . . In some embodiments, the performer may be notified of the handler’s selection (e.g., via the display device 14). In some embodiments, the Animated Character Head 10 may enable the performer to veto, delay, and/or modify the selection (e.g., via inputs to the one or more sensors 50). In some embodiments, the performer may accept or approve the handler’s animation selection (e.g., press “go”, indicate approval via inputs to the one or more sensors 50) to play the animation. In some embodiments, the selections may be provided, accepted, vetoed, delayed, and/or modified by the eye tracking sensor, the vocal command sensor, the machine vision sensor, and/or physical input sensor . . . . For example, the animation selection made based on the handler’s input at the base station 30 may be displayed on the display 14 for visualization by the performer, and the performer may then veto or accept (e.g., initiate) the animation selection by making certain eye movements . . . .
(column 6, line 7–37). Vyas ‘880 implies that the performer determines if a next cue is found for selecting a next sound from: the selected gesture (that is on “display device 14” and that was selected by the “handler”), a playback status (because the performer considers a “currently playing animation” that is on “display 14” as explained at column 5, line 32–49), and a lockout status (whenever the performer “vetoed” the selected gesture). Vyas ‘880 implies this because, in order to select a next sound, the performer reasonably determines if any cue such as a “modification” to an “animation” that is the same or analogous to the “modification” that the performer prefers, is present in the selected gesture or one of the aforementioned statuses. Therefore, Vyas ‘880 implicitly teaches l) because automating a prior art manual process which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. MPEP § 2144.04 (III). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Irmler, already modified to reject claim 1, by configuring the processor to perform operation l) as taught by Vyas ‘880, to apply a same, suitable, modifying cue across sounds played by the puppet to the guest.
Vyas ‘880 also teaches that the processor performs m), playing back the selected sound: “The performer may then select multiple animations to be executed on the face of the Animated Character Head. The list of animations may be stored in a library of animations in a controller to cause the Animated Character head to execute the animations . . . .” (column 3, line 29–34).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Irmler, already modified to reject claim 1, by configuring the processor to perform operation m) as taught by Vyas ‘880, to enable the guest to hear a communication from the puppet and thereby enrich the guest’s interaction with the puppet.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Irmler and Eck ‘788, as applied to reject claim 1 above, and further in view of Eck at al. (US 9272228 B2).
As to claim 5, Irmler as modified to reject claim 1, does not teach an audio amplifier or audio transceiver.
Eck ‘228 teaches a "costume assembly . . . comprising a belt pack controller 150 that is wired or wirelessly linked (as shown with line 171) to a sound system or assembly 170 positioned or provided in a character costume such as in the character head 190 (as shown in FIG. 1).” (column 5, line 45–46).
Eck ‘228 also teaches an
an audio base station transceiver, which is positioned a distance or remote from the audio controller and the performer-worn costume . . . [and is] operable by an operator to trigger audio playback (and, in some cases, animation of the costume components) by relaying commands to the character via the full duplex communication link or connection).
(column 4, line 31–42). Eck ‘228 also teaches that
actual components used to implement a belt pack controller 150 may vary to practice the system 100. However, in one exemplary cases, the controller 150 includes an audio main board . . . . . . . A processor was provided for running the control software . . . and a 40 W Class D audio amplifier.
(column 8, line 45–58).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Irmler, already modified to reject claim 1, by employing an audio amplifier as taught by Eck ‘228, to permit louder playback by the audio subsystem, and thereby playback reaches guests who are farther from the puppeted walk-around character performer.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Irmler, already modified by the preceding paragraph, by employing an audio transceiver as taught by Eck ‘228, to allow the audio subsystem of the puppet to play sound in reaction to environmental sounds or music, or a guest speaking, thereby strengthening the illusion to guests that the puppet is alive.
Claims 7–8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Irmler and Eck ‘788, as applied to reject claim 1 above, and further in view of Pederson (US 2021/0383403 A1) and the machine-generated translation into English of Yu et al. (CN 113160260 A).
As to claim 7, Irmler as modified to reject claim 1 above, does not teach that a visual indicator is an RGB LED light.
In short, Pederson teaches sensors that detect gestures, and if such gestures trigger a “status change,” then an “LED light fixture 56” transmits “light communication signals” onto a display for a person to visually confirm a “status change.” (paragraph 303, 307). Pederson teaches that an individual may “make a gesture” or “eye movement” that is picked up by “visible light transceiver glasses 318 or other interface device(s) 96.” (paragraph 307). The gesture or eye movement “is translated into pulsed VLEC signals” that are received by a “remote control server 92,” that sends them to a “facility control unit 72” or “operating exchange 80 for the cyber-building,” and the “operating exchange 80” includes an “operating system 52” or “operating system software.” (paragraph 303, 307). The “operating system 52” simultaneously may cause an “LED light fixture 56 to generate pulsed light communication signals” that are transmitted “onto a display” for the “operator to confirm that a status change for an operating system 52 has occurred.” (paragraph 307).
Yu teaches eyeglasses (comprised in the “heat-eye dual-channel intelligent human-computer interaction system”) that include an “eye image acquisition module, [and] a head posture detection module.” (paragraph n0007). The eyeglasses detect “grayscale image data of the human eye” and “posture data.” (paragraph n0008) Yu teaches that these data are transformed eventually into forms suitable for a computer, and then transferred to interact with the computer. (paragraph n0003, n0006, n0009–n0014). The eyeglasses also include an “LED status indicator [that] is an RGB indicator used to indicate different system states . . . .” (paragraph n0015). Specifically,
the LED status indicator light emits red light, and when fully charged, it emits green light; when the power switch button is pressed, the head and eye dual-channel intelligent human-computer interaction system is powered on, and the LED status indicator light emits blue light, indicating that the system has started to work normally; when the battery level is lower than the preset low battery warning line, the LED status indicator light flashes and emits red light.
(paragraph n0027).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Irmler, already modified to reject claim 1, by employing an LED light to display a state of system to the performer, as taught by Pederson, to provide confirmation that a “status change” has occurred due to a recorded and registered command, as taught by Pederson. (paragraph 307 of Pederson).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Irmler, already modified by the preceding paragraph, by employing an RGB light as the specific type of LED light, as taught by Yu, to alert the performer to more system states, or to alert the performer more clearly.
As to claim 8, Irmler as modified to reject claim 7, already includes an RGB LED light. And the RGB LED light is inherently capable of displaying a unique color to differentiate each scene, each beat, and system status to the performer, assuming that the number of colors necessary is equal to or less than 256 raised to the power of three.
Claims 9–11, and 13–16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Irmler and Eck ‘788, as applied to reject claim 1 above, and further in view of Robertson.
As to claim 9, Irmler as modified to reject claim 1 above, does not teach a finger bend sensor or an inertial measurement unit.
Robertson teaches a “control assembly or system” to trigger audio or animation carried out by walk-around costumes or costumed characters. (column 2, line 56–67; column 3, line 1–3). Each trigger is associated with a “particular gesture (e.g., a set of specific movements or motions) performed by an actor or performer who may be wearing a walk-around costume.” (column 2, line 56–67; column 3, line 1–3). A “gesture glove” may recognize a “particular gesture” by comprising “bend sensors in at least one finger of the gesture glove . . . and an inertial measurement unit (IMU) for measuring at least roll, pitch, and yaw of the gesture glove and often acceleration relative to X, Y, and Z-axes.” (column 4, line 25–41).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Irmler, already modified by claim 1, by employing a finger bend sensor and an inertial measurement unit, to “convey character-appropriate movements and gestures such as by [a performer] manipulating . . . [his or her] fingers and hands . . . as many characters ‘talk’ with their hands and related movements.” (column 2, line 4–23).
As to claim 10, Irmler as modified to reject claim 1 above, expressly includes an on-performer control (“The trigger mechanisms 120 may include one or more pairs of spaced apart pressure sensors 122 such as on two different fingers (e.g., thumb and forefinger) of one or both of the gloves of the costume 110” at column 8, line 36–39; or “eye tracking sensors 124” at column 9, line 14; or a “control system” at column 2, line 43–53).
But Irmler as modified to reject claim 1, expressly includes neither a speaker, visual indicator, mouth actuator, mount actuator sensor, nor a scene selector.
Irmler itself does teach that the in-costume hardware comprises:
a) one or more than one speaker (“sound system provided within the walk-around costume (e.g., a speaker within the character head” at column 2, line 23–25);
c) a mouth actuator and a mouth actuator sensor;
The character control systems typically will include one or more trigger mechanisms or assemblies for allowing a wearer (“performer”) of a character costume to be able to trigger costume output such as audio playback or animation of the character's eyes, mouth, ears, and the like with onboard robotics. Such performer control typically will sense an affirmative action or movement of the performer, and, in response, a trigger (or sensor signal) processing module (or processor) will cause a controller to generate and transmit control signals (control is triggered) to the sound and/or animation components of the costume.
(7) In the control assembly, a variety of trigger mechanisms or assemblies may be provided to facilitate operator or performer-based control over dialog tree navigation or triggering robotics or other special effects.
(column 4, line 26–40).
Irmler also teaches a b) visual indicator, but that is separate from the in-costume hardware:
pre-recorded audio selected is context-specific and is selected by a context modulator based on input from an operator (e.g., a host . . . ). For example, an operator of a context input device, such as a wireless communication device with a touchscreen providing an iconographic listing of available contexts, may [select] . . . one of a number of context-related icons/input buttons on the input device.
(column 2, line 28–37). Irmler also teaches a d) scene selector, but that is separate from the in-costume hardware:
The control system may include a context modulator receiving a context selection signal. Then, in response, the context modulator acts to select at least a portion of the pre-recorded audio for the show based on the context selection signal . . . whereby the set of pre-recorded dialog is context-specific. . . . . [T]he context selection signal may be generated by a context input device operable to display an iconographic list of context icons (such as in a graphical user interface (GUI) on a touchscreen) for selection by an operator of the context input device. In many cases, the context input device is positioned or used in a room or on a set where the performer wearing the walk-around character costume performs . . . .
(column 2, line 47–53).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Irmler, already modified to reject claim 1, by employing a speaker in the in-costume hardware as taught by Irmler, to improve the illusion perceived by visitors that the puppet worn by the performer is alive.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Irmler, already modified by the preceding paragraph, by employing a mouth actuator and a mouth actuator sensor in the in-costume hardware as taught by Irmler, to improve the illusion perceived by visitors that the puppet worn by the performer is alive.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Irmler, already modified by the preceding paragraph, by employing a visual indicator as taught by Irmler, to provide visual feedback indicating whether a gesture performed satisfies a “gesture definition” as taught by Robertson at column 5, line 3–20; column 6, line 20–67; column 7, line 1–9.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Irmler, already modified by the preceding paragraph, by employing the visual indicator as part of the in-costume hardware, to conveniently provide visual feedback to the performer, indicating whether a gesture performed satisfies a “gesture definition” as taught by Robertson at column 5, line 3–20; column 6, line 20–67; column 7, line 1–9. Additionally, rearranging the position of the visual indicator to integrated with the in-costume hardware, compared with separate from the in-costume hardware, would not have modified operation of the visual indicator. This rearrangement would have been an obvious matter of design choice. MPEP § 2144.04 (VI)(C).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Irmler, already modified by the preceding paragraph, by integrating the scene selector into the in-costume hardware, to conveniently provide the performer with more audio content to output over the speaker, and thereby increase the possible personalization of the audio content suitable for a visitor, or to reduce the likelihood that a repeat visitor hear the same audio content more than once. Additionally, rearranging the position of the visual indicator to integrate with the in-costume hardware, instead of separate from the in-costume hardware, would not have modified operation of the scene selector. This rearrangement would have been an obvious matter of design choice. MPEP § 2144.04 (VI)(C). Alternatively, a scene selector is interpreted to be the same as an on-performer control, except that the scene selector specifically permits selection of a scene’s audio content or animation. Therefore, the scene selector merely increases the amount of audio or animation content that a performer can trigger. Adding content to a library of content is a duplication of parts having no patentable significance, and here, no new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP § 2144.04 (VI)(B).
As to claim 11, Irmler as modified to reject claim 10 above, already included a speaker capable playing selected audio to the guests (“sound system provided within the walk-around costume (e.g., a speaker within the character head” at Irmler column 2, line 23–25).
As to claim 13, Irmler as modified to reject claim 10 above, inherently teaches that the mouth actuator opens a puppet’s mouth (a performer wears “a character costume to be able to trigger costume output such as audio playback or animation of the character's eyes, mouth, ears, and the like with onboard robotics” at Irmler column 4, line 28–31).
Irmler as modified to reject claim 10, however, does not expressly teach that the audio playback matches the mouth movement.
Irmler itself does teach that the audio playback matches the mouth movement (“costume 110 is adapted to playback audio tracks . . . and also to be articulated or animated, such as to have a moving mouth . . . synchronized with the playing audio” at column 7 line 27–32).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Irmler, already modified to reject claim 10, to configure the mouth actuator to open a mouth of a puppet, so that an audio playback can match the mouth movement, as taught by Irmler, to strengthen the illusion to guests that the puppet is alive.
As to claim 14, Irmler as modified to reject claim 10 above, already teaches that the scene selector (“the control system may include a context modulator receiving a context selection signal. Then, in response, the context modulator acts to select at least a portion of the pre-recorded audio for the show based on the context selection signal” at Irmler column 3, line 43–47) is in-costume hardware and is used by the performer in a show navigation to advance to a next scene or to a previous scene.
As to claim 15, Irmler as modified to reject claim 10 above, already teaches that on-performer control is used by the performer in combination with the mouth actuator sensor to activate a sound playback to the guests: A performer wears “a character costume to be able to trigger costume output such as audio playback or animation of the character's eyes, mouth, ears, and the like with onboard robotics.” (Irmler column 4, line 28–31).
As to claim 16, Irmler as modified to reject claim 1 above, already teaches the control sensor (“robotics (or special effect mechanisms) 112 . . . positioned inside a head or torso of the costume 110” at Irmler column 7, line 33–36; or “transceiver or wireless transmitter 118 used to receive such signals 128 and to transmit trigger signals 127 for processing by the show controller 150” at Irmler column 7, line 40–42; or “pressure sensors 122” at Irmler column 8, line 36–44; or “eye tracking sensors 124” at Irmler column 9, line 13–27) is entirely self-contained within a costume or puppet. Irmler as modified to reject claim 1, also teaches the costume and show controller (“an onboard and/or offboard controller/computer system 150 for providing control signals 128,” Irmler at column 7, line 37–38) is entirely self-contained within a costume or puppet.
Irmler as modified to reject claim 1, does not teach that the control sensor, and the costume and show controller, enable the performer to trigger sound bites using gestures. Irmler as modified to reject claim 1, also teaches neither an audio amplifier, nor a speaker.
Irmler itself teaches that the control sensor, and the costume and show controller, enable the performer to trigger sound bites using gestures:
[C]haracter control systems typically will include one or more trigger mechanisms or assemblies for allowing a wearer (“performer”) of a character costume to be able to trigger costume output such as audio playback or animation of the character's eyes, mouth, ears, and the like with onboard robotics. Such performer control typically will sense an affirmative action or movement of the performer, and, in response, a trigger (or sensor signal) processing module (or processor) will cause a controller to generate and transmit control signals (control is triggered) to the sound and/or animation components of the costume.
(Irmler column 4, line 26–36). Irmler itself also teaches a speaker (“sound system provided within the walk-around costume (e.g., a speaker within the character head” at column 2, line 23–25) entirely self-contained within a costume or puppet.
Eck ‘228 teaches a "system 100 [that] includes a costume assembly . . . . The costume assembly . . . comprising . . . a sound system or assembly 170 positioned or provided in a character costume such as in the character head 190 (as shown in FIG. 1).” (column 5, line 43–49). Eck ‘228 also teaches an amplifier:
The belt pack controller 150 is essentially a portable control system worn by an actor or performer (who also wears the head 190 with the audio or sound system 170).
. . .
[A]ctual components used to implement a belt pack controller 150 may vary to practice the system 100. However, in one exemplary cases, the controller 150 includes an audio main board . . . . . . . A processor was provided for running the control software . . . and a 40 W Class D audio amplifier.
(column 7, line 45–47; column 8, line 45–58).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to modify Irmler, already modified to reject claim 1, by configuring the control sensor to enable the performer to trigger sound bites using gestures and make the system entirely self-contained within a costume or a puppet, as taught by Irmler, to maintain a wired, and therefore more secure, connection between the apparatus that registers a gesture, and that as a result sends an audio playback or animation command to the speaker, or control sensor animating the puppet; or to avoid a wired connection that is also visible to a guest and detracts from the illusion that the puppet worn by the performer is alive.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Irmler, already modified by the preceding paragraph, by configuring the costume and show controller to enable the performer to trigger sound bites using gestures and make the system entirely self-contained within a costume or a puppet, as taught by Irmler, to avoid a wired connection that is also visible to a guest and detracts from the illusion that the puppet worn by the performer is alive.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Irmler, already modified by the preceding paragraph, by employing a speaker to enable the performer to trigger sound bites using gestures and make the system entirely self-contained within a costume or a puppet, as taught by Irmler, to improve the illusion perceived by guests that the puppet worn by the performer is alive.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Irmler, already modified by the preceding paragraph, by employing an audio amplifier to enable the performer to trigger sound bites using gestures and make the system entirely self-contained within a costume or a puppet, as taught by Eck ‘228, to permit louder playback by the audio subsystem, and thereby playback reaches guests who are farther from the puppeted walk-around character performer.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Irmler, Eck ‘788, and Robertson, as applied to reject claim 10 above, and further in view of Vyas ‘975.
As to claim 12, Irmler as modified to reject claim 10 above, already includes the visual indicator to provide visual feedback indicating whether a gesture performed satisfies a “gesture definition” as taught by Robertson at column 5, line 3–20; column 6, line 20–67; column 7, line 1–9.
Irmler as modified to reject claim 10, however, does not expressly teach the purposes of the visual indicator.
The purposes of the visual indicator in claim 12, namely, a gesture or audio playback has been completed, or that the gesture or an audio playback is able to be used, are also conditions that must or can be measured, and displayed, by the system of Vyas ‘975. The “animated character system 14 includes an animated character head 30 that may be worn by a performer” and may speak or animate such as jaw motion. (column 4, line 21–34). A “base station system 32 (e.g., remote control system)” may be operated by a handler, and the “base station system 32 causes the animated character head 30 to emit a certain sound or perform a certain gesture.” (column 4, line 21–34). The handler receives an indication that a gesture or audio playback has been completed (“system status information (e.g., an indication of component failure as detected by the status sensors 52, completed animations, images from the camera 50) from the animated character head 30” at column 6, line 61–65). Also, the “animated character system 14” determines if the gesture or audio playback is able to be used (“if a particular actuator 46 is not functioning properly, animation selections that rely on the particular actuator 46 may be removed from the list of available animations and/or otherwise made inaccessible for selection by the handler" at column 6, line 66–67; column 7, line 1–3).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Irmler, already modified to reject claim 10, by programming the visual indicator to indicate to the performer that a gesture or audio playback has been completed, as taught by Vyas ‘975, to inform the performer of when performer behavior or body language that was incongruous while the gesture or audio playback is ongoing, now may be congruent.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Irmler, already modified by the preceding paragraph, by programming the visual indicator to indicate to the performer that the gesture or audio playback is able to be used, as taught by Vyas ‘975, for the performer to more effectively adjust a planned gesture or audio playback sequence during an interaction with a guest.
Alternatively, displaying information to a performer is data gathering or data output, and that is obvious because it is insignificant extra-solution activity. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
As to claim 20, Irmler as modified to reject claim 19 above, does not teach that the network connectivity alerts the gesture and show controller if a second character is in close proximity to the puppeted walk-around character performer.
However, Vyas ‘975 teaches that the network connectivity (“wireless or wired connection”) alerts the gesture and show controller (structures in “animated character head”) if a guest (“user 26”) is in close proximity to the puppeted walk-around character performer (performer wearing “animated character head 30”), and transmits the guest’s identification (“identifier 22 in the wearable device 24”) to the gesture and show controller (“computing system 16,” or “processor 36” in the “animated character head 30”) for processing:
[T]he user 26 may visit the animated character head 30 . . . . Another reader 20 positioned proximate to the animated character head 30 (e.g., coupled and/or inside to the animated character head 30 . . . ) may detect the identifier 22 in the wearable device 24 as the user 26 approaches the animated character head 30. The another reader 20 may provide a signal indicating that the wearable device 24 was detected proximate to the animated character head 30 to the computing system 16 (e.g., via a wireless or wired connection), the computing system 16 may then determine that the user 26 is approaching the animated character head 30 based on the signal, the computing system 16 may then access the information stored in the one or more databases 18, and the computing system 16 may then provide an output to control or influence the animated character head's 30 interaction with the user 26 based on the information. . . . [T]he computing system 16 may provide an output to the animated character head 30 that causes display of the information and/or a recommended interaction on the display 42 of the animated character head 30. . . .
In this manner, the interactive system 10 may provide a unique, personalized interactive experience between the user 26 and the animated character head 30. . . . [T]he identification system 12 may provide outputs directly to the animated character head 30 (e.g., the processor 36 of the animated character head 30 may process signals received directly from the identification system 12 to select and play an animation from the library).
(column 8, line 52–67; column 9, line 1–44).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Irmler, already modified to reject claim 19, by configuring the network connectivity to alert the gesture and show controller if a guest is in close proximity to the puppeted walk-around character performer, and transmit the guest’s identification to the gesture and show controller for processing, as taught by Vyas ‘975, to provide a more “unique, personalized interactive experience” to the guest as taught by Vyas ‘975. (column 9, line 25–27).
Replacing the guest in Vyas ‘975 with a second character in claim 19 would have been an obvious rearrangement of parts or duplication of parts because the guest and second character share properties: both the guest and second character are visible and contextual from the reference frame of the guest who is proximate to the puppeted walk-around character. MPEP § 2144.04 (VI)(B)–(C). In other words, the guest is a being; the second character is also a being, at least in a fictional story; each is in close proximity to the puppeted walk-around character performer; and each one’s identification contributes to the context of the interaction between the puppeted walk-around character performer and the guest. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Irmler, already modified to reject claim 19, by configuring the network connectivity to alert the gesture and show controller if a second character is in close proximity to the puppeted walk-around character performer and also to transmit the second character’s identification to the gesture and show controller for processing, as taught by Vyas ‘975, to include yet more contextual modification to the interaction between the puppet and the guest, and thereby enrich the guest’s experience.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ENRICO MIOTTO whose telephone number is (571)272-2650. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30 - 5 p.m..
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, NICHOLAS WEISS can be reached at (571) 270-1775. 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.
/ENRICO MIOTTO/Examiner, Art Unit 3711
/NICHOLAS J. WEISS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711
