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 § 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.
Claims 7 and 16 and 28 are 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.
Claims 7 and 28 are indefinite because the claim recites “the predefined ride pathway” but there is no antecedent basis distinguishing between a ride pathway as recited in claim 1 and “the predefined.” This is especially the case in view of the prosecution history because “predefined” was deleted when previously recited in claim 1. Therefore, it is not clear how “predefined” is further limiting the ride pathway recited in claim 7.
Claim 16 is indefinite because there is no antecedent basis for “the track.” Previous recitations of the track were deleted so it is not clear what the difference is between the track and the ride pathway. The track will be interpreted as the ride pathway.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-14, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20090058855 to Mishra et al. (“Mishra”) in view of US 9327952 to Kolharkar et al. (“Kolharkar”).
Regarding claim 1, Mishra discloses a system for moving passengers comprising:
an auxiliary mobility platform comprising: a plurality of tiles (e.g. 802, 804, 806),
the plurality of tiles including: a first set of tiles defining a loading region 802, and
a second set of tiles defining an intermediate region 804;
a carriage positioned on the auxiliary mobility platform and defining a passenger compartment (e.g. see [0038] describing riding in a truck and [0060] describing a vehicle),
the carriage movable by the auxiliary mobility platform (e.g. see [0060]); and
the carriage is supported and movable along a predefined ride pathway (e.g. see [0038] and [0060]).
Mishra does not disclose a carrier vehicle to support the carriage and movable along a ride pathway wherein the platform places the carriage on the carrier vehicle. Nevertheless, in a related field of invention of transferring contents, Kolharker discloses a vehicle (e.g. 100 or 140) guided along a path that receives containers (e.g. see Fig. 5) wherein the containers are delivered on the vehicle via a transfer means which includes co-planar loading of goods onto the vehicle (e.g. see col. 8, ln 49-63) via powered rollers (e.g. see col. 7, ln 20-25). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the use of a vehicle of Kolharker to transport goods such as those disclosed by Mishra with the motivation of increasing range of capabilities of conveying goods through an environment.
Regarding claim 2, Mishra in view of Kolharker discloses the system of claim 1, wherein each tile of the plurality of tiles generates motion of the carriage independent of others of the plurality of tiles (to the extent that each element is individually rotatable; e.g. see [0035] and a tile is made up of these individually rotatable elements).
Regarding claim 3, Mishra in view of Kolharker discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the second set of tiles moves the carriage at a different velocity or direction than the first set of tiles (e.g. see [0061] describing the idea that when tiles are on the sides, this includes a lift feature thus resulting in a vertical direction).
Regarding claim 4, Mishra in view of Kolharker discloses the system of claim 1, wherein: the first set of tiles have a first width dimension; and the second set of tiles have a second width dimension greater than the first width dimension (to the extent that the a first plurality of tiles may be an arrangement of 1 tile in the x direction and the second plurality may be an arrangement of 3 due to the modularity of arranging the tiles; see e.g. [0059]),.
Regarding claim 5, Mishra in view of Kolharker discloses the system of claim 1, wherein: the first set of tiles move relative to the carriage to assist a passenger in boarding the carriage (i.e. there is no additional structure claimed here; the embodiment of [0038] discussed above would at least be capable of this since the truck has a rider).
Regarding claim 7, Mishra in view of Kolharker discloses the system of claim 1, the carrier vehicle comprises: a receiving platform including a third set of tiles to arrange the carriage relative to the predefined ride pathway (e.g. wherein each side of the vehicle of Kolharker is interpreted as a third set of tiles and col. 7 discloses movement of items from one area to another on the cart thus arranging the goods relative to the vehicle and thus the pathway; see col. 7, ln 20-24). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the system of transferring to vehicles disposed on both sides of the platform as disclosed by Lalesse with the motivation of increasing range of capabilities of conveying goods through an environment.
Regarding claim 8, Mishra in view of Kolharker discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the carriage is movable by the auxiliary mobility platform in a direction separate from a direction of the ride pathway (e.g. see [0059] – [0061]).
Regarding claim 9, Mishra in view of Kolharker discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the ride pathway is defined as one or more of a track, a conveyor system, or a road (e.g. as evident from Fig. 8, namely a conveyor system).
Regarding claim 10, Mishra in view of Kolharker discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the ride pathway extends adjacent to a portion of the intermediate region (as evident from Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 11, Mishra in view of Kolharker discloses the system of claim 1, wherein a movement of the carriage by the auxiliary mobility platform corresponds to audio or an image generated by the system (e.g. see [0038]).
Regarding claim 12, Mishra in view of Kolharker discloses the system of claim 1, the carriage further comprising: an input device for receiving an input from the passenger, and wherein the carriage is movable by the auxiliary mobility platform corresponding to the input (e.g. see [0038], wherein the input would be the detection / data input that there is a truck and the tile additionally serves as the input device as disclosed in e.g. see [0038]).
Regarding claim 13, Mishra discloses the ride system for moving passengers comprising:
a modular floor (e.g. see Fig. 8) including a plurality of tiles (802, 804, 806) providing independent movement (e.g. see [0059] – [0061]),
the modular floor including: a first region (e.g. 802), and
a second region (e.g. 804), the second region causing movement at a velocity or in a direction different from the first region (e.g. see [0059] – [0061]);
a carriage positioned on the modular floor and defining a passenger compartment, the carriage movable by the modular floor (e.g. see [0038] describing riding in a truck and [0060] describing a vehicle). Mishra does not disclose a carrier vehicle to support the carriage and movable along a ride pathway adjacent the floor and the floor places the carriage onto the vehicle. Nevertheless, in a related field of invention of transferring contents, Kolharker discloses a vehicle (e.g. 100 or 140) guided along a path that receives containers (e.g. see Fig. 5) wherein the containers are delivered on the vehicle via a transfer means which includes co-planar loading of goods onto the vehicle (e.g. see col. 8, ln 49-63) via powered rollers (e.g. see col. 7, ln 20-25). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the use of a vehicle of Kolharker to transport goods such as those disclosed by Mishra with the motivation of increasing range of capabilities of conveying goods through an environment.
Regarding claim 14, Mishra in view of Kolharker discloses the ride system of claim 13 wherein the carriage is a first carriage of a plurality of carriages (e.g. see Fig. 5 of Kolharker) wherein the carriages are arranged by the tiles for loading onto the vehicle (e.g. as evident from Fig. 5). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the system of transferring to vehicles disposed on both sides of the platform as disclosed by Lalesse with the motivation of increasing range of capabilities of conveying goods through an environment.
Regarding claim 17, Mishra in view of Kolharker discloses the ride system of claim 13 but does not explicitly disclose that the function of movement of the first region having a first set of tiles configured to move a passenger to the carriage and the second region having a second set of tiles configured to move the carriage to the carrier vehicle. However, Mishra discloses movement of persons and / or cargo (e.g. see Fig. 1, 8). Further, as discussed, Kolharker discloses movement of the carriage to a carrier vehicle (e.g. see Fig. 5). Therefore, the manner of operating the system of Mishra in view of Kolharker is not differentiated from the claimed subject matter (see MPEP 2114). In any event, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to facilitate movement of a person to a carriage and a carriage to the vehicle with the motivation of reducing the amount of time for the person to reach the vehicle.
Regarding claim 18, Mishra discloses a method for a system transporting passengers to a carrier vehicle of a ride using an auxiliary mobility platform comprising:
positioning a carriage 808 at a loading region (as evident from Fig. 8 and [0038] describing riding in a truck and [0060] describing a vehicle), the loading region including a first set of active tiles (i.e. those tiles immediately adjacent to the tile receiving 808);
moving the carriage from the loading region to an intermediate region including a second set of active tiles (e.g. see [0059] disclosing various configurations of layouts for tiles which would include tiles beyond the first set which would be the second set),
the second set of active tiles moving the carriage at a different velocity from the first set of active tiles (e.g. see [0046] disclosing variable acceleration of each roller 104).
Mishra does not disclose moving the carriage from the intermediate region to the vehicle that supports the carriage along the ride wherein the moving includes placing by the intermediate region the carriage on the carrier vehicle. Nevertheless, in a related field of invention of transferring contents, Kolharker discloses a vehicle (e.g. 100 or 140) guided along a path that receives containers (e.g. see Fig. 5) wherein the containers are delivered on the vehicle via a transfer means which includes co-planar loading of goods onto the vehicle (e.g. see col. 8, ln 49-63) via powered rollers (e.g. see col. 7, ln 20-25) (wherein said transfer occurs at an “intermediate region”. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the use of a vehicle of Kolharker to transport goods such as those disclosed by Mishra with the motivation of increasing range of capabilities of conveying goods through an environment.
Regarding claim 19, Mishra in view of Kolharker discloses the method of claim 18, further comprising: while moving the carriage from the loading region to the intermediate region, moving the carriage in a predetermined pattern corresponding to a projected image or audio generated by the system (e.g. see [0038]).
Regarding claim 20, Mishra in view of Kolharker discloses the method of claim 18, further comprising arranging the carriage on the carrier vehicle (as discussed above in claim 18), the carrier vehicle include a third set of active tiles (e.g. wherein each side of the vehicle of Kolharker is interpreted as a third set of tiles and col. 7 discloses movement of items from one area to another on the cart thus arranging the goods relative to the vehicle and thus the pathway; see col. 7, ln 20-24). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the system of transferring to vehicles disposed on both sides of the platform as disclosed by Lalesse with the motivation of increasing range of capabilities of conveying goods through an environment.
Claim(s) 6, 16, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishra in view of Kolharkar in further view of US 20100028121 to Lalesse et al. (“Lalesse”).
Regarding claim 6, Mishra in view of Kolharker discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the carrier vehicle is disposed along a first side of the platform (e.g. see Figs. 5, 6) but the system does not explicitly disclose a second vehicle along a second side of the platform and the platform transfers the carriage between each vehicle. Nevertheless, in a related field of invention of transferring contents, Lalesse discloses transferring good from one side of a platform to another and thus from one vehicle to another each disposed on a respective side (e.g. see Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the system of transferring to vehicles disposed on both sides of the platform as disclosed by Lalesse with the motivation of increasing range of capabilities of conveying goods through an environment.
Regarding claim 16, Mishra in view of Kolharker discloses the ride system of claim 13 but does not disclose the floor is positioned between two ride pathways. Nevertheless, in a related field of invention of transferring contents, Lalesse discloses a mobile floor is positioned between two ride pathways (e.g. see Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the system of transferring to vehicles disposed on both sides of the platform as disclosed by Lalesse with the motivation of increasing range of capabilities of conveying goods through an environment.
Regarding claim 21, Mishra in view of Kolharker discloses the method of claim 20, further comprising moving the carrier vehicle along a ride path, but does note clearly disclose that the carrier vehicle is connected to the ride path. Nevertheless in a related field of invention, Lalesse discloses coupling of vehicles to a track (see Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate such coupling of vehicles to a track to maintain control of movement of the vehicles therein increasing safety of contents therein.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishra in view of Kolharkar in further view of US 10086299 to Boyle and in further view of US 20100028121 to Lalesse et al. (“Lalesse”).
Regarding claim 15, Mishra in view of Kolharker discloses the ride system of claim 13 but does not disclose a plurality of vehicles coupled together and the ride pathway. Nevertheless in a related field of invention, Boyle discloses coupling individual ride modules to form a uniform vehicle (e.g. see col. 4, ln 25-28). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate such coupling with the motivation of combining steering requirements into just the lead vehicle instead of for each individually. Further, the extent of coupling of the vehicles to the track is not clear. Nevertheless in a related field of invention, Lalesse discloses coupling of vehicles to a track (see Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate such coupling of vehicles to a track to maintain control of movement of the vehicles therein increasing safety of contents therein.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishra in view of Kolharker in further view of US 7896150 to Smalley et al. (“Smalley”).
Regarding claim 22, Mishra in view of Kolharker discloses the method of claim 18, but does not disclose positioning a second carriage on the intermediate region moving the carriage in response to a movement of the second carriage. Smalley discloses a conveyor system receiving a plurality of objects and controlling spacing between each therein moving an object (i.e. carriage) responsive to where another one is (e.g. see col. 8, ln 22-39). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate such features onto the method of Mishra with the motivation of enhancing safety and mitigating risk of collision.
Claim(s) 23 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishra in view of Kolharker in further view of US 20130145953 to Crawford et al. (“Crawford”)
Regarding claim 23, Mishra in view of Kolharker discloses the method of claim 18, but does not disclose further comprising: maintaining the carriage in a stationary position on the loading region; and moving the carriage along the surface after loading a passenger on the carriage. Crawford discloses such (e.g. see [0023]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate such features onto the method of Mishra with the motivation of enhancing rider enjoyment.
Regarding claim 24, Mishra in view of Kolharker and Crawford discloses the method of claim 23, further comprising moving the passenger to the carriage by the first set of active tiles while the carriage is in the stationary position (e.g. see Fig. 1 of Mishra enabling passenger movement combined with [0023] of Crawford). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate such features onto the method of Mishra with the motivation of enhancing rider enjoyment.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishra in view of Kolharker in further view of US 3977513 to Rushforth.
Regarding claim 28, Mishra in view of Kolharker discloses the system of claim 1, but does not disclose that the platform places the carriage on the carrier vehicle while the vehicle moves along the predefined pathway. Nevertheless, in a related field of invention of transferring contents, Rushforth discloses loading of goods into a cart / vehicle while the cart / vehicle is in motion (see Abstract). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate such with the motivation of reducing energy loss due to repeated stopping and starting of vehicles for loading.
Claim(s) 25 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crawford in view of Mishra and in view of Kolharker.
Regarding claim 25, Crawford discloses a ride system for passengers comprising: a main ride including: a plurality of vehicles including a carrier vehicle (as evident from Fig. 2), and
a ride pathway including a start area (as evident from Fig. 2),
wherein the plurality of vehicles navigate the ride pathway (as evident from Fig. 2);
a modular floor positioned adjacent the start area (as evident from Fig. 2);
a carriage configured to receive at least one passenger and positioned on the modular floor (as evident from Fig. 2). ; and wherein the carriage is movable to the start area in alignment with the main ride (as evident from Fig. 2). Crawford does not disclose that the floor is a modular floor and that the carriage is movable by the floor. Nevertheless in a related field of invention, Mishra discloses such (e.g. see Fig. 8 and [0038] describing riding in a truck and [0060] describing a vehicle). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate such features onto the method of Mishra with the motivation of enhancing rider enjoyment. Crawford in view of Mishra does not disclose that the floor places the carriage on the carrier vehicle at the start area. Kolharker discloses a vehicle (e.g. 100 or 140) guided along a path that receives containers (e.g. see Fig. 5) wherein the containers are delivered on the vehicle via a transfer means which includes co-planar loading of goods onto the vehicle (e.g. see col. 8, ln 49-63) via powered rollers (e.g. see col. 7, ln 20-25) (wherein such loading is interpreted to occur at a “start area”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate such with the motivation of enhancing rider enjoyment.
Regarding claim 27, Crawford in view of Mishra and Kolharkar discloses that the floor includes an active mobility element that moves the at least one passenger relative to the modular floor (e.g. see Mishra Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate such with the motivation of enhancing rider enjoyment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/18/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Rejections have been modified herewith particularly with Kolharkar disclosing the idea of the mobility platform placing the carriage on the vehicle as set forth in the above rejections.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT A BROWNE whose telephone number is (571)270-0151. The examiner can normally be reached on Variable Workweek/IFP.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s colleague, SPE Ramon Mercado can be reached on (571) 270-5744. 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.
/SCOTT A BROWNE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights