DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the claim amendments received 07/21/2026. Claims 1-7, 9-12, 14-19 and 21-23 are pending with claims 1, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15 and 18 currently amended, claims 8, 13 and 20 cancelled, and claims 21-23 newly added.
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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 9, 18 and 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RUDOLF [EP1049067], in view of Smith [US20210268393].
Regarding claim 1, RUDOLF discloses a system, comprising:
a show element comprising a first show element body coupled to a second show element body via one or more tether assemblies (Figs. 1 and 7, 2 and 3 coupled together), each tether assembly of the one or more tether assemblies comprises:
a tether (Fig. 7, 12); and
a first retainer at a first end of the tether (Fig. 7, 8) and positioned in a first recess (Fig. 7, 18) of the first show element body;
wherein the one or more tether assemblies enable the first show element body to move relative to the second show element body to transition the show element between an engaged configuration (Fig. 7) and a disengaged configuration (Fig. 1).
However, RUDOLF does not disclose a computing system comprising one or more processors and memory storing instructions, wherein the instructions, when executed by the computing system cause the computing system to: receive an indication of a presence of one or more guests in a vicinity of the show element; and provide instructions to at least one actuator to drive the first show element body to move relative to the second show element body to transition the show element between the engaged configuration and the disengaged configuration in response to receiving the indication of the presence of the one or more guests in the vicinity of the show element.
Nevertheless, Smith teaches in a like invention, a computing system (Fig. 1) comprising one or more processors and memory storing instructions, wherein the instructions, when executed by the computing system cause the computing system to: receive an indication of a presence of one or more guests in a vicinity of the show element; and provide instructions to at least one actuator to drive the first show element body to move relative to the second show element body to transition the show element between the engaged configuration and the disengaged configuration in response to receiving the indication of the presence of the one or more guests in the vicinity of the show element ([0032], “in certain attractions 8 without ride vehicles 14, the start signal for the game cycle may be provided based on a threshold time elapsing, based on detection of the presence of a guest, based on activation of a game cycle activation device (e.g., button, sensor that detects door opening), and so forth”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system disclosed by RUDOLF, to have a computing system to control the start of the show based on detection of the presence of a guest, as taught by Smith, in order to provide the show to the guest timely and more efficiently.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of RUDOLF and Smith discloses the system of claim 1, wherein each tether assembly of the one or more tether assemblies comprises a second retainer at a second end of the tether and positioned in a second recess of the second show element body (RUDOLF, Fig. 7, 8 and 18 in both 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of RUDOLF and Smith discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the show element comprises an animated figure, a costume, a show prop, a vehicle, a building, a wall, or any combination thereof (RUDOLF, Figs. 1 and 7).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of RUDOLF and Smith discloses the system of claim 1 wherein the instructions, when executed by the computing system, cause the computing system to: provide additional instructions to the at least one actuator to drive the first show element body to move relative to the second show element body to return the show element to the engaged configuration from the disengaged configuration (Smith, [0045], “in response to determining that at least one stop condition is reached, the game controller 46 may provide (block 280) a stop signal to the remaining controllers 40, 52, 56, indicating a conclusion of the game cycle”).
Regarding claim 18, please refer to the claim rejection of claim 1 (Figs. 1 and 7) (claim limitation “appear as a unified show element” is the intended use and dose not reveal any structure; “provides an illusion of the unified show element breaking into multiple pieces” is a result from applying the force to the structure disclosed by RUDOLF).
Regarding claims 22 and 23, the combination of RUDOLF and Smith discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the first show element body comprises a first surface and the second show element body comprises a second surface facing the first surface of the first show element body, and the first surface of the first show element body and the second surface of the second show element body are positioned a first distance from one another in the engaged configuration (Fig. 1) and a second distance from one another in the disengaged configuration (Fig. 7), wherein the second distance is greater than the first distance (examiner’s note: since there is no limitation to define “the engaged configuration” and “the disengaged configuration”, the two status shown in Figs. 1 and 7 can read on the two configurations interchangeably depending on different scenarios); wherein at least a portion of the first surface of the first show element body and at least a portion of the second surface of the second show element body contact one another in the engaged configuration (Figs. 1 and 8).
Claim(s) 3, 4 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RUDOLF, in view of Smith, further in view of BETTINGER et al. [US20230029823], hereinafter BETTINGER.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of RUDOLF and Smith discloses the system of claim 1. However, the combination of RUDOLF and Smith does not disclose the system comprising one or more magnets disposed on or in the first show element body and one or more reaction materials disposed on or in the second show element body to magnetically couple the first show element body and the second show element body to one another.
Nevertheless, BETTINGER teaches in a like invention, one or more magnets disposed on or in the first show element body and one or more reaction materials disposed on or in the second show element body to magnetically couple the first show element body and the second show element body to one another (Fig. 1, “The attraction and alignment of the magnetic couplers 111 and 113 permits alignment and preliminary engagement of the first connector part 107 with the second connector part 109 in order to allow the mechanical interlocking of the first connector part 107 with the second connector part 109”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system disclosed by the combination of RUDOLF and Smith, to have the magnets and reaction materials to magnetically couple the first show element body and the second show element body to one another, as taught by BETTINGER, in order to better align the different show element bodies together for better coupling.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of RUDOLF, Smith and BETTINGER discloses the system of claim 3, wherein the one or more magnets and the one or more reaction materials are offset from the one or more tether assemblies (BETTINGER, Fig. 1, magnets 111 and 113 are offset from connector part 107 and 109).
Regarding claim 16, please refer to the claim rejection of claim 3.
Claim(s) 5, 12, 14 – 15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RUDOLF, in view of Smith, further in view of SHIN et al. [US20180311566], hereinafter SHIN.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of RUDOLF and Smith discloses the system of claim 1. However, the combination of RUDOLF and Smith does not disclose wherein the tether comprises a rigid bar.
Nevertheless, SHIN teaches in a like invention, the tether comprises a rigid bar ([0048], “each of the rotation means 130 is installed and fixed in a rotation shaft 131 that passes through the center of each surface of the regular hexahedron, and is formed to rotate in left/right directions based on the rotation shaft 131”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system disclosed by the combination of RUDOLF and Smith, to have the tether comprising a rigid bar, as taught by SHIN, in order to better assist the rotation movement.
Regarding claims 12, 14 – 15 and 17, please refer to the claim rejections of claims 1, 5 and 2 and Fig. 5 of RUDOLF.
Claim(s) 7 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RUDOLF, in view of Smith, further in view of Smoot et al. [US20100227527], hereinafter Smoot.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of RUDOLF and Smith discloses the system of claim 1. However, the combination of RUDOLF and Smith does not explicitly disclose wherein the show element comprises an animated figure, and the first show element body and the second show element body form body portions of the animated figure.
Nevertheless, Smoot teaches in a like invention, wherein the show element comprises an animated figure, and the first show element body and the second show element body form body portions of the animated figure (Fig. 1, [0025], “The assembly 120 is shown in more detail, and it includes a marionette 122 supported by strings/tethers 124, and the marionette 122 may be a conventional puppet while other embodiments of system 100 call for the marionette 122 to have at least some animatronic or robotic functionalities (e.g., have a head that can be animated by turning and with eye and/or mouth movements)”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system disclosed by the combination of RUDOLF and Smith, to have an animated figure, and the first show element body and the second show element body form body portions of the animated figure, as taught by Smoot, in order to make more usage of the system to make it more fun.
Regarding claim 19, please refer to the claim rejection of claim 7.
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RUDOLF, in view of Smith, further in view of HONG et al. [US20240377121], hereinafter HONG.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of RUDOLF and Smith discloses the system of claim 1. However, the combination of RUDOLF and Smith does not disclose the system comprising: one or more sensors configured to generate transition data indicative of occurrence of the transition of the show element between the engaged configuration and the disengaged configuration; wherein the instructions, when executed by the computing system, cause the computing system to provide an alert in response to receipt of the transition data.
Nevertheless, HONG teaches one or more sensors configured to generate transition data indicative of occurrence of the transition of the show element between the engaged configuration and the disengaged configuration; wherein the instructions, when executed by the computing system, cause the computing system to provide an alert in response to receipt of the transition data ([0397], “When the warning notification condition is satisfied may be at least one of: when the closing speed of the first door 211 is greater than the reference speed, when the sensing part 15 detects that the first door 211 is closed and then the opening of the first door 211 is detected again in a set time, when the closing of the first door 211 is detected by the sensing part 15 and then the vibration sensor provided in at least one of the plurality of doors detects vibration equal to or larger than the set magnitude, and when the closing of the first door 211 is detected by the sensing part 15 and then a knock is input from a knock detection sensor provided on at least one of the plurality of doors to detect a knock”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system disclosed by the combination of RUDOLF and Smith, to have sensor communicating with computing system for alert indicative of occurrence of the transition of the show element between the engaged configuration and the disengaged configuration, as taught by HONG, in order to better monitor the status of the show elements.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of RUDOLF, Smith and HONG discloses the system of claim 10, wherein the one or more sensors are disposed on the show element (HONG, [0397], “the vibration sensor provided in at least one of the plurality of doors… a knock detection sensor provided on at least one of the plurality of doors to detect a knock”).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RUDOLF, in view of Smith, further in view of Fontiveros Penso et al. [US20200306652], hereinafter Fontiveros Penso.
Regarding claim 21, the combination of RUDOLF and Smith discloses the system of claim 1. However, the combination of RUDOLF and Smith does not explicitly disclose wherein the show element comprises a flexible cover configured to surround the one or more tether assemblies to camouflage the one or tether assemblies from view of the one or more guests.
Nevertheless, Fontiveros Penso teaches in a like invention, a flexible cover configured to surround certain show elements from view of the one or more guests ([0041], “The aesthetically pleasing surface 138 may cover the gap 30 to obstruct guests' view to the transport 70 or other components of the ride system 10 that may be operate within and/or below the gap 30”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system disclosed by the combination of RUDOLF and Smith, to have the flexible cover, as taught by Fontiveros Penso, in order to make it flexible on choosing what to show to the guests.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground of rejections.
Applicant's arguments filed 07/21/2026 respect to claim(s) rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to independent claim 1, applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of new ground of rejections.
With respect to independent claim 12, applicant argues that “one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated, by the objective evidence of record and without hindsight bias in view of Applicant's disclosure to modify Reber in view of Shin” (p. 10). Examiner respectfully disagrees. As been illustrated, RUDOLF discloses an elastic connecting structure for the foldable movement between the walls. SHIN, on the other hand, teaches a rigid bar for the rotation movements between elements. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the system disclosed by the combination of RUDOLF and Smith, to have the tether comprising a rigid bar, as taught by SHIN, in order to better assist the rotation movement, since this provides more degree of freedom for the relative movements between the elements to create more flexibility.
With respect to independent claim 18, applicant argues “Reber is silent regarding "applying a force to at least one show element body of a plurality of show element bodies to cause the at least one show element body of the plurality of show element bodies to move relative to at least one other show element body of the plurality of show element bodies, wherein the plurality of show element bodies are arranged in an engaged configuration to appear as a unified show element, and applying the force provides an illusion of the unified show element breaking into multiple pieces," as recited by amended independent claim 18” (p. 4). Examiner respectfully submits that the claim limitation “appear as a unified show element” is the intended use and dose not reveal any structure; “provides an illusion of the unified show element breaking into multiple pieces” is a result from applying the force to the structure disclosed by RUDOLF. RUDOLF discloses the structure claimed by claim 18.
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 YINGCHUAN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-1375. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 - 4:30 M-F.
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, Nicholas Weiss can be reached at (571) 270-1775. 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.
/YINGCHUAN ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights