DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-3 and 5-21 are pending.
Response to Amendment
Applicants’ response to the last Office Action, dated Feb. 2, 2026 has been entered and made of record. In view of the approval of Terminal Disclaimer dated Feb. 2, 2026, the non-statutory double patenting rejection is expressly withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Argument has been fully considered, and Examiner respectfully submits that the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
As to claim 1, it has been amended to incorporate a portion of the limitations recited in claim 4, and Applicant argues (Remarks, p. 9)
The cited references do not appear to teach or fairly suggest “a show element,” let alone “a controller configured to … control a movement of the show element to aesthetically interact with the Pepper’s Ghost visual effect from a perspective at or adjacent to the handheld device,” as claimed.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Crowder in view of Mark still teaches the amended limitations. Please see the following claim rejections for detailed analysis. Specifically, Applicant appears to subjectively assert that the “show element” must be a physical show element. However, the “object's pointing location on the display screen 110” (FIG. 2, [0059]) taught by Marks reasonably corresponds to a virtual show element in association with other show elements such as the target.
At the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the controller such as “KINECT™ camera system available from, MICROSOFT™”, as taught by Crowder, to be further associated with the handheld device such as “object 124”, with a show element such as the “object’s pointing location on the display screen 110”, as taught by Marks, in order to “enable more advanced user interactivity with game play” (Marks, [0006]).
Accordingly, claim 1 is not allowable.
As to claims 2-3, 5-9, they directly or indirectly depend from claim 1, and are not allowable at least for the same reason above.
As to claim 10, Applicant argues that “amended independent claim 1 is believed to be allowable over Crowder and Marks. The other cited reference, Freddy, does not cure the deficiencies of Crowder and Marks.” (Remarks, p. 11), and claim 10 is not allowable at least for the same reason above.
As to claim 11, it has been amended in the similar manner as in claim 1 (Remarks, pp. 9-10), and is not allowable for the same reason above.
As to claims 12-13 and 15-16, they depend from claim 11, and are not allowable at least for the same reason above.
As to claim 17, it has been amended in the similar manner as in claim 1 (Remarks, p. 10), and is not allowable for the same reason above.
As to claims 18 and 20, they depend from claim 17, and are not allowable at least for the same reason above.
As to claims 14, 19 and new claim 21, they are allowable. Please see the allowable subject matter for detailed analysis.
Examiner maintains his decision, and provides succinct explanation as described above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-13, 15-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crowder et al. (US 2016/0266543 A1, IDS) in view of Marks et al. (US 2010/0033427 A1).
As to claim 1, Crowder teaches an interactive Pepper's Ghost system (Crowder, Abs., “Systems and methods herein are directed to three-dimensional image sources for an enhanced Pepper's Ghost Illusion”), comprising:
a screen (Crowder, FIG. 3, [0037], “tensioning frame 220”);
a controller (Crowder, e.g., FIG. 5, [0046], a controller enabling that “a user input system converts user action into avatar movement”; FIGS. 16A-16B, [0068], “In order to accomplish object-depth-based control of image source height in this manner, a video capture device that videos the object may comprise a camera that is capable of detecting object distance. One such example camera that is commercially available is the KINECT™ camera system available from MICROSOFT™, and as such”) configured to activate a light source (Crowder, FIG. 3, [0038], “The light source itself can be any suitable video display panel, such as a plasma screen, an LED wall, an LCD screen, a monitor, a TV, a tablet, a mobile phone, etc.”) to emit light onto the screen to simulate a Pepper's Ghost visual effect at the location (Crowder, FIG. 3, [0038], “When an image (e.g., stationary or moving) is shown on the video panel display 270, such as a person or object within an otherwise black (or other stable dark color) background, that image is then reflected onto the transparent screen (e.g., tensioned foil or otherwise), appearing to the viewer (shown as the stick figure) in a manner according to Pepper's Ghost Illusion”).
Crowder does not teach “a show element”; “a handheld device; and a controller configured to: determine a location toward which the handheld device is pointed”; and “control a movement of the show element to aesthetically interact with the Pepper’s Ghost visual effect from a perspective at or adjacent to the handheld device”.
However, Marks teaches the concepts of a show element (Marks, e.g., FIG. 2, [0059], “the object's pointing location on the display screen 110” in association with, e.g., target);
a handheld device (Marks, FIG. 2, [0057], “object 124, which in this case and for example purposes is a gun”); and
a controller (Marks, FIG. 2, [0053], “computer 102”) configured to:
determine a location toward which the handheld device is pointed (Marks, FIG. 2, [0055], “In this example, a person 112 may be intending to interact with a computer program being executed by the computer 102. The computer program, in this example, may be a video game which may be rendered and displayed by the display screen 110”);
control a movement of the show element to aesthetically interact with a screen from a perspective at or adjacent to the handheld device (Marks, e.g., see FIG. 2, [0059], “it would be important for the relative positioning of the head 120 and the hand 122 to be computed for each frame so that the person 112 will have accurate aiming and triggering capabilities”).
At the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the controller such as “KINECT™ camera system available from, MICROSOFT™”, as taught by Crowder, to be further associated with the handheld device such as “object 124”, with a show element such as the “object’s pointing location on the display screen 110”, as taught by Marks, whereas the image of “screen 110” may be reflected onto the “tensioning frame 220”, in order to “enable more advanced user interactivity with game play” (Marks, [0006]).
As to claim 2, Marks teaches the interactive Pepper's Ghost system of claim 1, comprising a sensor (Marks, FIG. 2, [0055], “image capture device 105”) configured to detect a characteristic indicative of the location toward which the handheld device is pointed (Marks, FIG. 2, [0055], “to ascertain a pointing direction of an object placed in front of the image capture device 105”), wherein the controller (Marks, FIG. 2, [0055], “computer 102”) is configured to determine the location based on sensor feedback received from the sensor (Marks, FIG. 2, [0055], e.g., “image capture device 105 will at this point, analyze the digital image capture of the person 112 to determine the location of the person's 112 head 120, and the location of the person's 112 hand 122”), and wherein the sensor feedback comprises infrared feedback, camera feedback (Marks, FIG. 2, [0055], “digital image capture”), gyroscope feedback, or accelerometer feedback. Examiner renders the same motivation as in claim 1.
As to claim 3, Crowder in view of Marks teaches the interactive Pepper's Ghost system of claim 1, wherein the screen (Crowder, FIG. 3, [0037], “tensioning frame 220”) comprises a transparent or translucent screen (Crowder, FIG. 3, [0037], “a clear foil into a stable, wrinkle-free (e.g., and vibration resistant) reflectively transparent surface”) positioned between (Crowder, see FIG. 3) the handheld device (Marks, FIG. 2, [0057], “object 124, which in this case and for example purposes is a gun”) and a stage space (Crowder, FIG. 3, [0062], the space between “tensioning frame 220” and “background 250”), and wherein the location corresponds to an area within the stage space (Marks, FIG. 2, [0057], “The image capture device 105 will at this point, analyze the digital image capture of the person 112 to determine the location of the person's 112 head 120, and the location of the person's 112 hand 122. As shown, the person's 112 hand may be extended in front of his body and the image capture device will identify the object 124 when examining the captured digital image. The captured digital image will also be examined by code executed at the computer 102 to ascertain the location of the person's 112 head 120. In one embodiment, head tracking may be completed with a combination of a template matching (for speed performance), coupled to a face detection code. The face detection code will essentially identify the location of the user's face by locating the user's eyes and other facial features”). Examiner renders the same motivation as in claim 1.
As to claim 5, Crowder in view of Marks teaches the interactive Pepper's Ghost system of claim 1, comprising a microphone (Marks, FIG. 2, [0130], “Microphone 2926”) communicatively coupled with the controller (Marks, FIG. 2, [0130], “controller 2920”) and configured to detect a voice command from an operator of the handheld device (Marks, FIG. 2, [0130], “provides sound input to the system, which can be used for issuing voice commands”), wherein the controller (Marks, FIG. 2, [0053], “computer 102”) is configured to activate the light source (Crowder, FIG. 3, [0038], “The light source itself can be any suitable video display panel, such as a plasma screen, an LED wall, an LCD screen, a monitor, a TV, a tablet, a mobile phone, etc.”) to emit the light onto the screen (Crowder, FIG. 3, [0037], “tensioning frame 220”) based on the voice command (Marks, FIG. 2, [0130], “voice commands”). Examiner renders the same motivation as in claim 1.
As to claim 6, Marks teaches the interactive Pepper's Ghost system of claim 5, wherein the controller is configured to determine a moment or period in time to activate the light source to emit the light onto the screen based on the voice command (Marks, FIG. 7, [0093], “intensity of interaction can be received by sound in addition to, or instead of, by imaging.”; [0095], “The image-sound capture device 1506 includes an image capture unit 1506b, and the sound capture unit 1506a”; [0098], “A video game or other application utilizing this technology can reliably identify and quantify an intensity value of a sound originating from a zone of focus at a predetermined or selected direction relative the sound capture device”). Examiner renders the same motivation as in claim 1.
As to claim 7, Marks teaches the interactive Pepper's Ghost system of claim 5, wherein the controller is configured to determine a desired color of the light based on the voice command, and wherein the controller is configured to activate the light source to emit the light having the desired color onto the screen (Marks, FIG. 7, [0093], “intensity of interaction can be received by sound in addition to, or instead of, by imaging.”; [0095], “The image-sound capture device 1506 includes an image capture unit 1506b, and the sound capture unit 1506a”; [0098], “A video game or other application utilizing this technology can reliably identify and quantify an intensity value of a sound originating from a zone of focus at a predetermined or selected direction relative the sound capture device”). Examiner renders the same motivation as in claim 1.
As to claim 8, Crowder in view of Marks teaches the interactive Pepper's Ghost system of claim 1, wherein the light source (Crowder, FIG. 3, [0038], “The light source itself can be any suitable video display panel, such as a plasma screen, an LED wall, an LCD screen, a monitor, a TV, a tablet, a mobile phone, etc.”) comprises a plurality of LED lights arranged in a grid (Crowder, FIG. 3, [0038], the “LED wall”), wherein the controller (Marks, FIG. 2, [0053], “computer 102”) is configured to determine a row and a column of the grid based on the location (Marks, e.g., see FIG. 2), and wherein the controller (Marks, FIG. 2, [0053], “computer 102”) is configured to activate at least one LED light of the plurality of LED lights (Crowder, FIG. 3, [0038], the “LED wall”), the at least one LED light (Crowder, FIG. 3, [0038], the “LED wall”) being positioned within the row and the column, to emit the light onto the screen (Crowder, e.g., see FIG. 3). Examiner renders the same motivation as in claim 1.
As to claim 9, Crowder teaches the interactive Pepper's Ghost system of claim 1, wherein the screen (Crowder, FIG. 3, [0037], “tensioning frame 220”) is disposed at an approximately 45-degree angle relative to a direction of the light emitted from the light source (Crowder, see FIG. 3).
As to claim 11, it differs from claim 1 only in that it is the tangible, non-transitory, computer readable media storing instructions thereon that, when executed by processing circuitry, are configured to cause the processing circuitry to operate the interactive Pepper’s Ghost system of claim 1. It recites the similar limitations as in claim 1, and further recites determining … “based on microphone feedback from a microphone, a command uttered by an operator of the handheld device; and activate, based on the sensor feedback and the microphone feedback”.
Crowder in view Marks teaches them, and Marks further teaches the concept of determining … based on microphone feedback from a microphone (Marks, FIG. 2, [0130], “Microphone 2926”), a command uttered by an operator of the handheld device; and activate, based on the sensor feedback and the microphone feedback (Marks, FIG. 2, [0130], “provides sound input to the system, which can be used for issuing voice commands”). Examiner renders the same motivation as in claim 1. Please also see claim 1 for detailed analysis.
As to claim 12, it recites the similar limitations as in claim 7, and Marks teaches them. Examiner renders the same motivation as in claim 1. Please also see claim 7 for detailed analysis.
As to claim 13, it recites the similar limitations as in claim 8, and Crowder in view of Marks teaches them. Examiner renders the same motivation as in claim 1. Please also see claim 8 for detailed analysis.
As to claim 15, it recites the similar limitations as in claim 2, and Marks teaches them. Examiner renders the same motivation as in claim 1. Please also see claim 2 for detailed analysis.
As to claim 16, it recites the similar limitations as in claim 3, and Crowder in view of Marks teaches them. Examiner renders the same motivation as in claim 1. Please also see claim 3 for detailed analysis.
As to claim 17, it differs from claim 11 only in that it is the method to be executed by the instructions stored in the tangible, non-transitory, computer readable media of claim 11. It recites the similar limitations as in claim 11, and Crowder in view Marks teaches them. Examiner renders the same motivation as in claim 1. Please also see claim 11 for detailed analysis.
As to claim 18, it recites the combined limitations of claims 2 and 5, and Crowder in view of Marks teaches them. Examiner renders the same motivation as in claim 1. Please also see claims 2 and 5 for detailed analysis.
As to claim 20, Crowder teaches the method of claim 17, wherein the visual effect corresponds to a Pepper’s Ghost visual effect (Crowder, e.g., FIG. 7A, [0048-0050], an “Enhanced Pepper’s Ghost illusion”; “perceived depth of an object 275”).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crowder et al. (US 2016/0266543 A1, IDS) in view of Marks et al. (US 2010/0033427 A1) and Freddy (FR 3050544 A1, hereinafter English translation by Clarivate Analytics).
As to claim 10, Crowder in view of Marks does not teach the interactive Pepper's Ghost system of claim 1, comprising a foldable housing having a plurality of foldable walls defining an audience compartment in which the handheld device is disposed, a mid-section compartment in which the screen is disposed, a stage compartment, and a dark compartment in which the light source is disposed, wherein the audience compartment, the mid-section compartment, and the stage compartment are disposed in a line such that the mid-section compartment is between the audience compartment and the stage compartment, wherein the dark compartment is connected to the mid-section compartment and offset from the line, and wherein the plurality of foldable walls is foldable into a stack via hinged joints connecting the plurality of foldable walls.
However, Freddy teaches the concepts of a foldable housing having a plurality of foldable walls (Freddy, see FIGS. 2-4) defining a mid-section compartment (Freddy, FIGS. 1-4, the compartment corresponding to “screen 16”) in which the screen (Freddy, FIGS. 1-4, “screen 16”) is disposed (Freddy, see FIGS. 1-4), a stage compartment (Freddy, FIGS. 2-4, the stage compartment corresponding to “rear volume 30”), and a dark compartment (Freddy, FIGS. 2-4, the compartment corresponding to “tablet 12”) in which the light source (Freddy, FIGS. 2-4, “tablet 12”) is disposed (Freddy, see FIGS. 2-4), wherein the mid-section compartment (Freddy, FIGS. 1-4, the compartment corresponding to “screen 16”), and the stage compartment (Freddy, FIGS. 2-4, the stage compartment corresponding to “rear volume 30”) are disposed in a line such that the mid-section compartment (Freddy, FIGS. 1-4, the compartment corresponding to “screen 16”) is between the audience compartment and the stage compartment (Freddy, FIGS. 2-4, the stage compartment corresponding to “rear volume 30”), wherein the dark compartment (Freddy, FIGS. 2-4, the compartment corresponding to “tablet 12”) is connected to the mid-section compartment (Freddy, FIGS. 1-4, the compartment corresponding to “screen 16”) and offset from the line (Freddy, see FIGS 1-4), and wherein the plurality of foldable walls is foldable into a stack via hinged joints connecting the plurality of foldable walls (Freddy, e.g., see FIG. 4).
At the time of effective filing date, given that Crowder already teaches that the Pepper Ghost effect system has a size that contains a user, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the walls of the compartments to be folded, as taught by Freddy, in order to provide “a housing, a blank, a set of blanks, a device and a method for assembling a housing that responds better than those previously known to the requirements of the practice … and this easily mountable” (Freddy).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14, 19 and new claim 21 would be allowable if rewritten to include 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:
As to claim 14, the closest known prior art, i.e., Crowder et al. (US 2016/0266543 A1, IDS), Marks et al. (US 2010/0033427 A1), Freddy (FR 3050544 A1), Reetz et al. (US 2015/0103510 A1, IDS), Valik et al. (US 2013/0010207 A1, IDS), Bizzi et al. (US 5,846,086 A), Marks et al. (US 2006/0277571 A1) and Barney et al. (US 2015/0290545 A1), alone or in reasonable combination, fails to teach limitations in consideration of the claims as a whole, specifically with respect to the limitation “wherein the show element is disposed in a stage space separated from the handheld device by the transparent or translucent screen”.
As to claim 19, the closest known prior art indicated above, alone or in reasonable combination, fails to teach limitations in consideration of the claims as a whole, specifically with respect to the limitation “wherein the show element is disposed in a stage space, and wherein the transparent or translucent screen is disposed between the handheld device and the stage space”.
As to new claim 21, the closest known prior art indicated above, alone or in reasonable combination, fails to teach limitations in consideration of the claims as a whole, specifically with respect to the limitation “wherein the show element is disposed within the stage space”.
Conclusion
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: Marks et al. (US 2006/0277571 A1) teaches the concept that “the person 112 will have accurate aiming and triggering capabilities when attempting to secure a good performing score in the video game contest” (FIG. 2, [0060]); Barney et al. (US 2015/0290545 A1) teaches the concept of “interactive gaming toy provided for playing a game having both physical and virtual gameplay elements” (Abs.).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD J HONG whose telephone number is (571) 270-7765. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chanh Nguyen can be reached on (571) 272-7772. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Mar. 5, 2026
/RICHARD J HONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2623
***