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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 6/22/2026. As noted in the restriction requirement, group II claims 15-17 include particulars that are not included with the combination with the subcombination manipulator having one or more arms and one or more joints. Regarding groups I and III, the examiner notes that the groupings show different modes of operation, such as, the manipulator is configured to couple the show structure to the ride vehicle (group I) or to the ride vehicle, the manipulator or the show action prop (group III). Examiner is maintaining that Groups I, II, III are independent and distinct inventions that would constitute a search burden. The restriction requirement is made FINAL.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 12, and 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210354304 (hereinafter “Jeromin”) in view of DE 102018209174 (hereinafter “Stockschlader”).
Regarding claim 1, Jeromin discloses an amusement park ride system (Fig. 10, 10), comprising:
one or more ride vehicles (Fig. 10, 260) configured to transport passengers, wherein each ride vehicle of the one or more ride vehicles includes an exterior surface and a base coupler (Fig. 10, 94/100) disposed on or accessible via the exterior surface;
a show structure (Fig. 10, 14) configured to operate for viewing by the passengers, wherein the show structure comprises:
a first coupler (Fig. 10, 96/102) configured to removably couple with and/or secure to a respective base coupler of a ride vehicle of the one or more ride vehicles; and
a manipulator (Fig. 1, 144) configured to couple with and/or secure to the show structure and transport the show structure to and from the ride vehicle of the one or more ride vehicles, wherein the manipulator comprises a transport coupler configured to removably couple with and/or secure to the second coupler.
Jeromin does not explicitly state that the manipulator comprises a transport coupler configured to removably couple with and/or secure to the second coupler of the show structure. Stockschlader discloses an amusement ride with a manipulator (Fig. 3, 4) with a coupling device (Fig. 3, 5.1) that removably couples to a show structure (Fig. 3, 5.1) that allows for special driving effect sequences (Description: Para. 003). Thus, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have an additional coupler added to the show structure of Jeromin as taught by Stockschlader to allow for releasable coupling with the manipulator for enhanced ride effects. Additionally, the examiner expresses that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In the instant case, adding another pair of couplers would produce the expected result of enabling more surfaces to connect (manipulator and second coupler). See MPEP 2144 – In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 12, modified Jeromin further discloses the base coupler comprises a first plurality of magnets (Jeromin: Fig. 10, 94), wherein the first coupler comprises a second plurality of magnets (Jeromin: Fig. 10, 96), wherein the first plurality of magnets and the second plurality of magnets are configured to align and engage with one another to couple the show structure with the ride vehicle and/or secure the show structure to the ride vehicle (Jeromin: Para. 0038).
Regarding claim 14, modified Jeromin further discloses the show structure comprises an animated figure configured to be actuated based on power received via the first coupler, the second coupler, or both (Jeromin: Para: 0024).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over hereinafter Jeromin in view of Stockschlader, as applied in claim 1, and further in view of US 20230029823 (hereinafter “Bettinger”).
Regarding claim 11, modified Jeromin discloses all the limitations of claim 1, but does not disclose that the first coupler comprises a key configured to engage with a recess of the base coupler of the ride vehicle to facilitate coupling the show structure with the ride vehicle and/or to facilitate securing the show structure to the ride vehicle. Bettinger discloses a connection system for an amusement ride that has a first coupler with a key (Fig. 1, 107) that engages with a recess in the second coupler (Fig. 1, 109) to connect and transmit motion, power, etc. (Para. 0034). Thus, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have a key and recess configuration for the couplers as taught by Bettinger to further secure engagement parts of modified Jeromin.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over hereinafter Jeromin in view of Stockschlader, as applied in claim 1, and further in view of US 12533596 (hereinafter “Vance”).
Regarding claim 13, modified Jeromin discloses all the limitations of claim 1, but does not expressly state that translation and/or orientation of the base coupler relative to the first coupler is configured to offset a plurality of magnets of the base coupler relative to a plurality of magnets of the first coupler to engage or disengage the show structure to or from the ride vehicle. Vance discloses a connection system for an amusement ride with an actuator that moves the magnets in and out of position to selectively couple an animated figure to the ride (Col. 4, lines 32-42). Thus, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to make the base coupler selectively couple by changing orientation to easily facilitate removal or addition of an animated figure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-10 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 2 would be considered allowable for further disclosing the structural features of the couplers to include a base plate, power induction coil, and motor that causes translation. The closest prior art cited above does not contain this combination of features, and it would not be obvious to provide power via an induction coil in the connecting coupler to cause an animated figure to move while removably attached to a ride vehicle.
Claims 3-10 would be allowable based on their dependency upon claim 2.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMANTHA M BERRY whose telephone number is (571)272-0925. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-5.
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.
/S.M.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 3711 /EUGENE L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights