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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-16 are pending. Claim 16 was amended in the reply filed July 6, 2026. Claims 1-15 remain as previously presented.
Priority
This application is being examined as a national stage application under 35 U.S.C. 371 of PCT/NL2022/050531. Applicant claims foreign priority to Netherlands Application No. 2029240, filed 2022 Sep 22. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2024 Mar 21, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment and Request for Reconsideration filed 2026 Jul 06 has been entered and considered in its entirety. Claim 16 was amended, no claim was added or canceled, and claims 1-16 remain pending.
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.
Claims 1 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Courtney (US 2847216 A) in view of Tetzlaff et al. (US 20130302122 A1, "Tetzlaff"), and further in view of Willim (US 8939298 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Courtney teaches an amusement ride apparatus bodily mounted on a mobile trailer bed and having a rigid trailer-based support arrangement for carrying the ride in an erected operating configuration. Courtney states that the apparatus is "bodily mounted upon a mobile trailer bed," includes "means cooperating with the trailer bed to support the apparatus in an upright or operative position," and includes built-in power means to facilitate erecting or raising the support structure and rotating wheel (Col. 1, lines 30-41). Courtney further describes the trailer bed (15), longitudinal beams (16), circular track structure (17), portable jacks (20), turntable platform (25), and hydraulic jack devices (61) used to erect the inclined legs (52) and wheel-supporting structure (Col. 2, lines 10-40, Col. 3, lines 1-30, Figs. 1-4). Thus, Courtney supplies the portable amusement-ride environment, rigid trailer-based base structure, and site-erection context. Courtney is not relied upon, by itself, as teaching that the entire base frame assembly is vertically lifted into engagement with a separate ballast-forming trailer.
However, Courtney does not expressly teach a ballast forming trailer at least partly arranged above the base frame assembly such that the base frame assembly engages the ballast forming trailer when the base frame assembly is lifted from the initial position upwards to the operational position, so that the ballast forming trailer is at least partly supported by the base frame assembly in the operational position, as required by claim 1. Courtney's jacks (20) support the track (17) and the apparatus during operation, but those jacks are integral components of the ride apparatus itself and do not constitute a separate pre-positioned wheeled ballast-forming trailer that is engaged from below and lifted by the base frame assembly during setup. Courtney also does not expressly teach that the ballast element itself is a wheeled trailer or wheeled transport device.
Tetzlaff teaches the missing lift-from-below, self-loading relationship. Tetzlaff states that its double-acting axle assemblies are used "to position and control the deck height of a heavy load transporter before, during, and after engaging a load" and to forcibly lower the deck before or after engagement ([0002]). Tetzlaff further states that "the transporter is lowered to drive under stand-supported loads" and identifies the need to position the deck beneath the load ([0003]). The piston rod (28) is connected to a flange (32) configured to engage the transporter load deck (102), and hydraulic pressure extends the piston rod to raise the deck ([0051]-[0053]; Figs. 7-9 and 13-17). The deck height is controllably raised through a lift stroke of up to twelve inches or more ([0056]). Tetzlaff also expressly teaches that the axle assemblies may be built directly into or permanently affixed to the bases of large structures, gantry cranes, or other large machinery ([0016]). Tetzlaff therefore teaches a mobile base/deck that is lowered beneath a pre-positioned load and then moved upward so that the base/deck engages and supports the load during the upward lifting operation.
Willim teaches that the ballast carriage can itself be a wheeled heavy-duty transport vehicle. The Abstract states that "the ballast carriage is a standardized heavy-duty transport device with separate drive and separate drive controller." Willim further teaches placing ballast on a pallet mounted on and connected to the heavy-duty transport device so that a transport device already available to the user "can be employed as ballast carriage in a particularly easy way" (Col. 2, lines 40-47). Willim also provides brackets (70) and variable-height props (72) that permit the heavy-duty transport device (24) to drive beneath the ballast pallet (32) (Col. 6, lines 51-56; Fig. 6). Willim therefore teaches the missing use of a wheeled transport device as the ballast-forming carriage or trailer.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Courtney's trailer-based amusement-ride support arrangement by incorporating Tetzlaff's self-loading, vertically adjustable deck architecture and Willim's wheeled ballast-carriage arrangement. Courtney's ride would remain a portable amusement ride; Tetzlaff's lift assemblies would continue to raise a load-supporting deck; and Willim's transport device would continue to function as a wheeled ballast carriage. Positioning that carriage above the modified base frame would permit the base frame to engage and support the carriage during upward movement, while reducing separate ballast-handling operations and reusing a transport vehicle as operational ballast. The references therefore provide both the claimed elements and a fact-based reason to combine them, with each element performing its known function and producing the predictable result of a self-loading ballasted ride support. This is the rationale of combining prior-art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Claim 14 recites a method for building up an amusement ride according to a preceding claim, comprising: transporting the amusement ride using a number of trailers; providing a base frame assembly comprising one or more trailers; including a ballast forming trailer in a ballast weight; supporting the ballast weight by the base frame assembly; lifting the ballast forming trailer with respect to a ground level by lifting the base frame assembly; and setting up the amusement ride on the base frame assembly.
Courtney teaches transporting the amusement ride on trailer-based components and setting up the ride at a new site by carrying out the reverse-folding setup procedure: leveling and anchoring the trailer bed, operating the jack devices (61) to raise the legs (52) to the operative position, reconnecting the legs sections (55) at 57, reconstructing the passenger wheel, and assembling the seats (74) (Col. 4, lines 20-45). Courtney therefore teaches the method steps of transporting the ride on trailers, providing a trailer-based base assembly, setting up the amusement ride on the base, and lifting the support structure. However, Courtney does not expressly teach the steps of including a separate ballast-forming trailer in a ballast weight, supporting that ballast weight by the base frame assembly, or lifting the ballast-forming trailer with respect to a ground level by lifting the base frame assembly.
Tetzlaff teaches the method step of moving a wheeled heavy-load base structure beneath a stand-supported load and then lifting that load from below by raising the base-supported deck ([0002]-[0003]; [0016]; Figs. 13-17). Tetzlaff therefore teaches the missing method steps in which a base structure is positioned beneath a pre-positioned load and the lifting action of the base engages and raises that load.
Willim teaches using a wheeled transport device as a ballast carriage in a heavy support system, so that the transport device itself constitutes the ballast-forming component (Abstract; Col. 3, lines 1-10). Willim therefore teaches the missing step of including a wheeled transport device as the ballast-forming trailer in the ballast weight.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform Courtney's trailer-based ride setup using Willim's wheeled ballast carriage and Tetzlaff's known method of positioning a vertically adjustable base beneath a supported load and raising the base to engage and lift the load. The proposed method preserves the function of each known step and predictably simplifies field setup by using the base-frame lifting operation to acquire and support the ballast trailer. This is the rationale of combining known method steps according to known methods to yield predictable results: MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Claims 2-5, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Courtney in view of Tetzlaff and further in view of Willim, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kroon et al. (US 20120052960 A1, “Kroon”) and Knijpstra (US 4988089 A, “US Knijpstra”).
Regarding claim 2, Courtney, Tetzlaff, and Willim together teach the trailer-based amusement ride support arrangement set forth in claim 1, however, Courtney in view of Tetzlaff and Willim does not teach a base frame assembly comprising two opposite frame-forming trailers arranged to form a ballast accommodation space between them that is suitable to accommodate a number of ballast-forming trailers, as required by claim 2. Courtney's trailer bed (15) is a single trailer unit, not two opposite frame-forming trailers arranged to define a space between them for accommodating ballast trailers.
Kroon teaches a supporting system in which two stabilizing vehicles (1) are coupled on opposite sides of a mast vehicle or base (2), with the mast arranged directly between the coupled stabilizing vehicles, thereby forming a central area between the two opposite stabilizing vehicles ([0010]; Figs. 1-2). This constitutes an architecture of two opposite frame-forming trailers defining an accommodation space between them. This arrangement corresponds to two opposite frame-forming trailers defining a space between them suitable to accommodate a ballast-forming trailer.
US Knijpstra also teaches a portable Ferris wheel apparatus comprising three wheeled carriages, specifically two outer carriages and a central inner carriage, wherein the two outer carriages support the main support structure and the central inner carriage is arranged between them (Col. 5, lines 5 -30; Claim 1). US Knijpstra teaches rigid interconnection between adjacent ride-support carriages through a coupling panel (12) secured by bolt-and-nut constructions with wedge/pin fixation against lateral forces (Col. 5, lines 30 -45; Claims 15 -18).
It would have been obvious to configure the claim-1 base as two opposed trailerized structural members with a central accommodation region, as taught by Kroon and confirmed by US Knijpstra, because both references use opposed outer vehicles or carriages to create a broad, stable support footprint around a central trailerized structure: Applying that known layout to the modified Courtney base would preserve the transport and support functions of the components while predictably providing a stable modular base and a central region suitable for receiving ballast-forming trailers. MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 3, Courtney, Tetzlaff, and Willim together teach the subject matter incorporated from claim 1, as set forth above. Courtney in view of Tetzlaff and Willim, further as modified by Kroon and US Knijpstra in view of claim 2, teaches two opposite frame-forming trailers defining a ballast accommodation space between them. However, Courtney in view of Tetzlaff and Willim does not expressly teach a cross-linking trailer rigidly connecting the two opposite frame-forming trailers to form an I- or U-shaped base frame assembly, as required by claim 3.
Kroon teaches that the base mast vehicle (2), configured as a trailer (Claim 17), has complementary coupling means (5) on opposite sides that are each securely coupled to the coupling means (7) of a respective stabilizing vehicle (1), and that this base (mast vehicle 2) transmits forces and moments of flexure between the stabilizing vehicles, rigidly connecting them ([0009]; Figs. 1-2). The mast vehicle (2) spans laterally between the two opposite stabilizing vehicles and thereby constitutes a cross-linking of 12 trailer that rigidly connects the two opposite frame-forming trailers. Together, the two stabilizing vehicles and the mast vehicle form an H- or 1-shaped frame assembly in plain view ([0009]-[0010]; Figs. 1-2).
US Knijpstra also teaches rigid interconnection between adjacent carriages through the coupling panel (12) and bolt-and-nut constructions (24) with wedge (25) and pin (26) fixation (Col. 4, lines 1-25); Claims 15-18; Fig. 8), confirming that a rigid cross-linking element connecting adjacent trailerized carriages to form a combined frame assembly is known in the amusement-ride field. US Knijpstra therefore further supports the teaching of Kroon with respect to the cross-linking trailer limitation of claim 3.
It would have been obvious to use Kroon's trailerized mast vehicle as a rigid cross-linking member between the opposed frame-forming trailers and to employ the rigid coupling features confirmed by US Knijpstra. Kroon expressly teaches transmission of forces and bending moments between the stabilizing vehicles, and US Knijpstra teaches bolted coupling panels with wedge and pin restraint between adjacent ride carriages. Combining these known structural elements would predictably produce a unified I- or U- shaped portable frame without changing the known function of the trailers or couplings. MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 4, the combination applied through claim 3 teaches two opposite frame-forming trailers rigidly connected by one cross-linking trailer to form an I- or U-shaped base frame assembly. The combination does not expressly disclose a second cross-linking trailer rigidly connecting the same opposite frame-forming trailers so that the two cross-linking trailers and the two frame-forming trailers form a quadrangular, particularly rectangular, base frame assembly extending around the ballast accommodation space.
Kroon teaches a trailerized mast vehicle (2) extending between and rigidly coupled to two opposite stabilizing vehicles (1), whereby the mast vehicle transmits forces and moments between the opposite vehicles ([0009]-[0010]; Figs. 1-2; claim 17). US Knijpstra confirms that adjacent amusement-ride carriages can be rigidly joined by coupling panels (12), bolt-and-nut constructions (24), and wedge-and- pin fixation (25, 26) to form a unified portable support structure (Col. 4, lines 1-25; claims 15-18; Fig. 8). The applied art therefore supplies a known cross-linking trailer and known rigid couplings for joining trailerized frame members.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate Kroon's known cross-linking trailer at the opposite open end of the two frame-forming trailers and use the rigid coupling techniques taught by Kroon and US Knijpstra. Each cross-linking trailer would perform the same known function of rigidly connecting the opposite frame- forming trailers and transferring structural loads. Placing the duplicated member at the opposite end would predictably close the open frame and form the recited quadrangular frame around the central ballast accommodation space. In In re Harza, the court held that mere duplication of a known part has no patentable significance absent a new and unexpected result. The facts align because claim 4 adds a second instance of the same cross-linking structural member to perform the same rigid-connection and load-transfer function at a second location, and Applicant has submitted no evidence that the duplication produces an unexpected result. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B); In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). The modification also combines known structural elements according to known rigid-coupling methods and yields the predictable quadrangular frame contemplated by MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 5, the combination applied through claim 4 teaches a quadrangular base frame assembly formed by two opposite frame-forming trailers and two cross-linking trailers. The combination does not expressly teach the recited moment connection in which a long side of a frame-forming trailer rigidly connects to a short side of a cross-linking trailer.
Kroon teaches that the coupling means of the stabilizing vehicles "can be coupled to a base (16) so as to be flexurally stiff and exhibit shear rigidity," ([0013]; Claim 19). Kroon also teaches that "[t]he stabilizing vehicles may be coupled to the mast vehicle on either side thereof at a substantially right angle," corresponding to the orthogonal connection of trailerized frame members ([0010]). A flexurally stiff, shear-rigid right-angle connection is a moment-transmitting connection in which the long side of the stabilizing vehicle (frame-forming trailer) connects to the short end of the mast vehicle (cross-linking trailer) at 90 degrees, corresponding to the claimed moment connection between the long side of the frame-forming trailer and the short side of the cross-linking trailer.
US Knijpstra teaches rigid mutual anchoring of adjacent containers of carriages through the coupling panel (12), bolt-and-nut constructions, and wedge/pin fixation against lateral forces (Col. 4, lines 1-25; Claims 15-18; Fig. 8). This combination of coupling panels, bolts, wedge, and pin constructions provides a rigidly stiff connection capable of transmitting moment between adjacent trailer-based carriages. US Knijpstra therefore reinforces the teaching of Kroon by providing an additional, field-proven implementation of a moment-capable rigid connection between adjacent amusement-ride trailerized elements.
It would have been obvious to connect the long side of an outer trailer to the short end of the cross- linking trailer at a substantially right-angle using Kroon's flexurally stiff and shear-rigid coupling and the rigid panel, bolt, wedge, and pin arrangement of US Knijpstra. The references identify the same structural purpose as the claim: transmitting shear and bending moment between trailerized support members. The combination would predictably create a moment-resisting corner joint while each coupling feature performs its established load-transfer function. MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 9, the claim 1 combination teaches a base frame assembly and lift system, but does not expressly teach two opposite ground-contacting feet with the ballast accommodation space at least partly between them.
Kroon teaches stabilizing arms (9) provided with support plates (10) at their free ends that rest on the ground (19) by means of screw spindles (15) or hydraulic piston/cylinder devices ([0023]; Fig. 2). These support plates constitute ground-contacting feet, and they are arranged on opposite sides of the central mast-support region. Kroon further teaches that as few as two stabilizing arms in total may be used ([0023]), and that the stabilizing arms are arranged around the mast-support region.
US Knijpstra similarly teaches the use of ground-contacting support structures at the outer ends of the opposite carriages of a portable amusement-ride support (Col. 5, lines 5-30; Claim 1). These teachings together establish that the lift system of the base frame assembly can incorporate two opposite ground-contacting feet with the ballast accommodation region arranged at least partly between those two feet.
It would have been obvious to provide the modified trailer-based support frame with Kroon's opposed ground-contacting support plates, as confirmed by the ground supports of US Knijpstra, because the references teach that spaced ground supports stabilize a portable mast or ride structure at a temporary operating site. Locating the central ballast region between the opposed supports follows the disclosed surrounding support geometry and predictably distributes the supported load across a broad footprint. MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 10, the combination applied through claim 2 teaches two opposite frame-forming trailers supporting a central trailerized structure and a lift or ground-support system, but does not expressly state that the lift system is coupled only to the two opposite frame-forming trailers so that the cross-linking and ballast-forming trailers are supported and fifed through those outer trailers.
Kroon teaches that the stabilizing vehicles (1) are the members that: carry the stabilizing arms (9) and ground-contacting support plates (10), including hydraulic piston/cylinder devices, white the mast vehicle or base (2, 16) is rigidly coupled between the stabilizing vehicles and transmits forces and bending moments through them ([0009]-[0010), [0013], [0023); Figs. 1-3). Thus, Kroon places the active ground-support structure on the two opposed principal vehicles, not on the intervening mast vehicle. US Knijpstra similarly teaches two outer carriages (6, 8) that carry the principal ride-support structures and are rigidly coupled to the central carriage (7) (Col. 3, lines 1-25; Col. 4, lines 1-25; claim 1; Figs. 1-3, 8).
It would have been obvious to locate the lift or ground-support devices on the two opposed principal frame-forming trailers and support the intervening cross-linking and ballast components through the rigid couplings, as taught by Kroon and confirmed by US Knijpstra. Concentrating the active supports on the principal outer load-bearing members reduces the number of actuated support interfaces and predictably transfers the central load through the rigid frame into the opposed ground supports. Each structural member continues to perform its known support or coupling function. MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Courtney in view of Tetzlaff and Willim, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kroon and (US Knijpstra, as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Chunxin et al. (WO 2013056413 A1, "Chunxin").
Regarding claim 6, Courtney in view of Tetzlaff, Willim, Kroon, and US Knijpstra, as applied through claims 2-5, teaches a base frame assembly with a connection system providing a moment connection between a frame-forming trailer and a cross-linking trailer through a rigid coupling. However, the combination as applied through claim 5 does not expressly teach that the connection system comprises a form-closed mechanical joint extending along the vertical for providing the moment connection, as required by claim 6.
Chunxin teaches a weight-lifting structure in which a counterweight frame (40) and a turntable (30) are connected by a form-closed mechanical joint comprising a vertical pin (42a) passing through a vertical pin hole (31), so that relative movement in both horizontal and vertical directions is restricted (Description; Claim 11). The vertical pin/pin-hole engagement of Chunxin constitutes a form-closed mechanical joint that extends along the vertical direction, and it provides the moment-carrying connection between the two structural components. Chunxin expressly describes that the vertical pin/pin-hole arrangement restricts relative horizontal and vertical movement of the joined components, which is the functional requirement of a form-closed mechanical joint used to provide a moment connection (Description; Claim 11).
It would have been obvious to implement the rigid moment connection of claim 5 with Chunxin's vertically extending pin-and-hole engagement because Chunxin uses that mechanically interlocked joint to locate and secure heavy structural components against relative displacement. Applying the known joint technique to the comparable trailer-frame connection would predictably provide repeatable alignment and load transfer while preserving the known function of the rigid coupling. This is the use of a known technique to improve a similar structural connection in the same way. MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
Regarding claim 7, the combination as applied through claim 6 teaches a form-closed mechanical joint extending along the vertical for providing the moment connection between a frame-forming trailer and a cross-linking trailer. However, the combination as applied through claim 6 does not expressly teach two separate form-closed mechanical joints spaced along the vertical for providing that moment connection, as required by claim 7.
Chunxin teaches a second interengaging joint feature in addition to the vertical pin (42a)/vertical pin hole (31) arrangement, namely a horizontal pin (43a) passing through a horizontal pin hole (32), with the relevant connection features located at different upper and lower portions of the joined end region. Specifically, Chunxin teaches that "the horizontal projection (42) and the vertical projection (43) are respectively located at the top and bottom of one end of the weight frame (40)," and that the vertical pin hole (31) and horizontal pin hole (32) are respectively located at the top and bottom of the inclined turntable end (Description; Claim 12). Chunxin therefore teaches two separate mechanically interengaging joint features disposed at vertically different positions.
It would have been obvious to use both of Chunxin's vertically separated interengaging pin features at the trailer connection because the upper and lower engagements constrain the connected members at two different heights and in different directions. Applying both known joint features to the claim-6 connection would predictably improve positional control and resistance to relative rotation while each feature continues to perform its disclosed locating and locking function. MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 8, the combination applied through claim 7 teaches two separate form-closed of 12 mechanical joints spaced along the vertical for providing the moment connection. The combination does not expressly state that the joints establish the moment connection when the frame-forming trailer is lifted with respect to the cross-linking trailer.
Chunxin teaches an assembly sequence in which the counterweight frame (40) is first positioned above the turntable (30), the turntable is positioned beneath the frame, and the frame is then moved vertically toward the turntable so that the vertical pin (42a) and horizontal pin (43a) align with and engage their corresponding mounting features to establish the load-bearing connection (description, method steps (c)-(e)). Chunxin therefore teaches that the two form-closed joint features are established by relative vertical movement of the joined structural components.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reverse which of the two mating trailer members supplies the relative vertical movement, so that the frame-forming trailer is lifted toward the cross-linking trailer rather than the corresponding frame member being lowered toward the other member. The same relative approach, alignment, and pin engagement occur, and the two joint features perform the same locating and moment-resisting functions. In In re Gazda, reversing which of two cooperating parts moved while preserving their relative movement and function was held to be an obvious modification. The facts align because claim 8 changes the direction or assignment of movement between mating structural members without changing of 12 the interlocking joint geometry or its function. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(A); In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955). The result is also predictable under MPEP § 2143(I)(A), and Applicant has submitted no evidence that the reversed movement produces an unexpected result or requires more than ordinary mechanical skill.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Courtney in view of Tetzlaff and Willim, as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Kroon and US Knijpstra, and further in view of Chunxin.
Regarding claim 15, the claim-14 combination teaches transporting and setting up the trailer-based ride and lifting the ballast-forming trailer. Kroon and US Knijpstra teach the claimed rigid moment-resisting relationship between a long side of an outer trailer and the short end of a cross-linking trailer, as discussed for claim 5. The combination does not expressly state the method step of establishing that moment connection during setup.
Chunxin teaches establishing a load-bearing interlocking connection between major structural components by vertically positioning the counterweight frame relative to the turntable and engaging the corresponding pin-and-hole mounting features (method steps (c)-(e)). Chunxin therefore supplies a known setup method for establishing the structural connection after the components have been positioned relative to one another.
It would have been obvious to incorporate Chunxin's known connection-establishment procedure into the trailer-based ride setup method because the technique uses the same relative positioning already required to assemble the support frame and predictably reduces separate alignment and fastening operations. The rigid trailer coupling continues to moment, and the pin engagement continues to establish the load-bearing connection. This is use of a known assembly to improve a similar structural setup method in the same way. MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
Claim 16, as amended, depends from claim 15 and expressly recites that the amusement ride further comprises a wheel rotatably connected to the free end of the mast and rotatable about a wheel rotation axis. The combination as applied through claim 15 teaches the trailer-based setup method and establishment of the moment connection during lifting, but does not expressly teach the additional steps of setting up the free end of the mast, rotatably connecting the wheel to that free end, and operating the amusement ride as a Ferris wheel.
Courtney expressly teaches erecting the ride support structure so that the long legs (52) extend upwardly and carry passenger wheel mounting brackets (64) at their upper ends (Col. 3, lines 1-15; Figs. 1-2). Courtney further teaches a horizontal axle (67) journaled for rotation upon the hub portions (66) of the mounting brackets and extending between the leg structures, with the passenger-carrying wheel mounted on the axle for rotation in a vertical plane (Col. 3, fines 15-25; Fig. 1). After reconstruction of the wheel and re-establishment of the spoke and rail connections, the seats (74) are assembled and "the apparatus is again ready to operate" (Col. 4, lines 35-45). Courtney's claims additionally recite drive means for rotating the passenger-carrying wheel and turntable (claims 3 and 6). Courtney therefore teaches setting up the wheel-supporting free end, rotatably connecting the wheel at that end, and operating the completed apparatus as a Ferris-wheel amusement ride.
It would have been obvious to complete the claim-15 setup method by erecting the mast support, rotatably mounting the passenger wheel-at the upper or free end, and operating the completed apparatus as a Ferris wheel, as Courtney expressly teaches. These steps are the known final assembly and operating steps for the same type of portable Ferris-wheel ride and would predictably produce an operable ride without altering their respective functions. MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. S. 103 as unpatentable over Courtney in view of Tetzlaff and Willim, as applied to claim I above, and further in view of Knijpstra (EP 2055362 A1, "EP Knijpstra").
Regarding claim 13, Courtney in view of Tetzlaff and Willim, as applied to claim 1, teaches the base frame assembly of an amusement ride with a lift system and ballast engagement. Courtney further teaches a mast support structure and long inclined legs (52) serving as mast members that carry the passenger wheel at their upper ends (Col. 3, lines 1-25; Figs. 1-2). However, Courtney in view of Tetzlaff and Willim does not expressly teach the specific structural arrangement of claim 13: a mast supported by the mast support structure, the mast having a free end and an opposite end coupled to the mast support structure, with a wheel rotatably connected to the free end of the mast and rotatable around a wheel rotation axis.
EP Knijpstra expressly teaches a fairground attraction support structure in which masts (6, 7) are erected and a main shaft (3), which constitutes the wheel/main rotating shaft, is mounted at the upper ends (20) of the masts ([0037]; Fig. 3B). EP Knijpstra teaches that the masts have lower ends pivotally connected to the base (opposite end coupled to the mast support structure) and upper free ends at which the main shaft (wheel) is rotatably mounted ([0037]-[0039]; Figs. 3A-3E). EP Knijpstra further teaches that the support structure is then ready for suspending the wheel (2) at the upper free ends ([0039]; Fig. 3E). EP Knijpstra therefore expressly teaches the claimed arrangement of a mast having an opposite end coupled to the support structure and a free end at which a wheel is rotatably connected and rotatable around a wheel rotation axis.
It would have been obvious to use EP Knijpstra's disclosed mast-and-wheel arrangement with the modified Courtney base because EP Knijpstra applies that arrangement to the same type of portable fairground attraction and for the same purpose of supporting a rotating wheel above the base. The mast and wheel would perform the same support and rotation functions after combination, yielding the predictable operational configuration. MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Courtney in view of Tetzlaff and Willim, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bitz et al. (US 20190194000 A1, "Bitz").
Regarding claim 11, Courtney in view of Tetzlaff and Willim, as applied to claim 1, teaches the base frame assembly of an amusement ride that engages and at least partly supports a ballast-forming trailer in the operational position. However, the combination does not expressly teach that the base frame assembly comprises a contact face forming a bearing support for the ballast-forming trailer, as required by claim 11.
Bitz teaches an undercarriage apparatus (28) comprising projections (32) that position and seat the ballast base plate (12) at a defined receiving location, so that the apparatus (28) constitutes a contact face that forms a bearing support for the ballast element ([0047]; Figs. 5A-5B). The contact face of Bitz's apparatus (28) functions precisely as a bearing support for the ballast element, defining the seating location and supporting the ballast weight during vertical movement by the ballasting cylinders. Bitz therefore teaches the missing limitation of a contact face forming a bearing support for the ballast element.
It would have been obvious to provide the modified base frame with Bitz's defined seating surface and positioning projections because Bitz uses that interface to locate and support ballast during vertical movement and operation. Applying the known ballast-receiving technique to the comparable ballast-forming trailer interface would predictably improve repeatable positioning and bearing support while the contact surface performs the same known function. MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Courtney in view of Tetzlaff and Willim, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Kroon and US Knijpstra, and further in view of Bitz.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Courtney, Tetzlaff, Willim, Kroon, and US Knijpstra teaches a base frame assembly having two opposite frame-forming trailers with a ballast accommodation region between them. Bitz teaches a defined contact face with positioning projections for receiving and bearing against a ballast element. The combination does not expressly disclose a respective Bitz-type contact face on each opposite frame-forming trailer to support a respective end of the ballast-forming trailer.
Kroon and US Knijpstra establish the two opposite trailerized support members, while Bitz establishes the structure and function of the ballast-receiving contact face. Providing the same documented contact-face arrangement at each of the two opposite support locations would place a defined bearing interface beneath each respective end of the ballast-forming trailer. Each duplicated contact face would perform Bitz's known locating and load-bearing function at its corresponding end.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate Bitz's known contact face on the second opposite frame-forming trailer so that the two interfaces support the respective ends of the intervening ballast-forming trailer. The duplication would predictably provide bilateral seating and distribute the ballast support through the two documented principal frame members. In In re Harza, mere duplication of a known part was held to lack patentable significance absent a new and unexpected result. The facts align because claim 12 duplicates the same known bearing-support interface at a second corresponding support location to perform the same function, and Applicant has submitted no evidence of an unexpected result attributable to the duplication. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B); In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). The modification also combines known elements according to known methods and yields predictable bilateral support under MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Response to Applicant's Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 6, 2026 have been fully considered. Each argument is not persuasive as a basis for withdrawing a maintained rejection or finding any pending claim patentable for the reasons set forth below.
In response to Applicant's argument that none of the cited references, alone or in combination, teaches the specific kinematic relationship recited in claim 1, the argument is not persuasive. To the extent Applicant relies on what Courtney, Tetzlaff, or Willim individually fails to disclose, that reasoning does not address the combined teachings on which the rejection is based. Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually when the rejection rests on their combined teachings. See MPEP § 2145(IV); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). The relevant inquiry is what the combined teachings would have suggested to a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1333, 103 USPQ2d 1219, 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
The combined references teach the disputed relationship. Courtney supplies the portable trailer-mounted amusement ride, the rigid trailer-based support structure, and the field-setup operation. Courtney explains that setup at a new site occurs by substantially reversing the folding operation, including anchoring and leveling the trailer bed and setting up the track, braces, and associated jacks. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Courtney's trailer bed (15), longitudinal beams (16), track structure (17), and turntable platform (25) collectively form a rigid support base for the ride. Claim 1 does not require the base frame assembly to be a single integral component or require the lift system to be permanently attached. Further, "configured to lift" is functional apparatus language. Courtney's jacks (20) and hydraulic jack devices (61) are lifting structures capable of imparting vertical movement to supported portions of the ride during setup, and their portability does not remove that capability. See MPEP §§ 2111 and 2114; In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Courtney is not relied upon, by itself, for the complete ballast-trailer pickup relationship.
Tetzlaff supplies the vertically adjustable, self-loading base or deck relationship. Tetzlaff teaches lowering a transporter deck beneath a stand- supported load and then hydraulically raising the deck so that engagement and load transfer occur during the upward movement. Tetzlaff also expressly teaches incorporating its axle assemblies into the bases of large structures, gantry cranes, or other large machinery. Willim supplies the wheeled ballast-forming trailer because Willim teaches that a standardized wheeled heavy-duty transport device may itself serve as a ballast carriage. Applying Tetzlaff's documented lift-from-below arrangement to Courtney's trailer-based ride support, with Willim's wheeled ballast carriage positioned above the modified base, causes the base frame to move upward, engage the ballast carriage during that movement, and at least partly support the carriage in the operational position. Thus, the combination teaches the claimed operational relationship, including engagement during the lifting operation. The fact that Tetzlaff and Willim concern heavy-load and crane equipment does not negate the specific transport, lifting, and ballast teachings relied upon, particularly because Tetzlaff expressly identifies bases of large structures as an intended application.
In response to Applicant's argument that the combination requires impermissible hindsight, the argument is not persuasive. The reason to combine is grounded in the references rather than Applicant's disclosure. Courtney identifies a portable amusement ride that must be transported, erected, and stabilized at successive operating sites. Tetzlaff teaches a known self-loading hydraulic deck that moves beneath and raises a supported load. Willim teaches using an available wheeled transport device as operational ballast. These teachings provide a record-based reason to reduce separate ballast-handling operations, use the base-frame lifting movement to acquire the ballast carriage, and reuse a transport vehicle as ballast. An express written teaching, suggestion, or motivation in a single reference is not required where the reason to combine is articulated and supported by the record. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418-21, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396-97 (2007); MPEP § 2145(X)(A). Applicant's reliance on In re Mclaughlin does not require a different result because the reconstruction relies on teachings in the prior art and knowledge within the ordinary level of skill, not knowledge gleaned only from Applicant's disclosure. In re Mclaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395, 170 USPQ 209, 212 (CCPA 1971).
In response to Applicant's argument that modifying Courtney would destroy its intended function, require a complete redesign, or change its principle of operation, the argument is not persuasive. The rejection does not require bodily incorporation of Tetzlaff's complete transporter or Willim's complete crane into Courtney. Rather, it applies the pertinent teachings of a vertically adjustable lift architecture and a wheeled ballast carriage to Courtney's trailer-based ride support. See MPEP § 2145(III); In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d at 1332-33, 103 USPQ2d at 1226; In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 425, 208 USPQ at 881. The modified Courtney apparatus remains a portable amusement ride that is transported in a collapsed condition, erected and stabilized at the operating site, and operated as a ride. Tetzlaff expressly contemplates installing its axle assemblies in bases of large structures. Applicant has not identified a structural incompatibility that would make the modified ride inoperable, nor has Applicant shown that Courtney's operating principle depends on the absence of a vertically adjustable base or a wheeled ballast carriage. Accordingly, the proposed modification neither renders Courtney unsatisfactory for its intended purpose nor changes its principle of operation. See MPEP § 2143.01(V) and (VI).
In response to Applicant's argument that Kroon and the Knijpstra references do not cure the claim-1 lifting deficiency and that the dependent claims should be allowed with claim 1, the argument is not persuasive. Kroon and the Knijpstra references are not relied upon to supply the claim-1 pickup relationship; that relationship is supplied by the Courtney, Tetzlaff, and Willim combination. Kroon and US Knijpstra supply the additional trailer geometry, rigid-coupling, moment-connection, support-foot, and load-routing limitations. Chunxin, EP Knijpstra, and Bitz supply further dependent-claim limitations. Claim 4 remains rejected because duplicating the known rigid cross-linking trailer at the opposite end predictably forms the recited quadrangular frame, consistent with MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B) and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Claim 8 remains rejected because reversing which mating structural member supplies the relative vertical movement preserves the same joint engagement, consistent with MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(A) and In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955). Claim 12 remains rejected because duplicating Bitz's known bearing interface at the second opposite support location performs the same support function, consistent with Harza. Applicant has identified no specific error or objective evidence that overcomes these mappings and rationales.
Applicant's unsupported assertions of technical impracticality or nonobviousness are not persuasive. No declaration, test data, unexpected-results evidence, commercial-success evidence, long-felt-need evidence, or other objective indicia were submitted with the July 6, 2026 reply. Accordingly, there is no objective evidence of record to weigh against the articulated prima facie case. Attorney argument does not substitute for factual evidence where evidence is necessary to rebut the prima facie case. See MPEP § 2145(I); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANDREW JAMES ELLIOTT whose telephone number is (571)272-5496. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30 -5:00.
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.
ANDREW JAMES ELLIOTT
Examiner
Art Unit 3711
/ANDREW JAMES ELLIOTT/Examiner, Art Unit 3711 /EUGENE L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights