DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
[1] The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice to Applicant
[2] This communication is in response to the amendment filed 8 December 2025. It is noted that this application is a Continuation of United States Patent Application Serial No. 18/150,618 filed 5 January 2023, now United States Patent No. 12,026,643, which is a Continuation of United States Patent Application Serial No. 16/714,223 filed 13 December 2019, now United States Patent No. 11,568,333, which benefits from Provisional Patent Application Serial No. 62/867,634 filed 27 June 2019. Claims 1, 10, and 17 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Continuation Application
[3] This application is a Continuation of United States Patent Application Serial No. 16/714,223 filed 13 December 2019, now United States Patent No. 11,568,333, which benefits from the effective filing date of 27 June 2019. In accordance with MPEP §609.02 A. 2 and MPEP §2001.06(b), All documents cited or considered ‘of record’ in the Parent Application are now considered cited or ‘of record’ in this application.
Response to Remarks/Amendment
[4] Applicant's remarks filed 8 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The remarks will be addressed below in the order in which they appear in the noted response.
[i] In response to rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter as set forth in the previous Office Action mailed 8 September 2025, Applicant provides the following remarks:
"…Applicant notes independent claims 1, 10, and 17…do not fit into the enumerated groupings…do not manage ‘personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people’ but rather provides guests with options to manage their own day based on unexpected delays to attractions guests intend to ride… "
Applicant further remarks:
“…independent claims 1, 10, and 17 do not recite mental processes because claims 1, 10, and 17 recite specific physical devices…claim 1 recites ‘a sensor assembly’ and a ‘guest device’…the claims…recite a specific structure arranged and configured to operate to control the plurality of ride vehicles in a particular manner…”
In response, Examiner respectfully maintains that the claims as presented remain directed to ineligible subject matter. Under Eligibility Step 2A prong 1: (See MPEP 2106.04):
As presented by amendment, claim 10 further clarifies:
“…receiving, by a processor, an indication of a reduced capacity event from a sensor assembly of an attraction based on tracked movement of guest groups into the attraction from the sensor assembly…receiving, by the processor, the selection of the one or more updated return time; and
returning, by the processor, the guest group to the virtual queue upon receiving the guest input…”
The amended elements serve to clarify that the previously recited “processor” further serves in a general capacity to identify guest groups and receive return selection times. The claims further introduce a sensor assembly to track guest groups and provide the indication of a reduced capacity event. While provided further clarity/specificity regarding technical elements engaged in the inventive method/system, the amended limitations do not alter the general directive of the claimed invention which is to adjusting guest queue positions in a line of an amusement park attraction based on the capacity of the attraction. The additional technical elements presented by amendment constitute technical features which have been considered but are limited to generic computing structures executing generic computing functions previously identified by the courts, as further analyzed under Step 2A prong 2 below.
Applicant remarks:
"…the claims include additional structural features beyond the processor…amended claim 1 recites…’a sensor assembly configured to track movement of guest groups into an attraction…receive an indication of a reduced capacity event from the sensor assembly…based on the tracked movement’…Such recitations incorporate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application… "
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. With respect to considerations under Eligibility Step 2A prong 2: (See MPEP 2106.04(d)):
Claim 10 retains the technical elements including:
(1) The “processor”, “a virtual queue controller comprising a processor and a memory”, and “instructions” are identified as engaged in an unspecified, general manner in the performance of each of the recited steps/functions.
(2) The “virtual queue” is identified as maintaining/storing positions for quests to enter a ride or attractions.
(3) The “guest device” is identified as displaying the selectable return time on the “interface” and further receiving and transmitting notifications and selections.
As presented by amendment, claim 10 further clarifies:
“…receiving, by a processor, an indication of a reduced capacity event from a sensor assembly of an attraction based on tracked movement of guest groups into the attraction from the sensor assembly…receiving, by the processor, the selection of the one or more updated return time; and
returning, by the processor, the guest group to the virtual queue upon receiving the guest input…”
As presented, the claimed “sensor assembly” is/are identified as an element from which the inventive method/system receives queue information. The actions/functions reasonably attributable to the inventive method/system are limited receiving the queue information presumably via a network. Respectfully, any sensor capable of identifying a queue length (e.g., camera etc.) would be capable to generating queue information that could be received by the method/system. Accordingly, the sensor assembly and gathering of queue information is external to the claimed method, could reasonably be met by any generic sensor configuration, and is reasonably considered to constitute insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e., gathering data.
As presented, the function(s) reasonably attributable to the claimed 10 as added by amendment are limited to (1) receiving and sending data via a computer network (e.g., notifications, selections and ride capacities); (2) storing and retrieving information and data from a generic computer memory (e.g., guest queue positions); (3) displaying data on a generic computer display (e.g., return times); and (4) performing repetitive calculations and/or mental observations using the obtaining information/data (e.g., determining/calculating a reduction in capacity determining reaccommodation timeslot length based on the reduction) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The identified functions of the recited additional elements reasonably constitute a general linking of the abstract idea to a generic technological environment, e.g., generic devices capable of storing and retrieving information from computer memory, transmitting and receiving information over a computer network, and performing known calculations otherwise performable by human mental processing and/or using pen and paper. The claimed method/system benefits from the inherent efficiencies gained by data transmission, data storage, and information display capacities of generic computing devices, but fails to present an additional element(s) which practical integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
[5] Previous rejection(s) of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea without significantly more has/have not been overcome by the amendments to the subject claims and is/are maintained. The statement of rejection below is reiterated as originally presented in the previous Office Action mailed 8 September 2025. The present amendments and remarks are addressed above under “Response to Remarks/Amendment”.
The following analysis is based on the framework for determining patent subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 established in the decisions of the Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Incorporated and Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. (See MPEP 2106 subsection III and 2106.03-2106.05). Claim(s) 1-20 as a whole is/are determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
Abstract ideas are excluded from patent eligibility based on a concern that monopolization of the basic tools of scientific and technological work might serve to impede, rather than promote, innovation. Still, inventions that integrate the building blocks of human ingenuity into something more by applying the abstract idea in a meaningful way are patent eligible (See MPEP 2106.04).
Consistent with the findings of the Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Incorporated and Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. ineligible abstract ideas are defined in groups, namely: (1) Mathematical Concepts (e.g., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations; (2) Mental Processes (e.g., concepts performed or performable in the human mind including observations, evaluations, judgements, or opinions); and (3) Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Groupings of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity include three sub-categories within the group, namely: (1) fundamental economic principles or practices; (2) commercial or legal interactions (e.g., agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations); (3) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (See MPEP 2106.04(a).
Eligibility Step 1: Four Categories of Statutory Subject Matter (See MPEP 2106.03): Independent claims 1, 10, and 17 are directed to a system, a method, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, respectively, and are reasonably understood to be properly directed to one of the four recognized statutory classes of invention designated by 35 U.S.C. 101; namely, a process or method, a machine or apparatus, an article of manufacture, or a composition of matter. While the claims, generally, are directed to recognized statutory classes of invention, each of method/process, system/apparatus claims, and computer-readable media/articles of manufacture are subject to additional analysis as defined by the Courts to determine whether the particularly claimed subject matter is patent-eligible with respect to these further requirements. In the case of the instant application, each of claims 1, 10, and 17 are determined to be directed to ineligible subject matter based on the following analysis/guidance:
Eligibility Step 2A prong 1: (See MPEP 2106.04): In reference to claim 10, the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do/does not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea of adjusting guest queue positions in a line of an amusement park attraction based on the capacity of the attraction, which is reasonably considered to be method of Organizing Human Activity. In particular, the general subject matter to which the claims are directed serves to maintain and reorganize waiting positions for human patrons of an amusement park in a queue for an amusement park ride based on information about the capacity of the ride, which is an ineligible concept of Organizing Human Activity, namely: (3) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
In support of Examiner’s conclusion, Examiner respectfully directs Applicant’s attention to the claim limitations of representative claim 10. In particular, claim 10 includes:
“…receiving…an indication of a reduced capacity event from an attraction …”, “…selecting a subset of the identified guest groups to remove from the virtual queue during the reduced capacity event, wherein the subset is selected based on group size and the reduction in capacity of the attraction…”, “…selecting…one or more updated return times within the reaccommodation time slot for a guest group of the subset removed from the…queue…”, “…generating…a notification…[to]…the guest group removed from the…queue, wherein the notification causes…requesting guest input to select one of one or more updated return times…”, and “…returning…the guest group to the virtual queue upon receiving the guest input …”
Considered as an ordered combination, the steps/functions of claim 10 are reasonably considered to be representative of the inventive concept and are further reasonably understood to be series of actions or activities directed to a general process of adjusting guest queue positions in a line of an amusement park attraction based on the capacity of the attraction, which is an ineligible concept of Organizing Human Activity, namely: (3) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Further limitations are directed to ineligible processes/functions which are performable by Human Mental Processing and/or or by a human using pen and paper (See CyberSource Corp v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
The courts have previously identified subject matter limited to steps/processes performable by Human Mental Processing and/or by a human using pen and paper to be ineligible abstract ideas (See CyberSource Corp v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Lastly, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for a recitation of generic computer components, then the claim is still to be grouped as a mental process unless the limitation cannot practically be performed in the human mind (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
With respect to functions/steps limited to processes performable by Human Mental Processing and/or by a human using pen and paper, representative claim 10 recites:
“…determining…a reduction in capacity of the attraction associated with the reduced capacity event; identifying guest groups affected by the reduced capacity event based on having a return time in a…queue of the attraction during the reduced capacity event…”, and“…generating…a reaccommodation time slot for the selected subset removed from the…queue, wherein a length of the reaccommodation time slot is based on a total number of affected return times of the subset of guest groups removed from the virtual queue…”
Respectfully, absent further clarification of particular technical processing functions performed as associated with the recited virtual queue and/or processor, one of ordinary skill in the art could be reasonably relied upon to determine/identify patron timeslots affected by a reduction in ride capacity and determine a length of a reaccommodation timeslot and alternative times for the patron(s) to enter the ride given the reduced capacity by analyzing ride capacity and reservation times using pen and paper and/or employing by the human mental processing (See CyberSource Corp v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“a method that can be performed by human thought alone is merely an abstract idea and is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C 101).
Eligibility Step 2A prong 2: (See MPEP 2106.04(d)): Under step 2A prong two, Examiners are to consider additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception and evaluate whether those additional elements integrate the exception into a practical application. Further, to be considered a recitation of an element which integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, the additional elements must apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes meaningful limits on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Additional elements of claim 10 that potentially integrate the claimed ineligible subject matter into a practical application of the claimed subject matter include:
(1) The “processor”, “a virtual queue controller comprising a processor and a memory”, and “instructions” are identified as engaged in an unspecified, general manner in the performance of each of the recited steps/functions.
(2) The “virtual queue” is identified as maintaining/storing positions for quests to enter a ride or attractions.
(3) The “guest device” is identified as displaying the selectable return time on the “interface” and further receiving and transmitting notifications and selections.
With respect to the above noted functions attributable to the identified additional elements, MPEP 2106.05 stipulates that: Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f); and/or Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h) serve as indications that the use of the technology recited does not indicate integration into a practical application of the judicial exception.
Each of the above noted limitations states a result (e.g., a reduction in capacity is identified, affected times are determined, new times are recommended, guest times are stored in a queue, notifications and selections are displayed and transmitted etc.) as associated with a respective “device” or “processor/controller”. Beyond the general statement that the processor and controller are engaged generally to facilitate arrangements in the virtual queue the limitations provide no further clarification with respect to the functions performed by the “processor” and “controller” in producing the claimed result. A recitation of “by a processor” or “by a controller”, absent clarification of particular processing steps executed by the underlying technology to produce the result are reasonably understood to be an equivalent of “apply it”. The identified functions performed by the recited technology are limited to: (1) receiving and sending data via a computer network (e.g., notifications, selections and ride capacities); (2) storing and retrieving information and data from a generic computer memory (e.g., guest queue positions); (3) displaying data on a generic computer display (e.g., return times); and (4) performing repetitive calculations and/or mental observations using the obtaining information/data (e.g., determining/calculating a reduction in capacity determining reaccommodation timeslot length based on the reduction) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, claim 10 is reasonably understood to be conducting standard, and formally manually performed process of adjusting guest queue positions in a line of an amusement park attraction based on the capacity of the attraction using the generic devices as tools to perform the abstract idea. The identified functions of the recited additional elements reasonably constitute a general linking of the abstract idea to a generic technological environment. The claimed adjusting guest queue positions in a line of an amusement park attraction based on the capacity of the attraction benefits from the inherent efficiencies gained by data transmission, data storage, and information display capacities of generic computing devices, but fails to present an additional element(s) which practical integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception.
Eligibility Step 2B: (See MPEP 2106.05): Analysis under step 2B is further subject to the Revised Examination Procedure responsive to the Subject Matter Eligibility Decision in Berkheimer v. HP, Inc. issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (19 April 2018). Examiner respectfully submits that the recited uses of the underlying computer technology constitute well-known, routine, and conventional uses of generic computers operating in a network environment. In support of Examiner’s conclusion that the recited functions/role of the computer as presented in the present form of the claims constitutes known and conventional uses of generic computing technology, Examiner provides the following:
In reference to the Specification as originally filed, Examiner notes paragraphs [0027]-[0029]. In the noted disclosure, the Specification provides listings of generic computing systems, e.g., a general computing platform including exemplary servers, network configurations and various processor configuration which are identified as capable and interchangeable for performing the disclosed processes. The disclosure does not identify any particular modifications to the underlying hardware elements required to perform the inventive methods and functions. Accordingly, it is reasonably understood that this disclosure indicates that the hardware elements and network configurations suitable for performing the inventive methods are limited to commercially available systems at the time of the invention. Absent further clarification, it is reasonably understood that any modifications/improvements to the underlying technology attributable to the inventive method/system are limited to improvements realized by the disclosed computer-executable routines and the associated processes performed.
While the above noted disclosure serves to provide sufficient explanation of technical elements required to perform the inventive method using available computing technology, the disclosure does not appear to identify any particular modifications or inventive configurations of the underlying hardware elements required to perform the inventive methods and functions. Accordingly, it is reasonably understood that the disclosure indicates that the hardware elements and network configurations suitable for performing the inventive methods are limited to commercially available systems at the time of the invention. Further, absent further clarification, it is reasonably understood that any modifications/improvements to the underlying technology attributable to the inventive method/system are limited to improvements realized by the disclosed computer-executable routines and the associated processes performed.
The claims specify that the above identified generic computing structures and associated functions/routines include:
While Examiner acknowledges that the noted limitations are computer-implemented, Examiner respectfully submits that, in aggregate (e.g., “as a whole”) they do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea/ineligible subject matter to which the claimed invention is primarily directed.
While utilizing a computer, the claimed invention is not rooted in computer technology nor does it improve the performance of the underlying computer technology. The computer-implemented features of the claimed invention noted above are reasonably limited to: (1) receiving and sending data via a computer network (e.g., notifications, selections and ride capacities); (2) storing and retrieving information and data from a generic computer memory (e.g., guest queue positions); (3) displaying data on a generic computer display (e.g., return times); and (4) performing repetitive calculations and/or mental observations using the obtaining information/data (e.g., determining/calculating a reduction in capacity determining reaccommodation timeslot length based on the reduction).
The above listed computer-implemented functions are distinguished from the generic data storage, retrieval, transmission, and data manipulation/processing capacities of the generic systems identified in the Specification solely by the recited identification of particular data elements that are of utility to a user performing the specific method of adjusting guest queue positions in a line of an amusement park attraction based on the capacity of the attraction. In summary, the computer of the instant invention is facilitating non-technical aims, i.e., adjusting guest queue positions in a line of an amusement park attraction based on the capacity of the attraction, because it has been programmed to store, retrieve, and transmit specific data elements and/or instructions that is/are of utility to the user. The non-technical functions of adjusting guest queue positions in a line of an amusement park attraction based on the capacity of the attraction benefit from the use of computer technology, but fail to improve the underlying technology.
In support, the courts have previously found that utilization of a computer to receive or transmit data and communications over a network and/or employing generic computer memory and processor capacities store and retrieve information from a computer memory are insufficient computer-implemented functions to establish that an otherwise unpatentable judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) is patent eligible. With respect to the determinations of the Courts regarding using a computer for sending and receiving data or information over a computer network and storing and retrieving information from computer memory, see at least: receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; sending messages over a network OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); receiving and sending information over a network buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 and see performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199; and Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) with respect to the performance of repetitive calculations does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claims.
Independent claims 1 and 17, directed to an apparatus/system and computer-executable instructions stored on computer-readable media for performing the method steps are rejected for substantially the same reasons, in that the generically recited computer components in the apparatus/system and computer readable media claims add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-16, and 18-20, when analyzed as a whole are held to be ineligible subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claimed invention is not directed to an abstract idea.
In accordance with all relevant considerations and aligned with previous findings of the courts, the technical elements imparted on the method that would potentially provide a basis for meeting a “significantly more” threshold for establishing patent eligibility for an otherwise abstract concept by the use of computer technology fail to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. For further guidance and authority, see Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. 573 U.S.____ (2014)) (See MPEP 2106).
Allowable Subject Matter
[6] Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 and pursuant to approval of Terminal Disclaimer required to overcome the Double Patenting rejection set forth in this Office action.
Subject Matter Overcoming Art of Record
[7] The most closely applicable prior art of record is presented herein as ‘cited not applied’ as Galley et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0098337). Galley et al. provides a queue control system and method which provides for dynamic adjustment of patron entrance and queue capacity based on a determined capacity/throughout of a ride or attraction. The system and method include calculation a percentage of the maximum throughput based on an observed reduced throughput of the ride or attraction. The system and method further provide for adjustment of guest reservation times based on an observed physical rate of patrons moving through a virtual queue for the ride or attraction.
While Galley et al. is similar to the instant application in many respects, there are clear patentable distinctions. Initially, while the proportional or percentage throughput calculations of Galley et al. is, broadly, determining a reduced percentage capacity of the attraction, Galley et al. responds to the observed changes in throughput by setting a number of guests at the front of the queue to the percentage of the throughput that the ride can provide at a given time. In contrast to the adjustment of the number of guests at the front of the line of Galley et al.., the instant invention identifies a reduced capacity event and responds by rearranging the patron queue. The method further removes guests from the virtual queue based on the reduced capacity and generates a reaccommodation time slot for the guests and incrementally adjusts the length of the time slot as guests are removed from the queue. The inventive system further generates selectable return times within the time slot for each guest and transmits a notification having the two or more selectable return time for the guests. The construction of the reaccommodation time slot and individualized generation of selectable time slots within the reacommodation time slot is/are functionally and patentably distinct from the adjustment of guest numbers in the queues of Galley et al.
Double Patenting
[8] The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,026,643 and claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,568,333. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. The current invention and the issued ‘643 and ‘333 patents are drawn to methods and systems for adjusting guest queue positions in a line of an amusement park attraction based on the capacity of the attraction. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are all directed to similar methods and systems for adjusting guest queue positions in a line of an amusement park attraction based on the capacity of the attraction. Further, the distinctions between the claims of the instant application and the ‘643 and ‘333 patents are limited to a rewording of common features and to omissions of elements recited in the claims. Examiner further notes that the omission of an element with a corresponding loss of function is an obvious expedient. See In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 and Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375. For these reasons, the claims of the instant application are not identical to claims 1-20 of U.S Patent No. 12,026,643 and claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,568,333, but they are not patently distinct.
Conclusion
[9] The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cited PATENT Literature:
Carrier et al., SYSTEMS AND METHOD FOR VIRTUAL QUEUING, United States Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0365600, paragraphs [0049]-[0052]: Relevant Teachings: Carrier discloses a system/method that includes steps/functions organizing patrons in a queue that times entry based on duration of the ride.
Finnegen et al., AMUSEMENT ATRACTION HAVING SMART SENSING OR CONTROL CAPABILITIES, United States Patent Application Publication No. 2018/013770, paragraphs [0018]-[0020]: Relevant Teachings: Finnegen discloses a system/method that includes steps/functions measure attributes of patrons waiting in a loading line using sensors.
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 ROBERT D RINES whose telephone number is (571)272-5585. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5pm.
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, Beth V Boswell can be reached at 571-272-6737. 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.
/ROBERT D RINES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights