WAIT TIME RECOMMENDER

Application No. 18/396,201

• Filed: Dec 26, 2023
• Examiner: SANTOS-DIAZ, MARIA C
• Art Unit: 3629
• Tech Center: 3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
• Assignee: Universal City Studios LLC
• OA Round: 3 (Non-Final)

Office 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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/05/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Application
Claims 2, 4, and 6-9 are canceled.
Claims 24-26 are new.
Claims 1, 3, 5, and 10-26 are pending and examined herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101

35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.

Claims 1, 3, 5 16-21 and 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-3,5-7, 16-21 and 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with MPEP 2106.
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted that the method, system and computer readable medium are directed to at least one potentially eligible category of subject matter (i.e., process and machine, respectively). Thus, Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility test for claims 1-3,5-7 and 10-21 and 23-26 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea that falls under the “Mental Processes” and “Mathematical Concepts” groups within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the MPEP 2106 since the claims set forth steps that recite concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and mathematical relationships. Claims 1, 10 and 16 recites the abstract idea of determining wait times for attractions that are shorter or longer than expected and notifying guests a wait recommendation (see paragraph 002). This idea is described by the following claim steps:
With respect to claim 1, the limitations reciting the abstract idea are indicated in bold below:
-receiving park attendance of a theme park;
-receiving a plurality of historical wait times for a plurality of attractions within the theme park;
-receiving a wait time for an attraction of the plurality of attractions;
-determining a typical historical wait time for the attraction based on the plurality of historical wait times;
-determining a wait time threshold for the attraction by adjusting the typical historical wait time by a threshold period of time;
-receiving user context information wherein the user context information comprises a set of preferred attractions and geographic coordinates;
-determining a location within the theme park based on the geographic coordinates;
-determining the attraction is within a threshold distance of the location;
-in response to determining that the set of preferred attractions comprises the attraction and that the attraction is within the threshold distance of the location, generating, a wait time recommendation for the attraction based on the wait time and the wait time threshold; and
-display the wait time recommendation based on the determination.
This idea falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas because it is directed towards observation (receiving data), evaluation (determining steps related to the received data) and opinion (generating and displaying the wait time recommendation) such that as required when managing queues in order to provide a recommendation and mathematical concepts such as required when determining a mathematical relationship and calculation for generating a wait time recommendation for the attraction.
With respect to independent claim 16, the limitations reciting the abstract idea are indicated in bold below:
-receive user context information comprising a set of preferred attractions;
-receive, position coordinates within the theme park;
-determine a geographic location within the theme part based on the position coordinates;
-determine a set of attractions of the plurality of attractions within a threshold distance of the geographic location;
-receive a total wait time for the plurality of attractions of the theme park, wherein each attraction of the plurality of attractions is associated with a respective wait time, and the total wait time is cumulative value of the respective wait times for the plurality of attractions;
-adjust the total wait time based on one or more skew factors associated with the total wait time;
-in response to determining that the set of preferred attractions comprises the attraction of the plurality of attractions, determine or receive a wait time corresponding to the attraction of the plurality of attractions; and
-send the wait time recommendation indicating that the wait time for the attraction is longer than expected based on the wait time for the attraction being greater than a wait time threshold.
This idea falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas because it is directed towards observation (receiving data), evaluation (determining steps related to the received data) and opinion (generating and displaying the wait time recommendation) such that as required when managing queues in order to provide a recommendation and mathematical concepts such as required when determining a mathematical relationship and calculation for generating a wait time recommendation for the attraction.
Because the above-noted limitations recite steps falling within the Mental Processes and Mathematical Concepts abstract idea groupings of the MPEP 2106, they have been determined to recite at least one abstract idea when evaluated under Step 2A Prong One of the eligibility inquiry.
Therefore, because the limitations above set forth activities falling within the Mental Processes and Mathematical Concepts abstract idea groupings described in the MPEP 2106, the additional elements recited in the claims are further evaluated, individually and in combination, under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B below,
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the 2019 PEG, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements that fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application are:
a processor;
sensor;
sensor configured to detect a location of an electronic device;
image data from a sensor;
a memory storing instructions that , when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform steps;
a tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium.
However, using a computer environment such as a processor, sensor, a memory storing instructions that , when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform steps and a tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium, recited in such a generic manner, amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Providing a recommendation for a waiting time can reasonably be performed by pencil and paper until limited to a computerized environment by requiring a sensor to determine a distance or location or a processor to perform the abstract idea. For example, specifying that the abstract idea of providing a wait time relates to a process that is executed in a computer environment through the recited computing elements merely limits the claims to the computer field, similar to how specifying that the abstract idea of monitoring audit log data relates to transactions or activities that are executed in a computer environment in FairWarning v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1094-95, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2016) was insufficient. This concept is also similar to, buySAFE Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1354, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1095-96 (Fed. Cir. 2014) wherein it was determined that requiring the abstract idea of creating a contractual relationship guarantees performance of a transaction (a) be performed using a computer that receives and sends information over a network, or (b) be limited to guaranteeing online transactions simply attempted to limit the use of the abstract idea to computer environments. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
These additional elements have been evaluated, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using generic computing elements or computer-executable instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), and merely serve to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h).
Regarding “a sensor configured to detect a location of an electronic device within a theme park”, the examiner views these additional elements as results-oriented steps given that there is no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result are currently present such that this is viewed as equivalent to “apply it” for merely implementing the abstract idea using generic computing components (See Id.).
In addition, these limitations fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As noted above, the claims as a whole merely describes a method, computer system, and computer program product that generally “apply” the concepts discussed in prong 1 above. (See MPEP 2106.05 f (II)) In particular applicant has recited the computing components at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. As the court stated in TLI Communications v. LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016) merely invoking generic computing components or machinery that perform their functions in their ordinary capacity to facilitate the abstract idea are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea within a computing environment and does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional computer components do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea and as a result the claim is not patent eligible.
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that, as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
For the reasons identified with respect to Step 2A, prong 2, claims 1 and 16 fail to recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept. For example, use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). In addition, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Dependent claims 3, 5, 17-21 and 23-26 recite the same abstract idea as recited in the independent claims, and when evaluated under Step 2A Prong One are found to merely recite details that serve to narrow the same abstract idea recited in the independent claims accompanied by the same generic computing elements or software as those addressed above in the discussion of the independent claims, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application or add significantly more, or other additional elements that fail to amount to a practical application or add significantly more, as noted above.
Dependent claim 3 further limits the abstract idea by embellishing the abstract idea and linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment by introducing the limitation determining, via the processor, a second wait time threshold based on adding a threshold period of time to the wait time threshold; and sending, via the processor, a second notification that the wait time for the attraction is longer than expected based on the wait time for the attraction being greater than the second wait time threshold. Further embellishing that the invention is capable of processing information in a generic computing environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore the claims are also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 5 further limits the abstract idea by embellishing the abstract idea and linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment by introducing the limitation receiving, via the processor, a total wait time for the plurality of attractions; determining, via the processor, a wait time ratio for the attraction based on the wait time of the attraction and the total wait time for the plurality of attractions; and determining, via the processor, a total historical wait time of the plurality of attractions based on the plurality of historical wait times, wherein: the wait time threshold comprises a ratio based on a historical wait time for the attraction and the total historical wait time of the plurality of attractions; and generating the wait time recommendation for the attraction is based on the wait time ratio and the wait time threshold. Further embellishing that the invention is capable performing an abstract process such as required for a mathematical calculation and processing information in a generic computing environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore the claims are also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 17 further limits the abstract idea by embellishing the abstract idea and linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment by introducing the limitation wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: determine a wait time ratio for the attraction of the plurality of attractions, wherein the wait time ratio is based on the total wait time for the plurality of attractions and the wait time of the attraction; and generate the wait time recommendation based on the wait time ratio and the wait time threshold. Further embellishing that the invention is capable of performing an abstract process such as required for a mathematical calculation and processing information in a generic computing environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore the claims are also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 18 further limits the abstract idea by embellishing the abstract idea and linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment by introducing the limitation after a period of time, determine an updated wait time corresponding to the attraction of the plurality of attractions based on image data from an additional sensor positioned at the attraction; and send an additional notification that the wait time for the attraction is shorter than expected based on the wait time for the attraction being less than the wait time threshold. Further embellishing that the invention is capable of processing information in a generic computing environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore the claims are also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 19 further limits the abstract idea by embellishing the abstract idea and linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment by introducing the limitation wherein the wait time threshold is determined based on date, time, or weather. Further embellishing that the invention is capable of performing an abstract process such as required for a mathematical calculation and processing information in a generic computing environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore the claims are also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 20 further limits the abstract idea by embellishing the abstract idea and linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment by introducing the limitation wherein the wait time threshold is determined based on a total historical wait time for the plurality of attractions at times when a historical park attendance correlates to a park attendance of the theme park. Further embellishing that the invention is capable of performing an abstract process such as required for a mathematical calculation and processing information in a generic computing environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore the claims are also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 21 further limits the abstract idea by embellishing the abstract idea and linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment by introducing the limitation receiving, via the processor, image data from an additional sensor positioned at the attraction; determining, via the processor, a line length based on the image data; and determining, via the processor, the wait time corresponding to the attraction based on the line length. Further embellishing that the invention is capable of processing information in a generic computing environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore the claims are also non-statutory subject matter. The examiner views these additional elements as results-oriented steps given that there is no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result are currently present such that this is viewed as equivalent to “apply it” for merely implementing the abstract idea using generic computing components (See Id.).
Dependent claim 23 further limits the abstract idea by embellishing the abstract idea and linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment by introducing the limitation adjust the total wait time by removing a second wait time corresponding to a closed attraction from the total wait time. Further embellishing that the invention is capable of performing an abstract process such as required for a mathematical calculation and processing information in a generic computing environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore the claims are also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 24 further limits the abstract idea by embellishing the abstract idea and linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment by introducing the limitation causing, via the processor, the wait time recommendation to provide an indication that the wait time for the attraction is shorter than expected based on the wait time for the attraction being less than the wait time threshold. Further embellishing that the invention is capable of processing and transmitting information in a generic computing environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore the claims are also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 25 further limits the abstract idea by embellishing the abstract idea and linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment by introducing the limitation determining, via the processor, a total historical wait time for the plurality of attractions based on the plurality of historical wait times; determining, via the processor, the expected wait time ratio based on the typical historical wait time for the attraction relative to the total historical wait time for the plurality of attractions; and determining, via the processor, the additional wait time threshold by adjusting the expected wait time ratio by an additional threshold period of time. Further embellishing that the invention is capable of performing an abstract process such as required for a mathematical calculation and processing information in a generic computing environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore the claims are also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 26 further limits the abstract idea by embellishing the abstract idea and linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment by introducing the limitation adjusting, via the processor, the typical historical wait time for the attraction by excluding one or more historical wait times of the plurality of historical wait times that are associated with skewed historical park attendance. Further embellishing that the invention is capable of performing an abstract process such as required for a mathematical calculation and processing information in a generic computing environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore the claims are also non-statutory subject matter.
The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and the collective functions merely provide high level of generality computer implementation. Therefore, whether taken individually or as an order combination, the claims are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
For more information see MPEP 2106.

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.

Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 16-17, 19-20 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CRONIN (US Patent Publication 2018/0240161).
Regarding Claim 1, CRONIN discloses a method for generating a wait time recommendation (see abstract), the method comprising:
receiving, via a processor, park attendance of a theme park ([0060] In FIG. 4, location data of a user terminal is acquired in S401. In an example, when a visitor visits a theme park, a user device of the visitor may be registered to a tip network. In a non-limiting example, the user device registered may include a mobile device, such as a smart phone, a personal electronic device, a wearable device, and any other electronic device having one or more of a processor, a transmitter or a receiver. Further, the visitor may opt to register his or her own device to the tip network or be provided with a device by the theme park.);
receiving, via the processor, a plurality of historical wait times for a plurality of attractions within the theme park ([0044] The server may also store historical data for the target attraction. For example, the server may store information on average number visiting the target attraction, average wait times for certain days and time of the week, and average time for completing a ride at the target attraction (i.e., throughput rate).);
receiving, via the processor, a wait time for an attraction of the plurality of attractions ([0064] In S404, the expected wait times for the selected category are received at the user device from the tip network. In a non-limiting example, expected wait times may be received for sites of interest according to a category selected by the visitor, sites of interest located within a predetermined distance, sites of interest preselected by the visitor, sites of interest that have not yet been visited by the visitor, and the like.);
determining, via the processor, a typical historical wait time for the attraction based on the plurality of historical wait times ([0044] The server may also store historical data for the target attraction. For example, the server may store information on average number visiting the target attraction, average wait times for certain days and time of the week, and average time for completing a ride at the target attraction (i.e., throughput rate).);
determining, via the processor, a wait time threshold for the attraction by adjusting the typical historical wait time by a threshold period of time ([0066] In addition, the expected wait time may be adjusted to account for additional visitors getting in line at the roller coaster ride during the travel time of the visitor based on historical data. For example, if it is known that number of visitors getting in line for the roller coaster ride grows at a rate of 2 people per minute, the expected wait time may be adjusted accordingly to provide the visitor a more accurate estimated wait time. [0067] Further, in a non-limiting example, the expected wait times received may additionally be adjusted with respect to time of arrival according to historical data. For example, if an expected arrival time of the visitor to the roller coaster ride from the attraction is determined to be near dinner time, it may be determined that no additional visitors may be getting in line to ride the roller coaster ride, such that shorter wait time may be provided at the time the visitor arrives at the roller coaster ride. [0084] In S508, a rate of increase or decrease of the discrete wait time acquired in S502 is determined. The rate of increase or decrease of the discrete wait times may be based on historical data. For example, historical data of target venue A may indicate that wait times grows at a rate of 2 persons per minute during the time of travel (e.g., 2:00 PM to 2:14 PM) estimated for the visitor. Accordingly, in this example, the wait time may be longer than the originally indicated discrete wait time acquired in S502 by the time the visitor arrives at the target venue A. [0085] In S509, the wait times at the target venues are adjusted according to the determine rate of increase or decrease in the wait times in S508. For example, if the rate of increase for the target venue A is 2 persons per minute and expected time of travel from a current location of the visitor to the target venue A is 14 minutes, it is expected that net 28 additional visitors have been added to the wait line by the time the visitor arrives at the target venue A. Further, if historical data indicates that 1 minute is added for every visitor that is added to the wait line, it may be determined that 28 additional minutes should be added to the discrete wait time to determine an expected wait time at the time of arrival at the target venue A.);
receiving, via the processor, user context information, wherein the user context information comprises a set of preferred attractions ([0063] If the user device is determined not to be at the attraction in S402, the method will proceed to S403. In S403, a selection of a category of sites of interest is made. For example, categories for selection may include attractions, shows, restaurants/café, and merchants. [0064] In S404, the expected wait times for the selected category are received at the user device from the tip network. In a non-limiting example, expected wait times may be received for sites of interest according to a category selected by the visitor, sites of interest located within a predetermined distance, sites of interest preselected by the visitor, sites of interest that have not yet been visited by the visitor, and the like.) and geographic coordinates of an electronic device ([0061] Also, in a non-limiting example, the location data of the user terminal may be GPS data, triangulation location data provided by a cell network, or discrete location data provided by scanning or sensing the user device. For example, if the visitor scans the user device to obtain entry to a particular attraction, the user's device's location may be determined.);
determining, via the processor, a location of the electronic device within the theme park based on the geographic coordinates of the electronic device ([0061] Also, in a non-limiting example, the location data of the user terminal may be GPS data, triangulation location data provided by a cell network, or discrete location data provided by scanning or sensing the user device. For example, if the visitor scans the user device to obtain entry to a particular attraction, the user's device's location may be determined. [0062] In S402, a determination is made by a computer in the tip network whether the user device is at an attraction based on the acquired location data.);
determining, via the processor, the attraction is within a threshold distance of the location of the electronic device ([0062] In S402, a determination is made by a computer in the tip network whether the user device is at an attraction based on the acquired location data. In a non-limiting example, if the computer determines that the visitor is within a predetermined distance from the attraction, the computer may determine that the user device is at the attraction. For example, if the user device is near an entrance of the attraction, the computer may determine that the user device is at the attraction. Alternatively, the computer may be set to determine that the user is at the attraction when the user device has passed an entrance of the attraction.);
in response to determining that the set of preferred attractions comprises the attraction and that the attraction is within the threshold distance of the location of the electronic device, generating, via the processor, a wait time recommendation for the attraction based on the wait time and the wait time threshold ([0072] After the expected wait times at other sites of interest are received in S406, a comparison is made between the wait time at the current attraction and received estimated wait times for alternative attractions at S407. [0073] In S408, if it is determined that shorter wait times are available at the alternative attractions, a list of alternative attractions having shorter wait times are transmitted to the user device for display in S409.); and
instructing, via the processor, a display associated with the electronic device to display the wait time recommendation based on the determination ([0073] In S408, if it is determined that shorter wait times are available at the alternative attractions, a list of alternative attractions having shorter wait times are transmitted to the user device for display in S409.).
Regarding claim 3, CRONIN discloses:
determining, via the processor, a second wait time threshold by adjusting the typical historical wait time by a second threshold period of time; and sending, via the processor, a notification that the wait time for the attraction is longer than expected based on the wait time for the attraction being greater than the second wait time threshold ([0071] In addition, the expected wait time may be adjusted to account for a potential increase or decrease in the wait time during the travel time of the visitor based on historical data. For example, if it is known that number of visitors getting in line for the target attraction grows at a rate of 3 people per minute, the expected wait time may be adjusted accordingly to provide the visitor a more accurate estimated wait time. Similarly, if an expected arrival time of the visitor to the target attraction from the current attraction is determined to be near dinner time, it may be determined that no additional visitors may be getting in line for the target attraction, such that shorter wait time may be provided at the time the visitor arrives at the target attraction. [0084] In S508, a rate of increase or decrease of the discrete wait time acquired in S502 is determined. The rate of increase or decrease of the discrete wait times may be based on historical data. For example, historical data of target venue A may indicate that wait times grows at a rate of 2 persons per minute during the time of travel (e.g., 2:00 PM to 2:14 PM) estimated for the visitor. Accordingly, in this example, the wait time may be longer than the originally indicated discrete wait time acquired in S502 by the time the visitor arrives at the target venue A. [0085] In S509, the wait times at the target venues are adjusted according to the determine rate of increase or decrease in the wait times in S508. For example, if the rate of increase for the target venue A is 2 persons per minute and expected time of travel from a current location of the visitor to the target venue A is 14 minutes, it is expected that net 28 additional visitors have been added to the wait line by the time the visitor arrives at the target venue A. Further, if historical data indicates that 1 minute is added for every visitor that is added to the wait line, it may be determined that 28 additional minutes should be added to the discrete wait time to determine an expected wait time at the time of arrival at the target venue A.).
Regarding claim 5, CRONIN discloses:
receiving, via the processor, a total wait time for the plurality of attractions ([0069] In S406, expected wait times at other attractions are received at the user device from the tip network. In a non-limiting example, expected wait times may be received for attractions within a predetermined distance from the current attraction. However, aspects of the present disclosure are not limited thereto, such that the visitor may request to receive wait times for restaurants or shows instead.[0070] Further, in S406, the expected wait times received will include both a calculated estimated wait time of a target attraction and an estimated travel time from the location of the user device to the target attraction. For example, if an estimated wait time for the target attraction is determined to be 30 minutes, and an estimated travel time of the visitor from the current attraction to the target attraction is determined to be 15 minutes, an expected wait time of 45 minutes for the target attraction may be presented to the user device. [0077] At S502, discrete wait times are acquired at various venues. In an example, a discrete wait time may be an expected wait time at a particular ride, show, or a ride a visitor may incur if the visitor was present at the venue. Discrete wait times may be acquired for venues located within a reference distance from a location of the visitor or according to a category selected by the visitor. For example, if the visitor sets a filter to receive wait times for roller coasters, only wait times for the roller coasters may be provided. Similarly, if the visitor sets the filter to receive wait times for restaurants within 50 yards of the visitor, wait times for restaurants meeting the specified criteria may be provided. Further, additional filters may be applied to limit an amount of data to be acquired by the user device.);
determining, via the processor, a wait time ratio for the attraction based on the wait time of the attraction relative to the total wait time for the plurality of attractions a wait time ratio between the wait time and the total wait time;
comparing, via the processor, the wait time ratio to an additional wait time threshold, wherein the additional wait time threshold is based on an expected wait time ratio for the attraction ([0073] In S408, if it is determined that shorter wait times are available at the alternative attractions, a list of alternative attractions having shorter wait times are transmitted to the user device for display in S409. [0084] In S508, a rate of increase or decrease of the discrete wait time acquired in S502 is determined. The rate of increase or decrease of the discrete wait times may be based on historical data. For example, historical data of target venue A may indicate that wait times grows at a rate of 2 persons per minute during the time of travel (e.g., 2:00 PM to 2:14 PM) estimated for the visitor. Accordingly, in this example, the wait time may be longer than the originally indicated discrete wait time acquired in S502 by the time the visitor arrives at the target venue A. [0085] In S509, the wait times at the target venues are adjusted according to the determine rate of increase or decrease in the wait times in S508. For example, if the rate of increase for the target venue A is 2 persons per minute and expected time of travel from a current location of the visitor to the target venue A is 14 minutes, it is expected that net 28 additional visitors have been added to the wait line by the time the visitor arrives at the target venue A. Further, if historical data indicates that 1 minute is added for every visitor that is added to the wait line, it may be determined that 28 additional minutes should be added to the discrete wait time to determine an expected wait time at the time of arrival at the target venue A.); and
generating the wait time recommendation for the attraction based on the wait time ratio and the additional wait time threshold ([0072] After the expected wait times at other sites of interest are received in S406, a comparison is made between the wait time at the current attraction and received estimated wait times for alternative attractions at S407. [0073] In S408, if it is determined that shorter wait times are available at the alternative attractions, a list of alternative attractions having shorter wait times are transmitted to the user device for display in S409. [0086] In S509, the adjusted wait times determined in S508 is added with the estimated travel time determined in S507 to provide a total expected wait time at the target venues. Accordingly, the visitor may be provided with more accurate wait times at various venues from a location of the visitor. Visitors having access to such information may plan their trip through the park with increased efficiency with reduced wait times.).
Regarding claim 16 CRONIN discloses,
a tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium, comprising instructions for generating a wait time recommendation for an attraction of a plurality of attractions of a theme park that, when executed by a processor ([109], abstract), cause the processor to:
receiving, user context information comprising a set of preferred attractions ([0063] If the user device is determined not to be at the attraction in S402, the method will proceed to S403. In S403, a selection of a category of sites of interest is made. For example, categories for selection may include attractions, shows, restaurants/café, and merchants. [0064] In S404, the expected wait times for the selected category are received at the user device from the tip network. In a non-limiting example, expected wait times may be received for sites of interest according to a category selected by the visitor, sites of interest located within a predetermined distance, sites of interest preselected by the visitor, sites of interest that have not yet been visited by the visitor, and the like.);
receive, from one or more sensors, positions coordinates of an electronic device within the theme park ([0061] Also, in a non-limiting example, the location data of the user terminal may be GPS data, triangulation location data provided by a cell network, or discrete location data provided by scanning or sensing the user device. For example, if the visitor scans the user device to obtain entry to a particular attraction, the user's device's location may be determined.);
determine a geographic location of the electronic device within the theme park based on the position coordinates ([0061] Also, in a non-limiting example, the location data of the user terminal may be GPS data, triangulation location data provided by a cell network, or discrete location data provided by scanning or sensing the user device. For example, if the visitor scans the user device to obtain entry to a particular attraction, the user's device's location may be determined. [0062] In S402, a determination is made by a computer in the tip network whether the user device is at an attraction based on the acquired location data.);
determine a set of attractions of the plurality of attractions within a threshold distance of the geographic location of the electronic device ([0064] In S404, the expected wait times for the selected category are received at the user device from the tip network… sites of interest located within a predetermined distance.);
receive a total wait time for the plurality of attractions of the theme park, wherein each attraction of the plurality of attractions is associated with a respective wait time, and the total wait time is a cumulative value of the respective wait times for the plurality of attractions; ( [0072] After the expected wait times at other sites of interest are received in S406, a comparison is made between the wait time at the current attraction and received estimated wait times for alternative attractions at S407.);
adjust the total wait time based on one or more skew factors associated with the total wait time ([0071] In addition, the expected wait time may be adjusted to account for a potential increase or decrease in the wait time during the travel time of the visitor based on historical data. For example, if it is known that number of visitors getting in line for the target attraction grows at a rate of 3 people per minute, the expected wait time may be adjusted accordingly to provide the visitor a more accurate estimated wait time. Similarly, if an expected arrival time of the visitor to the target attraction from the current attraction is determined to be near dinner time, it may be determined that no additional visitors may be getting in line for the target attraction, such that shorter wait time may be provided at the time the visitor arrives at the target attraction.);
in response to determining that the set of preferred attractions comprises the attraction, of the plurality of attractions, determine or receive a wait time corresponding to the attraction of the plurality of attractions ([0062] In S402, a determination is made by a computer in the tip network whether the user device is at an attraction based on the acquired location data. In a non-limiting example, if the computer determines that the visitor is within a predetermined distance from the attraction, the computer may determine that the user device is at the attraction. For example, if the user device is near an entrance of the attraction, the computer may determine that the user device is at the attraction. Alternatively, the computer may be set to determine that the user is at the attraction when the user device has passed an entrance of the attraction. [0063] If the user device is determined not to be at the attraction in S402, the method will proceed to S403. In S403, a selection of a category of sites of interest is made. For example, categories for selection may include attractions, shows, restaurants/café, and merchants. [0064] In S404, the expected wait times for the selected category are received at the user device from the tip network. In a non-limiting example, expected wait times may be received for sites of interest according to a category selected by the visitor, sites of interest located within a predetermined distance, sites of interest preselected by the visitor, sites of interest that have not yet been visited by the visitor, and the like.); and
send the wait time recommendation indicating that the wait time for the attraction is longer than expected based on the wait time for the attraction being greater than a wait time threshold ([0073] In S408, if it is determined that shorter wait times are available at the alternative attractions, a list of alternative attractions having shorter wait times are transmitted to the user device for display in S409.).

Regarding claim 17, CRONIN discloses
wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
determine a wait time ratio for the attraction of the plurality of attractions, wherein the wait time ratio is based on the total wait time for the plurality of attractions and the wait time of the attraction ([0072] After the expected wait times at other sites of interest are received in S406, a comparison is made between the wait time at the current attraction and received estimated wait times for alternative attractions at S407.);
determine an expected wait time ratio for the attraction of the plurality of attractions, wherein the expected wait time ratio is based on a total historical wait time for the plurality of attractions and an expected wait time of the attraction ([0071] In addition, the expected wait time may be adjusted to account for a potential increase or decrease in the wait time during the travel time of the visitor based on historical data. For example, if it is known that number of visitors getting in line for the target attraction grows at a rate of 3 people per minute, the expected wait time may be adjusted accordingly to provide the visitor a more accurate estimated wait time. Similarly, if an expected arrival time of the visitor to the target attraction from the current attraction is determined to be near dinner time, it may be determined that no additional visitors may be getting in line for the target attraction, such that shorter wait time may be provided at the time the visitor arrives at the target attraction.); and
generate the wait time recommendation based on a comparison between the wait time ratio and the wait time threshold, wherein the wait time threshold is determined by adjusting the expected wait time ratio by a threshold period of time. ([0071] In addition, the expected wait time may be adjusted to account for a potential increase or decrease in the wait time during the travel time of the visitor based on historical data. For example, if it is known that number of visitors getting in line for the target attraction grows at a rate of 3 people per minute, the expected wait time may be adjusted accordingly to provide the visitor a more accurate estimated wait time. Similarly, if an expected arrival time of the visitor to the target attraction from the current attraction is determined to be near dinner time, it may be determined that no additional visitors may be getting in line for the target attraction, such that shorter wait time may be provided at the time the visitor arrives at the target attraction. [0072] After the expected wait times at other sites of interest are received in S406, a comparison is made between the wait time at the current attraction and received estimated wait times for alternative attractions at S407. [0073] In S408, if it is determined that shorter wait times are available at the alternative attractions, a list of alternative attractions having shorter wait times are transmitted to the user device for display in S409.).
Regarding claim 19, CRONIN discloses
determine the wait time threshold based at least in part on date, time, or weather ([0082] In S506, a determination of presence of extraneous factors is made. For example, extraneous factors may include, without limitation, certain weather conditions, street shows or parades scheduled during time of travel to the target venues, and incidents (e.g., accidents, maintenance, or etc.) present in the paths of travel during the time of travel to the target venues. [0083] In S507, a determination of expected arrival time or travel time to get to the target venues is calculated for each of the paths of travel. The expected arrival time may be calculated in view of previous information acquired in one or more of S501, S502, S503, S504, S505 and S506. [0084] In S508, a rate of increase or decrease of the discrete wait time acquired in S502 is determined. The rate of increase or decrease of the discrete wait times may be based on historical data. For example, historical data of target venue A may indicate that wait times grows at a rate of 2 persons per minute during the time of travel (e.g., 2:00 PM to 2:14 PM) estimated for the visitor. Accordingly, in this example, the wait time may be longer than the originally indicated discrete wait time acquired in S502 by the time the visitor arrives at the target venue A.).

Regarding claim 20, CRONIN discloses
determine the wait time threshold based on a total historical wait time for the plurality of attractions at times when a historical park attendance correlates to a park attendance of the theme park ([0080] In S504, a determination of amount of foot traffic is made for each of the identified paths. In an example, an amount of foot traffic present in each of the paths is determined based on location information of visitors. Further, the amount of foot traffic present may be determined based on movement detected by various sensors or beacons located throughout the theme park. In another example, the amount of foot traffic present may be determined based on historical data. However, aspects of the present disclosure are not limited thereto, such that the amount of foot traffic may be determined according to other available technologies. [0130] According to yet another aspect of the present disclosure, the discrete wait times are adjusted based on estimated rate of growth of line based on estimated arrival time and historical data.).
Regarding claim 25, CRONIN discloses
determining, via the processor, a total historical wait time for the plurality of attractions based on the plurality of historical wait times; determining, via the processor, the expected wait time ratio based on the typical historical wait time for the attraction relative to the total historical wait time for the plurality of attractions; and determining, via the processor, the additional wait time threshold by adjusting the expected wait time ratio by an additional threshold period of time ([0071] In addition, the expected wait time may be adjusted to account for a potential increase or decrease in the wait time during the travel time of the visitor based on historical data. For example, if it is known that number of visitors getting in line for the target attraction grows at a rate of 3 people per minute, the expected wait time may be adjusted accordingly to provide the visitor a more accurate estimated wait time. Similarly, if an expected arrival time of the visitor to the target attraction from the current attraction is determined to be near dinner time, it may be determined that no additional visitors may be getting in line for the target attraction, such that shorter wait time may be provided at the time the visitor arrives at the target attraction. [0072] After the expected wait times at other sites of interest are received in S406, a comparison is made between the wait time at the current attraction and received estimated wait times for alternative attractions at S407. [0073] In S408, if it is determined that shorter wait times are available at the alternative attractions, a list of alternative attractions having shorter wait times are transmitted to the user device for display in S409.).

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.
Claim(s) 10-14 and 18, 21-22, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CRONIN (US Patent Publication 2018/0240161) in view of CRONIN (US Patent Publication 2018/0247270), hereinafter CRONIN II.
Regarding claim 10, CRONIN discloses a wait time recommendation system (see abstract) comprising:
a sensor configured to detect position coordinates of an electronic device, wherein the position coordinates are indicative of an active location of the electronic device within a theme park, the theme park comprising a plurality of attractions ([0061] Also, in a non-limiting example, the location data of the user terminal may be GPS data, triangulation location data provided by a cell network, or discrete location data provided by scanning or sensing the user device. [0076] At S501, location information of the user device may be acquired. Location information of the user device may be acquired by a GPS signal, triangulation of cellular signals, or any other location identification technology.);
a processor ([0021] As illustrated in FIG. 1, the computer system 100 includes a processor);
a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor ([0022] Moreover, the computer system 100 includes a main memory 120 and a static memory 130 ), cause the processor to:
receive user context information comprising a set of preferred attractions ([056] Generally, if the customer pays more, then their associated class of service also increases, which means that they may receive notifications of short wait times for attractions they are either interested in as indicated by their preferences.);
determine a set of attractions of the plurality of attractions within a threshold distance of the active location of the electronic device ([0062] In S402, a determination is made by a computer in the tip network whether the user device is at an attraction based on the acquired location data. In a non-limiting example, if the computer determines that the visitor is within a predetermined distance from the attraction, the computer may determine that the user device is at the attraction. For example, if the user device is near an entrance of the attraction, the computer may determine that the user device is at the attraction. Alternatively, the computer may be set to determine that the user is at the attraction when the user device has passed an entrance of the attraction. [0063] If the user device is determined not to be at the attraction in S402, the method will proceed to S403. In S403, a selection of a category of sites of interest is made. For example, categories for selection may include attractions, shows, restaurants/café, and merchants.);
in response to determining that the set of preferred attractions comprises an attraction of the set of attractions and that the attraction is within the threshold distance of the active location of the electronic device, determine a wait time corresponding to the attraction ([0064] In S404, the expected wait times for the selected category are received at the user device from the tip network. In a non-limiting example, expected wait times may be received for sites of interest according to a category selected by the visitor, sites of interest located within a predetermined distance, sites of interest preselected by the visitor, sites of interest that have not yet been visited by the visitor, and the like. [0072] After the expected wait times at other sites of interest are received in S406, a comparison is made between the wait time at the current attraction and received estimated wait times for alternative attractions at S407. [0073] In S408, if it is determined that shorter wait times are available at the alternative attractions, a list of alternative attractions having shorter wait times are transmitted to the user device for display in S409.);
generate a wait time recommendation for the attraction based on the wait time and a total wait time of the plurality of attractions, wherein each attraction of the plurality of attractions is associated with respective wait time, and total wait time is cumulative value of the respective wait times for the plurality of attractions ([0069] In S406, expected wait times at other attractions are received at the user device from the tip network. In a non-limiting example, expected wait times may be received for attractions within a predetermined distance from the current attraction. However, aspects of the present disclosure are not limited thereto, such that the visitor may request to receive wait times for restaurants or shows instead. [0072] After the expected wait times at other sites of interest are received in S406, a comparison is made between the wait time at the current attraction and received estimated wait times for alternative attractions at S407.);
and send a notification of the wait time recommendation ([0073] In S408, if it is determined that shorter wait times are available at the alternative attractions, a list of alternative attractions having shorter wait times are transmitted to the user device for display in S409..
CRONIN does not explicitly disclose:
determine a wait time based on image data from an additional sensor positioned at the attraction.
However CRONIN II, which similarly is directed to a theme park management system wherein the user is notified regarding attractions in the vicinity of the user, further teaches:
determine a wait time based on image data from an additional sensor positioned at the attraction ([0015] Attraction conditions, attraction traffic and patron activity information is obtained respectively using attraction condition monitors 115, attraction traffic trackers 120, and patron trackers 125. The information can be stored in their respective databases 130, 135 and 140. Examples of patron trackers include, but are not limited to, pagers provided to the patrons, RF-tagged cards provided to the patrons, applications on patrons' mobile devices, etc. Examples of attraction traffic trackers include, but are not limited to, cameras and/or IR sensors in the vicinity of the attractions. [0018] The traffic optimization software 150 may continually poll the monitors and tracking devices 115, 120 and 125 for updated information. As new maintenance is scheduled/expected downtime is coming up and patron activity is received, the traffic optimization software 150 can update wait times and routes for the patrons. [0019] Furthermore, routes can also be calculated using the patron activity information (e.g. schedule) by the traffic optimization software 150. These routes can facilitate how the patron to proceed from one attraction to another in a time-efficient manner. Furthermore, the traffic optimization software 150 can also calculate new routes based on current and predicted wait times for a planned attraction and nearby/similar attractions. For example, if a nearby or similar attraction has a lower wait time, the traffic optimization software 150 may provide a notification to the patron indicating such. In this way, the patron may be able to choose to go to another attraction with a lower wait time instead of waiting at the current attraction. ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to determine a wait time based on image data from an additional sensor positioned at the attraction since such modification is merely a combination of prior art elements previously known in the art yielding the predictable result of tracking patrons with attraction traffic trackers such as cameras as disclosed by CRONIN II.
Regarding claim 11, CRONIN discloses
wherein the processor is configured to determine a wait time ratio between the wait time and the total wait time of the plurality of attractions, wherein the wait time recommendation is generated based on comparing the wait time ratio and a wait time threshold ([0072] After the expected wait times at other sites of interest are received in S406, a comparison is made between the wait time at the current attraction and received estimated wait times for alternative attractions at S407.).
Regarding claim 12, CRONIN discloses
wherein the wait time threshold is determined based on a relationship between historical total wait times of the plurality of attractions and historical wait times of the attraction ([0066] In addition, the expected wait time may be adjusted to account for additional visitors getting in line at the roller coaster ride during the travel time of the visitor based on historical data. For example, if it is known that number of visitors getting in line for the roller coaster ride grows at a rate of 2 people per minute, the expected wait time may be adjusted accordingly to provide the visitor a more accurate estimated wait time. [0067] Further, in a non-limiting example, the expected wait times received may additionally be adjusted with respect to time of arrival according to historical data. For example, if an expected arrival time of the visitor to the roller coaster ride from the attraction is determined to be near dinner time, it may be determined that no additional visitors may be getting in line to ride the roller coaster ride, such that shorter wait time may be provided at the time the visitor arrives at the roller coaster ride. [0084] In S508, a rate of increase or decrease of the discrete wait time acquired in S502 is determined. The rate of increase or decrease of the discrete wait times may be based on historical data. For example, historical data of target venue A may indicate that wait times grows at a rate of 2 persons per minute during the time of travel (e.g., 2:00 PM to 2:14 PM) estimated for the visitor. Accordingly, in this example, the wait time may be longer than the originally indicated discrete wait time acquired in S502 by the time the visitor arrives at the target venue A. [0085] In S509, the wait times at the target venues are adjusted according to the determine rate of increase or decrease in the wait times in S508. For example, if the rate of increase for the target venue A is 2 persons per minute and expected time of travel from a current location of the visitor to the target venue A is 14 minutes, it is expected that net 28 additional visitors have been added to the wait line by the time the visitor arrives at the target venue A. Further, if historical data indicates that 1 minute is added for every visitor that is added to the wait line, it may be determined that 28 additional minutes should be added to the discrete wait time to determine an expected wait time at the time of arrival at the target venue A.).
Regarding claim 13, CRONIN discloses
wherein the wait time threshold is a short wait time threshold, and wherein the wait time recommendation is that the wait time is shorter than expected based on the wait time ratio being less than the short wait time threshold ([0072] After the expected wait times at other sites of interest are received in S406, a comparison is made between the wait time at the current attraction and received estimated wait times for alternative attractions at S407. [0073] In S408, if it is determined that shorter wait times are available at the alternative attractions, a list of alternative attractions having shorter wait times are transmitted to the user device for display in S409. ).
Regarding claim 14, CRONIN discloses
wherein the wait time threshold is a long wait time threshold, and wherein the wait time recommendation is that the wait time is longer than expected based on the wait time ratio being greater than the long wait time threshold (See Fig. 4 and [0072] After the expected wait times at other sites of interest are received in S406, a comparison is made between the wait time at the current attraction and received estimated wait times for alternative attractions at S407. [0074] In S410, a list of entertainment options is transmitted to the user device. However, aspects of the present disclosure are not limited thereto, such that other in-line services may be available to the visitor in the wait line. Other in-line services may include procurement of souvenirs, making reservations to shows or restaurants and the like.).
Regarding claim 18, CRONIN discloses
wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
after a period of time, determine an updated wait time corresponding to the attraction of the plurality of attractions (See Figure 5 and [0077] At S502, discrete wait times are acquired at various venues. In an example, a discrete wait time may be an expected wait time at a particular ride, show, or a ride a visitor may incur if the visitor was present at the venue. Discrete wait times may be acquired for venues located within a reference distance from a location of the visitor or according to a category selected by the visitor. For example, if the visitor sets a filter to receive wait times for roller coasters, only wait times for the roller coasters may be provided. Similarly, if the visitor sets the filter to receive wait times for restaurants within 50 yards of the visitor, wait times for restaurants meeting the specified criteria may be provided. Further, additional filters may be applied to limit an amount of data to be acquired by the user device.); and
send an updated wait time recommendation indicating that the wait time for the attraction is shorter than expected based on the wait time for the attraction being less than an additional wait time threshold ([0084] In S508, a rate of increase or decrease of the discrete wait time acquired in S502 is determined. The rate of increase or decrease of the discrete wait times may be based on historical data. For example, historical data of target venue A may indicate that wait times grows at a rate of 2 persons per minute during the time of travel (e.g., 2:00 PM to 2:14 PM) estimated for the visitor. Accordingly, in this example, the wait time may be longer than the originally indicated discrete wait time acquired in S502 by the time the visitor arrives at the target venue A. [0085] In S509, the wait times at the target venues are adjusted according to the determine rate of increase or decrease in the wait times in S508. For example, if the rate of increase for the target venue A is 2 persons per minute and expected time of travel from a current location of the visitor to the target venue A is 14 minutes, it is expected that net 28 additional visitors have been added to the wait line by the time the visitor arrives at the target venue A. Further, if historical data indicates that 1 minute is added for every visitor that is added to the wait line, it may be determined that 28 additional minutes should be added to the discrete wait time to determine an expected wait time at the time of arrival at the target venue A.).
CRONIN does not explicitly disclose:
determine a wait time based on image data from an additional sensor positioned at the attraction.
However CRONIN II, which similarly is directed to a theme park management system wherein the user is notified regarding attractions in the vicinity of the user, further teaches:
determine a wait time based on image data from an additional sensor positioned at the attraction ([0015] Attraction conditions, attraction traffic and patron activity information is obtained respectively using attraction condition monitors 115, attraction traffic trackers 120, and patron trackers 125. The information can be stored in their respective databases 130, 135 and 140. Examples of patron trackers include, but are not limited to, pagers provided to the patrons, RF-tagged cards provided to the patrons, applications on patrons' mobile devices, etc. Examples of attraction traffic trackers include, but are not limited to, cameras and/or IR sensors in the vicinity of the attractions. [0018] The traffic optimization software 150 may continually poll the monitors and tracking devices 115, 120 and 125 for updated information. As new maintenance is scheduled/expected downtime is coming up and patron activity is received, the traffic optimization software 150 can update wait times and routes for the patrons. [0019] Furthermore, routes can also be calculated using the patron activity information (e.g. schedule) by the traffic optimization software 150. These routes can facilitate how the patron to proceed from one attraction to another in a time-efficient manner. Furthermore, the traffic optimization software 150 can also calculate new routes based on current and predicted wait times for a planned attraction and nearby/similar attractions. For example, if a nearby or similar attraction has a lower wait time, the traffic optimization software 150 may provide a notification to the patron indicating such. In this way, the patron may be able to choose to go to another attraction with a lower wait time instead of waiting at the current attraction. ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to determine a wait time based on image data from an additional sensor positioned at the attraction since such modification is merely a combination of prior art elements previously known in the art yielding the predictable result of tracking patrons with attraction traffic trackers such as cameras as disclosed by CRONIN II.
Regarding claim 21, CRONIN discloses:
determining, via the processor, a line length; and determining, via the processor, the wait time corresponding to the attraction based on the line length (See Figure 7 [0103] Alternatively, if it is determined in S702 that the discrete wait time is above the predetermined threshold, a determination of whether an unusual circumstance has been detected is made in S703. For example, the unusual circumstance may include an accident, unscheduled maintenance, criminal activity, and the like. The determination may be made by inquiring a database within a tip network, which may be a central repository of incidents occurring the in the theme park. [0106] If it is determined that the unusual circumstance has not been detected in S703, a check is made with the affected venue to obtain information to determine cause of the extended wait time in S706. If it is determined that there is a legitimate cause for the extended wait time in S707, the database in the tip network may be updated with the cause for the extended wait time in S708 and corresponding notification may be sent to relevant visitors in S704. Further, the affected visitors may receive coupons or incentives in S705. [0107] If it is determined that there is no legitimate cause for the extended wait time in S707, the wait time is updated to reflect the extended wait time in S709.).
CRONIN does not disclose:
receiving, via the processor, image data from a sensor positioned at the attraction; determining, via the processor, a line length based on the image data
CRONIN II further teaches:
receiving, via the processor, image data from a sensor positioned at the attraction; determining, via the processor, a line length based on the image data ([0015] Attraction conditions, attraction traffic and patron activity information is obtained respectively using attraction condition monitors 115, attraction traffic trackers 120, and patron trackers 125. The information can be stored in their respective databases 130, 135 and 140. Examples of patron trackers include, but are not limited to, pagers provided to the patrons, RF-tagged cards provided to the patrons, applications on patrons' mobile devices, etc. Examples of attraction traffic trackers include, but are not limited to, cameras and/or IR sensors in the vicinity of the attractions. [0018] The traffic optimization software 150 may continually poll the monitors and tracking devices 115, 120 and 125 for updated information. As new maintenance is scheduled/expected downtime is coming up and patron activity is received, the traffic optimization software 150 can update wait times and routes for the patrons. [0019] Furthermore, routes can also be calculated using the patron activity information (e.g. schedule) by the traffic optimization software 150. These routes can facilitate how the patron to proceed from one attraction to another in a time-efficient manner. Furthermore, the traffic optimization software 150 can also calculate new routes based on current and predicted wait times for a planned attraction and nearby/similar attractions. For example, if a nearby or similar attraction has a lower wait time, the traffic optimization software 150 may provide a notification to the patron indicating such. In this way, the patron may be able to choose to go to another attraction with a lower wait time instead of waiting at the current attraction. ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the teachings as disclosed by CRONIN II since such modification is merely a combination of prior art elements previously known in the art yielding the predictable result of tracking patrons with attraction traffic trackers such as cameras as disclosed by CRONIN.
Regarding claim 22, CRONIN further discloses
wherein the additional sensor comprises an NFC reader configured to receive, from the electronic device, an indication of the electronic device entering the attraction, the electronic device leaving the attraction, or both ([0042] Although not explicitly illustrated, the user device 310 may be an electronic communication device having a processor, a memory, one or more transmitters, and one or more receivers. The user device 310 may be configured to receive and transmit various forms of communication, including but not limited to Bluetooth®, RFID, GPS, NFC, Wi-Fi, and/or cellular network. The user device may be a smart phone, a mobile computing device, a wearable electronic device (e.g., fitness level monitoring device). Further, the user device may be an electronic device owned by a visitor or patron to the theme park or an electronic device provided by the theme park. [0047] The next generation tip board 330 may be an electronic board that may be positioned throughout the theme park. The next generation tip board 330 may include a display 331, a NFC reader 332, an RFID reader 333, and a network circuit 334. The next generation tip board 330 may receive information from various sources through the cloud network 300 or directly by the user device 310. For example, the next generation tip board 330 may receive its location information by having the user device 310 scanned against the NFC reader 332 or the RFID reader 333. Accordingly, the next generation tip board may not be required to be fixed to a specific location and may be movable according to the needs of the theme park. Further, upon receiving additional information from the user device 310, the next generation tip board 330 may provide a more accurate information by providing a wait time of a target attraction in consideration of required travel time, presence of distractions/obstacles (e.g., parades), and other factors. [0048] Further, if the user device is scanned against the NFC reader 332 or the RFID reader 333, an updated wait time may be displayed on the display 332 according to rate of travel speed of the visitor or slowest accompanying member (e.g., a child). [0076] At S501, location information of the user device may be acquired. Location information of the user device may be acquired by a GPS signal, triangulation of cellular signals, or any other location identification technology. Further, location information of the visitor may be acquired based detection of a radio or NFC signal transmitted by an electronic device provided to the visitor by the theme park. For example, a theme park may issue an electronic band that is capable of transmitting a passive radio or NFC signal to the visitor. When the visitor wearing such an electronic band transmits a signal at various locations to obtain information or access throughout the park, the location information of the visitor may be acquired. For example, the visitor may scan his or her electronic band at one of the tip display boards located throughout the theme park to obtain tip information.).

Regarding claim 24, CRONIN II further teaches:
causing, via the processor, the wait time recommendation to provide an indication that the wait time for the attraction is shorter than expected based on the wait time for the attraction being less than the wait time threshold (See Fig.7 indicating that at 6PM the wait time is 15 minutes, which is shorter than the expected current time for the ride. [0067] FIG. 7 illustrates an example attraction kiosk display. The kiosk, associated at the entrance of each attraction, can be used to show current wait times and projected wait times for the rest of the day. As illustrated in the FIG. 7, an example display is provided. In this example, the kiosk displays the current wait time as calculated by the attraction traffic monitors and the projected wait times for the rest of the day as calculated by the wait time estimation software for the attraction named Terror Mountain. [0068] Furthermore, the kiosk may also provide alternative actions that may be similar to the current attraction and/or have shorter wait times. For example, the bottom of the kiosk display screen displays the results of the attraction traffic optimization software that provides alternate attraction within a predetermined distance from the attraction (Terror Mountain) and that have shorter wait times.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filled to provide an indication that the wait time for the attraction is shorter than expected based on the wait time for the attraction being less than the wait time threshold since that modification is a combination of prior art elements previously known in the art that yield the known benefits of notifying the users of shorter wait times for an attraction as disclosed by CRONIN II.

Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CRONIN (US Patent Publication 2018/0240161) in view of CRONIN (US Patent Publication 2018/0247270), herein after CRONIN II and Heaven (US Patent Publication 2017/0169449).
Regarding claim 15, CRONIN does not explicitly disclose:
remove a second wait time corresponding to a closed attraction from the total wait time of the plurality of attractions.
Heaven further teaches a system for tracking guests in an amusement park in order to provide notifications and recommendations upon wait times.
Heaven specifically teaches:
remove a second wait time corresponding to a closed attraction from the total wait time of the plurality of attractions ([0085] At step 540, the mobile application 500 determines whether the response option (e.g., attraction sequence) needs to be modified. This may be determined automatically without user intervention, for example by interfacing with a park system that transmits data about the attractions. For example, if a particular attraction breaks down or has a line queue time above a certain threshold, the attraction sequence may be modified to remove or otherwise delay the attraction in the list of rides to visit. ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filled to take into consideration if a ride is closed in order to remove the ride for consideration since such improvement in the system of Boss is just a combination of well-known techniques in the art that provide the known benefit of modifying the attractions taken into consideration if a particular attraction breaks down and remove the attraction from consideration as disclosed by Heaven on [0085].
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CRONIN (US Patent Publication 2018/0240161) in view of Heaven (US Patent Publication 2017/0169449).
Regarding claim 23, CRONIN does not explicitly disclose:
adjust the total wait time by removing a second wait time corresponding to a closed attraction from the total wait time..
CRONIN discloses a system that determines wait time of attractions, however does not explicitly disclose removing a second wait time corresponding to a closed attraction from the total wait time of the plurality of attractions. That is, Boss does not contemplate a closed attraction when determining all the attractions.
Heaven teaches a system for tracking guests in an amusement park in order to provide notifications and recommendations upon wait times.
Heaven specifically teaches:
adjust the total wait time by removing a second wait time corresponding to a closed attraction from the total wait time. ([0085] At step 540, the mobile application 500 determines whether the response option (e.g., attraction sequence) needs to be modified. This may be determined automatically without user intervention, for example by interfacing with a park system that transmits data about the attractions. For example, if a particular attraction breaks down or has a line queue time above a certain threshold, the attraction sequence may be modified to remove or otherwise delay the attraction in the list of rides to visit. ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filled to take into consideration if a ride is closed in order to remove the ride for consideration since such improvement in the system of Boss is just a combination of well-known techniques in the art that provide the known benefit of modifying the attractions taken into consideration if a particular attraction breaks down and remove the attraction from consideration as disclosed by Heaven on [0085].
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CRONIN (US Patent Publication 2018/0240161) in view of Mbekeani (US Patent Publication 2017/0169449).
Regarding claim 26, CRONIN does not explicitly disclose:
adjusting, via the processor, the typical historical wait time for the attraction by excluding one or more historical wait times of the plurality of historical wait times that are associated with skewed historical park attendance.
CRONIN discloses taking into account historical data to determine the attendance (i.e. amount of patrons in a park) of a theme park. CRONIN does not disclose adjusting the historical wait time for the attraction by excluding one or more historical wait times that are associated with skewed historical park attendance.
However Mbekeani which is directed to determining the amount of traffic based on historical data further teaches:
adjusting, via the processor, the typical historical wait time for the attraction by excluding one or more historical wait times of the plurality of historical wait times that are associated with skewed historical attendance ((48) Turning now to FIG. 8, a block diagram of the historic traffic data 504(3) depicted in FIG. 7 is shown. In this embodiment shown, the historic traffic data 504(3) include an identifier 504(3)(1) for identifying the historic traffic data record 504. Since traffic conditions depend upon the time of day, a time stamp 504(3)(2) is included. Several embodiments are contemplated with the time stamp 504(3)(2), one embodiment is to include all the various time stamps defined by a predetermined factor of the location reference code in the historic traffic record 504. For example, the historic traffic record 504 that is associated with the location reference number may include a traffic condition every 5 minutes. Aside from the time stamp, other information, such as minimum speed 504(3)(3), maximum speed 504(3)(4), and/or average speed 504(3)(5), can also be included. Depending upon the implementation, some statistical information may also be helpful. For example, a median 504(3)(6) or a variance 504(3)(7) may be included in the historic traffic data record 504 to assist in the determination when the current traffic conditions from the traffic suppliers had sufficiently deviated from the historic traffic pattern. (49) Furthermore, a predefined threshold 504(3)(8) may also be included as a tolerance factor for the deviation between the current traffic conditions and the historic traffic conditions. In an alternative embodiment, the threshold 504(3)(8) may also be dynamically generated by an algorithm in the central facility 200 or the navigation system 202. In this case, a threshold 504(3)(2) may be excluded from the historic traffic data record 504. In the various embodiments, the threshold 504(3)(8) may be a predefined constant value, a minimum value, a maximum value, an average value, a median value, a variance, and an auto covariance. These and other embodiments are again contemplated and readily appreciated by a skilled artisan, and thus, they are within the scope of the various embodiments shown.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filled to adjust, the typical historical wait time for the attraction by excluding one or more historical wait times of the plurality of historical wait times that are associated with skewed historical park attendance since such modification is a well known method known in the art of queue and traffic management that provides the known benefit of removing or exclude data points that deviate from historic patterns as disclosed by Mbekeani at (48).

Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the previously presented 35 USC 101 Applicant argues:
- “With the foregoing in mind, the Applicant respectfully submits that the recitations of amended independent claims 1, 10, and 16 cannot reasonably be construed as fundamental economic principles or practices, or as commercial or legal interactions. Additionally, the Applicant respectfully submits that the recitations of amended independent claims 1, 10, and 16 cannot reasonably be construed as managing personal behavior or managing relationships or interactions between people, at least because the present claims do not recite actions that tell humans how to do something. Indeed, because the certain methods of organizing human activity are not to be extended beyond the enumerated groupings, the Applicant respectfully submits that amended independent claims 1, 10, and 16 cannot reasonably be interpreted as reciting certain methods of organizing human activity. As such, independent claims 1, 10, and 16 are not directed to an abstract idea, and thus, are patent eligible.” Argument is moot based on the new grounds of rejection. The claims at hand are directed to mental processes due to being directed to concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) as explained in the rejection above.
- “With the foregoing in mind, the Applicant respectfully submits that the recitations of independent claims 1, 10, and 16 cannot reasonably be construed as mathematical concepts. For example, the presently recited acts of determining a typical historical wait time for an attraction, determining a wait time ratio for an attraction, determining a wait time threshold for an attraction, and/or determining a total wait time for a plurality of attractions, as generally recited by amended independent claims 1, 10, and/or 16, while they may also be "based on" or "involve" mathematical concepts as discussed with respect to Example 38, also do not explicitly recite a specific mathematical relationships, formula, or calculation. That is, the respective acts of determining a typical historical wait time, a wait time ratio, a wait time threshold, and/or a total wait time in independent claims 1, 10, and/or 16 are, at most, based on mathematical concepts, but the actual calculation is not recited, as with Example 38.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. The focus of the invention is determining a shorter or longer than expected wait time in order to make a wait time recommendation for an attraction, such determination is performed via a simple mathematical calculation (please see paragraph [004-005] of the originally filled specification). Without this mathematical calculation the system is not able to provide a recommendation, therefore such calculation is the core of the invention in order to be able to provide a recommendation for a patron.
-“ Moreover, the Applicant notes that the claim recitations of amended independent claims 1, 10, and 16 involve a processor that operates to determine a location of an electronic device based on position coordinates and/or geographic coordinates associated with the electronic device (e.g., as determined by one or more sensors)… The Applicant respectfully submits that these claim elements, as generally recited by independent claims 1, 10, and 16, which include one or more sensors, an electronic device, a customer interface, and a processor with location determination logic that performs the above-identified recitations, cannot reasonably be interpreted as an abstract idea nor an implementation of an abstract idea.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. For claims 1 and 16 the elements are recited at such level of generality that are indicative of adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, and merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea by requiring a processor to perform steps that could be done manually perhaps with the aid of pen and paper.
-“Accordingly, in Step 2A Prong Two, examiners should ensure that they give weight to all additional elements, whether or not they are conventional, when evaluating whether a judicial exception has been integrated into a practical application." MPEP § 2106.04(d)(I) (emphasis added). The Applicant respectfully requests that the required weight be given to all claim elements, regardless of their conventionality.” Examiner asserts that all the elements are being analyzed alone and in combination in order to determine patentability. Please see rejection above.
-“The Applicant respectfully directs the Examiner to Example 37…With the foregoing in mind, the Applicant respectfully submits that the claims recite specific features of performed techniques, including how a wait time for an attraction is determined, how a wait time threshold for an attraction is determined, how a location of an electronic device is determined (e.g., based on geographic coordinates and/or position coordinates), how a total wait time for a plurality of attractions is determined, and/or how a wait time recommendation is generated and/or displayed based on an attraction being within a threshold distance of the location of the electronic device, such that the claims incorporate the alleged abstract ideas into a practical application and are not merely “a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” Id.” Examiner respectfully disagrees with the analysis and comparison of Example 37. The claims at hand are directed to an abstract process that can be performed manually and does not require any technology until it is limited by requiring that the claims are performed by a processor and wherein data is received, generically, by a sensor. Please refer to the rejection above for further details and explanation. Applicant further argues the display of data based on user preferences, however as previously indicated this is a manual process that can be done by a person perhaps with the aid of pen and paper until limited by requiring the use of a processor or a sensor.
Regarding the previously presented 35 USC 102:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 USC 102 and 103 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1. Giraldin, US 20040100390, Queue Management System And Method. The disclosed embodiments of the invention relate to a method and system of communication for a confined area of a facility. Personal identification information is received in at least one of a set of stations distributed throughout the confined area. Attraction reservation information is received relating to at least one attraction to request at least one reservation for a guest. The reservation information is stored.

Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA C SANTOS-DIAZ whose telephone number is [phone]. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at 571-270-1833. 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.

/MARIA C SANTOS-DIAZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629

Prosecution Timeline

• Dec 26, 2023: Application Filed
• Mar 22, 2025: Non-Final Rejection — §101, §102, §103
• Jun 27, 2025: Response Filed
• Oct 04, 2025: Final Rejection — §101, §102, §103
• Dec 10, 2025: Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
• Dec 10, 2025: Examiner Interview Summary
• Jan 05, 2026: Request for Continued Examination
• Jan 20, 2026: Response after Non-Final Action
• Mar 15, 2026: Non-Final Rejection — §101, §102, §103 (current)