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, 3-9, 11, & 13-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Green (US 20220281495 A1).
Regarding claim 1 Green teaches a ride system (paragraph 60: 400), comprising: a track (paragraph 61: 410 & 412); a ride vehicle assembly (paragraph 61-63: 420 and either of 460A & 460B; FIG. 4A & 4B: depicted) comprising a first ride vehicle configured to move along the track and a second ride vehicle configured to move along the track (FIG. 4A & 4B: depicted with 420 as first ride vehicle and 460A as second); a coupling between the first ride vehicle and the second ride vehicle (paragraph 62: “460A decouples from the train 420”), wherein the coupling is configured to block a decoupling of the first ride vehicle from the second ride vehicle in response to the ride vehicle assembly being in a first interval of the track (FIG. 4A: depicted); and an actuation assembly configured to actuate the coupling to cause the decoupling of the first ride vehicle from the second ride vehicle in response to the ride vehicle assembly being in a second interval of the track different than the first interval (FIG. 4B: depicted).
Regarding claim 3 Green teaches a controller (FIG. 2B: 280) configured to: receive an indication of a position characteristic corresponding to the ride vehicle assembly; and control the actuation assembly based on the position characteristic (FIG. 4A-4E: depicted; paragraphs 53 & 77).
Regarding claim 4 Green teaches that the actuation assembly is configured to actuate the coupling if a load characteristic associated with the ride vehicle assembly meets a pre-defined relationship with a threshold load characteristic (paragraph 53) and if the ride vehicle assembly is positioned in the second interval of the track to cause the decoupling of the first ride vehicle from the second ride vehicle (FIG. 4A & 4B: depicted; paragraph 53).
Regarding claim 5 Green teaches that the ride system is configured such that the ride vehicle assembly comprises an additional load characteristic that does not meet the pre-defined relationship with the threshold load characteristic while the ride vehicle assembly is in the first interval of the track (FIG. 4A: depicted not releasing thus indicating a characteristic as claimed).
Regarding claim 6 Green teaches a first track segment (FIG. 4A: where 420 is located); a second track segment coupled to the first track segment (FIG. 4A: where 460B is located); a third track segment coupled to the first track segment (FIG. 4B: where 420 is located); and a switch (FIG. 4A: track switch 1) configured to be actuated between: a first configuration configured to direct the first ride vehicle, the second ride vehicle, or a combination thereof from the first track segment onto the second track segment (FIG. 4B: opened); and a second configuration configured to direct the first ride vehicle, the second ride vehicle, or the combination thereof from the first track segment onto the third track segment (FIG. 4A: closed).
Regarding claim 7 Green teaches an energy management assembly configured to speed up the first ride vehicle, slow the second ride vehicle, or both to generate a gap between the first ride vehicle and the second ride vehicle after the first ride vehicle is decoupled from the second ride vehicle (paragraph 77); and a controller configured to instruct the actuation of the switch from the first configuration to the second configuration (FIG. 2B: 280) in response to: the first ride vehicle being directed from the first track segment onto the second track segment (FIG. 4A & 4B: depicted); and a juncture of the first track segment, the second track segment, and the third track segment being positioned in the gap (FIG. 4A: depicted).
Regarding claim 8 Green teaches that the energy management assembly comprises a brake configured to slow down the second ride vehicle (paragraph 77).
Regarding claim 9 Green teaches that the track comprises: a first track segment (FIG. 4A: location of 420); and a second track segment (FIG. 4A: where 460B is located), wherein: the second interval of the track is coupled to and between the first track segment and the second track segment (FIG. 4A: depicted); and the actuation assembly is configured to actuate the coupling to decouple the first ride vehicle from the second ride vehicle in response to the ride vehicle assembly being in the second interval of the track such that the first ride vehicle is directed onto the first track segment in a first direction and the second ride vehicle is directed onto the second track segment in a second direction different than the first direction (FIG. 4A-4E: depicted).
Regarding claim 11 Green teaches that the actuation assembly is configured to actuate the coupling to couple the first ride vehicle and the second ride vehicle (FIG. 4A-4E: depicted coupling and decoupling ride vehicles).
Regarding claim 13 Green teaches a ride system (paragraph 60: 400), comprising: a ride path (FIG. 3: 410); a ride vehicle assembly comprising a first ride vehicle configured to move along the ride path and a second ride vehicle configured to move along the ride path (FIG. 3-4E: first ride vehicle 420, second 460A); a coupling between the first ride vehicle and the second ride vehicle (FIG. 4A-4E: depicted), wherein the coupling is configured to block a decoupling of the first ride vehicle from the second ride vehicle (coupling is the absence of decoupling); an actuation assembly configured to actuate the coupling to cause the decoupling of the first ride vehicle from the second ride vehicle (paragraph 77; FIG. 4A & 4B: depicted); and a controller configured to instruct the actuation assembly to actuate the coupling to cause the decoupling of the first ride vehicle from the second ride vehicle in response to a position characteristic of the ride vehicle assembly, a load characteristic of the ride vehicle assembly, or both (FIG. 2B: 280; paragraphs 53 & 77).
Regarding claim 14 Green teaches a sensor (FIG. 2B: 288) configured to detect the position characteristic of the ride vehicle assembly (paragraph 72), wherein the controller is configured to instruct the actuation assembly to actuate the coupling to cause the decoupling of the first ride vehicle from the second ride vehicle in response to the position characteristic meeting a pre-defined relationship with a threshold position characteristic (paragraph 78, position consideration is secondarily applicable to decoupling).
Regarding claim 15 Green teaches that the ride vehicle assembly comprises a plurality of ride vehicles including the first ride vehicle and the second ride vehicle (FIG. 4A: depicted); the first ride vehicle is a first pilot car; and the second ride vehicle is a second pilot car (FIG. 4A-4E: depicted).
Regarding claim 16 Green teaches that the ride path comprises a first ride segment and a second ride segment (FIG. 4A & 4B: location of 420 and 460B respectively) joined to form a hill having a peak; and the controller is configured to instruct the actuation assembly to actuate the coupling to cause the decoupling of the first ride vehicle and the second ride vehicle in response to the position characteristic indicating that the ride vehicle assembly is at or adjacent the peak (FIG. 4A-4B: structure allows for a hill peak to be located under track switch 1, particularly if the hill is not particularly large or steep).
Regarding claim 17 Green teaches an energy management assembly configured to cause (controller 280 serves to manage energy and functions as claimed): the first ride vehicle to travel in a first direction along the first ride segment in response to the decoupling of the first ride vehicle and the second ride vehicle; and the second ride vehicle to travel in a second direction along the second ride segment in response to the decoupling of the first ride vehicle and the second ride vehicle (FIG. 4A-4B: depicted).
Regarding claim 18 Green teaches that the energy management assembly is configured to couple the first ride vehicle and the second ride vehicle via a braking of the first or second ride vehicles, an acceleration of the first or second ride vehicles, or a combination thereof (FIG. 4A-4E: depicted; paragraph 77; does not explicitly show coupling of first and second ride vehicles but structure is suitable to couple them just as it couples 420 with 460B).
Regarding claim 19 Green teaches a method of operating a ride system (paragraph 60: 400), the method comprising: blocking, via a coupling, a decoupling of a first ride vehicle from a second ride vehicle of a ride vehicle assembly (FIG. 4A-4E: first and second ride vehicles 420 & 460A respectively); determining, via a controller (FIG. 2B: 280), a position of the ride vehicle assembly (FIG. 4A-4B: depicted decoupling based on position; paragraph 22); determining, via the controller, whether the position of the ride vehicle assembly meets a pre-defined relationship with a threshold position of the ride vehicle assembly (FIG. 4A-4B: depicted determined to decouple); and controlling, via the controller and in response to determining that the position meets the pre-defined relationship with the threshold position, an actuation assembly corresponding to the coupling to cause the first ride vehicle to be decoupled from the second ride vehicle (FIG. 4A-4B: depicted decoupling).
Regarding claim 20 Green teaches instructing, via the controller, an actuation of a switch between: a first ride configuration in which a first track segment is joined with a second track segment to cause the first ride vehicle to move from the first track segment to the second track segment; and a second ride configuration in which the first track segment is joined with a third track segment to cause the second ride vehicle to move from the first track segment to the third track segment (FIG. 4A-4E: depicted with 4A-4B particularly showing the first ride vehicle moving from a first to a second track segment with the switch in a closed position and with 4B-4C showing the second ride vehicle moving from a first to a third track segment with the switch in an open position).
Regarding claim 21 Green teaches operating, via the controller, an energy management assembly (controller 280 functions to control the kinetic energy of the vehicles as claimed) such that a gap is formed between the first ride vehicle and the second ride vehicle (FIG. 4B: depicted); and instructing, via the controller, the actuation of a switch in response to the gap being aligned with a juncture between a first ride segment and a second ride segment (FIG. 4A-4B: track switch 1 moving from closed to open).
Regarding claim 22 Green teaches that the first ride vehicle and the second ride vehicle via the energy management assembly via a braking of the first or second ride vehicles, an acceleration of the first or second ride vehicles, or a combination thereof (paragraph 77).
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green (US 20220281495 A1).
Regarding claim 2 Green teaches that a third ride vehicle of the ride vehicle assembly (FIG. 4A & 4B: 460B), wherein the third ride vehicle is coupled to the first ride vehicle (FIG. 4E: depicted) such that the first ride vehicle is between the second ride vehicle and the third ride vehicle (FIG. 4E: depicted with the third ride vehicle coupled to the first ride vehicle and between the first and second ride vehicles); a first axle corresponding to the first ride vehicle; and a second axle corresponding to the first ride vehicle (paragraph 84) but does not explicitly teach a fourth ride vehicle of the ride vehicle assembly, wherein the fourth ride vehicle is coupled to the second ride vehicle such that the second ride vehicle is between the first ride vehicle and the fourth ride vehicle. However Green does teach connecting various trail vehicles together into a ride vehicle assembly. 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 included a fourth ride vehicle and to have arranged any of the four ride vehicles of Green in any desired order in order to carry more cargo and to organize said cargo.
Alternatively, should it be reasoned that the configuration shown in FIG. 4E with the first, second, and third ride vehicles does not constitute a single ride vehicle assembly it would be obvious to connect them all together for the reasons listed above.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green (US 20220281495 A1) in view of Wohlhuter (US 5346239 A) and further in view of Banta et al (US 0392303 A, herein after referred to as Banta).
Regarding claim 10 Green does not explicitly teach that the coupling comprises: a first linkage; a second linkage, wherein the second linkage is configured to engage with the first linkage; and a mechanism comprising a rack and a pinion, wherein the mechanism is configured to couple the first linkage to the second linkage in response to an extension of the rack, wherein the mechanism is configured disengage the first linkage from the second linkage in response to a retraction of the rack.
However, Wohlhuter does teach the use of a coupling (FIG. 3: between 10 & 22) that comprises: a first linkage (FIG. 3: 66); a second linkage (FIG. 5: 68), wherein the second linkage is configured to engage with the first linkage (FIG. 3: depicted); and a mechanism comprising a rack (FIG. 3: 60) and a pinion (FIG. 3: 56), wherein the mechanism is configured to couple the first linkage to the second linkage (FIG. 5: depicted). 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 used a rack and pinion for automatic coupling between the ride vehicles of Green in order to provide a secure and automatic connection between them for transfer of digital signals, electricity, pneumatic pressure, or anything else desired.
Green as modified by Wohlhuter does not teach that this is done in response to an extension of the rack, wherein the mechanism is configured disengage the first linkage from the second linkage in response to a retraction of the rack but that it is done by moving the pinion down the rack.
However, Banta does teach the use of a rack and pinion coupling device where the rack moves and the pinion remains in place. 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 used the fixed pinion and mobile rack of Banta with the automatic coupler of Wohlhuter in order to keep the motor driving the pinion better protected. This combination would function as claimed.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green (US 20220281495 A1) in view of Spiess (US 1252047 A).
Regarding claim 12 Green does not explicitly teach that the ride system comprises a stop apparatus disposed on the track, wherein the stop apparatus is configured to: actuate in response to a first contact between the stop apparatus and the first ride vehicle; block a forward motion of the second ride vehicle in response to being actuated; and enable a recoupling of the first ride vehicle and the second ride vehicle in response to a second contact between the stop apparatus and the second ride vehicle.
However, Spiess does teach a stop apparatus disposed on the track (FIG. 6: depicted), wherein the stop apparatus is configured to: actuate in response to a first contact between the stop apparatus and the first ride vehicle (FIG. 4: by hitting actuator 59 with train component 77); block a forward motion of the second ride vehicle in response to being actuated (this will stop the first ride vehicle which will in turn stop any subsequent ride vehicles which come into contact with it); and enable a recoupling of the first ride vehicle and the second ride vehicle in response to a second contact between the stop apparatus and the second ride vehicle (allowed for by structure). 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 included the stop apparatus of Spiess with the ride system of Green in order to have a redundant means of stopping a run-away vehicle or vehicles.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record and not replied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. The references noted on the attached PTO 892 teach ride systems of interest.
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 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, Paul Dickson can be reached on (571) 272-7742. 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.
MAXWELL L MESHAKA
/PAUL N DICKSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614