DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Amended claims 1-20, filed 4/25/2024, are pending and are currently under examination.
Priority
The instant application, filed February 8, 2024, includes a claim for the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/444,706, files on February 10, 2023, under 35 U.S.C. 119(e). The claim for benefit is acknowledged. No formal requirement under 37 CFR 1.78 is made in this Office Action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on February 8, 2024, and June 17, 2024, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The preliminary amendment files on April 25, 2024, is acknowledged and has been entered. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 are treated as amended. Claims 3 and 7-20 remain pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 19 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 19 recites the limitation "opening" in the phrase “each third track is disposed in a respective opening. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Although claim 15 recites a plurality of third tracks, neither claim 14 nor claim 15 introduces any structure identified as an opening. A person of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine with reasonable certainty which structural element provides the opening referred to in claim 19, or what relationship exists between that element and the third tracks. To resolve the antecedent basis issue, applicant is advised to amend claim 15 or an earlier claim in the chain to explicitly recite that the system comprises one or more openings defined by the guide, and to clarify the relationship between these openings and the third tracks, such that "openings" are properly introduced prior to being referenced in claim 19. The claim is therefore indefinite as presently worded. See MPEP Section 2173.05(e). For the purposes of examination claim 19, “opening” lacks reasonable clear antecedent basis, but examined alternatively as the same type of destination passage/opening in the guide associated with each third track.
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.
Claims 9, 10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rupp et al. (EP 3,265,193 B1).
Regarding claim 9, Rupp teaches an amusement park attraction system. Entry track section (60) is the first track ([0029]). Pivotable track section (10), comprising rail component (20), is the second track configured to rotate relative to the first track by pivoting about pivot means (22) ([0029]; [0043] - [0047]). Vehicle (26) travels along entry track section (60) and transitions onto rail component (20) of pivotable track section (10) ([0043] - [0044]; Figure 1). Vehicle (26) is secured on pivotable track section (10) by braking means (80) and vehicular securing means (82) as the section pivots ([0044] - [0047]). The rotation of pivotable track section (10) about pivot means (22) changes the orientation of vehicle (26) relative to entry track section (60), thereby driving the vehicle's rotation relative to the first track ([0044] - [0047]; Figures 1 - 3). Vehicle (26) is present on and supported by pivotable track section (10) throughout the switching operation. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, this satisfies the requirement that rotation occurs while the ride vehicles are on the second track. See MPEP Section 2111.
Regarding claim 10, Rupp teaches a drive arc (40) as a guide. Pivotable track section (10) is constrained to move along drive arc (40) as it rotates about pivot means (22) ([0026] - [0027]; [0038]). Arc drive means (100) engage the outer surface (46) of the drive arc (40) to drive this movement ([0038]; Figures 6A, 6B, 7, and 8). Movement of pivotable track section (10) along drive arc (40) causes it to rotate relative to entry track section (60).
Regarding claim 14, Rupp teaches entry track section (60) as the first track, drive arc (40) as the guide, and pivotable track section (10) as the second track ([0026] - [0029]). Vehicle (26) moves along the entry track section (60) and transitions onto the pivotable track section (10) ([0043] - [0044]). Pivotable track section (10) moves along drive arc (40) during the pivoting operation ([0026] - [0027]; [0038]; [0047]). Vehicle (26) is on a pivotable track section (10) during that movement ([0044] - [0047]).
Claims 9-15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sornik et al. (US 2016/0288809 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Sornik teaches a rail-bound amusement park ride system. Feeding rail section (101) is the first track ([0073]; Figure 1a). Connecting rail section (102) is the second track, configured to rotate about axis A relative to feeding rail section (101) ([0011]; [0039] - [0042]). Rail-bound vehicles travel along feeding rail section (101) and transition onto connecting rail section (102) when that section is in position p1 or p2 ([0027]; [0073]). Connecting rail section (102) then performs at least one rotary motion about axis A ([0011]). That rotation carries the vehicle and changes its direction of travel relative to the feeding rail section (101) ([0039] - [0042]; Figures 1a - 1d). Vehicle travel on the connecting rail section (102) occurs while the rotational movement of that section takes place ([0027]; [0042]).
Regarding claim 10, Sornik teaches a guide rail (108) as the guide. Connecting rail section (102) moves along guide rail (108) as it rotates about axis A ([0019]; [0079]; [0080]; and [0082]; Figures 1a and 1d). Guide elements (110) engage guide rail (108) to constrain the path of connecting rail section (102) to a mandatory curve ([0019]; [0079]).
Regarding Claim 11, Sornik teaches a guide rail (108) forming a closed curve whose structure
defines respective passages at positions corresponding to the removal of rail sections (103) and (104)
([0073] - [0074]; [0079] - [0082]; Figures 1a and 1d). These positions correspond to aligned passages in the guide structure through which the connecting rail section (102) extends when directed toward each destination, removing the rail section. Rail-bound vehicles on connecting rail section (102) travel toward these positions as the section rotates ([0027]; [0031]).
Regarding Claim 12 , Sornik teaches removing rail section (103) or (104) as the third track ([0011]; [0073]; Figures 1a - 1d. Connecting rail section (102) directs vehicles through the passages of guide rail (108) and onto the selected removing rail section ([0027]; [0031]; Figure 1d).
Regarding Claim 13 , Sornik teaches a connecting rail section (102) rotating about axis A from a 3(104) ([0011]; [0039] - [0042]; and Figures 1b and 1d). Connecting rail section (102) therefore rotates relative to both feeding rail section (101) and the selected removing rail section.
Regarding Claim 14, Sornik teaches feeding rail section (101) as the first track, guide rail (108) as the guide, and connecting rail section (102) as the second track ([0011]; [0019]; and [0073]). Rail-bound vehicles transition from feeding rail section (101) to connecting rail section (102) ([0027]; [0073]). Connecting rail section (102) moves along guide rail (108) while vehicles are on it ([0019]; [0027]; [0079] - [0082]; Figures 1a - 1d).
Regarding Claim 15, Sornik teaches removing rail sections (103) and (104) as a plurality of third tracks ([0011]; Figure 1a). Vehicles transition from the connecting rail section (102) to one of the selected rail sections (103) or (104) for removal ([0027]; [0031]; Figures 1c and 1d).
Regarding Claim 19, Sornik teaches each removing rail section, (103) and (104), positioned at a respective passage in guide rail (108) through which connecting rail section (102) extends to reach that destination ([0073] - [0074]; [0079] - [0082]; Figures 1a and 1d). Each removing rail section is accordingly disposed at a respective opening defined by the guide structure.
Regarding Claim 20, Sornik teaches that feeding rail section (101) and the removal of rail sections (103) and (104) are all stationary structures. Only the connecting rail section (102) moves during operation ([0011]; [0039] - [0042]; Figures 1a through 1d). Feeding rail section (101) and removing rail sections (103) and (104), therefore, remain fixed relative to one another throughout operation.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rupp et al. (EP 3265139 B1) in view of Dagley (US 2020/0338462 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Rupp teaches an amusement park attraction system. Rupp discloses a first track in the entry track section (60) ([0029]). Rupp discloses a second track, pivotable track section (10) comprising rail component (20), that is configured to move relative to the first track by pivoting about pivot means (22) ([0029]; [0043] - [0047]). Rupp discloses ride vehicles, vehicle (26), configured to move along entry track section (60) and toward pivotable track section (10) ([0043] - [0044]; Figure 1).
Rupp does not disclose carriages coupled to the second track that are configured to receive ride vehicles from the first track and to move along the second track to drive vehicle movement. In Rupp, vehicle (26) rides directly on rail component (20) and is held by braking means (80) and vehicular securing means (82) ([0044]). No intermediate carriage structure exists between the track surface and the vehicle.
Dagley teaches the remaining carriage limitation. Dagley discloses coasters (40) as carriages coupled to a second track. Roller assemblies (44) couple coaster (40) to coaster ride path (42) ([0038]). Dagley discloses the carriages configured to receive ride vehicles from a first track. Coaster (40) receives ride vehicle (20) from vehicle ride path (12) at overlapping portion (80) ([0044]; [0054] - [0062]). Dagley discloses the carriages configured to move along the second track to drive vehicle movement. After receiving vehicle (20), coaster (40) moves along coaster ride path (42), thereby driving the vehicle's movement along that path. ([0062] - [0083]; Figures 5 - 9). Dagley does not disclose a second track that moves or rotates relative to a first track. In Dagley, coaster ride path (42) is a fixed path.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the track switching system of Rupp by incorporating the carriage mechanism of Dagley. Specifically, Dagley teaches carriages coupled to a second track that receive ride vehicles from a first track and drive vehicle movement along the second track. Applying Dagley's carriage structure to Rupp's pivotable track section would provide positive mechanical coupling between the ride vehicle and the movable second track during switching, resulting in controlled and reliable vehicle transfer. Both Rupp and Dagley address the problem of securely engaging and transporting ride vehicles during a track transition, and Dagley demonstrates that carriage-based transfer was known in the field. The combination would have yielded a predictable result, providing the same coupling and transport functions as in Dagley. See KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416-417 (2007); MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 2, Rupp teaches a third track in the exit track section (70) ([0029]; Figures 1 - 3). Rupp further discloses pivotable track section (10) moving along drive arc (40) toward exit track section (70) as the pivoting operation proceeds ([0029]; [0047]). In the combined system of Rupp and Dagley, carriages incorporated from Dagley would be present on pivotable track section (10) and would accordingly move toward exit track section (70) as the pivotable track section completes its rotation. However, Dagley does not disclose a third fixed destination track of the type disclosed in Rupp. Rupp fully supplies that feature.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined the carriage mechanism of Dagley with the track switching system of Rupp, as set forth for claim 1. The third track is already disclosed in Rupp and requires no further modification. The combination would predictably result in carriages moving along the pivotable track section toward the exit track section as the section pivots into alignment.
Regarding claim 3, Rupp teaches that vehicle (26) releases from the pivotable track section (10) and rolls onto the exit track section (70) to continue the ride ([0048]). In the combined system, the carriages incorporated from Dagley would release the ride vehicle at exit track section (70) to complete the transition. Rupp discloses that vehicle (26) continues moving along the exit track section (70) after release ([0048]).
Dagley does not teach an additional vehicle transition to a fixed exit track of the type disclosed in Rupp, because in Dagley, the coaster returns the vehicle to portions of the same vehicle ride path. Rupp supplies that feature.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined the carriage mechanism of Dagley with the track switching system of Rupp, as described for claim 1. Rupp already discloses the transition to the exit track and the continued movement along it. Incorporating Dagley's carriages would not alter this sequence, and the predictable result is that the carriages deliver the ride vehicle to exit track section (70), where
the vehicle continues along the third track as in Rupp.
Regarding claim 4, Rupp teaches drive arc (40) as a guide. Pivotable track section (10) moves along drive arc (40) during the pivoting operation ([0026] - [0027]; [0038]; [0041]; Figures 6A - 8). In the combined system, carriages incorporated from Dagley would be present on pivotable track section (10) and would move along the path defined by drive arc (40) as the pivotable track section moves. Dagley does not disclose a guide of the arc type disclosed in Rupp. Rupp supplies that feature.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined the carriage mechanism of Dagley with the track switching system of Rupp, as set forth in claim 1. Drive arc (40) in Rupp already constrains the movement of the pivotable track section, and carriages incorporated from Dagley would predictably travel along the same guide-constrained path as the track section.
Regarding claim 5, Rupp teaches a pivotable track section (10) rotating about a rotational axis defined by pivot means (22) ([0024]; [0029]; Figure 4). As the pivotable track section (10) rotates, the vehicle (26), secured to the rail component (20), is carried along an arc toward the pivot axis ([0043] - [0047]). In the combined system, carriages incorporated from Dagley would drive the vehicle along and about the rotating second track and toward pivot means (22). Dagley does not disclose a pivotable second track with a rotational axis of the type disclosed in Rupp. Rupp supplies that feature.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the carriage mechanism of Dagley with the track switching system of Rupp, as described for claim 1. Rupp already discloses pivot means (22), and the rotational motion of the pivotable track section. Carriages from Dagley, when coupled to the rotating track section, would predictably drive the vehicle along the same rotational path.
Regarding claim 6, Rupp teaches the pivotable track section and its drive arc, but does not disclose a base structure that separately couples a carriage to the second track. That feature is not present in Rupp because Rupp does not disclose carriages at all.
Dagley teaches the missing base limitation. Roller assemblies (44) couple coaster (40) to coaster ride path (42), and engage the tracks defining that path ([0038]). Roller assemblies (44) move along the coaster ride path (42) to drive the movement of the coaster (40) ([0038]; [0053] - [0054]; [0062]; Figures 1 and 5). Roller assemblies (44), therefore, function as bases that couple the carriage to the second track and move along that track to drive carriage movement. Dagley discloses every element of the additional feature required by claim 6.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the track switching system of Rupp by incorporating the carriage and roller assembly base mechanism of Dagley. Specifically, Dagley teaches roller assemblies that couple the carriage to the second track and drive carriage movement. Applying this structure to Rupp would provide positive mechanical coupling between the ride vehicle and the movable second track during the switching operation, achieving controlled vehicle engagement and drive, as demonstrated in Dagley. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416-417; MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 7, Rupp does not teach any extension or platform structure as part of the switching element. Rupp does not disclose relative movement between a base and a received ride vehicle.
Dagley teaches all of these features. The body of coaster (40) functions as the extension coupled between roller assemblies (44), which function as the base, and top surface (79), which functions as the platform ([0031] - [0033]; [0054]; [0061]). The top surface (79) receives the ride vehicle (20) ([0054]; [0061]). Chassis (31) of Coaster (40) supports a turntable and a yaw drive system that enables relative motion between the cab and the chassis ([0031] - [0033]). This motion constitutes relative movement between the base structure and the received vehicle, driven by the extension mechanism.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the amusement park track switching system of Rupp by incorporating the extension-and-platform carriage structure of Dagley. Dagley teaches carriages with extensions and platforms capable of receiving ride vehicles and imparting relative motion. Applying this structure to Rupp would enable active manipulation of the ride vehicle's orientation and position
relative to the carriage base during switching, producing the same motion-enhancement and ride-experience effects as in Dagley. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416-417; MPEP Section 2143.
Regarding claim 8, Rupp does not teach extensions capable of rolling, pitching, yawing, extending, or retracting relative to a base.
Dagley teaches all of these specific motion capabilities. The yaw drive system of chassis (31) enables the cab to rotate about or vibrate along a yaw, pitch, or roll axis ([0033]). Dagley expressly states that this system enables six degrees of freedom motion of the cab relative to the chassis ([0033]). Those six degrees of freedom encompass roll, pitch, yaw, and translational movements, including extension and retraction. Dagley discloses each of the specific motion types recited in claim 8.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Rupp's track switching system by incorporating the multi-axis extension and platform motion capabilities of Dagley. Dagley teaches carriage extensions configured to roll, pitch, yaw, extend, and retract the ride vehicle relative to the base. Applying these capabilities to Rupp would enable active manipulation of vehicle orientation and position during switching, achieving the same six-degree-of-
freedom motion enhancement and ride experience enrichment as in Dagley. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416-417; MPEP 2143.
Claim 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Sornik (US 2016/0288809 A1) in view of Blum et al. (US 7,484,460 B2).
Regarding claim 16, Sornik discloses the physical track switching mechanism for all elements of claims 14 and 15, as established in the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejections above. Sornik further discloses that the motion of connecting rail section (102) may be driven and controlled by a programmed control unit ([0071]). Sornik does not expressly disclose a discrete, separately identified controller configured to instruct individually named actuators as distinct structural components of the system. The claim requires a controller and actuators as identifiable structural elements.
Blum discloses the limitations of the missing controller and actuator. Blum discloses sensors (60) and a control feedback loop that constitute a controller configured to instruct actuators (115) to move movable track section (10) and align it with a selected destination track (Col. 3, lines 35 - 65). Actuators (115) are structurally discrete elements connecting the track support to the support platform (Col. 4, lines 28 - 45). This controller-and-actuator architecture enables precise, programmable positioning of the movable track section. Blum does not disclose a guide rail of the type disclosed in Sornik, or a connecting rail section constrained to rotate by such a guide. Those structural features are supplied by
Sornik.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to modify the track switching device of Sornik by implementing its programmed control unit as a discrete controller configured to instruct actuators to move connecting rail section (102) along guide rail (108) and transition ride vehicles to a selected removing rail section, as taught by Blum. Blum teaches a controller and actuator structure for programmable, feedback-controlled actuation and precise
positioning of a movable track section. Applying this structure to Sornik would provide reliable and controllable track alignment at each destination, achieving the same result as in Blum. Both references address movable track sections directed to selected destination tracks in amusement park ride systems. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416-417; MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 18, Sornik teaches two removing rail sections, (103) and (104), as a plurality of third tracks, and discloses that vehicles may be routed to either destination ([0011]; [0073] - [0074]). Sornik does not disclose any show effects, themed environments, or entertainment content associated with the destination tracks.
Blum teaches the missing show effect limitation. Blum discloses that riders in ride vehicle (20) may experience different effects when the vehicle is routed between loop A and loop B via the movable track switch (Col. 4, lines 10 - 28). Blum further discloses that scenery elements (40) are positioned proximate movable track section (10) to create a themed experience for riders on each route. (Col. 3, lines 1 - 5; Col. 4, lines 10 - 28). These route-specific scenery and effect elements constitute respective show effects associated with each destination ride path. Blum does not disclose a multi-destination rotating connecting rail section constrained by a guide rail of the type disclosed in Sornik. That structural mechanism is supplied by Sornik.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to modify the multi-destination track switching device of Sornik to provide respective show effects associated with each removing rail section destination, as taught by Blum. Blum teaches providing scenery elements and effects for each route to create a themed experience. Applying this approach to Sornik would enhance the entertainment value of each ride path by delivering a different themed experience at each destination, achieving the same route-specific differentiation as in Blum. Providing distinct entertainment experiences at each ride destination is a recognized objective in themed ride engineering. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416-417; MPEP 2143.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Sornik (US 2016/0288809 A1) in view of Blum (US 7,484,460 B2), with respect to claim 16, and further in view of Russell (US 10,191,484 B2).
As established in the rejection of claim 16 above, Sornik, in view of Blum, discloses a system with a controller and actuators configured to move the second track along the guide and transition ride vehicles to a selected third track. Sornik does not disclose that the controller receives a user input from a ride passenger. Blum discloses that sensors (60) can be activated by a manually-operated switch as one means of providing input to the control system (Col. 3, lines 48 - 62). However, Blum does not specifically disclose rider-provided user input as the basis for selecting among multiple destination tracks.
Russell teaches the limitation of missing user input. Russell discloses a controller that receives a rider identifier as user input and selects the destination ride path based on that input (Col. 2, lines 1 - 65; Col. 3, lines 1 - 65). Russell discloses rider interface element (35) as the structural mechanism for receiving that input aboard the vehicle (Col. 2, lines 1 - 45). The selection among paths is made based on the received user input, which is exactly the control function claimed. Russell does not disclose a physical rotating track section constrained by a guide rail of the type disclosed in Sornik, or the discrete controller-actuator architecture of Blum. Those structural features are supplied by Sornik and Blum, respectively.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the track-switching system of Sornik and Blum with the rider-input path-selection system of Russell. Russell teaches a controller configured to receive rider input and select a destination ride path based on that input. Configuring the controller of the Sornik and Blum combination to receive rider-provided input and select the destination third track would deliver personalized ride routing among
multiple destination tracks, achieving the same individualized path selection as in Russell. Russell confirms that rider-driven path selection was known in the field before the effective filing date. Blum provides a controller infrastructure capable of receiving input signals, and Russell provides the rider-interface hardware and control logic. Combining these known components would predictably yield a physical track switching ride system responsive to rider destination preferences. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416-418; MPEP 2141 and 2143.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Osterman et al. (US 2018/0170399 A1): Assigned to Universal City Studios LLC and published June 21, 2018, independently confirms that configuring a ride vehicle controller to receive passenger input from user input devices and to select a vehicle path from a plurality of options based on that input. Osterman et al. is pertinent to the claimed user input and show effects subject matter of claims 17 and 18.
Brister et al. (US 10,463,981 B1): Discloses an amusement park ride vehicle in which a slider translates a passenger cabin laterally transverse to the direction of travel and a rotator rotates the cabin relative to the slider, constituting a multi-axis ride vehicle motion system pertinent to the claimed carriage extension and platform movement subject matter of claims 7 and 8.
McVeen (US 9,526,997 B2): Discloses a vehicle transportation room system in which a launch room vehicle aligns with and houses a ride vehicle on a ride path, travels in coordination with, and then decouples to launch the ride vehicle, pertinent to the claimed vehicle transfer and track transition subject matter of claims 1-9.
Yuan (CN 203,540,039 U): Discloses a movable roller coaster track comprising a first track section, a movable track section, and a second track section that can be connected in sequence, wherein the movable track section is mounted on a motion platform with a rotation support capable of driving horizontal and vertical rotation, pertinent to the claimed movable second track and guide structure subject matter of claims 1, 9, and 14.
Crawford et al. (US 8,578,857 B2): Discloses an amusement park ride system comprising a close-looped track, a vehicle transfer mechanism including a turntable with first and second track sections, and multiple simulator bays each providing a distinct immersive entertainment environment, pertinent to the claimed track transfer mechanism subject matter of claims 1 and 14 and the show effects subject matter of claim 18.
Rose et al. (US 7,784,405 B2): Discloses an assembly for transferring passenger-carrying vehicles to and from an amusement park ride comprising a rotary turntable positioned adjacent to a main track, a vehicle receiver with an electromagnetic capture mechanism, and synchronization of turntable rotation with vehicle train speed to enable transfer without stopping, pertinent to the claimed carriage and the vehicle receipt subject matter of claims 1-6.
Hettema et al. (US 6,095,926 A): Discloses an amusement park ride vehicle comprising a vehicle chassis guided along a fixed track by a guide rail, a motion base on top of the chassis providing up to six degrees of freedom, a yaw ring rotatably supported on the motion base, and a passenger cabin mounted on the yaw ring, pertinent to the claimed base, extension, and platform subject matter of claims 6, 7, and 8.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW JAMES ELLIOTT whose telephone number is (571)272-5496. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30 -5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
ANDREW JAMES ELLIOTT
Examiner
Art Unit 3711
/ANDREW JAMES ELLIOTT/Examiner, Art Unit 3711 /EUGENE L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights