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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/08/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3 and 7-31 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 7, 13-14, 18-19, 22 and 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunter, US 2023/0057268 in view of Crandall et al., US 6,413,165 B1.
Regarding claim 1, Hunter discloses an amusement ride (abstract), comprising:
two or more ride surfaces defining two or more separate ride paths (7 and 8 as shown figure 2); and
a shell defining an outer boundary of two generally circular cross sectional areas positioned proximate to each other, wherein separate interior surfaces of the shell define all or part of the two or more separate ride paths (figure 7-10);
a separation element positioning within the shell between the two or more ride surfaces (paragraph 61-67).
Hunter is silent about the two or more ride surfaces are configured to twist around each other.
In an analogous art, Crandall discloses the two or more ride surfaces are configured to twist around each other (figure 4b).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hunter’s ride with the teachings of Crandall. The motivation would have been to increase the thrill of the ride for the benefit of providing a more enjoyable experience.
Regarding claim 2, Hunter and Crandall disclose the amusement ride of claim 1, wherein the separation element is transparent (Hunter paragraph 30 and 74).
Regarding claim 7, Hunter and Crandall disclose the amusement ride of claim 1, wherein the shell extends between the two generally circular cross sectional areas to define the boundary at a first and second extension surfaces between the two generally circular cross sectional areas (Hunter as shown figures).
Regarding claim 13, Hunter and Crandall disclose the amusement ride of claim 1, wherein the separation element comprises openings (Hunter paragraph 61-67).
Regarding claim 14, Hunter and Crandall disclose the amusement ride of claim 1, wherein the two or more ride surfaces defining two or more separate ride paths define a macro-scale configuration defining a spiral (Hunter as shown figure 7).
Regarding claim 18, Hunter and Crandall disclose the amusement ride of claim 1, wherein the two or more ride surfaces are coupled to each other (Hunter as shown figures).
Regarding claim 19, Hunter and Crandall disclose the amusement ride of claim 1, wherein the two or more ride surfaces define different ride path lengths (Hunter figures).
Regarding claim 22, Hunter and Crandall disclose the amusement ride of claim 1, wherein the two or more ride surfaces are maintained within a general proximate distance from each other along a length of the amusement ride from an inlet of the two or more ride surfaces to an outlet of the two or more ride surfaces (Hunter as shown figures; Crandall figure 4b).
Regarding claim 26, Hunter and Crandall disclose the amusement ride of claim 1, wherein the shell comprises two separate tubular structures each defining a gap, and wherein the separation element is received within the gaps (Hunter as shown figures; Crandall figure 4b).
Regarding claim 27, Hunter and Crandall disclose the amusement ride of claim 26, wherein terminal ends of the separation element define an extension surface of the shell (Hunter as shown figures; Crandall figure 4b).
Regarding claim 28, Hunter and Crandall disclose the amusement ride of claim 1, wherein: the separation element extends fully across an interior of the shell (Hunter figures); the shell is subdivided into two separate and independent enclosures within the shell by the separation element (Hunter figures); a first one of the two enclosures defines a first one of the two generally circular cross- section areas; and a second one of the two enclosures defines a second one of the two generally circular cross sectional areas (Hunter figures).
Regarding claim 29, Hunter and Crandall disclose the amusement ride of claim 28, wherein: the two or more ride surfaces comprise at least a first ride surface and a second ride surface (Hunter figures); the first one of the two enclosures comprises the first ride surface and the second one of the two enclosures comprises the second ride surface (Hunter figures); and the first ride surface is fully separated from the second ride surface by the separation element (Hunter figures).
Claim 3 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Hunter in view of Crandall in view of Weston et al., US 2015/0133229.
Regarding claim 3, Hunter and Crandall disclose the amusement ride of claim 1.
Hunter and Crandall are silent about the separation element transmits sound.
In an analogous art, Weston discloses the separation element transmits sound (paragraph 36-38).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hunter and Crandall’s ride with the teachings of Weston. The motivation would have been to give greater interactivity with the ride for the benefit of providing a more enjoyable experience.
Regarding claim 20, Hunter and Crandall disclose the amusement ride of claim 1.
Hunter and Crandall are silent about the separation element comprises lights.
In an analogous art, Weston discloses integrating lights in any portion of the (figure 7; paragraph 23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hunter and Crandall’s ride with the teachings of Weston. The motivation would have been to increase the thrill of the ride for the benefit of providing a more enjoyable experience.
Regarding claim 21, Hunter and Crandall disclose the amusement ride of claim 1.
Hunter and Crandall are silent about the separation element comprises interactive elements.
In an analogous art, Weston discloses integrating interactive elements in any portion of the ride (figure 7; paragraph 23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hunter and Crandall’s ride with the teachings of Weston. The motivation would have been to increase the thrill of the ride for the benefit of providing a more enjoyable experience.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Hunter in view of Crandall in view of Degirmenci, US 2013/0184087.
Regarding claim 8, Hunter and Crandall disclose the amusement ride of claim 7.
Hunter and Crandall are silent about the shell is open between the two generally circular cross sectional areas between the first and second extension surfaces.
In an analogous art, Degirmenci discloses the shell is open between the two generally circular cross sectional areas between the first and second extension surfaces (figure 5a).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hunter and Crandall’s ride with the teachings of Degirmenci. The motivation would have been to provide a sense of freedom for the benefit of avoiding claustrophobic tendencies.
Regarding claim 9, Hunter, Crandall and Degirmenci disclose the amusement ride of claim 8, wherein the shell defines an open interior within the two generally circular cross sectional areas and a space between the first and second extension surfaces (Degirmenci figure 5a).
Regarding claim 10, Hunter, Crandall and Degirmenci disclose the amusement ride of claim 9, wherein the separation element is positioned between the first and second extension surfaces (Hunter figure 1 and 3; Degirmenci figure 5a).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Hunter in view of Crandall in view of Henry, US 2006/0111195.
Regarding claim 11, Hunter and Crandall disclose the amusement ride of claim 1.
Hunter and Crandall are silent about the separation element is semi-transparent.
In an analogous art, Henry discloses the separation element is semi-transparent (figure 7 and 8; paragraph 122-128).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hunter and Crandall’s ride with the teachings of Henry. The motivation would have been to provide a varied experience for the benefit of providing quality of service.
Regarding claim 12, Hunter and Crandall disclose the amusement ride of claim 1.
Hunter and Crandall are silent about at least a portion of the separation element is opaque.
In an analogous art, Henry discloses at least a portion of the separation element is opaque (figure 7 and 8; paragraph 122-128).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hunter and Crandall’s ride with the teachings of Henry. The motivation would have been to provide a varied experience for the benefit of providing quality of service.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Hunter in view of Crandall in view of Ozturk, US 2019/0247759.
Regarding claim 15, Hunter and Crandall disclose the amusement ride of claim 14.
Hunter and Crandall are silent about the spiral comprises a variable radius.
In an analogous art, Ozturk discloses the spiral comprises a variable radius (figure 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hunter and Crandall’s ride with the teachings of Ozturk. The motivation would have been to give the user a more enjoyable ride for the benefit of providing quality of service.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Hunter in view of Crandall in view of Becker et al., US 4,145,04.
Regarding claim 16, Hunter and Crandall disclose the amusement ride of claim 14.
Hunter and Crandall are silent about the spiral comprises a constant radius to create a helix.
In an analogous art, Becker discloses the spiral comprises a constant radius to create a helix (figure 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hunter and Crandall’s ride with the teachings of Becker. The motivation would have been to give the user a more enjoyable ride for the benefit of providing quality of service.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Hunter in view of Crandall in view of Brassard, US 2010/0016090.
Regarding claim 17, Hunter and Crandall disclose the amusement ride of claim 1.
Hunter and Crandall are silent about the two or more ride surfaces defining two or more separate ride paths define a macro-scale configuration in which the ride paths spiral around each other.
In an analogous art, Brassard discloses the two or more ride surfaces defining two or more separate ride paths define a macro-scale configuration in which the ride paths spiral around each other (figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hunter and Crandall’s ride with the teachings of Brassard. The motivation would have been to give the user a more enjoyable ride for the benefit of providing quality of service.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23-25 are 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 claim and any intervening claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 30 and 31 are allowed.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OSCHTA I MONTOYA whose telephone number is (571)270-1192. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8 am - 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nathan Flynn can be reached on 571-272-1915. 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.
OM
Oschta Montoya
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2421
/OSCHTA I MONTOYA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Prosecution Insights