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 1-20 are pending and have been considered.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for priority based on provisional application No. 63/508,496 filed on June 15, 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS), filed 19 Sept 2024 and 16 April 2025, have been considered. The references cited therein have been reviewed to the extent they comply with 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. All properly submitted IDS references have been considered in the preparation of this Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U. S.C. 112 (b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventors regard as the invention.
Claim 13 recites "the plurality of access valves." However, the claim dependency chain previously introduces only "a plurality of valves" and does not introduce "access valves." Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for "the plurality of access valves," and it is unclear whether the limitation refers to the previously recited plurality of valves or to a different set of valves. See MPEP § 2173.05(e).
Claim 20 recites the same phrase, "the plurality of access valves," and suffers from the same lack of antecedent basis. Claim 20 is indefinite for the same reason. Applicant may amend claims 13 and 20 to refer to "the plurality of valves" or may otherwise introduce "access valves" with appropriate structural context.
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, 2, 4-8, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2004/0014529 A1 (“Briggs '529”) in view of US 2020/0269144 A1 ("Briggs/Snyder").
Regarding claim 1, Briggs '529 teaches a modular water play structure with a central pedestal that both supports the structure and distributes water. Briggs '529 discloses that "the central support structure pedestal serves not only a support function, but also a water movement function" ([0008]). Briggs `529 further teaches that the modular water play structure includes a first central pedestal with a water supply line connection "for transmitting water from a water supply" and "multiple other ports 23 that can be used to supply water to other areas of the water play structure" ([0049]). Briggs `529 also teaches that "[t]he first central pedestal 4 acts as a main conduit for supplying water to the modular water play structure 2" and "serves as the central support structure" ([0051]). Under the BRI stated above, the central pedestal of Briggs `529 teaches the claimed monopole configured to distribute fluid.
Claims 2 and 17 further recite a plurality of monoliths, with a first monolith attached to a side of the first polygonal decking component and a second monolith attached to a side of the second polygonal decking component.
Briggs/Snyder teaches monoliths and modular side attachment. Briggs/Snyder discloses that the connection of paneling with frame elements forms a "monolith" structure and that "multiple such
monoliths may be used to create a modular play structure" ([0030]). Briggs/Snyder further teaches that a larger play structure can be formed by connecting monoliths with deckings and other surfaces, including a first decking 160 connected with frame 102, a second decking 170 connected with frame 104, and a pathway/staircase connecting the deckings ([0031]). Briggs/Snyder also teaches that monoliths and play components may connect along desired edges or sides of a support structure ([0042]).
Briggs '529 teaches a modular polygonal deck with interchangeable modules secured by attachment means such as flanges, brackets, bolts, welds, epoxy glue, rivets, or similar devices, and teaches that the modular configuration facilitates quick replacement and servicing ([0058]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to attach the monolith side structures taught by Briggs/Snyder to the modular polygonal deck sides of Briggs '529 so as to provide known modular side structures for theming, guard surfaces, water-play support surfaces, plumbing/equipment routing, and structural rigidity. The modification applies a known modular side-component technique to a known modular water play structure and yields the predictable result of a modular play center with monoliths attached along selected sides. See MPEP § 2143(1)(C)-(D); KSR, 550 U.S. at 416-417; In re Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988. The monoliths retain their known function when attached to the modular deck sides. See Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Regarding claim 4, Briggs '529 teaches that play participants may access the first polygonal deck 12 using stairs 17a, a ramp, or similar structure ([0050]). Briggs '529 further teaches that "additional stairs 17a are positioned from the first polygonal deck 12 to an edge of the second polygonal deck 58" ([0064]), and that stairs may connect the second polygonal deck 58 and the third polygonal deck 68 ([0065]).
Regarding claim 5, Briggs '529 teaches a multi-level structure with a second polygonal deck 58, third polygonal deck 68, fourth polygonal deck 76, and stairs connecting sequential polygonal decks ([0064]-[0066]). Claims 4 and 5 are therefore rendered obvious by the stair-connected deck arrangement of Briggs '529.
Regarding claim 6, Briggs '529 teaches tiering polygonal decks in a staircase manner with decks located at different heights on the central pedestal ([0063]) and teaches stairs connecting successive decks ([0064]-[0065]). Briggs/Snyder teaches deckings connected by a pathway/staircase to permit travel between deckings ([0031]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the known stair-connected, multi-level polygonal decks of Briggs '529 so that the ascending path wraps at least partially around the central pedestal. The modification is a predictable rearrangement of known stair and deck components around the known central support structure to use space efficiently and guide users through the structure. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C); In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553 (CCPA 1975); KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
Regarding claim 7, Briggs '529 teaches a tiered structure in which polygonal decks at different heights are connected: the second polygonal deck 58 is partially supported by the first water supply leg 8, 10 and by a first support member 60, resulting in first and second decks at different elevations ([0063]-[0064]). Briggs/Snyder teaches a first decking 160 and a second decking 170 connected with a pathway/staircase ([0031]). Vertical offset second decking 170 connected with a pathway/staircase ([0031]). Vertical offset between the upward-facing surfaces of adjacent decks at different heights is inherent in and expressly taught by Briggs '529's multi-level tiered structure. The direct coupling between the decks is taught by Briggs '529's support member spanning between adjacent decks.
Regarding claim 8, Briggs '529 teaches adjacent polygonal decks partially supporting each other via support members spanning between them ([0063]-[0065]) and teaches flanged connections between decks and support structures ([0074]). Briggs/Snyder teaches deckings that are connected with each other via frames, monoliths, and pathways ([0031]). A direct side-to-side coupling, in which matching sides of two differently shaped polygonal modules are joined at their common-width edges, is the predictable result of the known modular edge-connection technique already applied to achieve the claimed matching side widths as discussed for claim 1. Once matching side widths are provided (claim 1), the direct side-to-side coupling of claim 8 follows as the intended use of those matching sides. See MPEP § 2143(I)(D); KSR, 550 U.S. at 417; In re Nilssen, 851 F.2d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (applying known technique to a ready device). Claim 8 is obvious over Briggs '529 in view of Briggs/Snyder for the same reasons as claim 1, with the additional specific coupling being the predictable application of the matched-side interface.
Claim 16 recites a play center similar to claim 1, but additionally requires that the second polygonal decking component is coupled directly to the first polygonal decking component and that the sides of the first plurality of sides have a first width matching a second width of the sides of the second plurality of sides. The direct coupling limitation is addressed in the analysis of claims 7 and 8 above. The all-sides matching width limitation is an obvious dimensional design choice for the same reasons discussed for claim 1. Briggs '529 teaches polygonal decks that vary in shape, thickness, and size and uses flanged connections or brackets ([0074]). Briggs/Snyder teaches modular side/edge connection ([0042]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure all sides of two modular polygonal decking components to share a matching width where maximum interchangeability and direct coupling are desired. This is a predictable dimensional design choice for a modular structure and would simplify manufacturing, layout selection, and assembly. See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A); In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); Gardner, 725 F.2d at 1346. To the extent the all-sides limitation is considered a shape/configuration distinction, such shape selection is an obvious design choice absent criticality. See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669 (CCPA 1966).
Claims 9, 12-14, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Briggs '529 in view of Briggs/Snyder, as applied to claims 1, 2, 16, and 17 above, and further in view of US 5820471 A ("Briggs '471").
Claim 9 (depending on claims 2 and 1) and claim 18 (depending on claims 17 and 16) recite a plurality of wet elements distributed across the play center, wherein the first monolith comprises a plurality of valves allowing for adjustment of the rate of water flow from the monopole to two or more of the wet elements.
Briggs '529 teaches "valves 96" that are "strategically placed along the railings 14 or other areas of the system" and discloses that "[v]arious valves 96, such as butterfly, gate, etc., may be used alone, or in combination" and that "[w]ater flow may also be increased or decreased to a particular section of the modular water play structure 2 by adjusting the respective valve 96" ([0075]). Briggs/Snyder teaches that the monolith paneling may incorporate water sprayers and other water jets/fluid components ([0030]-[0032]) and that piping is connected through the monolith structure to supply water to interactive elements ([0045]). Briggs '471 teaches a master control valve manifold that supplies water to vertical support conduits with adjustable control valves 120 for controlling water flow to various interconnected water effects (Col. 4, lines 10-18; Col. 5, lines 23-35; Col. 6, lines 36-50).
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have incorporated known flow-control valves (as taught by both Briggs '529 and Briggs '471) within the known monolith side-panel structures of Briggs/Snyder to allow individual control of water flow to wet elements associated with each monolith. Doing so predictably allows the operator or user to independently adjust water flow rate to each wet element without disturbing the water supply to other elements, a recognized operational advantage in water play structures. See MPEP § 2143(I)(C)-(D); KSR, 550 U.S. at 417; In re Nilssen, 851 F.2d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (applying known control technique to a ready device yields predictable result); Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219 (1976).
Claim 12 depends on claim 9 and recites a manifold attached to a port protruding from the monopole configured to provide pressurized water to the manifold, the manifold being attached to a first length of piping extending between the manifold and a first valve and also to a second length of piping extending between the manifold and a second valve. Claim 19 (depending on claim 18) recites essentially the same manifold-port-piping-valve arrangement for the claim 16 independent claim family.
Briggs '529 teaches that the central pedestal 4 has "multiple other ports 23 that can be used to supply water to other areas of the water play structure" and a "means 23 (e.g., flange) for connecting the first and second water supply legs 8, 10 to the conduit 19" ([0052]). Under BRI, these ports on the central pedestal (monopole) read on the claimed "port protruding from the monopole." Briggs '529 further teaches that the pedestal acts as the main water conduit with pressurized water supplied through the water supply line connection 6 ([0049], [0051]).
Briggs '471 expressly teaches a master control valve manifold 116 that "is adapted to safely deliver the returned water via return conduits 118 to each of the vertical support conduits 74" and that "the flow rate of water delivered to each of the vertical support conduits 74 may be adjusted via control valves 120 for safely supplying recirculated water to the various interconnected water effects" (Col. 5, lines 23-35). Claim 34 of Briggs '471 further recites a manifold housing with an inlet and multiple outlets each having a corresponding control valve (Col. 17, lines 43-52), expressly teaching the multi-outlet manifold connected to independent control valves via piping. The specific structure of a central water-distribution conduit (monopole/pedestal) having a protruding port connected to a manifold, which in turn distributes pressurized water via piping to individual control valves, is the direct combination of Briggs '529's multi-port pedestal with Briggs '471's manifold-valve assembly.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have attached the known master-manifold/valve assembly of Briggs '471 to the existing ports of Briggs '529's central pedestal to provide controlled, independent water flow to multiple wet elements connected by piping to the valves. This combination applies known water-distribution technology from the same field (water play structures) to the known multi-port central pedestal for the predictable result of individually controllable water flow to multiple downstream wet elements. See MPEP § 2143(I)(D); KSR, 550 U.S. at 417; In re Nilssen, 851 F.2d 1401; Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219; Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th at 1380-81.
Claims 13 and 20 are separately rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above for indefiniteness (lack of antecedent basis for "the plurality of access valves"). To the extent the claims are interpreted to recite the valve-access panel combination, the following prior-art analysis is provided in the alternative.
Briggs/Snyder teaches monolith structures with "a first side or surface ... spaced apart from the second side or surface ... such that there is a gap between the first side and the second side (e.g., to accommodate associated equipment that corresponds with the first component 205 such as piping or plumbing, mechanical equipment or connections, electrical equipment or connections, etc.)" ([0045]). This gap within the monolith can house valves and piping. The present specification itself discloses that the access panel provides access to valves housed within the monolith by a removable panel (Spec., [0119], discussing access panel 1674 in FIG. 18B).
Placing a removable access panel on a monolith side to provide access to the valves housed within the monolith cavity is a predictable design choice for a POSITA familiar with valve maintenance and flow-control systems. Briggs '471 teaches manifold valves and control valves requiring maintenance and adjustment (Col. 5, lines 23-35). Given that known monolith structures (Briggs/Snyder) are designed to house piping and mechanical equipment in their cavities, and given that valves in water play systems require access for periodic adjustment and maintenance (Briggs '471), a POSITA would predictably provide a removable access panel on the monolith to allow servicing of the housed valves without removing the entire monolith. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C); In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019; In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553; KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (ordinary creativity, articulated).
Regarding claim 14, Briggs '529 teaches that valves 96 are "strategically placed along the railings 14 or other areas of the system", the specification thus permits valves in any part of the water play structure including within or beneath the decking component ([0075]). Briggs/Snyder teaches that "[i]n one embodiment, piping 230 may be connected beneath and/or fastened to the decking 240 in order to provide a flow of water via the piping 230 to various components associated with the decking 240 ... and/or to route the piping to other monolith structures" ([0045]). Piping, and, by logical extension, the valves in line with that piping, are thus taught within or directly associated with the decking component in Briggs/Snyder.
For the access panel in the decking component, the same rationale applies as for claim 13: where piping and valves are routed through or beneath the decking, a removable access panel in the decking gives maintenance personnel access to those valves. The present specification confirms this at FIG. 18B and Spec., [0119], describing removable panels 1370 on the top or bottom of the decking to provide piping access. A person of ordinary skill in the art would predictably incorporate such a known maintenance-access feature into the polygonal decking component for the same reason as in claim 13: known valve/piping systems require periodic adjustment, and access panels are the standard mechanism for providing that access without disassembling the structure. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C); Japikse; Kuhle; KSR. Claim 14 is obvious over Briggs '529 in view of Briggs/Snyder and Briggs '471.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Briggs '529 in view of Briggs/Snyder and Briggs '471, as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Atkinson et al. (US 7762901 B1, "Atkinson").
Regarding claim 10, Atkinson teaches that the elevated platform structure uses thin vertical pickets 72 specifically to "permit easy viewing of children playing on the platform" and that water features extend through openings in the line of pickets (Col. 1, lines 21-30; Col. 2, lines 56-66; Col. 3, lines 1-14). Although Atkinson is not relied upon in this rejection group (it is used in Rejection 3 for claim 3), the principle applies here as well under Briggs '471's valve placement teaching: Briggs '471 teaches positioning valves to permit operational visibility and control. More directly, positioning the flow-control valves in the monolith such that the wet elements they control are within the direct line of sight of the valve-containing monolith is a predictable arrangement that serves an obvious supervisory and operational purpose - a technician adjusting valves can see immediately which wet element is affected. See Ball Aerosol & Specialty Container, Inc. v. Limited Brands, Inc., 555 F.3d 984, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2009); In re Van Os, 844 F.3d 1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (common sense must be articulated with factual support). The factual support here is the operational and safety rationale for line-of-sight valve/feature positioning taught in the prior art.
Regarding claim 11, Briggs/Snyder expressly teaches that monolith paneling "may incorporate interactive elements, such as water sprayers, etc., configured to emit water to an area exterior to the paneling" ([0030]). Briggs '471 also expressly teaches "adjustable water jets or spray nozzles 130-144" as water play elements (Col. 6, lines 36-50; Col. 8, lines 27-43). Claim 11 is expressly suggested by the prior art combination and is obvious. MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Briggs '529 in view of Briggs/Snyder, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Atkinson.
(Claim 3) As established in Rejection 2 above, the combination of Briggs '529 and Briggs/Snyder renders obvious the play center with a plurality of monoliths attached to the sides of polygonal decking components. Briggs/Snyder confirms that a larger play structure can incorporate "stairs, ramps, walkways, slides, bridges ... railings, deckings" ([0031], [0035]). Briggs '529 itself teaches that railings 14 serve as side-panel components on the polygonal deck and can be swapped for various water play elements or interactive modules ([0058]-[0060]).
Atkinson teaches the specific identification of a guardrail monolith and a slide entry monolith. Atkinson discloses an elevated water play structure 10 with an elevated platform 12, stairways 14 having guardrails 16, 18 for safety (Col. 2, lines 10-18), and a water slide 26 positioned between opposing rails 28, 30 (Col. 2, lines 10-18). Atkinson thus expressly teaches both guardrail components and slide-entry components on an elevated water play structure.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had clear motivation to incorporate Atkinson's known guardrail and slide-entry components as modular monolith side-attachments on the polygonal decking components of the Briggs/Briggs-Snyder combination. Guardrails are standard safety components on elevated play platforms, their function on any elevated play structure is the same regardless of the specific platform shape. A slide-entry component is a known access feature on water play structures. Both components perform identical safety and access functions in Atkinson as they would in the claimed invention. Substituting Atkinson's known guardrail and slide-entry components into the modular side-attachment positions of the Briggs/Briggs-Snyder structure is a simple substitution of known components for their known equivalents in an analogous structural role. See MPEP § 2143(I)(B)-(C); KSR, 550 U.S. 398; In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 301 (CCPA 1982); Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 357 F.3d 1270 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (known technique producing predictable result). The result, a modular play structure with guardrail and slide-entry monoliths attached to the decking sides, is fully predictable.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Briggs '529 in view of Briggs/Snyder, and further in view of Mosher (US 20100237608 A1, "Mosher").
Regarding claim 15, Briggs '529 teaches interchangeable water play modules. Briggs '529 discloses that interactive play module 27 may be secured to a polygonal deck by attachment means such as "a flange, bracket, bolts, weld, epoxy glue, rivets, or other similar device," and that the modular configuration "facilitates quick replacement" and servicing ([0058]). Briggs '529 further teaches that "the railing 14 can be swapped with various water play elements 17" and that the railing ends are preferably flanged so the railing can be easily removed for servicing or replacement ([0059]). Briggs '529 also teaches that different play apparatuses and water play elements may be interchanged in an interactive play module ([0060]-[0061]).
Briggs/Snyder provides the monolith context for claim 15. Briggs/Snyder teaches monoliths connected with deckings, water sprayers or other water jets integrated with monoliths, and multiple monoliths used to create a modular play structure ([0030]-[0032], [0045]).
Mosher teaches interchangeable water park features using a universal mounting fixture. Mosher states that the universal mounting fixture and associated water feature "allows the interchangeability of water features within a water park" and provides flexibility in changing water park features "without requiring reconfiguration of the water supply system" (Abstract). Mosher further teaches that the universal mounting fixture enables above-grade and below-grade water features to be installed and changed without reconfiguring the water supply system ([0006]-[0008]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the interchangeable water-feature mounting teachings of Mosher to the monolith-mounted wet elements of the Briggs #529/Briggs-Snyder play center so that a first wet element on one monolith could be interchanged with a second wet element on another monolith. The modification is the use of a known interchangeable mounting technique in the same water-park field to obtain predictable maintenance, configuration, and design-flexibility benefits. See MPEP § 2143(1)(C)-(D); KSR, 550 U.S. at 416-417; In re Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988.
Conclusion
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