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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is the first non-final office action on the merits. Claims 1-6 are currently pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. IT102022000023478, filed on 11/15/2022.
Drawings
The drawings are accepted.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “it comprises a starting element” in lines 1-2. For clarity purposes, the term “it” has been construed as “the starting ramp”.
Claims 2 and 4 recite the limitation “its central axis” in line 4 and lines 2-3 respectively. For clarity purposes, the phrase “its central axis” has been construed as “the roller’s central axis”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braun (US 9533232 B2), in view of Morris et al. (US 8359691 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Braun teaches (Fig. 1-3): A starting ramp (launch ramp 16) for tubing tracks (Fig. 1) characterized in that the starting ramp comprises a starting element (slide surface 18) having a flat surface (18) suitable for sliding a tubing donut (14)(Fig. 1-3), a lever system (lifting cylinder 32) suitable for lifting the rear portion of the starting element (18)(Fig. 1-2; col. 3, lines 54-67), a first activation device (control device 35) of the lever system (32) for gradual lifting of the rear portion of the starting element (18)(Fig. 1-2; col. 3, lines 59-62).
Braun teaches (Fig. 1): the first activation device (control device 35), but does not explicitly teach that the first activation device is housed within a control console.
However, Morris teaches an alternate ramp assembly, wherein (Fig. 1 and 5): “the operator signals the control system through a standard control panel having a plurality of control switches to actuate the drive assembly 40, which in turn, moves the ramp platform 28 from the stowed position shown in FIG. 1 to the deployed position shown in FIG. 5” (col. 11, lines 6-11).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Braun to design the first activation device as a plurality of control switches housed in a control panel, as disclosed by Morris, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would enable the water slide operator to actively control the deployment of the riders through a control panel, ensuring rider safety.
Regarding claim 2, Braun and Morris teach the elements of claim 1, as stated above. Braun further teaches (Fig. 1-3): the flat surface (18) suitable for sliding a tubing donut (14) of the starting element (18) is provided with at least one roller (roller belt) suitable for rotating around the roller’s central axis (col. 3, lines 2-4).
Regarding claim 3, Braun and Morris teach the elements of claim 1, as stated above. Braun further teaches (Fig. 1-3): the starting element (18) is provided with a safety barrier (blocking element 36) located in the frontal portion of the starting element (18)(Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Braun and Morris teach the elements of claim 2, as stated above. Braun further teaches (Fig. 1-3): each roller (rollers of the roller belt) is suitable to rotate around the roller’s central axis being in neutral (as a slide surface) or by means of one or more first handling devices of the roller (the roller belt of the sliding surface 18 can be a driven roller belt; col. 5, lines 4-8).
Braun does not explicitly teach that the driven roller belt is actuated by a second activation device placed alternatively in a position outside the control console or in the control console.
However, Morris teaches an alternate ramp assembly, wherein (Fig. 1 and 5): “the operator signals the control system through a standard control panel having a plurality of control switches to actuate the drive assembly 40, which in turn, moves the ramp platform 28 from the stowed position shown in FIG. 1 to the deployed position shown in FIG. 5” (col. 11, lines 6-11).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Braun to control the driven roller belt using control switches on a control panel, as disclosed by Morris, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would enable the water slide operator to actively control the deployment of the riders through a control panel, ensuring rider safety.
Regarding claim 5, Braun and Morris teach the elements of claim 3, as stated above. Braun further teaches (Fig. 1-3): the safety barrier (blocking element 36) is lowered by means of one or more second handling devices (drive 38)(col. 4, lines 32-35; Fig. 2-3) actuated by a third activation device (launch button) positioned alternatively outside the control console or in the control console (the launch button can be actuated by a user to release the blocking element 36; col. 5, lines 60-67; Fig. 2-3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claims and if all claim objections are overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 6, the prior art fails to teach a synchronization device suitable for synchronously activating the activation devices of two or more starting ramps which is activated by a fourth activation device positioned alternatively outside the control console or in the control console. While Braun teaches (Fig. 1-3): a first activation device (control device 35) of the lever system (32) for gradual lifting of the rear portion of the starting element (18)(Fig. 1-2; col. 3, lines 59-62), the examiner finds no obvious reason to add an additional starting ramp to be synchronically activated with the first starting ramp by a fourth activation device. Such a modification would require improper hindsight reasoning.
It is noted that while another reference Briggs (US 6527646 B1) teaches (Fig. 1-2): a competitive water slide with two water slides (40, 44) and two entrances (52), Briggs does not teach two starting ramps to be synchronically activated by an activation device. While it may be obvious to use the starting ramp and activation device of Braun with each of the two water slides of Briggs, the examiner finds no obvious reason to further include a synchronization device for activating two or more starting ramps by a fourth activation device. Such a modification would require improper hindsight reasoning and additional modifications to a modifying reference.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure of waterslides with actuated starting ramps: US-4134230-A, US-5453054-A, US-6527646-B1, US-6860701-B2, US-7833107-B1, US-10835428-B2.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHENG XI LIN whose telephone number is (571)272-6102. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. through Fri. 9:00am to 6:00pm EST.
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 (Joe) Morano can be reached at 5712726684. 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.
/CHENG LIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3615