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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s Response dated September 17th, 2025. Claims 1-2, 4, 6-19 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Amendment
In response to Applicant’s Response dated September 17th, 2025, Examiner maintains the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 prior art rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 17th, 2025have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach receiving from a terminal device adjustment information and manage the vehicle performance based on this information. Examiner respectfully disagrees, the term “terminal device” is a well-known term in the art and under broadest reasonable interpretation, Examiner is interpreting the terminal device to comply with Merriam Webster’s definition of a terminal “a combination of a keyboard and output device (such as a video display unit) by which data can be entered into or output from a computer or electronic communications system”. Under this interpretation, examiner maintains that ide controller 20 of Krauthammer is considered to be a terminal device [Col. 8, lines 1-18]; “the ride vehicle controller 20 receives the user input indicative of a requested action from the input device 76, and transmits signals indicative of the requested action to the ride controller 24 via the communication circuitry 26 for validation.” Therefore, Examiner maintains the corresponding rejections.
All of the remaining arguments are essentially the same as those addressed above and/or below and are unpersuasive for at least the same reasons.
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 11 is 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.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the adjustment information". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim thus rendering the claim unclear.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 11, 12, 13, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-10668391 (hereinafter, “Krauthamer”) in view of US-20210026815 (hereinafter, “Tasaki”).
Regarding claim 1 Krauthamer discloses a mobile object management device for managing a ridable mobile object that a user is allowed to get on and which moves inside of a prescribed area (see at least [Abstract]; “A control system includes a ride controller configured to maintain a plurality of rules indicative of permitted states of the free-roaming ride vehicle within a game area and including gameplay rules,” the game area corresponds to Applicant’s prescribed area), the mobile object management device comprising:
a processor (see at least [Col.2, lines 35-40]; “present embodiments are directed toward a tangible, non-transitory, machine-readable medium, including machine-readable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to…”) configured to;
acquire…location information of the ridable mobile object (see at least [Col. 7, lines 17-25]; “to enable more efficient visualization and tracking by the monitoring system 40, the ride vehicle 14 of the embodiment illustrated in Fig. 1 includes visual indicators 62 and IR devices 64 coupled to a front surface 66 or portion of the bumper 60. The visual indicators 62 are any suitable fiducial markers that the sensors 42 of the monitoring system 40 are capable of using as a point of reference for determining information regarding the state (e.g., position, location, orientation) of the ride vehicle 14”);
receive, from the terminal device, adjustment information for a performance operation executable by the ridable mobile object (see at least [Col. 1, lines 38-41]; “the free-roaming ride vehicles each have a set of controls to allow passengers to provide user input regarding their desired path or interactions with the amusement park ride,” a terminal device is a broad term and can constitute the controller placed in the4 free-roaming ride vehicles);
manage the ridable mobile object and the terminal device of the user on the ridable mobile object in association with each other (see at least [Col. 4, line 41 – Col. 5, line 15]; “The ride controller 24 of the present embodiment of the ride control system 12 is a main or central controller that coordinates progression of the ride vehicles 14 through the game area 16. Generally, the ride controller 24 is responsible for validating user inputs the passengers 18 provide to their associated ride vehicle 14,” and [Col. 4, lines 25-31]; “the illustrated ride vehicles 14 each include a ride vehicle controller 20 of the ride control system 12 that controls movement of the respective ride vehicle 14 based on input from passengers 18 within the ride vehicle 14 and/or based on input from a ride controller 24 of the ride control system 12,” the ride control system 12 is equivalent to the terminal device of the user on the ridable mobile object, and the ride controller 24 is equivalent to Applicant’s manager as it controls the ridable vehicle as well as the inputs by the passenger in the vehicle);
cause the ridable mobile object to execute a prescribed operation corresponding to an event via the terminal device of the user on the basis of the location information and information about the event that is executed inside of the prescribed area (see at least [col. 4, lines 54-]; “in response to determining that the requested action (e.g., requested gameplay action) is permitted, the ride controller 24 instructs the ride vehicle controller 20 to perform the requested action. In response to determining that the user input is not permitted, such as attempting to access a second station within the game area 16 without visiting a first, prerequisite station within the game area 16,” the game corresponds to the Applicant’s event and the game rules, such as having to visit the first prerequisite location, is equivalent to Applicant’s information about the event, depending on the information of the ridable vehicle and game rules it is, determined whether to execute the input inputted by the passenger of the ridable vehicle); and
determine whether or not to permit participation in the event of the user on a basis of the state in which the user uses the ridable mobile object (see at least [col. 4, lines 50-54]; “the ride controller 24 therefore compares the modeled state of the ride vehicle 14 to gameplay rules 30 and operational rules 32 to determine whether the requested user input is indicative of a permitted action or game play action”),
wherein the processor is further configured to set a possible participation level of the user for the event on the basis of the state in which the user uses the ridable mobile object and manage a performance operation capable of being executed by the ridable mobile object of the user in accordance with the set of possible participation level (see at least [Col. 3, lines 45-51]; “Indeed, in certain embodiments, the ride control system maintains a set or plurality of rules, including gameplay rules that describe permitted, multi-variate combinations of non-linear game events within the amusement park ride and operational rules that describe permitted physical operations of the free-roaming ride vehicle,” and Col. 5, lines 16-37]; “The gameplay rules 30 of the various embodiments disclosed herein describe permitted combinations of actions available within the game area 16. That is, in certain embodiments, the presently disclosed amusement park ride 10 includes multiple, overlapping solutions or conclusions that may be reached by various non-linear paths or combinations of actions, as set forth by the gameplay rules 30. By way of example, the gameplay rules 30 of certain embodiments specify that a first interactive object is to be activated by passengers 18 of one of the ride vehicles 14 before the ride vehicle 14 is allowed to enter a room containing a second interactive object and a third interactive object. Based on activation of either the second or the third interactive objects, the gameplay rules 30 specify which of multiple exits from the room the ride vehicle 14 is permitted to access. Accordingly, should the passengers 18 attempt or request to direct the ride vehicle 14 through an unauthorized exit, the ride controller 24 instructs the ride vehicle 14 to perform a proximate action, such as blocking forward progress of the ride vehicle 14 through the unauthorized exit and/or providing sensory or physical (e.g., visual, audible, haptic) feedback indicative of a suggested exit,” based on the state of the user and the ridable object, whether the first interactable object has been activated, an entrance/exit either remains blocked or unlocks, the areas in which the vehicle is able to participate at correspond to the participation level of the ridable object),
wherein the processor acquires the event in which the user is able to participate on the basis of the possible participation level (see at least [Col. 3, lines 45-51]; “Indeed, in certain embodiments, the ride control system maintains a set or plurality of rules, including gameplay rules that describe permitted, multi-variate combinations of non-linear game events within the amusement park ride and operational rules that describe permitted physical operations of the free-roaming ride vehicle,” and [Col. 5, lines 16-37]; “The gameplay rules 30 of the various embodiments disclosed herein describe permitted combinations of actions available within the game area 16. That is, in certain embodiments, the presently disclosed amusement park ride 10 includes multiple, overlapping solutions or conclusions that may be reached by various non-linear paths or combinations of actions, as set forth by the gameplay rules 30. By way of example, the gameplay rules 30 of certain embodiments specify that a first interactive object is to be activated by passengers 18 of one of the ride vehicles 14 before the ride vehicle 14 is allowed to enter a room containing a second interactive object and a third interactive object,” the rooms in which the vehicle can participate at correspond to the participation level) and notifies the user with information to inquire from the user a level of participation in the event (see at least [Col. 5, lines 16-37]; “Accordingly, should the passengers 18 attempt or request to direct the ride vehicle 14 through an unauthorized exit, the ride controller 24 instructs the ride vehicle 14 to perform a proximate action, such as blocking forward progress of the ride vehicle 14 through the unauthorized exit and/or providing sensory or physical (e.g., visual, audible, haptic) feedback indicative of a suggested exit”) and adjusts a performance operation executable by the ridable mobile object according to the level of participation in the event based on a response, from the user, inquiring of the level of participation in the event (see at least [Col. 5, lines 16-37]; “The gameplay rules 30 of the various embodiments disclosed herein describe permitted combinations of actions available within the game area 16. That is, in certain embodiments, the presently disclosed amusement park ride 10 includes multiple, overlapping solutions or conclusions that may be reached by various non-linear paths or combinations of actions, as set forth by the gameplay rules 30. By way of example, the gameplay rules 30 of certain embodiments specify that a first interactive object is to be activated by passengers 18 of one of the ride vehicles 14 before the ride vehicle 14 is allowed to enter a room containing a second interactive object and a third interactive object. Based on activation of either the second or the third interactive objects, the gameplay rules 30 specify which of multiple exits from the room the ride vehicle 14 is permitted to access. Accordingly, should the passengers 18 attempt or request to direct the ride vehicle 14 through an unauthorized exit, the ride controller 24 instructs the ride vehicle 14 to perform a proximate action, such as blocking forward progress of the ride vehicle 14 through the unauthorized exit and/or providing sensory or physical (e.g., visual, audible, haptic) feedback indicative of a suggested exit. In some cases, the ride controller 24 provides responsive feedback to the passengers 18 indicative of receipt of their requested action that the ride controller 24 is unauthorized or unable to perform. These and other gameplay rules 30 are further discussed below with reference to FIGS. 2 and 3,” based on the user activating the first interactive element, the level of participation is adjusted to allow the vehicle to enter/exit a room).
Krauthamer does not disclose acquire, via a terminal device of the user riding on the ridable mobile object, location information of the ridable mobile object.
Tasaki, in the same field of endeavor, teaches acquire, via a terminal device of the user riding on the ridable mobile object, location information of the ridable mobile object (see at least [0072]; “the terminal device 2 is, for example, a smartphone, a tablet computer, or a personal computer, and is used by the user boarding the mobility 1. The terminal device 2 receives a user’s input of reservation information for reserving use of the mobility 1. The reservation information includes, for example, a user ID identifying the user, a departure place, a destination, a reservation end date and time, and a type of mobility. The terminal device 2 is communicatively connected to the server device 3 via the network 5,” the departure place and destination correspond to the location information of the ridable mobile object as it corresponds to the required starting location of the mobile object and its desired destination).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the mobile object management device of Krauthamer with the location terminal information of Tasaki. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of accurately providing a path for the rider based on the user input (see at least Tasaki; [0008]).
Regarding claim 2 Krauthamer in view of Tasaki renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Krauthamer discloses wherein the processor is further configured to decide on an event in which the user is able to participate on a basis of information including at least one of a number of uses and usage time of the ridable mobile object of the user (see at least [Col. 6, lines 1-13]; “In some embodiments, the user profile for each passenger may include an age, a height, a list of previous visits to the amusement park ride 10, a list of actions completed during any previous visits to the amusement park ride 10, and so forth. With this information, the ride controller 24 may provide an adaptive and age-appropriate experience to each passenger 18. Additionally, for certain cases in which the passengers 18 previously completed actions within the amusement park ride 10 10, the ride controller 24 enables the passengers 18 to continue from a previous or saved point within the game area 16, such as a previously unlocked portion of the game area 16,” if a portion of the ride has been completed one time previously, a user is able to pick up where they left off).
Regarding claim 4 Krauthamer in view of Tasaki renders obvious renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Krauthamer discloses wherein the processor is further configured to manage the performance operation on a basis of the possible participation level (see at least [Col. 3, lines 45-51]; “Indeed, in certain embodiments, the ride control system maintains a set or plurality of rules, including gameplay rules that describe permitted, multi-variate combinations of non-linear game events within the amusement park ride and operational rules that describe permitted physical operations of the free-roaming ride vehicle,” and Col. 5, lines 16-37]; “The gameplay rules 30 of the various embodiments disclosed herein describe permitted combinations of actions available within the game area 16. That is, in certain embodiments, the presently disclosed amusement park ride 10 includes multiple, overlapping solutions or conclusions that may be reached by various non-linear paths or combinations of actions, as set forth by the gameplay rules 30. By way of example, the gameplay rules 30 of certain embodiments specify that a first interactive object is to be activated by passengers 18 of one of the ride vehicles 14 before the ride vehicle 14 is allowed to enter a room containing a second interactive object and a third interactive object. Based on activation of either the second or the third interactive objects, the gameplay rules 30 specify which of multiple exits from the room the ride vehicle 14 is permitted to access. Accordingly, should the passengers 18 attempt or request to direct the ride vehicle 14 through an unauthorized exit, the ride controller 24 instructs the ride vehicle 14 to perform a proximate action, such as blocking forward progress of the ride vehicle 14 through the unauthorized exit and/or providing sensory or physical (e.g., visual, audible, haptic) feedback indicative of a suggested exit,” based on the state of the user and the ridable object, whether the first interactable object has been activated, an entrance/exit either remains blocked or unlocks, the areas in which the vehicle is able to participate at correspond to the participation level of the ridable object).
Regarding claim 8 Krauthamer in view of Tasaki renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Krauthamer discloses wherein the processor is further configured to provide the ridable mobile object to the user or gives incentives to a service provider that plans the event on the basis of the state in which the user uses the ridable mobile object (see at least [fig. 2]; the vehicle 60 is provided to passengers 18 by the ride controller).
Regarding claim 9 Krauthamer in view of Tasaki renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 1. Krauthamer does not disclose wherein the processor is further configured to adjust content of the prescribed operation on a basis of information about the user on the ridable mobile object or a surrounding environment of the ridable mobile object (see at least [Col. 5, lines 16-37]; “the gameplay rules 30 of certain embodiments specify that a first interactive object is to be activated by passengers 18 of one of the ride vehicles 14 before the ride vehicle 14 is allowed to enter a room containing a second interactive object and a third interactive object. Based on activation of either the second or the third interactive objects, the gameplay rules 30 specify which of multiple exits from the room the ride vehicle 14 is permitted to access. Accordingly, should the passengers 18 attempt or request to direct the ride vehicle 14 through an unauthorized exit, the ride controller 24 instructs the ride vehicle 14 to perform a proximate action, such as blocking forward progress of the ride vehicle 14 through the unauthorized exit and/or providing sensory or physical (e.g., visual, audible, haptic) feedback indicative of a suggested exit. In some cases, the ride controller 24 provides responsive feedback to the passengers 18 indicative of receipt of their requested action that the ride controller 24 is unauthorized or unable to perform. These and other gameplay rules 30 are further discussed below with reference to FIGS. 2 and 3,” if the user tries to travel through an unauthorized exit the controller blocks progress of the vehicle through the exit, the basis of information corresponds to whether the user has activated the interactable element).
Regarding claim 10 Krauthamer in view of Tasaki renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 1. Krauthamer does not disclose wherein the processor is further configured to adjust content of the prescribed operation on a basis of setting content from the user on the ridable mobile object (see at least [Col. 5, lines 16-37]; “the gameplay rules 30 of certain embodiments specify that a first interactive object is to be activated by passengers 18 of one of the ride vehicles 14 before the ride vehicle 14 is allowed to enter a room containing a second interactive object and a third interactive object. Based on activation of either the second or the third interactive objects, the gameplay rules 30 specify which of multiple exits from the room the ride vehicle 14 is permitted to access. Accordingly, should the passengers 18 attempt or request to direct the ride vehicle 14 through an unauthorized exit, the ride controller 24 instructs the ride vehicle 14 to perform a proximate action, such as blocking forward progress of the ride vehicle 14 through the unauthorized exit and/or providing sensory or physical (e.g., visual, audible, haptic) feedback indicative of a suggested exit. In some cases, the ride controller 24 provides responsive feedback to the passengers 18 indicative of receipt of their requested action that the ride controller 24 is unauthorized or unable to perform. These and other gameplay rules 30 are further discussed below with reference to FIGS. 2 and 3,” if the user tries to travel through an unauthorized exit the controller blocks progress of the vehicle through the exit, the basis of setting content from the user corresponds to whether the user has activated the interactable element).
Regarding claim 11 Krauthamer discloses a mobile object management method (see at least Fig. 3) comprising:
acquiring, by a computer of a mobile object management device for managing a ridable mobile object that a user is allowed to get on and which moves inside of a prescribed area (see at least [Abstract]; “A control system includes a ride controller configured to maintain a plurality of rules indicative of permitted states of the free-roaming ride vehicle within a game area and including gameplay rules,” the game area corresponds to Applicant’s prescribed area), location information of the ridable mobile object (see at least [Col. 7, lines 17-25]; “to enable more efficient visualization and tracking by the monitoring system 40, the ride vehicle 14 of the embodiment illustrated in Fig. 1 includes visual indicators 62 and IR devices 64 coupled to a front surface 66 or portion of the bumper 60. The visual indicators 62 are any suitable fiducial markers that the sensors 42 of the monitoring system 40 are capable of using as a point of reference for determining information regarding the state (e.g., position, location, orientation) of the ride vehicle 14”)…
…managing, by the computer, the ridable mobile object and the terminal device of the user riding on the ridable mobile object in association with each other (see at least [Col. 4, line 41 – Col. 5, line 15]; “The ride controller 24 of the present embodiment of the ride control system 12 is a main or central controller that coordinates progression of the ride vehicles 14 through the game area 16. Generally, the ride controller 24 is responsible for validating user inputs the passengers 18 provide to their associated ride vehicle 14,” and [Col. 4, lines 25-31]; “the illustrated ride vehicles 14 each include a ride vehicle controller 20 of the ride control system 12 that controls movement of the respective ride vehicle 14 based on input from passengers 18 within the ride vehicle 14 and/or based on input from a ride controller 24 of the ride control system 12,” the ride control system 12 is equivalent to the terminal device of the user on the ridable mobile object, and the ride controller 24 is equivalent to Applicant’s manager as it controls the ridable vehicle as well as the inputs by the passenger in the vehicle);
causing, by the computer, the ridable mobile object to execute a prescribed operation corresponding to an event via the terminal device of the user on the basis of the location information and information about the event that is executed inside of the prescribed area (see at least [col. 4, lines 54-]; “in response to determining that the requested action (e.g., requested gameplay action) is permitted, the ride controller 24 instructs the ride vehicle controller 20 to perform the requested action. In response to determining that the user input is not permitted, such as attempting to access a second station within the game area 16 without visiting a first, prerequisite station within the game area 16,” the game corresponds to the Applicant’s event and the game rules, such as having to visit the first prerequisite location, is equivalent to Applicant’s information about the event, depending on the information of the ridable vehicle and game rules it is, determined whether to execute the input inputted by the passenger of the ridable vehicle); and
determining, by the computer, whether or not to permit participation in the event of the user on a basis of a state in which the user uses the ridable mobile object (see at least [col. 4, lines 50-54]; “the ride controller 24 therefore compares the modeled state of the ride vehicle 14 to gameplay rules 30 and operational rules 32 to determine whether the requested user input is indicative of a permitted action or game play action”),
setting, by the computer, a possible participation level of the user for the event on the basis of the state in which the user uses the ridable mobile object and managing an operation capable of being executed by the ridable mobile object of the user in accordance with the adjustment information (see at least [Col. 3, lines 45-51]; “Indeed, in certain embodiments, the ride control system maintains a set or plurality of rules, including gameplay rules that describe permitted, multi-variate combinations of non-linear game events within the amusement park ride and operational rules that describe permitted physical operations of the free-roaming ride vehicle,” and Col. 5, lines 16-37]; “The gameplay rules 30 of the various embodiments disclosed herein describe permitted combinations of actions available within the game area 16. That is, in certain embodiments, the presently disclosed amusement park ride 10 includes multiple, overlapping solutions or conclusions that may be reached by various non-linear paths or combinations of actions, as set forth by the gameplay rules 30. By way of example, the gameplay rules 30 of certain embodiments specify that a first interactive object is to be activated by passengers 18 of one of the ride vehicles 14 before the ride vehicle 14 is allowed to enter a room containing a second interactive object and a third interactive object. Based on activation of either the second or the third interactive objects, the gameplay rules 30 specify which of multiple exits from the room the ride vehicle 14 is permitted to access. Accordingly, should the passengers 18 attempt or request to direct the ride vehicle 14 through an unauthorized exit, the ride controller 24 instructs the ride vehicle 14 to perform a proximate action, such as blocking forward progress of the ride vehicle 14 through the unauthorized exit and/or providing sensory or physical (e.g., visual, audible, haptic) feedback indicative of a suggested exit,” based on the state of the user and the ridable object, whether the first interactable object has been activated, an entrance/exit either remains blocked or unlocks, the areas in which the vehicle is able to participate at correspond to the participation level of the ridable object); and
Krauthamer does not disclose wherein the location information of the ridable mobile object is supplied by a terminal device of the user riding on the ridable mobile object.
Tasaki, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the location information of the ridable mobile object is supplied by a terminal device of the user riding on the ridable mobile object (see at least [0072]; “the terminal device 2 is, for example, a smartphone, a tablet computer, or a personal computer, and is used by the user boarding the mobility 1. The terminal device 2 receives a user’s input of reservation information for reserving use of the mobility 1. The reservation information includes, for example, a user ID identifying the user, a departure place, a destination, a reservation end date and time, and a type of mobility. The terminal device 2 is communicatively connected to the server device 3 via the network 5,” the departure place and destination correspond to the location information of the ridable mobile object as it corresponds to the required starting location of the mobile object and its desired destination).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the mobile object management device of Krauthamer with the location terminal information of Tasaki. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of accurately providing a path for the rider based on the user input (see at least Tasaki; [0008]).
Regarding claim 12 Krauthamer discloses a computer-readable non-transitory storage medium storing a program for causing a computer of a mobile object management device for managing a ridable mobile object that a user is allowed to get on and which moves inside of a prescribed area (see at least [Col. 2, lines 35-59]; “Present embodiments are directed toward a tangible, non-transitory, machine-readable medium, including machine-readable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to receive sensor data indicative of a current state of a free-roaming ride vehicle within a game area of an amusement park ride,” and [Abstract]; “A control system includes a ride controller configured to maintain a plurality of rules indicative of permitted states of the free-roaming ride vehicle within a game area and including gameplay rules,” the game area corresponds to Applicant’s prescribed area) to:
acquire…location information of the ridable mobile object (see at least [Col. 7, lines 17-25]; “to enable more efficient visualization and tracking by the monitoring system 40, the ride vehicle 14 of the embodiment illustrated in Fig. 1 includes visual indicators 62 and IR devices 64 coupled to a front surface 66 or portion of the bumper 60. The visual indicators 62 are any suitable fiducial markers that the sensors 42 of the monitoring system 40 are capable of using as a point of reference for determining information regarding the state (e.g., position, location, orientation) of the ride vehicle 14”);
receive, from the terminal device, adjustment information for a performance operation executable by the ridable mobile object (see at least [Col. 1, lines 38-41]; “the free-roaming ride vehicles each have a set of controls to allow passengers to provide user input regarding their desired path or interactions with the amusement park ride,” a terminal device is a broad term and can constitute the controller placed in the free-roaming ride vehicles)
manage the ridable mobile object and the terminal device of the user riding on the ridable mobile object in association with each other (see at least [Col. 4, line 41 – Col. 5, line 15]; “The ride controller 24 of the present embodiment of the ride control system 12 is a main or central controller that coordinates progression of the ride vehicles 14 through the game area 16. Generally, the ride controller 24 is responsible for validating user inputs the passengers 18 provide to their associated ride vehicle 14,” and [Col. 4, lines 25-31]; “the illustrated ride vehicles 14 each include a ride vehicle controller 20 of the ride control system 12 that controls movement of the respective ride vehicle 14 based on input from passengers 18 within the ride vehicle 14 and/or based on input from a ride controller 24 of the ride control system 12,” the ride control system 12 is equivalent to the terminal device of the user on the ridable mobile object, and the ride controller 24 is equivalent to Applicant’s manager as it controls the ridable vehicle as well as the inputs by the passenger in the vehicle);
cause the ridable mobile object to execute a prescribed operation corresponding to an event via the terminal device of the user on the basis of the location information and information about the event that is executed inside of the prescribed area (see at least [col. 4, lines 54-]; “in response to determining that the requested action (e.g., requested gameplay action) is permitted, the ride controller 24 instructs the ride vehicle controller 20 to perform the requested action. In response to determining that the user input is not permitted, such as attempting to access a second station within the game area 16 without visiting a first, prerequisite station within the game area 16,” the game corresponds to the Applicant’s event and the game rules, such as having to visit the first prerequisite location, is equivalent to Applicant’s information about the event, depending on the information of the ridable vehicle and game rules it is, determined whether to execute the input inputted by the passenger of the ridable vehicle); and
determine whether or not to permit participation in the event of the user on the basis of a state in which the user uses the ridable mobile object (see at least [col. 4, lines 50-54]; “the ride controller 24 therefore compares the modeled state of the ride vehicle 14 to gameplay rules 30 and operational rules 32 to determine whether the requested user input is indicative of a permitted action or game play action”),
set a possible participation level of the user for the event on the basis of the state in which the user uses the ridable mobile object and manage a performance operation capable of being executed by the ridable mobile object of the user in accordance with the adjustment information (see at least [Col. 3, lines 45-51]; “Indeed, in certain embodiments, the ride control system maintains a set or plurality of rules, including gameplay rules that describe permitted, multi-variate combinations of non-linear game events within the amusement park ride and operational rules that describe permitted physical operations of the free-roaming ride vehicle,” and Col. 5, lines 16-37]; “The gameplay rules 30 of the various embodiments disclosed herein describe permitted combinations of actions available within the game area 16. That is, in certain embodiments, the presently disclosed amusement park ride 10 includes multiple, overlapping solutions or conclusions that may be reached by various non-linear paths or combinations of actions, as set forth by the gameplay rules 30. By way of example, the gameplay rules 30 of certain embodiments specify that a first interactive object is to be activated by passengers 18 of one of the ride vehicles 14 before the ride vehicle 14 is allowed to enter a room containing a second interactive object and a third interactive object. Based on activation of either the second or the third interactive objects, the gameplay rules 30 specify which of multiple exits from the room the ride vehicle 14 is permitted to access. Accordingly, should the passengers 18 attempt or request to direct the ride vehicle 14 through an unauthorized exit, the ride controller 24 instructs the ride vehicle 14 to perform a proximate action, such as blocking forward progress of the ride vehicle 14 through the unauthorized exit and/or providing sensory or physical (e.g., visual, audible, haptic) feedback indicative of a suggested exit,” based on the state of the user and the ridable object, whether the first interactable object has been activated, an entrance/exit either remains blocked or unlocks, the areas in which the vehicle is able to participate at correspond to the participation level of the ridable object); and
Krauthamer does not disclose acquire, via a terminal device of the user riding on the ridable mobile object, location information of the ridable mobile object.
Tasaki, in the same field of endeavor, teaches acquire, via a terminal device of the user riding on the ridable mobile object, location information of the ridable mobile object (see at least [0072]; “the terminal device 2 is, for example, a smartphone, a tablet computer, or a personal computer, and is used by the user boarding the mobility 1. The terminal device 2 receives a user’s input of reservation information for reserving use of the mobility 1. The reservation information includes, for example, a user ID identifying the user, a departure place, a destination, a reservation end date and time, and a type of mobility. The terminal device 2 is communicatively connected to the server device 3 via the network 5,” the departure place and destination correspond to the location information of the ridable mobile object as it corresponds to the required starting location of the mobile object and its desired destination).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the mobile object management device of Krauthamer with the location terminal information of Tasaki. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of accurately providing a path for the rider based on the user input (see at least Tasaki; [0008]).
Regarding claim 13 Krauthamer in view of Tasaki renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 1. Krauthamer does not disclose wherein the performance operation comprises a light intensity of a light emitter of the ridable mobile object (see at least [Col. 5, lines 31-42]; “the ride controller 24 instructs the ride vehicle 14 to perform a proximate action, such as blocking forward progress of the ride vehicle 14 through the unauthorized exit and/or providing sensory or physical (e.g., visual, audible, haptic) feedback indicative of a suggested exit,” the visual feedback corresponds to the turning on or off of a light on a vehicle).
Regarding claim 17 Krauthamer in view of Tasaki renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 1. Krauthamer does not disclose wherein the adjustment information comprises information representative of a sound that was detected by a microphone of the terminal device (see at least [Col. 5, lines 31-42]; “the ride controller 24 instructs the ride vehicle 14 to perform a proximate action, such as blocking forward progress of the ride vehicle 14 through the unauthorized exit and/or providing sensory or physical (e.g., visual, audible, haptic) feedback indicative of a suggested exit,” the audible feedback corresponds to the output of a sound).
Regarding claim 18 Krauthamer in view of Tasaki renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 1. Krauthamer does not disclose wherein the adjustment information comprises information representative of a presence of a nearby physical object obtained from a surroundings sensor of the ridable mobile object (see at least [col. 12, lines 01-15]; “the ride controller 24 of the ride control system 12 determines (block 170) a proximate action that complies with the operational rules 32. As noted above and described further herein, the proximate action may be selected as the closest action (relative to a logical space of potential actions) that is in line with the operational rules 32 and responsive to the intended result of the modeled action. For example, in some embodiments in which the passengers 18 request to tum the ride vehicle 14 to the left while adjacent to the physical wall 122, the ride controller 24 determines that the operational rules 32 specify that the ride vehicle 14 is not permitted to contact the physical wall 122, and instead determines that the proximate action is to move the ride vehicle 14 forward,” sensor information is obtained along with the request for adjustment to determine if it is achievable).
Regarding claim 19 Krauthamer in view of Tasaki renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 18. Krauthamer does not disclose wherein the information representative of a presence of a nearby physical object comprises a distance from the nearby physical object (see at least [Col. 5, lines 43-49]; “The ride controller 24 also maintains operational rules 32 that describe permitted operation, or normal operating parameters indicative of normal operation, of the ride vehicle 14. For example, the operational rules 32 of certain embodiments specify for each ride vehicle: a speed limit, a minimum distance to be maintained between the ride vehicle 14 and other physical objects,” in order to determine if the rule is maintained the controller receives distance data to the surrounding objects).
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krauthamer in view of Tasaki, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of US-20160185358 (hereinafter, “Todasco”).
Regarding claim 6 Krauthamer in view of Tasaki renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 1. Krauthamer does not disclose wherein the processor is further configured to restrict participation in an event in which the user was able to participate in the past on a basis of at least one of an elapsed time after the user previously participated in the event and an elapsed time after the user previously rode the ridable mobile object
Todasco, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the processor is further configured to restrict participation in an event in which the user was able to participate in the past (see at least [0013]; “Once the user is detected as utilizing the vehicle, restrictions for the user may be determined. The restrictions may be set for all use of the vehicle by the user or may very based on the use of the vehicle by the user or may vary based on use of the vehicle and/or during use of the vehicle. Thus, authorizations to use the vehicle and restrictions placed on use of the vehicle may vary during use of the vehicle (e.g., if the user utilizes the vehicle in an unauthorized manner, such as later than intended). The authorization may be set on a single or limited use basis, such as a restriction to prevent or allow usage of a vehicle entertainment system one a one time basis, or use of the vehicle’s payment application on a once per week basis for fuel”) on a basis of at least one of an elapsed time after the user previously participated in the event and an elapsed time after the user previously rode the ridable mobile object (see at least [0002]; “a recently licensed driver may be prevented from driving passengers until of a certain time period of driving,” the event of driving passengers is only available after a certain amount of time has passed since the user began driving the vehicle).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the mobile object management device of Krauthamer as modified by Tasaki with the user restrictions of Todasco. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of preventing the operating user from using the vehicle in unauthorized manners.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krauthamer in view of Tasaki, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of US-20200148254 (hereinafter, “Magrath”).
Regarding claim 7 Krauthamer in view of Tasaki renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 1. Krauthamer does not disclose wherein the processor is further configured to transmit information for giving a lecture about an operation of the ridable mobile object to the user before the user participates in the event to the terminal device of the user.
Magrath, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the processor is further configured to transmit information for giving a lecture about an operation of the ridable mobile object to the user before the user participates in the event to the terminal device of the user (see at least [0032]; “the messaging system 212 is able to provide several types of messages throughout a race. for example, the messaging system 212 can play a message in all karts 200 at the start of a race such as: “welcome racers to POWER-UP KARTING. Your race is about to start, so fasten your seatbelt tightly and secure all loose clothing and long hair. To operate your kart, the accelerator is your right foot and the brake is your left foot. Use the steering wheel to avoid hitting other karts, barriers or obstacles. Any racer bumping, swerving, or hitting the rail will be penalized and may result in removal from the track without a refund. If a problem occurs with your kart during the race, stay seated and raise your right hand.” This is merely an exemplary message that may be played at the start of the race and/or any time the racers enter and exit the pit area,” this message which is played in the karts user interface (equivalent to terminal device of the user) corresponds to a lecture about an operation of a ridable object prior to participation in the event, the event being the race).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the mobile object management device of Krauthamer as modified by Tasaki with the operation lecture of Magrath. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of providing increased safety to vehicle operations (see at least Magrath; [0010]).
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krauthamer in view of Tasaki, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of US-20190113351 (hereinafter, “Antony”).
Regarding claim 14 Krauthamer in view of Tasaki renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 1. Krauthamer does not disclose wherein the performance operation comprises a turning speed of the ridable mobile object.
Antony, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the performance operation comprises a turning speed of the ridable mobile object (see at least [0030]; “The vehicle computing system can determine at least one of a plurality of turn types (e.g., left turn, right turn, or U-turn) that are associated with a change in the trajectory of the autonomous vehicle within a predetermined distance of a next one of the one or more intersections. The one or more navigational inputs can be associated with at least one of the plu