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 § 112
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-14, 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim 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.
Regarding claim 1 the limitation “a roller coaster arrangement (30), comprising: a car arrangement (30)” is unclear because both the roller coaster arrangement and the car arrangement are labeled 30. Amending the claim to indicate the car as 32 would overcome this rejection.
Regarding claim 13 the limitation “a car arrangement (32)” is unclear because it is not clear if this is the same or a different car arrangement as introduced in claim 1. Amending the claim to recite –the car arrangement—would overcome this rejection.
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) 1-4, 6-14, 17-18 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) and further in view of Schafer (DE 20217754 U1).
Regarding claims 1 & 8 Cornwell teaches a roller coaster arrangement comprising a car arrangement (abstract, see claim 1) and 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 embodiments), but 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 or 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, 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.
However, Schafer does 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 (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.
Regarding claim 2 Cornwell as modified above teaches that only four vertical diagonal profiles are connected to the chord tube as vertical truss profiles in the at least one connection area (Cornwell, FIG. 4: depicted).
Regarding claim 3 Cornwell as modified above 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.
Regarding claim 4 Cornwell as modified above teaches that in a bay section (Cornwell, 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 (Cornwell, FIG. 4: depicted).
Regarding claim 6 Cornwell as modified above teaches that in a joint section (Cornwell, 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 (Cornwell, FIG. 4: depicted).
Regarding claim 7 Cornwell as modified above teaches that the vertical diagonal profiles are connected directly to the chord tube and directly to the rail tube (Cornwell, FIG. 4: depicted).
Regarding claim 9 Cornwell as modified above teaches that the rail tubes are connected to one another via horizontal truss profiles so that they brace each other (Cornwell, FIG. 4: depicted).
Regarding claim 10 Cornwell as modified above 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 (Burger, FIG. 3: 13).
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 above teaches 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 (Burger, FIG. 2 & 3: horizontal instances of 20 depicted as claimed).
Regarding claim 13 Cornwell as modified above 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 (Cornwell, FIG. 4: depicted with free space suitable for a car as claimed).
Regarding claim 14 Cornwell as modified above 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 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).
Regarding claim 18 Cornwell as modified above teaches that a local vertical load exerted on the truss-type rail in use by traveling over the rail tubes by the car arrangement (Cornwell, FIG. 13: cars 200) always has a direction which is perpendicular to a rail plane, which is defined by the two rail tubes (Cornwell, 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 (Cornwell, FIG. 2 & 13: depicted).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not all persuasive.
Regarding the argument that there would be no reason to combine Burger and Schafer this argument is not persuasive because they share subject matter and the combination would not interfere with the technical aspects of either. No particular reason was presented as to why they would not be obvious to combine, but if there is a particular reason then it should be provided in the arguments of the next amendment to follow as that would strengthen the arguments and may help to overcome the rejection. This also applies to the argument that the combination of Cornwell and Schaefer is not obvious either.
Regarding the argument that the references provided no not teach the claimed subject matter, this is not persuasive because no particular feature or claimed limitation is pointed out as being missing, it is merely asserted that something is not taught without addressing what that may be. Future arguments specifically pointing out what is missing would strengthen this argument and help to overcome the rejection.
Applicant is thanked for the gracious invitation for an interview but it was determined that an interview alone would not be enough to move the case to allowance. As stated above, further detail on the arguments made on 07/06/2026 made of record may make them persuasive. Additionally, as noted in the final rejection dated 03/04/2026 further limitations can be added to claims 1 & 14 in alignment with the arguments responded to therein which may make those arguments persuasive. Applicant is invited to schedule an interview to discuss these avenues of argument and amendment so that together we can move this case swiftly towards a possible allowance.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights