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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Krasadakis et al. Pub. No. US 2017/0289596 A1 [Krasadakis].
1. Krasadakis discloses a multi-person concurrent content output system [Figs. 3A-4 & ¶ 76 present content that is tailored for the group of people], comprising:
at least one personal identification means being carried or worn by the person [¶ 26 the various techniques and components disclosed herein recognize the users…through…personal device (e.g., smart phone)] where the at least one personal identification means communicates or otherwise provides unique information, where the at least one personal identification means is either an active means or a passive means [¶ 14 examples disclosed herein generally relate to controlling the placement of content on multiple public viewing screens];
a video display device comprising a multiplicity of pixels distributed over a combined spatial area comprising two or more restricted spatial areas [Fig. 4 & ¶¶ 73-77 pixels in each display portion];
a presence detector for determining the unique information of the at least one personal identification means [¶ 35 sensors 118 may include any number of sensors for detecting the users] before or while the person is substantially situated at or otherwise occupying a physical location in front of the video display device [¶ 48 users 102 are detected in a viewing area], where the physical location is positioned for directly viewing one of the two or more restricted spatial areas of the display [as shown generally in Fig. 4], and
a content source in communications with the video display device and the presence detector [Fig. 1, 112], where the content source determines a stream of video-audio content for outputting to the person based at least in part upon the unique information [¶ 14 Content is selected for display on the public viewing screens based on the users currently within the viewing areas], and where the content source provides the stream of video included in the stream of video-audio content to the video display device to be output to the person using a portion of the multiplicity of pixels that are substantially limited to the one of the two or more restricted spatial areas viewable from the occupied physical location [Fig. 4: 100g, 100h, 100i].
2. Krasadakis discloses at least one directional audio speaker for emitting the stream of audio included in the stream of video-audio content [¶ 19 variation may have different wording, style, text, logos, graphics, video, audio], where the emitted directional audio is substantially heard by the person and otherwise not substantially heard by any other person that is not substantially co-located in the occupied physical location [where as shown in Fig. 4 this must be a feature of different areas].
3. Krasadakis discloses an article being carried by the person for use by the person in gesturing indications as inputs to the system while the person is substantially located within the physical location, where the article is optionally the at least one personal identification means [¶ 26 the license plate by means of car], and an object tracking system for tracking the movements of the article and determining one or more person inputs based at least in part upon the tracked movements, and where the content source determines the stream of video-audio content based at least in put upon any of the one or more person inputs [id. license detector displaying specific ads for sports, for instance].
5. Krasadakis discloses wherein the physical location is one of a multiplicity of physical locations [Fig. 4: 408, 414 & 420 for instance], where each physical location in the multiplicity is demarcated such that the person is able to distinguish between each physical location [as shown generally], where the presence detector is further adapted to detect the unique information after the person substantially enters a detection zone that is spatially beyond the multiplicity of physical locations such that the multiplicity of physical locations is interposed between the detection zone and the video display device [¶ 14], and where the system provides an indication to the person as to a specific one of the multiplicity of physical locations the person is to subsequently enter and occupy to receive the stream of video-audio content [as shown generally in Fig. 4, for instance].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krasadakis.
4. Krasadakis is silent on wherein the video display device substantially forms a column or substantially forms a wall, where each form provides a multiplicity of approachable physical locations wherein a given person views a given stream of video-audio content, where the columnar form is approachable by a given person from substantially any of 360 degrees encircling the column and the wall form is approachable by a given person from any of side-by-side locations occurring along the horizontal axis of the wall. However it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Krasadakis to have wherein the video display device substantially forms a column or substantially forms a wall [Fig. 4 the displays form a wall], where each form provides a multiplicity of approachable physical locations wherein a given person views a given stream of video-audio content [as shown various people view the display from various locations], where the columnar form is approachable by a given person from substantially any of 360 degrees encircling the column and the wall form is approachable by a given person from any of side-by-side locations occurring along the horizontal axis of the wall [it is obvious to rearrange displays on a wall], since rearranging the location of parts of an invention is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-19 are allowed.
Claims 6-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
6. The filtering glasses and related limitations in combination with each and every other limitation and when rewritten as detailed above make the claim allowable over the prior art of record.
10. The game state limitations in combination with each and every other limitation and when rewritten as detailed above make the claim allowable over the prior art of record.
16. The game state limitations in combination with each and every other limitation make the claim allowable over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GUSTAVO POLO whose telephone number is (571)270-7613. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5pm PT.
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, Patrick Edouard can be reached at (571)272-7603. 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.
/Gustavo Polo/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622