DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is made Final in response to applicant’s Amendments / Request for Reconsideration filed 3/19/26. Claims 2, 6, 8-9 are cancelled; claims 1, 7 and 11 are amended; claims 21-22 are added; claims 14-20 are withdrawn. Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 10-13 and 21-22 are examined below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 10-13 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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. The recitation in claim 1 of “the motion platform comprises a set of motion platform actuators” is indefinite. The drawings and detailed description appear to describe “a set of motion platform actuators 223 (Fig. 7)” in reference to the entire ride system, not each motion platform. Fig. 7 shows a single actuator 223 comprising motor 223A, not multiple motors/actuators. Wheels 223A are not an actuator. For examining purposes, the set of motion platform actuators will be treated as in reference to the multiple motion platforms such that prior art that teaches an actuator for each motion platform will be considered to meet the indefinite limitation. This appears to comport with applicant’s intended scope and specification as a whole.
Claims 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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. The recitation therein of a rotating outer ring (of the turntable) comprising “a plurality of beams, b) a plurality of vehicle motion actuators, each vehicle motion actuator coupled to a beam of the plurality of beams, each motion-based vehicle coupled to a vehicle motion actuator of the plurality of vehicle motion actuator” creates an indefinite scope when read in conjunction with base claim 1, which requires that the turntable comprises “a set of beams” and corresponding “motion platform actuators” that are operative to “move the motion platform along is associated beam”. A person ordinary skill in the art cannot properly ascertain the metes and bounds of claim 11 because it appears to be claiming the same structure as claim 1. Specifically, it is unclear what constitutes the “plurality of beams” since the “set of beams” is already required in claim 1. Similarly, it is unclear what constitutes a “vehicle motion actuator” since a “motion platform actuator” is required in claim 1. The specification describes wherein the outer ring of the turntable comprises “beams 220 (FIG. 5)” (paragraph [0022] of PG Pub. No. 2023/0110375). However, beams 220 appear to be part of the “set of beams” required in claim 1. Applicant should provide clarity to this issue.
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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 21 recites the limitation "the beam of each turntable". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
The Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper “functional approach” to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “ Obvious to try ” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
4. Claims 1, 3-5, 7, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brister et al. (US Pat. No. 10,279,274) in view of Crawford et al. (US Pub. No. 2013/0059670) and further in view of Ochi (US Pub. No. 2002/0140171).
With respect to claims 1, 3-5, 10 and 12, Brister teaches a ride system 900, comprising: a) a three-dimensional ride space (Fig. 9A-9B); b) a predetermined set of motion-based vehicles 910, 912, each motion-base vehicle comprising: i) a passenger-carrying compartment (Fig. 9A-9B; column 9, lines 35-60); and ii) a motion platform 922 operatively connected to the passenger-carrying compartment Id.; c) a turntable 930 rotationally disposed at least partially within the three-dimensional ride space (Fig.’s 9A-9B; See also Fig.’s 2-4 and column 5, lines 1-3 teaching that the turntables of Fig.’s 2-4 are applicable to the system embodied in Fig’s 1, 9A-9B; and column 10, lines 1-4, teaching that systems 900, 950 inlcude the components described with respect to system 100 of Fig. 1), the turntable 930 operatively connected to the predetermined set of motion-based vehicles 910, 912 and configured to move each motion-based vehicle of the predetermined set of motion-based vehicles within two dimensions of the three-dimensional ride space without the use of track or vehicle-based propulsion (i.e. the turntable rotates about is vertical axis 204/304/404 as shown in Fig’s 2-4; See also column 13, lines 7-9 “without the need for a track or individual systems of propulsion”); and d) a ride controller 700 operatively in communication with the turntable 930 and each motion-based vehicle of the plurality of motion-based vehicles 910, 912 (via network interface 708; Fig. 7), wherein the motion platform 922 (or 120, 122-126) comprises a mechanical rotator or a motion translator (column 3, lines 25-32);
wherein the motion platform 922 (or 120, 122-126, 520) further comprises a set of motion platform freedom actuators operative to move the passenger-carrying compartment through a plurality of degrees of freedom (column 5, lines 5-29); wherein the turntable 930 comprises: a) a first location within the three-dimensional ride space, the first location comprising a load/unload area for sequential passenger boarding onto, or passenger disembarkation from, a motion-base vehicle of the predetermined set of motion-based vehicles (column 9, lines 52-53); and b) a predetermined set of second locations (i.e. media domes) corresponding to a predetermined set of show spaces within the three-dimensional ride space (column 9, lines 55-60); wherein the motion-based vehicle comprises more than one story (Fig.’s 11, 13); wherein the passenger-carrying compartment comprises a predominantly enclosed cabin (Fig.’s 9A-9B, 10D, 13). Per MPEP 2114 - a claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). If a prior art structure is inherently capable of performing the intended use as recited, then it shifts the burden to applicant to establish that the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Here, the structure of Brister et al. is considered capable of performing the claimed intended use limitations.
Brister et al. does not expressly teach: i) a set of beams corresponding to the predetermined set of motion-based vehicles, each beam connected to the turntable at a first end of each beam, each motion-based vehicle's motion platform bidirectionally slidingly in communication with its corresponding beam; and ii) the motion platform comprises a set of motion platform actuators, each motion platform actuator operatively in communication with an associated beam of the set of beams and operative to move the motion platform along its associated beam. However, analogous art reference Crawford et al. teaches the following to be known in the art: i) a set of beams 472 corresponding to a predetermined set of motion-based vehicles, each beam connected to a turntable at a first end of each beam, each motion-based vehicle's motion platform bidirectionally slidingly in communication with its corresponding beam (paragraphs [0049]-[0050]); and ii) a motion platform comprises a set of actuators 478, each motion platform actuator operatively in communication with an associated beam 472 of the set of beams and operative to move the motion platform along its associated beam (Fig. 4; paragraphs [0049]-[0050]). At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate the linear translational motion of Crawford et al. into the ride system of Brister et al. The rationale is to provide a linear movement, adding fun motion inducing movements, and can move the rider closer to a show element. The proposed modification has a reasonable expectation of success as Crawford teaches wherein its beams are positioned within a turntable.
Lastly, Brister as modified by Crawford teaches a piston type linear actuation to move the motion-based vehicle along the beam (Crawford – Fig. 4), as opposed to a wheel assembly as claimed. However, analogous art reference Ochi teaches that it is known to propel a motion vehicle 11 along a beam 4 using a motion platform wheel assembly 22 that engages a track formed on the beam 4 (Fig’s 3-4; paragraphs [0039]-[0041]). At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the linear movement type of Brister as modified by Crawford with the wheel assembly taught by Ochi. Per KSR, permitting rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness include: (A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Here, the wheel assembly is a known actuation means for ride systems that will expectantly facilitate linear movement of a ride vehicle and its motion platform along a ride beam. The proposed modification has a reasonable expectation of success as the modification will not frustrate the intended purpose of Brister as modified by Crawford.
With respect to claim 7, Brister et al. teaches wherein the motion platform 120/520 further comprises: a) a motion platform base (best seen in Fig. 10D); b) a passenger-carrying compartment carrier (i.e. component connecting arm 524 to vehicle compartment 510 (Fig. 5A); c) a set of motion platform freedom actuators (i.e. actuators that induce rotation about 522, 528) disposed intermediate the motion platform base and the passenger-carrying compartment and operative to move the passenger-carrying compartment through a plurality of degrees of freedom (Fig. 5A; 10D; “four-axis robot arm” – column 3, lines 25-34; See also column 5, lines 5-25; and d) a cabin pivot joint 512 disposed intermediate the passenger-carrying compartment carrier or the motion platform base and a central portion of passenger-carrying compartment (Fig. 5C-5D).
With respect to claim 11, Brister et al. teaches wherein the turntable comprises: a) a rotating outer ring 930, but fails to teach a predetermined set of beams as claimed. Analogous art reference Crawford et al. teaches the following to be known in the art: a turntable comprising a plurality of beams and b) a plurality of vehicle motion-base motion actuators, each vehicle motion actuator coupled to a beam of the plurality of beams, each motion-based vehicle coupled to a vehicle motion actuator of the plurality of vehicle motion actuator (Fig. 4; paragraphs [0049]-[0050]). The motivation to combine is the same as stated above. Examiner notes Brister et al. teaches two additional motion vehicles from motion vehicles 910, 912. Thus, based on the combination of Brister et al. + Crawford, a person ordinary skill in the art would understand the combined art to teach wherein each motion vehicle comprises its own beam and corresponding vehicle motion actuator to move the platforms along the beam. This is noted because claim 1 requires a set of beams, and claim 11 requires a plurality of beams. The combined prior art meets the claim language of a set of beams (i.e. two beams) of claim 1 and the plurality of beams (i.e. two additional beams) of claim 11 since four motion vehicles are taught, each having its own beam to traverse along linearly.
5. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brister et al. (US Pat. No. 10,279,274) in view of Crawford et al. (US Pub. No. 2013/0059670) and further in view of Ochi (US Pub. No. 2002/0140171) and even further in view of Hall et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0354282).
With respect to claim 13, Brister et al. does not expressly teach wherein the predominantly enclosed cabin comprises a predetermined set of selectively obscurable windows operatively in communication with the ride controller. However, analogous art reference Hall et al. teaches that it is known for a passenger cabin to comprise a set of selectively obscurable windows operatively in communication with a ride controller (paragraph [0042]). At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add this feature into the ride system of Brister et al. The rationale to combine is to allow modification of the passenger’s view out of the cabin. This would expectantly provide different options for passenger viewing, ensuring new and exciting views are available for each ride. The proposed modification has a reasonable expectation of success as the windows could be positioned on the cabin without compromising the ride functionality.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
7. 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 MICHAEL DAVID DENNIS whose telephone number is (571)270-3538. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Eugene Kim can be reached at (571) 272 4463. 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.
/MICHAEL D DENNIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights