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 .
The Office acknowledges the amendment dated 21 October 2025, in which:
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-11, 13-15 and 17-23 are currently pending.
Claims 1, 4, 10, 13, 14, 18 and 19 are amended.
Claims 3, 7, 12 and 16 are canceled
Claims 21-23 are newly added.
Response to Arguments/Amendments/Remarks
Applicant’s arguments filed October 21, 2025, have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant primarily argues that Goergen is "completely silent" regarding receiving manual "selections" via a user interface and adjusting seat transducers/actuators. These arguments are traversed as follows:
Manual Selections vs. System Retrievals: Independent Claim 1 recites "data comprises selections of desired levels." Applicant argues Goergen’s identification system 146 only "reads" info. However, Goergen teaches retrieving "gaming history," "user information," and "team association". In a computing context, a system "receiving selections" includes retrieving pre-stored user preferences. Additionally, applicant argues Goergen is silent regarding data inputted via a user interface “into a device” (e.g., personal devices), characterizing Goergen’s system as merely “reading” an RFID tag. This is unpersuasive. Goergen’s identification system 146, see Para. [0070], reads “personal information (age, height, special needs),” “gaming history,” and “character association” from a “personal electronic device” or “wearable.” One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that such user specific data is necessarily inputted into said personal device via a user interface. Thus , the act of Goergen’s controller receiving this data from the personal device constitutes receiving data “inputted into a respective user interface of a respective personal device. Furthermore, Goergen explicitly discloses "user interfaces 122" (joysticks, buttons) for making "selections".
Actuators and Transducers: Applicant argues Goergen's haptics are not seat-based. This is contradicted by Goergen’s teaching that the experience includes a "tactile experience presented by way of one or more haptic features" and that each game system is associated with a "respective seat". In the field of amusement rides, a "haptic feature" tied to a seat inherently utilizes a transducer. Additionally, Goergen’s disclosure, Para. [0089], of "vehicle controllers/motors 202" to control "movement" satisfies the limitation of actuators.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 19, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goergen et al. (US 2020/0098190, hereinafter “Goergen”).
Independent Claims 1, 10, and 19: Goergen discloses a controller (on-board game server 114) receiving input (via identification system 146) prior to a ride cycle. The input includes user profiles/history (selections of attributes). Goergen adjusts the operation of the "respective seat" via haptic features (transducers) and motors (actuators).
Claims 2 and 11 (AR/VR): Goergen’s central teaching is providing an "AR experience, VR experience, or both" via an HMD.
Claims 4 and 13 (Seat Determination): Goergen teaches each game system is "associated with a respective seat" and reads identifying info for a passenger "occupying a seat corresponding to the game system".
Claims 5 and 14 (Tap Points): Goergen discloses NFC/RFID readers ("identification system 146") located on "front panels 156" adjacent to each seat. This is the functional equivalent of a "tap point."
Claims 8 and 17 (In-Ride Input): Goergen teaches receiving "game inputs" via user interfaces 122 (joysticks/buttons) during the ride cycle.
Claims 21-23 (Prior to Boarding): Goergen's identification system 146 retrieves data "prior to a beginning of a ride cycle". One of ordinary skill would recognize that reading an RFID tag/device inherently occurs while the passenger is "on or preparing to board" the vehicle.
35 U.S.C. §103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 6, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goergen.
Claims 6, 15, and 20 (Seat Assignment): Applicant argues Goergen is silent on pre-boarding assignment. However, Goergen teaches collecting user data (team, age, special needs) prior to the ride. Using this existing data to perform the administrative task of assigning seats (e.g., grouping teams) is a simple, predictable application of data and would have been an obvious logistical choice for a ride operator.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Goergen in view of Lincoln.
Claims 9 and 18 (Cutoff Device): Goergen discloses an intense, personalized ride system. Lincoln teaches a "Comfort mode" that maximizes comfort by reducing suspension stiffness and steering effort. It would be obvious to a skilled artisan to incorporate Lincoln's "Comfort mode" (a cutoff device) into Goergen's system to solve the predictable problem of passenger motion sickness or overstimulation by reducing ride attributes to a "lowest level".
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN EARLES whose telephone number is (571)272-4628. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday at 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, William Boddie can be reached on 571-272-0666. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/BRYAN EARLES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2625