DETAILED ACTION
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 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.
(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, 2, 4, 6-9, & 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cornwell et al. (US 6269750 B1, herein after referred to as Cornwall).
Regarding claims 1 & 8 Cornwell teaches a truss-type rail (FIG. 2: 10; FIG. 4: 50) for an amusement ride, comprising - two rail tubes (FIG. 2: 12 & 16; FIG. 4: 52 & 54) directly passable with a car arrangement (FIG. 2, 4, 13, & 15: depicted), - a non-passable chord tube (FIG. 2: 22; FIG. 4: 56), and - vertical truss profiles (FIG. 2: 28; FIG. 4: 60) which connect the rail tubes and the chord tube to one another so that they brace each other and which comprise vertical diagonal profiles which run diagonally between the chord tube and the respective rail tube in an alternately ascending and descending manner (FIG. 2 & 4: depicted), wherein in at least one connection area of the vertical diagonal profiles on the chord tube or the rail tube, no additional vertical truss profile is connected thereto (FIG. 2 & 4: depicted, it is all a single truss profile in both embodiements).
Regarding claim 2 Cornwell teaches that only four vertical diagonal profiles are connected to the chord tube as vertical truss profiles in the at least one connection area (FIG. 4: depicted).
Regarding claim 4 Cornwell teaches that in a bay section (FIG. 4: any area where the vertical profiles connect) of the truss-type rail in all connection areas of the vertical diagonal profiles on the chord tube, no additional vertical truss profile is connected thereto in each case (FIG. 4: depicted).
Regarding claim 6 Cornwell teaches that in a joint section (FIG. 4: areas between where the vertical profiles 60 connect to the rails 52 & 54; under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims the name “joint section” can refer to how those sections of 52 & 54 join the sections of 52 & 54 which are connected to 60) of the truss-type rail on the respective rail tube, no vertical truss profile is connected thereto (FIG. 4: depicted).
Regarding claim 7 Cornwell teaches that the vertical diagonal profiles are connected directly to the chord tube and directly to the rail tube (FIG. 4: depicted).
Regarding claim 9 Cornwell teaches that the rail tubes are connected to one another via horizontal truss profiles so that they brace each other (FIG. 4: depicted).
Regarding claim 13 Cornwell teaches that the vertical truss profiles are connected or coupled to the rail tubes in use in such a manner that carriage free space for a carriage of the car arrangement is formed on the top, bottom and outside of the rail tube (FIG. 4: depicted with free space suitable for a car as claimed).
Regarding claim 14 Cornwell teaches that the local vertical load exerted on the truss-type rail in use by traveling over the rail tubes by the car arrangement always has a direction which is substantially perpendicular to the rail plane of the rail tubes (result of the depicted structure).
Regarding claim 15 Cornwell teaches a roller coaster arrangement comprising a car arrangement and at least one truss-type rail according to claim 1 (abstract; see claim 1).
Regarding claim 18 Cornwell teaches that a local vertical load exerted on the truss-type rail in use by traveling over the rail tubes by the car arrangement (FIG. 13: cars 200) always has a direction which is perpendicular to a rail plane, which is defined by the two rail tubes (FIG. 13: rail plane passing horizontally through 214 & 218), and wherein the chord tube is, in a local vertical load direction, always located below and between both of the rail tubes (FIG. 2 & 13: depicted).
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cornwell et al. (US 6269750 B1, herein after referred to as Cornwall).
Regarding claim 3 Cornwell does not explicitly teach that in the at least one connection area, the connection joints of the vertical diagonal profiles connected to the chord tube have a respective minimum distance from one another which is always less than three times the diameter of the vertical diagonal profiles in the connection area. Cornwell merely depicts a finite profile diameter and a small but visible minimum distance from one another. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cornwell to use minimum distances between vertical diagonal profiles less than three times the diameter of the vertical diagonal profiles, so as to achieve an optimal structural rigidity, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. See, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Moreover, Applicant should note that nothing of record, nor known in the art, suggests that using the specific claimed range or value yields any previously unexpected results.
Claim(s) 5, 10-12, & 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cornwell et al. (US 6269750 B1, herein after referred to as Cornwall) in view of Burger et al (EP 2156870 A1, herein after referred to as Burger).
Regarding claim 5 Cornwell does not teach that in a load bearing section of the truss-type rail in the connection area of the vertical diagonal profiles on the chord tube or on the respective rail tube, mullion profiles are provided which run substantially orthogonally between the chord tube and the respective rail tube and are connected directly to the chord tube and to the rail tube.
However, Burger does teach that in a load bearing section of the truss-type rail in the connection area of the vertical diagonal profiles on the chord tube or on the respective rail tube, mullion profiles are provided which run substantially orthogonally between the chord tube and the respective rail tube and are connected directly to the chord tube and to the rail tube (FIG. 3: 13). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have alternatively included the mullion profiles of Burger with the truss-type rail of Cornwell in load bearing section in order to increase the amount of load that can be born.
Regarding claim 10 Cornwell does not teach that the horizontal truss profiles comprise transverse profiles which run substantially orthogonally between the rail tubes, with the transverse profiles being connected directly to the rail tubes.
However, Burger does teach that the horizontal truss profiles comprise transverse profiles which run substantially orthogonally between the rail tubes, with the transverse profiles being connected directly to the rail tubes (FIG. 3: 13). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have alternatively included the transverse profiles of Burger with the truss profile of Cornwell in order to increase the amount of load that can be born.
Regarding claim 11 Cornwell as modified above teaches that the vertical diagonal profiles are connected directly to a transverse profile in the connection area on the respective rail tube (result of the combination, see how instances of 20 connect to 13 in Burger FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 12 Cornwell as modified (claim 12 is being treated as dependent from claim 11, see objections above) above does not teach that the horizontal truss profiles comprise horizontal diagonal profiles which run diagonally between the rail tubes and which are connected directly to at least one transverse profile, near the rail tubes, but Burger also teaches this feature (Burger, FIG. 2 & 3: horizontal instances of 20 depicted as claimed). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further included the horizontal diagonal profiles of Burger with the truss profile of Cornwell as previously modified by Burger in order to further increase the strength of the truss profile.
Regarding claim 17 Cornwell as modified above teaches that the horizontal diagonal profiles are connected directly to two transverse profiles near the rail tubes (Burger, FIG. 3: depicted).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cornwell et al. (US 6269750 B1, herein after referred to as Cornwall) in view of Schafer (DE 20217754 U1)
Regarding claim 16 Cornwell does not explicitly teach that the car arrangement has at least one carriage which encompasses at least one rail tube of the truss-type rail on the top, bottom and outside. However, Schafer does (FIG. 1-3: unlabeled vehicle clearly depicted with wheel assemblies surrounding the rails on the top, bottom, and sides). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a carriage which encompasses the rail tubes as taught by Schafer with the roller coaster arrangement of Cornwell in order to produce a secure connection between the carriage and the rails, enhancing safety.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not all persuasive.
The argument about claim 1 that Cornwell does not teach a vertical truss profile as claimed in not persuasive. The illustrations of the difference in shape between the instant invention and Cornwell makes it clear that the two profiles are different, the applicant and the examiner do not differ in this position. However, the limitations as claimed do not distinguish between the two profiles under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims. The truss of Cornwell is also a vertical truss profile (it is depicted how they have similar heights in the vertical direction) which connect the rail tubes (in a similar manner to the instant invention) so that they brace each other (the interconnected rail tubes serve to brace one another against forces in a variety of directions). While the applicant is not incorrect in pointing out the differences between the prior art and the instant invention the claims must be amended to support these distinctions with more limitations and greater specificity.
Regarding the argument about claim 14 that Cornwell does not teach the vertical load being exerted in a direction which is substantially perpendicular to the rail plane of the rail tubes is not persuasive. The term “rail plane” is not defined in the specification or further limited in the claims, as such the broadest reasonable interpretation is applied, this interpretation includes any plane which passes through at least one of the rails, in this case the horizontal plane perpendicular to the vertical load. Adding limitations to more narrowly define the rail plane would likely make future arguments in this vein more persuasive and help to overcome the current rejection and other possible rejections in view of other embodiments of Cornwell and in view of other prior art.
Regarding the argument about claim 18 that Cornwell does not teach the limitations of the new claim this is not persuasive because while the embodiment of Cornwell found in FIG. 4 does not teach these limitations the embodiment of FIG. 2 does. The rejection of claim 1 has been expanded to show how this embodiment may be used to reject claim 1 upon which claim 18 depends. See the above rejection of claims 1 & 18.
The objection about claim 12 has been overcome and the applicant is thanked for the expeditious correction.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 MAXWELL L MESHAKA whose telephone number is (571)272-5693. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 7:30-4:00.
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, Samuel J Morano IV can be reached on (571) 272-6684. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/MAXWELL L MESHAKA/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615