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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant submits that the amendment is not taught by the references since the linkage track abuts against the exit track section. This argument is not persuasive since the claim allows for an angle equal to or less than 180 degrees. Fig. 2 clearly shows that the arms swing through an angle equal to or less than 180 degrees.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “means for embarking and/or disembarking passengers” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10, 12-14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Laffin US 12179123.
Regarding claim 1, Laffin discloses a moving system for at least one vehicle (110) of an amusement ride, the moving system comprising
a support structure (154, 155, 165) fixed to the ground (104) or to a base platform (144,146),
at least one pivoting arm (150, 151, 161) coupled to said support structure (Fig. 1B) to pivot around a pivot axis (through 155 and 165, Fig. 2) with respect to the support structure, and
at least one movable rail portion (180) for supporting the vehicle, constrained to said at least one pivoting arm (via 158, 159, 169),
wherein said at least one pivoting arm is pivoted to perform one or more oscillations for moving said movable rail portion supporting the at least one vehicle from a first position wherein said rail portion is in connection with a first fixed rail portion (120) of the amusement ride (Fig. 2);
wherein, during a first oscillation, the at least one pivoting arm, with the at least one vehicle supported on the at least one movable rail portion, is pivoted from the first position through a first angle equal to or less than 180° in a pivoting direction, then the pivoting direction is inverted, and the at least one pivoting arm is pivoted back toward the first position, and the at least one pivoting arm traverses the first position and pivots through a second angle equal to or less than 180° (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 2, Laffin further discloses that after said one or more oscillations said movable rail portion supporting the at least one vehicle, reaches at least one second position wherein said rail portion is in connection with a second fixed rail portion (124) of the amusement ride (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Laffin further discloses that at least a pair of pivoting arms, constrained to opposite sides of said movable rail portion with respect to its longitudinal axis (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, Laffin further discloses two pairs of pivoting arms, wherein the pivoting arms of each pair of pivoting arms are constrained to opposite sides of said movable rail portion with respect to its longitudinal axis (Fig. 1B and 2).
Regarding claim 5, Laffin further discloses that said pivoting arms of said at least one pair of pivoting arms, opposed to each other, are pivotable around the respective pivot axes in parallel planes (Fig. 1B and 2).
Regarding claim 6, Laffin further discloses that said movable rail portion is rotatably constrained to the at least one pivoting arm at a respective at least one rotation axis of the movable rail portion with respect to said at least one arm (Fig. 1B and 2).
Regarding claim 7, Laffin further discloses the at least one oscillation of the at least one arm around the respective pivot axis with respect to said support structure, results in the rotation of said movable rail portion around the rotation axis of the movable rail portion with respect to said at least one arm (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 8, Laffin further discloses that the at least one oscillation of the at least one arm with respect to said support structure, results in said movable rail portion rotating around the at least one rotation axis in order to maintain its longitudinal axis parallel with respect to the ground (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10, Laffin further discloses that said movable rail portion is connected to said at least one pivoting arm such that a longitudinal axis of said movable rail portion is substantially perpendicular to the pivot axis of the at least one pivoting arm (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 12, Laffin discloses a method for operating a moving system according to claim 1, said method comprising the following steps:
(a) moving at least one vehicle (110) from a first fixed rail portion (120) to said movable rail portion (180),
(b) pivoting said at least one pivoting arm to perform one or more oscillations for moving said movable rail portion supporting the at least one vehicle from a first position wherein said rail portion is in connection with said first fixed rail portion (Fig. 2);
wherein, during a first oscillation, the at least one pivoting arm, with the at least one vehicle supported on the at least one movable rail portion, is pivoted from the first position through a first angle equal to or less than 180° in a pivoting direction, then the pivoting direction is inverted, and the at least one pivoting arm is pivoted back toward the first position, and the at least one pivoting arm traverses the first position and pivots through a second angle equal to or less than 180° (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 13, Laffin further discloses that after said one or more oscillations in said step (b), said movable rail portion supporting the at least one vehicle reaches at least one second position wherein said rail portion is in connection with said second fixed rail portion (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 14, Laffin further discloses that the at least one first fixed rail portion and at least one second fixed rail portion and at least one moving system according to claim 1, wherein said moving system moves at least one vehicle at least between said first fixed rail portion and said second fixed rail portion (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 16, see claims 4 and 5 above.
Regarding claim 17, see claims 6 and 7 above.
Regarding claim 18, see claim 9 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laffin US 12179123 in view of Traubel US 1502699.
Regarding claims 11 and 19, Laffin further discloses that said at least one pivoting arm is pivoted to perform one or more oscillations for moving said movable rail portion supporting the at least one vehicle at least between said first position and a second position, wherein said first position and said second position are disposed at different heights with respect to the ground (Fig. 2).
However, it does not teach that said second position arranged at a height greater than the height of said first position.
Traubel teaches an amusement ride comprising a vehicle (32) being lifted from a first height (at ground level) to a second height (by 19) in order to allow gravity to carry the vehicle down the track (col. 1 ln. 50-55). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the amusement device as taught by Laffin, by utilizing a second position higher than a first position as taught by Traubel in order to allow gravity to carry a vehicle down the track and amuse the passengers.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN O PETERS whose telephone number is (571)272-2662. The examiner can normally be reached Tue-Sat, 12:00pm-10pm EST.
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, Eugene Kim can be reached at (571) 272-4463. 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.
/BRIAN O PETERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights