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
Claims 1-4 and 6-21 are pending and have been considered. Claim 5 has been canceled. Claims 1-4, 6-12, 14-17, 19, and 21 are amended. Claims 13, 18, and 20 remain pending in original form but incorporate amended subject matter through their respective dependency.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements previously submitted on February 8, 2024, and June 17, 2024, have been considered and made of record.
Priority
The application includes a claim for the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/444,706, filed February 10, 2023, under 35 U.S.C. § 119(e). The claim for benefit is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 presently recites that the second track moves along the guide "to drive movement of the at least one guide … and the at least one ride vehicle … along the at least one guide." The language is self- referential because it states that the guide is driven along itself. The surrounding language and dependency from claim 1 make the intended relationship ascertainable. Applicant should identify the intended moving element. If the intended element is the carriage of claim 1, the second occurrence of "guide" should be revised accordingly.
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 1-4, 6-8, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ochi (US 6341564 B1) in view of Crawford et al. (US 20130059670 A1, “Crawford”).
Regarding claim 1, Ochi teaches the core amusement-ride transfer structure. Ochi provides first rails 203a and second rails 203b separated by a missing portion, with transfer mechanism 217 positioned between them. The transfer mechanism includes transfer vehicle 218, auxiliary track 215, car-relay mechanism 235, and control device 243 (col. 9, lines 55-60; col. 10, lines 18-31; Figs. 10 and 13). Auxiliary track 215 includes auxiliary rails 216, and transfer vehicle 218 includes trestle 219 and wheel section 221 whose wheels engage auxiliary rails 216 for stable travel. Electric motor 245, controlled by control device 243, drives transfer vehicle 218 (col. 10, lines 31-49; Figs. 13 and 17). Car-relay mechanism 235 includes relay rails 237 on trestle 219 for receiving passenger car 207 (col. 10, lines 50-60; Fig. 13).
Ochi further teaches the claimed receipt and carriage-driven transfer relationship. Car 207 transfers from first rails 203a onto relay rails 237, is halted on the transfer vehicle, and "the transfer vehicle 218 starts to move on the auxiliary track 215" (col. 11, lines 40-56). Thus, first rails 203a provide the first track, auxiliary track 215 provides the second track, car 207 provides the ride vehicle, and the vehicle-supporting transfer structure comprising transfer vehicle 218 and relay rails 237 provides the carriage that receives the ride vehicle and drives it along the second track.
Ochi does not teach the amended limitation requiring the second track itself to rotate about a rotational axis while the loaded carriage moves along that second track toward the rotational axis.
Crawford teaches that missing compound-motion feature in the same amusement-ride field. Crawford teaches a rotating turntable and vehicle translation mechanisms whose radial positions are relative to the rotation axis "can be varied during a ride cycle or rotation of the turntable" ([0033]). The vehicles may be "free to move along" radial guideways or support arms attached to the turntable ([0034]). More specifically, translation mechanism 870 moves vehicle 874 radially in and out on a radial track ([0061]); the mechanism moves vehicles radially inward as they approach the station ([0062]); and the radial movement occurs "as the turntable 862 is rotated about the rotation axis" ([0063]; Figs. 8A-8B). A radial track attached to the turntable rotates with the turntable, and inward travel along that track is travel toward the rotational axis.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to apply Crawford's rotating radial-track technique to Ochi's auxiliary transfer track 215 by carrying the auxiliary track on a rotating support and orienting the transfer-vehicle travel path radially, so that transfer vehicle 218 and the supported car move inward along the second track while that track rotates relative to first rails 203a. Ochi already supplies a vehicle-receiving carrier that travels on a guided track, while Crawford expressly supplies a rotating radial guide arrangement for changing a supported ride vehicle's radius during turntable rotation. Crawford also expressly identifies the design objective of preserving "high capacity or passenger throughput" and a simple mechanical system while providing a more variable and immersive ride experience ([0007]). A person of ordinary skill therefore would have had a concrete reason to apply Crawford's radial movement to Ochi's guided transfer architecture: the modification would add dynamic, less predictable vehicle motion and increased rider immersion while retaining the established guided-transfer functionality and the throughput- oriented advantages Crawford sought to preserve. The structures are mechanically compatible because Ochi's carrier is already constrained by wheels engaging a track, and Crawford's radial track is expressly configured to support guided radial vehicle movement on a rotating structure. Each element would continue to perform its established function: Ochi's carrier receives and transports the ride vehicle, the radial track guides translation, and Crawford's turntable rotates the radial track about its axis. The predictable result is the claimed compound inward-and-rotational movement, and a person of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success because both references use conventional mechanically guided ride structures and controlled drives. The rejection relies on the combined teachings rather than bodily incorporation of every feature of either embodiment. This is the use of a known technique to improve a similar amusement-ride vehicle-moving system in the same way and a combination of known elements according to known methods for predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007); MPEP § 2143(I)(A), (C), and § 2143.02.
Claim 2 further requires a third track toward which the carriage moves. Ochi teaches fixed second rails 203b on the opposite side of transfer mechanism 217, and transfer vehicle 218 moves toward those rails until relay rails 237 join second rails 203b (col. 9, lines 55-60; col. 11, line 65-col. 12, line 13; Fig. 13). In the claim 1 combination, second rails 203b provide the third track. The modification in claim 1 retains Ochi's destination-track transfer function, so the same combination teaches the added limitation.
Regarding claim 3, Ochi further teaches that after relay rails 237 join second rails 203b, car 207 is released, transfers onto second rails 203b, and continues traveling thereon (col. 12, lines 12-23). Thus, the carriage transitions the ride vehicle to the third track, and the ride vehicle moves along the third track.
Regarding claim 4, Crawford teaches a “track, guide, or bearing assembly” that constrains the rotating structure to rotate in a circle about the rotation axis ([0032], [0064]). Crawford further shows that the vehicle-moving radial track is carried by the rotating turntable ([0061]-[0063]). Thus, when the turntable moves around the circular guide or bearing assembly, the radial second track carried by the turntable moves along the guide-defined circular path. It would have been obvious to implement the rotating support used in the claim 1 combination with Crawford's disclosed track, guide, or bearing assembly because that assembly performs the known structural function of constraining and supporting the very rotation being incorporated from Crawford. The guide is technically compatible with the rotating second-track arrangement because Crawford expressly uses the two together, and Ochi's transfer carrier remains supported on its second track. The predictable result is guided rotation of the second track and the carriage/vehicle supported by it, with a reasonable expectation of success because Crawford expressly discloses that guide arrangement for its turntable. This combines known elements using known methods and applies a known guidance technique to the rotating structure for its established purpose. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(I)(A) and (D).
Regarding claim 6, Ochi further teaches the claimed base. Transfer vehicle 218 includes trestle 219 and wheel section 221; the upper, lower, and lateral wheels engage auxiliary rail 216 to support and guide the transfer vehicle, and motor 245 drives the wheel-supported structure along auxiliary track 215 (col. 10, lines 31-49; Figs. 13-14 and 17). The wheel-supported lower portion of transfer vehicle 218 therefore provides a base that couples the vehicle- receiving relay-rail carriage to the second track and moves along that track to drive the carriage. This is part of the same Ochi embodiment relied upon for claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Crawford teaches this additional structure. Translation mechanism 470 moves a passenger vehicle radially inward and outward ([0049]). It includes channel member 472 attached to the turntable, "a support arm or boom 474" received in the channel so that it can "slide in and extend out," and linear actuator 478 that moves the support arm in response to ride-control signals ([0050]; Fig. 4). The supported vehicle moves with the support arm. Crawford also teaches related multi-degree-of-freedom support mechanisms ([0051]-[0058]). It would have been obvious to configure Ochi's transfer carriage further so that its vehicle-receiving relay-rail platform is coupled to the wheel-supported base through Crawford's extensible support-arm structure. Crawford uses the support arm precisely to move a supported ride vehicle relative to its rotating base. At the same time, Ochi already has a vehicle-receiving platform mechanically supported by a movable base. Interposing the known extensible linkage would preserve Ochi's receipt and transfer functions while adding controlled relative platform motion. The modification uses a known amusement-ride support technique for its established function, is mechanically compatible with the base/platform relationship already present in Ochi and predictably produces the claimed relative movement. A person of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Crawford expressly teaches the linkage, actuator, and supported-vehicle motion as an operable assembly. KSR; MPEP § 2143(I)(A) and (C).
Regarding claim 8, Crawford's same support-arm structure expressly provides extension and retraction: support arm 474 slides within channel member 472, with actuator 478 moving it between a fully withdrawn minimum-radial position and a fully extended maximum-radial position ([0050]; Fig. 4). Crawford also identifies roll and yaw motion in its multi-degree-of-freedom embodiments ([0034], [0058]). Claim 8 recites the listed motions in the alternative using "or"; therefore, Crawford's expressly disclosed extension and retraction satisfy at least the extend/retract alternatives. Because these motions are the normal operation of the extension already added for claim 7, the claim 7 modification and rationale also produce the additional limitation of claim 8.
Regarding claim 21, Ochi additionally teaches that the transfer direction is crosswise to the incoming travel direction. Ochi expressly states that auxiliary rails 216 "are not laid on an extension line of the first rails 203a" (col. 11, lines 55-60), and Figure 13 shows auxiliary track 215 extending transversely relative to first rails 203a. Car 207 first travels along first rails 203a and is then carried in the direction of auxiliary track 215 by transfer vehicle 218 (col. 11, lines 40-60; Fig. 13). Thus, the first-track travel direction and second-track transfer direction are crosswise as recited. This teaching is in the same Ochi embodiment relied upon for claim 1.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ochi in view of Crawford.
Regarding claim 9, Ochi teaches a first track and a vehicle-transfer second-track structure. First rails 203a provide the first track. Relay rails 237 are formed from the same rail member as rails 203 and are carried by transfer vehicle 218; the transfer vehicle positions relay rails 237 to form a unitary track connection with first rails 203a or second rails 203b (col. 10, lines 50-64; Fig. 13). Ochi then teaches that car 207 "transfers from the first rails 203a to the relay rails 237" (col. 11, lines 40-48). Relay rails 237 therefore provide a second track onto which the ride vehicle transitions.
Ochi does not teach the amended relationship in which that second track rotates about a rotational axis. At the same time, the ride vehicle moves relative to and along the second track toward the rotational axis. In Ochi, car 207 is halted on relay rails 237 before the transfer vehicle carries the loaded relay rails toward the destination (col. 11, lines 45-56).
Crawford teaches the missing relative radial motion during rotation. A vehicle may move along a radial guideway attached to the turntable ([0033]-[0034]); translation mechanism 870 moves vehicle 874 radially in and out on a radial track ([0061]); and this movement occurs "as the turntable 862 is rotated about the rotation axis" ([0063]). Crawford specifically teaches inward movement toward the minimum-radius station position ([0062]).
It would have been obvious to modify Ochi's vehicle-receiving relay-rail second-track arrangement according to Crawford's radial-track technique so that, after receiving car 207 from first rails 203a, the second track is carried by a rotating support, and the vehicle is translated inward relative to and along that second track during rotation. Ochi supplies the track-to-track receipt and transfer interface; Crawford supplies the known amusement-ride technique for moving a supported vehicle along a radial track while that track rotates with a turntable. The modification preserves Ochi's function of receiving a ride vehicle from a fixed first track. It uses Crawford's radial-track structure for its established function of changing vehicle radius during rotation. The structures are compatible because both references use mechanically supported passenger vehicles and guided motion, and the resulting inward translation plus rotation is the predictable result expressly demonstrated by Crawford. A person of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success for the same reason. KSR; MPEP § 2143(I)(A) and (C).
Regarding claim 10, Crawford teaches that its rotating structure is constrained to a circular path by a "track, guide, or bearing assembly" ([0032], [0064]). The rotating turntable ([0061]-[0063]) carries the radial track and translation mechanism. Applying that disclosed guide to the rotating second-track support of claim 9 causes the second track to move along the guide-defined circular path as it rotates relative to the fixed first track. It would have been obvious to use Crawford's guide/bearing assembly with the rotating second-track support already incorporated for claim 9 because Crawford teaches the guide as the structure that constrains and supports that rotation. The guide does not alter the vehicle-transfer principle of Ochi; it controls the rotating support's path. The expected result is stable, repeatable circular movement of the second track, with a reasonable expectation of success because Crawford expressly uses the guide for that purpose. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(I)(A) and (D).
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ochi in view of Crawford, as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Mahan et al. (US 2911922 A, “Mahan”).
Regarding claim 11, Mahan teaches that a circular guide for a rotating track support can be intentionally interrupted without losing its guidance function. Mahan supports rotating track platform 13 on register rails 22 and 23 and states that "[e]ach rail describes one half of the circumference and are not joined" (col. 2, lines 10-15; Figs. 1 and 1A). Claim 3 likewise recites a circular register rail "separated at two oppositely disposed points." Mahan also teaches fixed access tracks and emphasizes "precise alignment" between the rotating turntable rails and a selected new set of access rails (col. 1, lines 10-32; col. 4, lines 20-31; Figs. 1, 1A, and 6). Mahan therefore supplies both the known interrupted circular-guide structure and the track-alignment context in which that structure operates.
Mahan is analogous art. Although directed to a model railroad turntable rather than an amusement ride, it addresses the same mechanical problem as claims 11-13: supporting and guiding a rotating vehicle-bearing track while accurately aligning that rotating track with fixed access or destination tracks. Mahan expressly identifies precise turntable-to-access-track alignment as the problem its structure addresses (col. 1, lines 10-32). A person of ordinary skill designing the claimed rotating track- transfer interface would reasonably have consulted rail-turntable guidance and alignment structures directed to that same problem. See MPEP § 2141.01(a); In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to implement Crawford's circular guide in the Ochi-Crawford system using Mahan's segmented register-guide construction and to locate one of the known guide separations along the second-track transfer path toward the selected access-track side. Mahan provides the design incentive: accurately aligning a rotating vehicle-bearing track with a fixed access track. The remaining guide segments would continue to constrain and support rotation, while the known separation would provide an unobstructed transfer opening toward which the vehicle can be directed. This modification uses Mahan's known interrupted-guide technique for its established guidance/alignment purpose; it does not require a change in Ochi's vehicle-transfer principle or Crawford's radial/rotational motion. The expected result is a guided rotating second track having a transfer opening on the vehicle travel path, and a person of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Mahan expressly demonstrates that a discontinuous circular register guide can support and accurately position a rotating track platform. This is a combination of known elements according to known methods and a predictable application of known rail-turntable work prompted by the same alignment design need. KSR; MPEP § 2143(I)(A) and (F).
Claim 12 further requires a third track and transition of the ride vehicle from the second track through the opening to the third track. Mahan teaches fixed access rails 65/66 and 67/68 and expressly describes running a locomotive from the turntable track onto those access tracks (col. 3, lines 48-59; Fig. 6). Mahan further teaches that the turntable rails are placed in "precise alignment with the new set of access rails" (col. 4, lines 20-31). In the claim 11 rejection, the known guide separation is located at the selected fixed-track interface. Continuing travel from the aligned rotating second track therefore carries the vehicle through that guide opening and onto the fixed access track, which provides the claimed third track. The same modification and rationale used for claim 11 produce this transfer relationship.
Regarding claim 13, Mahan teaches that track-supporting platform 13 rotates about center post 11. At the same time, the access tracks remain stationary relative to base 10, and the turntable rails are rotated into alignment with a selected set of access rails (col. 1, line 65-col. 2, line 4; col. 4, lines 20-31; Figs. 1 and 1A). Thus, in the developed combination, the second track rotates relative to the fixed first track and relative to the fixed third track.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ochi in view of Crawford.
Regarding claim 14, Ochi teaches a first track and a movable vehicle-receiving track section. First rails 203a provide the first track. Relay rails 237 are track rails carried by transfer vehicle 218 and are positioned to join first rails 203a or second rails 203b; car 207 transfers from first rails 203a onto relay rails 237 (col. 10, lines 50-64; col. 11, lines 40-48; Fig. 13). Ochi therefore provides a track-to-track transition to a movable second-track structure.
Ochi does not teach the amended combination of a guide, rotation of the second track about a rotational axis, and movement of the ride vehicle relative to and along the second track toward that axis while the second track moves along the guide and rotates.
Crawford teaches each missing aspect as an integrated amusement-ride technique. Its vehicles can move along radial guideways attached to a rotating turntable ([0033]-[0034]). Translation mechanism 870 moves a vehicle radially in and out on a radial track ([0061]), including radially inward toward a minimum-radius position ([0062]), while the turntable rotates about its rotation axis ([0063]). Crawford further teaches a track, guide, or bearing assembly that constrains the turntable to a circular rotational path ([0032], [0064]).
It would have been obvious to modify Ochi's vehicle-receiving relay-track arrangement by applying Crawford's integrated rotating radial-track and circular-guide technique: the second track would be carried by the rotating support, the received ride vehicle would move inward relative to and along that radial second track, and the rotating support would move along the circular guide. Ochi supplies a movable track that receives a vehicle from a fixed first track; Crawford supplies the known technique for guided rotation while a supported vehicle changes radial position. The modification preserves Ochi's transfer function and uses Crawford's radial track and guide for their established functions. Because Crawford expressly operates radial vehicle translation and guided turntable rotation together, the combined functions are technically compatible, and their result is predictable. A person of ordinary skill would therefore have had a reasonable expectation of success. KSR; MPEP § 2143(I)(A) and (C).
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ochi in view of Crawford, as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Mahan.
Regarding claim 15, Mahan teaches both sides of the missing plural-interface architecture. Its circular register guide is already interrupted: register rails 22 and 23 each describe one half of the circumference and "are not joined" (col. 2, lines 10-15; Figs. 1 and 1A) and claim 3 expressly recites that the circular register rail is "separated at two oppositely disposed points." Mahan also teaches a turntable "associated with a plurality of access tracks" (claim 3), describes transfer to access rails 65/66 or to tracks 67/68 (col. 3, lines 48-59; Fig. 6), and states that the turntable may have a small or large number of selectable positions (col. 4, lines 36-42). Mahan therefore teaches that a rotating track can be guided by an interrupted circular register structure and selectively aligned with plural fixed destination tracks.
For the same reasons stated for claim 11, Mahan is pertinent to the mechanical problem of guiding a rotating vehicle-bearing track and aligning it with fixed destination tracks. The common problem and closely corresponding rotating- track/fixed-track structures make the reference analogous under MPEP § 2141.01(a).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to arrange the known guide separations at plural selected access-track interfaces in the Ochi-Crawford system, repeating the same Mahan separation/transfer- interface arrangement for the plural third tracks. Mahan itself teaches two opposed guide separations, plural access tracks, and selectable turntable positions. Locating or repeating the known separation at each selected fixed-track crossing allows the rotating second track to align with and communicate through the circular guide to each third track. In contrast, the remaining guide segments continue to provide rotational support and registration. Each added opening performs the same function as the known separation, and each third track performs the same receiving function as Mahan's access tracks; no new interaction is required. The expected result is a guide that has plural transfer openings associated with plural fixed destination tracks, and a person of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Mahan demonstrates both the segmented guide and plural-track alignment functions in a mechanically predictable rail system. The fact pattern also aligns with In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), because the additional transfer openings repeat the same known structural feature performing the same function, with no asserted new or unexpected result. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(I)(A) and (F); MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B).
Regarding claim 16, Crawford teaches controller-based coordination of the motions already present in the combination. Controller 156 provides operating signals and/or power to drive assembly 152 and may also operate the vehicle attachment or translation mechanism ([0039]). The controller can operate the translation mechanism according to the ride program to reposition the vehicle, and it may synchronize vehicle movement with other ride functions ([0040]). Crawford's radial translation mechanisms use actuators responsive to ride-control signals ([0050]), and a ride controller may move the vehicle radially inward ([0062]). Ochi independently teaches control device 243 controlling electric motor 245 to move transfer vehicle 218 (col. 10, lines 40-49; col. 12, lines 25-40).
It would have been obvious to configure the developed system's controller to command the actuator or actuators responsible for the two already-required powered motions: guided movement/rotation of the second track and movement of the ride vehicle along that track. Crawford expressly uses a ride controller for both the turntable drive and vehicle translation functions, while Ochi already provides controlled motorized transfer. Coordinating those known driven functions allow the system to align the moving track with the selected destination and complete the vehicle transfer in a controlled sequence. The modification does not change either actuator's operating principle; it supplies known centralized control for functions already present. The expected result is coordinated track positioning and vehicle transfer, with a reasonable expectation of success because Crawford expressly controls both turntable and translation functions within one ride system. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(I)(A) and (C).
Regarding claim 17, Crawford teaches passenger/user input as a known input to its vehicle-positioning control. Passenger input via a user-input or interactive device may control vehicle movements and positions ([0035]), and a joystick, steering wheel, or other interactive device may cause translation mechanism 870 to move the vehicle along its radial track ([0063]). Mahan further teaches operator-actuated switches for controlling turntable movement and selecting between access-track arrangements (col. 3, lines 30-59; Fig. 6), while its turntable can be positioned at a small or large number of selectable positions (col. 4, lines 36-42).
It would have been obvious to configure the claim 16 controller to use a user-generated selection signal to select among the plural destination-track positions supplied by Mahan and then command the already-controlled second-track and vehicle motions accordingly. User input was already a known control input for Crawford's vehicle translation, and Mahan already requires a human selection among available track positions. Using the user selection as the destination command therefore substitutes a known user-generated control input for a preset or operator-generated positioning command while leaving the controlled mechanical functions unchanged. The predictable result is routing the ride vehicle to the selected third track based on the received input. A person of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success because the combination already contains the controller, actuators, plural selectable destinations, and user-input interface needed to perform the selection. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(I)(A) and (B).
Regarding claim 18, Crawford teaches show elements presented to passengers as vehicles move through a show space or along a ride path ([0037]). Controller 156 may operate show elements in synchronization with vehicle movement through the show space ([0040]). Mahan supplies the plural destination tracks in the developed claim 15 combination.
It would have been obvious to provide Crawford's known show-effect structure along each of the plural third-track routes in the developed system so that a vehicle routed to any available destination continues to receive the themed entertainment function already taught by Crawford. Each show effect would perform the same established function on its associated route, and no new interaction or unexpected function is required by claim 18. The plural tracks supplied by Mahan provide separate physical routes at which the known show elements can be positioned, so the structures are compatible. The result, respective show effects associated with each selectable third, track route-is predictable, and a person of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Crawford expressly teaches placing and synchronizing show elements along vehicle ride paths. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(I)(A) and (C).
Regarding claim 19, Mahan teaches the structural basis for that further relationship. The circular register guide is interrupted (col. 2, lines 10-15; claim 3; Figs. 1 and 1A), the rotating track is precisely aligned with fixed access tracks (col. 4, lines 20-31), and contactor blades 54 and 55 "project beyond the rails 14 and 15 in a manner to make contact with the access tracks" (col. 3, lines 13-20). Mahan then transfers the locomotive between the turntable track and access rails 65/66 or 67/68 (col. 3, lines 48-59; Fig. 6).
To the extent Mahan does not expressly place the terminal end of each access track within the corresponding register-guide separation, it would have been obvious to extend or position each fixed access-track terminal into that opening sufficiently to meet the aligned rotating second track. Mahan's disclosed transfer interface provides the reason: precise track alignment and physical/electrical communication must be maintained across the gap so the locomotive can pass from the rotating track to the access track. Moving the fixed track terminal into the available guide opening is a concrete geometric implementation of that disclosed interface. It leaves the guide segments, rotating track, and access track performing their same functions and does not alter the turntable's principle of operation. The expected result is a continuous aligned transfer interface with each third- track terminal disposed in its respective guide opening, and a person of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success because the change merely adjusts the endpoint location at an already disclosed open interface. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(I)(A) and (D).
Regarding claim 20, the Ochi-Crawford-Mahan combination teaches claim 15. Ochi's fixed first rails 203a and destination rails 203b are supported by posts 205 with transfer mechanism 217 located between them (col. 9, lines 55-65; col. 10, lines 18-31; Fig. 13). Mahan likewise teaches fixed access tracks surrounding a rotating turntable and selectively aligns the rotating track with those fixed access tracks (col. 3, lines 48-59; col. 4, lines 20-31; Figs. 1, IA, and 6). Thus, the developed combination retains the first track and third tracks fixed relative to one another while the second track moves between transfer positions. This relationship is already present in the structures used for claim 15.
Response to Applicant's Arguments
The amendment filed July 22, 2026, has been entered. Independent claims 1, 9, and 14 were amended to require coordinated movement in which the ride vehicle moves along the second track toward a rotational axis while the second track itself moves or rotates relative to the first track. Claim 15 was amended to recite a guide defining a plurality of openings and transition of the ride vehicle through a respective opening to one of a plurality of third tracks. Claim 19 was amended to recite that each third track is disposed in a respective opening. Claim 21 was newly added and recites travel on the second track in a direction crosswise to the travel direction on the first track.
The July 22 amendments have been reviewed for support in the original disclosure. No new-matter issue is raised in this action. The amendment to claim 15 now supplies antecedent basis for the plurality of openings recited in claim 19. Accordingly, the previous rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) is withdrawn. The previously applied anticipation grounds based on Rupp and Sornik, and the obviousness grounds that depended on the pre-amendment scope of the independent claims, are withdrawn. The present grounds address the limitations added by the July 22 amendment.
Applicant's amendment filed July 22, 2026, has been fully considered. The amendments materially changed the limitations relied upon in the previous prior-art rejections, including the coordinated-movement limitations of independent claims 1, 9, and 14 and the guide/opening limitations incorporated into the dependent claims. The present action therefore does not maintain the prior Rupp-, Sornik-, Dagley-, Blum-, or Russell-based grounds and instead applies new grounds based on Ochi, Crawford, and Mahan as set forth above.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-4 and 6-20 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.
With respect to the previous rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), amended claim 15 now introduces the plurality of openings referenced by claim 19. The previous § 112(b) rejection is therefore withdrawn in view of the amendment.
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 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