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/ Response to Arguments
The examiner wishes to address the broadest reasonable interpretation of helix within the amusement attraction/ art. In mathematics, a circular helix has a fixed radius. This appears to be what is argued as the broadest reasonable scope of the instant claims. However, the applicant’s disclosure does not specify either constant radius or circular helix. In fact, the only mention of radius is of adjustable radii. Mathematically, and common to analogous devices, helices include conical helices (the more common spiral shape of slides). Such conical helices do not have fixed radii and the claims are not limited to constant or fixed radii (as alleged in the second full paragraph of page 9 of applicant’s arguments). Therefore the art rejections are unchanged and the cited art reads broadly on helix for the reasons above. It is also noted that applicant, at paragraphs 22, 31, 34 address effects of changing radius but the specification appears to be lacking in explicit disclosure of the fixed radius of a circular helix.
Evidence and explanation are found in Spirals, Their Types and Peculiarities (cited) – see circular helix vs conical helix (pages 106 – 108).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3 and 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) and/or a(2) as being anticipated by Hunter (10702783).
Regarding additional limitations of “helical”, “helical profile”, “helix” and “helical banked turn”, for the reasons given above and the reasonably broad interpretation of helix reading on either circular helix, conical helix, or other helix the rejection below reads now and before on helix as currently claimed.
With respect to claims 1 and 10, Hunter discloses a ride feature (e.g. figs. 1A-1C: slide feature 102), which comprises a rider entrance, a rider exit (e.g. entrance and exit where closed tube meets open flume), a rider surface between the rider entrance and the rider exit, wherein the ride surface comprises a lateral sidewall (e.g. raised sidewall of upper lip 122) and the ride surface is configured to maintain a rider on the lateral sidewall during a banked turn comprising the entirety of a rider travel path from the rider entrance to the rider exit, and wherein the ride surface is configured to maintain the rider on the lateral sidewall using centripetal forces and one or more of varying the pitch of the ride surface, varying a radius of curvature of the banked tum, or varying the amount of friction between the rider and the ride surface (e.g. Col. 8, line 6 - Col. 9, line 23: sprayers 1566 spray water 1568 to adjust friction; fig. 15D). With respect to claims 3 and 9, the ride surface of Hunter can be seen to have a central opening (e.g. figs. 1A, 2A, 6A). With respect to newly amended feature of claim 1 (with partial support in old claim 4), Hunter shows embodiments with no lateral inner side wall opposite the lateral sidewall of the ride surface (e.g. figs. 6A, 14C: open circular area in center of lateral sidewall of the ride surface. Additionally demonstrating the features of the newly claimed limitation are the lips opposite 1702 and 1704 in Figure 17B which is clearly demonstrated as neither horizontal or lateral.) With respect to claim 7, Hunter discloses an inner guidance feature (e.g. lower inner wall on turn feature: figs. 2B, 4A). With respect to claim 8, Hunter discloses a transparent or semi-transparent port (e.g. 504, 506; Col. 11, line 38 - Col. 12, line 4).
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.
Claim(s) 2, 5-6 and 11-13 and 16-17 and 19 and newly added claims 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunter (10702783) in view of Brassard (8192291).
Regarding additional limitations of “helical”, “helical profile”, “helix” and “helical banked turn”, for the reasons given above and the reasonably broad interpretation of helix reading on either circular helix, conical helix, or other helix the rejection below reads now and before on helix as currently claimed.
Hunter teaches the invention as discussed above.
With respect to claims 5, 11, and 16, Hunter discloses a ride feature, as discussed above, but does not disclose a ride surface comprising two or more elliptical profiles.
Brassard discloses a ride feature using centripetal force to keep riders traveling along a raised outer wall forming a ride surface, including an embodiment having two or more helical profiles (e.g. figs. 6, 7, 10 to 12, 15). It is considered to be obvious to the person skilled in| he art to use such a known arrangement to provide parallel travelling paths for riders in a ride feature such as known from the references.
With respect to claims 2, 6, and 12 and 21-25, Brassard’s elliptical profiles discloses a spiral configuration with a full revolution of a (conical) helix (e.g. figs. 1, 3, 6).
With respect to claims 13, the newly added feature in claim 11 which was previously in old claim 14, 17, and the newly added feature in claim 16 which was in claim 18, Hunter discloses the claimed features, as discussed above.
With respect to claims 15 and 20, it is considered to be obvious to the person skilled in the art to provide for riders to be able to interact with gaming elements during the ride (it is noted that no particular features providing this ability are claimed).
Claim(s) 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunter (10702783) in view of Brassard (8192291) as discussed above and further in view of Weston et al (9592454).
Hunter teaches the invention as discussed above.
Hunter fails to teach riders being able to interact with gamin elements during travel
Weston et al teaches gaming elements (Fia 1A, #s 110, 120, 122, 124) for the purpose of elevating enjoyment while riding.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Hunter with gaming elements as taught by Weston et al because such elevates enjoyment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The full arguments are addressed in and merged with the claim interpretation section at the start of this action, before the art rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Spirals, Their Types and Peculiarities by Andrey Polezhav in “Spirals and Vortices, 2019” online ISBN: 978-3-030-05798-5.
There appears to have been other possible combinations to demonstrate the claims and features, as the use of pitch and friction adjustment to control a riders path is notoriously well known and understood. Any follow up amendments or arguments would ideally also take into consideration the totality of pertinent and of-record references.
References disclosing control via adjusting pitch:
WO-2023082028, WO-20222217347-A1, WO-2021155475-A1, WO-2015188265-A1, CA-3213429-A1, KR-20170016492-A.
References disclosing control via adjusting friction:
WO-2023082028, WO-2022082293-A1, WO-2013066155-A1 (water is controlled, change in water changes friction), WO-0062883-A1 (water is controlled, change in water changes friction), Hunter (90504924 - lubrication via liquid or solid lubrication adjusts friction controlling ride), control of usage of different materials and/or coatings adjusts friction and thus controls ride), CA-3056578-A1, 9486711 (water reduces friction).
Reference disclosing that anything that changes speed causes riders position to adjust as ascension or descension along tube of ride:
US-0779464-A.
Multiple riders:
WO-2010040978-A1.
References disclosing openings in water slide as well as transparent portions:
US-20200094155-A1.
References lacking sidewalls:
Lochtefeld (5401117).
References disclosing the knowledge of centripetal forces:
US 20170106295 A1, US 8038541 B1, US 20140194216 A1.
Additionally: 20160279529.
Regarding the knowledge in the art of centripetal forces, the examiner points out that it is notoriously well known in the amusement slide technology that excitement can be achieved while sliding if centripetal forces are utilized to keep a slider forced to one slide of a slide. Such forces keep a rider on the outside, rendering walls on the outside moot. For most such slides in the prior art, the inner wall is extraneous and it would be obvious to move as it is unnecessary. The existence of such inner walls is only due to regulations, perceived dangers or to reduce the ability of someone to mis-use the slide. The examiner also takes Official notice that water features for non-personal-sliding purposes exist entirely without sidewalls because the lack of perceived danger renders them moot. Thus this further shows that centripetal forces render inner walls moot and irrelevant to functional purposes, existing merely for design preferences.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joseph S Del Sole whose telephone number is (571)272-1130. The examiner can normally be reached Generally Monday - Friday, 9-5.
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, Gary Welch. 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.
JOSEPH S. DEL SOLE
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1700
/JOSEPH S DEL SOLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1763
Prosecution Insights