DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
1. 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 15-17 and 19-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claim element not taught by the specification as originally filed are recited in claims 15 and 35: “a controller in communication with the plurality of sensors, the controller configured to vary the predetermined distance based on one or more characteristics of the rider” (claim 15); “and wherein the controller is configured to vary the predetermined distance associated with the second plurality of sensors based on a skill level of the rider” (claim 35). The specification does not specify how the change in predetermined distance occurs. It is not inherent that the varying of the predetermined distance occurs via a controller. There is no teaching that each feature of the water ride system runs through a program controller.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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 29 is 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 29 recites the limitation "the one or more characteristics". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 33 is 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 33 recites the limitation "the characteristics". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 34 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 34 recites the limitation "the one or more characteristics". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
The Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper “functional approach” to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “ Obvious to try ” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
4. Claims 15-17, 19, 21-31 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heaven et al. (US Pub. No. 2014/0135137) in view of Henry (US Pub. No. 2006/0111196).
With respect to claims 15, 19, Heaven et al. teaches a water slide, comprising: a ride surface configured to support a rider; and a plurality of sensors 220 distributed along the ride surface and configured to detect the rider based on interaction with one or more tags worn by the rider when the one or more tags come within a predetermined distance of the plurality of sensors; wherein the predetermined distance is varied based on one or more characteristics of the rider, including rider age or skill level of the rider (paragraph [0044]).
Heaven et al does not expressly disclose a controller in communication with the plurality of sensors, the controller configured to vary the predetermined distance based on one or more characteristics of the rider. However, analogous art reference Henry teaches that it is known to provide water slide system with ride sensors in communication with a controller that runs and operates the water slide (paragraphs [0245]-[0246], [0284]-[0287]). At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate the adjustment of the predetermined distance via a water slide controller. The rationale to combine is to automate the varying of the predetermined distance. This will expectantly allow the system to read the rider profile and automatically adjust the predetermined distance to vary the requisite skill level to activate detection of the rider tags.
With respect to claims 16-17, Heaven et al. does not expressly teach wherein the ride surface comprises: a first branching slide path; and a second branching slide path. However, analogous art reference Henry teaches such features to be known in the art (paragraph [0172]-[0175]). At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add first and second branching slide paths to the water slide of Heaven. The rationale to combine is to increase entertainment value of the ride by offering multiple ride paths, thus avoiding redundancy for repeat riders. The combined teachings of Heaven and Henry is considered capable of meeting the intended use - wherein in response to detecting the one or more tags worn by the rider at a first sensor of the plurality of sensors, sending the rider down the first branching slide path, wherein sending the rider down the first branching slide path comprises opening the first branching slide path. See Henry at paragraphs [0173]-[0175]. See also MPEP 2114 - A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). If a prior art structure is inherently capable of performing the intended use as recited, then it shifts the burden to applicant to establish that the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
With respect to claim 21, Heaven, in an alternative embodiment, expressly teaches wherein the plurality of sensors are selected from the group consisting of near-field chip sensors, hall-effect sensors, RFID sensors and reed switch sensors (paragraph [0056]). A person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use RFID sensors to read the RFID tags of the rider as this will expectantly determine an interaction by the rider.
With respect to claim 22, Heaven teaches wherein the one or more tags are sewn into an article of clothing worn by the rider (paragraphs [0039]-[0040]).
With respect to claims 23-24, Heaven teaches wherein the plurality of sensors are offset from an expected path of the rider along the ride surface and visually identifiable such that the rider is prompted to reposition the one or more tags within the predetermined distance from a respective sensor of the plurality of sensors, thereby allowing the rider to score points when using the water slide, wherein the plurality of sensors are illuminated to make the plurality of sensors visually identifiable to the rider (Fig. 2A; paragraphs [0042]-[0044]).
With respect to claims 25-26, Heaven, in an alternative embodiment, teaches one or more water jets configured to increase or decrease a speed of the rider moving down the ride surface in response to interaction between the one or more tags worn by the rider and a first sensor of the plurality of sensors (paragraph [0053]; wherein the one or more water jets comprise a first jet configured to increase a speed of the rider on the ride surface and a second jet configured to reduce a speed of the rider on the ride surface Id. A person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate the water jets into the cited embodiment above. The rationale to combine is to add entertainment value to the ride, and also provide water effects that can modulate speed based on skill level of the rider.
With respect to claims 27-29, Heaven teaches wherein the plurality of sensors comprises: a first plurality of sensors configured to track a progress of the rider along the ride surface (paragraph [0059]); and a second plurality of visually identifiable sensors configured to allow the rider to score points when the one or more tags are brought within the predetermined distance from the second plurality of sensors (paragraphs [0042]-[0044]), wherein the predetermined distance between the second plurality of visually identifiable sensors and the one or more tags varies based on one or more characteristics of the rider, wherein the one or more characteristics includes a skill level of the rider Id. Examiner notes it is unclear if the first plurality of sensors are specifically taught to be part of the cited embodiment. Assuming arguendo, that they are not, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate into the cited embodiment. This will expectantly allow for competitive racing.
With respect to claim 30, Heaven teaches wherein the ride surface is configured to carry the rider without a ride vehicle (paragraph [0038]).
With respect to claim 31, Heaven teaches wherein the one or more tags are one or more RFID tags (paragraph [0039]).
With respect to claim 35, Heaven teaches wherein the plurality of sensors comprises a first plurality of sensors configured to track a progress of the rider along the ride surface (paragraph [0059]) and a second plurality of visually identifiable sensors configured to allow the rider to score points when the one or more tags are brought within the predetermined distance from the second plurality of sensors (paragraph [0047], [0049]). Examiner notes it is unclear if the first plurality of sensors are specifically taught to be part of the cited embodiment. Assuming arguendo, that they are not, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate into the cited embodiment. This will expectantly allow for competitive racing. Heaven as modified above by Henry further teaches wherein the controller is configured to vary the predetermined distance associated with the second plurality of sensors based on a skill level of the rider. See Heaven at paragraph [0044]. The rationale to combine is the same as stated above.
5. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heaven et al. (US Pub. No. 2014/0135137) in view of Henry (US Pub. No. 2006/0111196) and further in view of
Jacobsen (US Pat. No. 5,785,592).
With respect to claim 20, Heaven teaches an RFID reader sensor, as opposed to magnetic field sensors. However, analogous art reference Jacobsen teaches that within the art magnetic field sensors are known in the art (column 7, lines 45-50). At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the sensors of Heaven to include magnetic field sensors. The rationale to combine is to utilize a known sensing means for purposes of determining when a user is proximate the sensor.
6. Claims 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heaven et al. (US Pub. No. 2014/0135137) in view of Henry (US Pub. No. 2006/0111196) and further in view of
Briggs (US Pub. No. 2004/0198517)(hereinafter “Briggs 2004”).
With respect to claims 32-34, Heaven teaches wherein the rider tags comprise “identification information” but fails to expressly teach a registration station as claimed. However, analogous art reference Briggs 2004 teaches the following to be known in the art: registration station for registering the one or more tags of worn by the user with the water slide, wherein the registration station collects one or more characteristics of the rider by referencing information collected from the one or more tags or by receiving entry of the characteristics from the rider, wherein the one or more characteristics includes an age of the rider (paragraphs [0023], [0031]). At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add a registration station to the water slide of Heaven. The rationale to combine is organize and identify riders of the water slide. This information will be useful for commercial opportunities, marketing, game play, and tracking patrons for safety purposes. Examiner further notes primary reference Heaven also teaches wherein the one or more characteristics includes an age of the rider (paragraph [0044]).
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
8. 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 MICHAEL DAVID DENNIS whose telephone number is (571)270-3538. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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.
/MICHAEL D DENNIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
