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
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-10 in the reply filed on September 24, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: there is a minor grammatical error in that the word “and” should be the word “are” in order for the claim to be grammatically correct. Claim 5 has been corrected in this office action. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crawford et al. (USPN 7,950,333) in view of Nemeth et al. (PG Pub 2015/0012157).
Regarding claim 1, Crawford teaches an amusement kart track (column 5, lines 1-9; figure 1, elements 110, 112, and 114; figure 3, elements 310 and 311) comprising a magnetic support material (column 8, lines 24-67; figure 1, element 120; figure 2, element 250; figure 3, element 314; column 9, lines 34-51) below a polymeric coating (column 7, lines 52-56; column 9, lines 43-48; figure 3, element 310).
Crawford is silent as to the track being a passenger operated amusement kart track.
Nemeth teaches a passenger operated amusement kart track (paragraph 7; figure 7, among others).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine the amusement cart track of Crawford with the passenger operated components of the kart track of Nemeth since doing so would be an example of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. In this case, the magnetic levitation of Crawford enabled by the coils could help passengers control the kart on the kart track of Nemeth as described in the description of figure 7 of Nemeth. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a passenger operated amusement kart, as taught by Nemeth, on the mag lev track of Crawford.
Regarding claim 2, Crawford teaches the kart track of claim 1 wherein portions of the track are substantially flat (figure 6, elements 608, 606, 609; column 12, lines 10-53; column 13, lines 35-36) and other portions are substantially curved (column 9, lines 52-62; figure 3, element 310).
Regarding claim 3, Crawford teaches the kart track of claim 2 wherein the substantially flat portions comprise non-magnetic support material (column 9, lines 43-48; column 12, lines 39-53; figure 6, elements 608, 609, 642, and 652; column 13, lines 21-35).
Regarding claim 4, Crawford teaches the kart track of claim 3 wherein the substantially flat portions are wood, asphalt, or concrete (column 9, lines 43-48).
Regarding claim 5, Crawford teaches the kart track of claim 4 wherein the wood, asphalt, or concrete are not coated with the polymeric coating (column 9, lines 43-48 states the track can be made of wood or plastic).
Regarding claim 6, Crawford teaches the kart track of claim 2 wherein the substantially curved portions comprise the magnetic support material (figure 6, element 615; column 12, lines 35-38; figure 3, element 310 and 314; column 9, lines 34-43; column 10, lines 16-45).
Regarding claim 7, Crawford teaches the kart track of claim 6 wherein the magnetic support material is coated with the polymeric coating (column 7, lines 52-56; column 9, lines 43-48).
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crawford et al. (USPN 7,950,333) in view of Nemeth et al. (PG Pub 2015/0012157) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Grimm et al. (USPN 3,810,706).
Regarding claim 8, the modified device of Crawford teaches the kart track of claim 1.
Crawford is silent as to wherein the polymeric coating is roughened.
Grimm teaches a polymeric coating that is roughened (column 2, lines 63-66).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine the amusement kart track coating of Crawford with the roughened polymeric coating of Grimm since doing so would be an example of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. In this case, a roughened polymeric coating is a known technique that would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Grimm states that the surface is roughened to provide for a traction surface in the amusement ride. This would help the kart of Crawford stop at the appropriate time (column 12, lines 43-53; column 13, lines 30-35) or improve safety (column 9, lines 49-51) and therefore, this would be an obvious improvement on the design of Crawford.
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crawford et al. (USPN 7,950,333) in view of Nemeth et al. (PG Pub 2015/0012157) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Graham (PG Pub 2007/0269661).
Regarding claim 9, the modified device of Crawford teaches the kart track of claim 1.
Crawford is silent as to wherein the polymeric coating is an isocyanate resin.
Graham teaches a polymeric coating that is an isocyanate resin (paragraph 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine the amusement kart track coating of Crawford with the polymeric coating of Graham since doing so would be an example of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. In this case, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use an isocyanate resin coating, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claims 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crawford et al. (USPN 7,950,333) in view of Nemeth et al. (PG Pub 2015/0012157) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Barber (USPN 5,016,540).
Regarding claim 10, the modified device of Crawford teaches the kart track of claim 1.
Crawford is silent as to wherein the polymeric coating is an elastomeric polyurethane.
Barber teaches a polymeric coating that is an elastomeric polyurethane (column 17, lines 54-58; column 25, line 67 - column 26, line 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine the amusement kart track coating of Crawford with the polymeric coating of Barber since doing so would be an example of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. In this case, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use an elastomeric polyurethane coating, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUSAN E SCHARPF whose telephone number is (571)270-5304. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am-4:30pm.
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, Lindsay Low can be reached at 571-272-1196. 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.
/Susan E Scharpf/Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/LINDSAY M LOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3747