DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
1. Claim 15 objected to because of the following informalities: ends with “;”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 objected to because of the following informalities: “is varies” is grammatically incorrect. Appropriate correction is required.
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 26 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 26 recites the limitation "the one or more water jets". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant can change the dependency of 26 to claim 25 to overcome this rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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 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.
4. Claims 15, 18-19, 22-23, 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Briggs (US Pat. No. 6,186,902).
With respect to claim 15, Briggs teaches a water slide, comprising: a ride surface configured to support a rider; and a plurality of sensors 270 distributed along the ride surface and configured to detect the rider based on interaction with one or more tags 272 worn by the rider when the one or more tags 272 come within a predetermined distance (“sensing field”) of the plurality of sensors 270 (Fig. 9; column 10, lines 47-67; column 10, lines 1-11). Per 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. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
With respect to claims 18-19, the structure of Briggs is capable of meeting the intended use claim elements. The tag 272 can be assigned with different activation strengths based on age. See MPEP 2114 - In re Schreiber.
With respect to claim 22, the structure of Briggs is capable of meeting the intended use claim elements - wherein the one or more tags are sewn into an article of clothing worn by the rider. Briggs teaches wherein tag device 272 may be “attached to the ride participant’s closing” (column 11, lines 5-6). See MPEP 2114 - In re Schreiber
With respect to claim 23, Briggs teaches wherein sensors 270 are positioned on an elevated left side and an elevated right side of the ride path. As such, Briggs is considered to meet the following: wherein the plurality of sensors 270 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. See MPEP 2114 - In re Schreiber
With respect to claim 30, Briggs teaches wherein the ride surface is configured to carry the rider without a ride vehicle (Fig. 9). See MPEP 2114 - In re Schreiber
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Briggs (US Pat. No. 6,186,902) in view of Henry (US Pub. No. 2006/0111196).
With respect to claims 16-17, Briggs 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 Briggs. 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 Briggs 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 - In re Schreiber.
6. Claims 20, 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Briggs (US Pat. No. 6,186,902) in view of Jacobsen (US Pat. No. 5,785,592).
With respect to claim 20, Briggs teaches wherein sensors 270 are electronic, but does not expressly wherein sensors 270 are 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 Briggs 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.
With respect to claim 24, Briggs does not expressly teach wherein the plurality of sensors are illuminated to make the plurality of sensors visually identifiable to the rider. Analogous art reference Jacobsen teaches that it is known to illuminate (via lamp 762, or “visible light” from beams 72) a sensor (as part of target 32) to make them visually identifiable to the rider (column 5, lines 23-42). At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to illuminate the sensor of Briggs. The rationale to combine is to provide visual guidance for the rider to activate the illuminated sensor.
7. Claims 21 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Briggs (US Pat. No. 6,186,902) in view of Henry (US Pat. No. 8,079,916).
With respect to claim 21, Briggs teaches wherein sensors 270 are electronic, but does not expressly wherein sensors 270 are selected from the group consisting of near-field chip sensors, hall-effect sensors, RFID sensors and reed switch sensors. However, analogous art reference Henry teaches RFID sensors to be known in the art – column 19, lines 33-67. At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the sensors of Briggs to include RFID sensors. The rationale to combine is to utilize a known sensing means for purposes of determining when a user is proximate the sensor.
With respect to claim 31, Briggs does not expressly teach wherein the one or more tags are one or more RFID tags. However, analogous art reference Henry teaches RFID tags to be known in the art – column 19, lines 33-67. The motivation to combine is the same as stated above.
8. Claims 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Briggs (US Pat. No. 6,186,902) in view of Dubois et al. (US Pub. No. 2011/0028227).
With respect to claims 25-26, Briggs does not teach water jets as claimed. However, analogous art reference Dubois teaches the following to be known in the art: one or more water jets configured to increase or decrease a speed of the rider moving down the ride surface, 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 (Paragraphs [0014], [0030]-[0032]). At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate water jets into the ride system of Briggs. The rationale to combine is to use a known accelerating or decelerating water feature, therein improving the enjoyment and safety of the ride. The combined teachings of Briggs and Dubois is considered capable of meeting the intended use - See MPEP 2114 - In re Schreiber.
9. Claims 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Briggs (US Pat. No. 6,186,902).
With respect to claim 27, Briggs teaches wherein the plurality of sensors comprises: plurality of visually identifiable sensors 270 configured to allow the rider to score points when the one or more tags 272 are brought within the predetermined distance from the sensors 270 (column 10, lines 62-65). Briggs further teaches wherein multiple sets of sensors are provided (Fig. 2 showing sensors along various regions of the slide), and wherein the tags are used to track a progress of the rider along the ride surface (column 11, lines 12-62). At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine the additional sets of sensors corresponding to tags that track a progress of the rider. The rationale is set forth by Briggs – “Ride participants can … be challenged to complete various tasks or desires goals as they slide down the riding surface.”
With respect to claims 28-29, the structure of Briggs is capable of meeting the intended use claim elements. The tag 272 can be assigned with different activation strengths based on skill level. See MPEP 2114 - In re Schreiber.
10. Claims 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Briggs (US Pat. No. 6,186,902) in view of Briggs (US Pub. No. 2004/0198517)(hereinafter “Briggs 2004”).
With respect to claims 32-34, Briggs 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 Briggs. 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.
Conclusion
11. 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
Prosecution Insights