DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on March 20, 2026.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “substantially” in claim 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear if the lengths are equal or unequal. If meant to be the same length, the examiner suggests removing the word “substantially”.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 7, 11, 14, 15, 21, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20020137598 (hereinafter “Publicover”).
Regarding claim 1, Publicover discloses a system (Fig. 1, 30) that has an attraction platform (Fig. 1, 40); and a netting system (Fig. 1, 100) configured to capture loose articles cast from the attraction platform, wherein the netting system comprises: a first structural member; a second structural member (Fig. 1, 44 – eight posts shown covered by 84) ;a net extending between the first structural member and the second structural member (Fig. 1, 100; Para. 0041);
Though Publicover discloses an opening between the first structural member (Fig. 8, 84) and at least a portion of the net member (Fig. 8, 138), (Para. 0054), it is not disclosed that it has a zipper interface. However, in another embodiment of Publicover, it is disclosed that the opening can be secured by a zipper (Para. 0116). Thus, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art of filing to secure the opening with a zipper interface, as it is a known fastening means and would provide adjustability features.
Regarding claim 2, modified Publicover further discloses the net comprises an additional portion (Fig. 8, 137) coupled to the first structural member (Fig. 8, 84) and disposed between the portion of the net (Fig. 8, 138) and the first structural member, wherein the zipper interface is configured to: couple the portion of the net with the additional portion of the net in a zipped configuration; and decouple the portion of the net from the additional portion of the net in an unzipped configuration (Para. 0116).
Regarding claim 3, modified Publicover further discloses the additional portion of the net is coupled to the first structural member via one or more rings (Fig. 7, 114; Fig. 6, 92; Para. 0043).
Regarding claim 7, modified Publicover further discloses at least the first structural member or the second structural member is coupled to the attraction platform (Fig. 1, all of posts 44 shown coupled to surface 40).
Regarding claim 11, Publicover discloses a netting system for an amusement park attraction (Fig. 1, 100), comprising: a first structural member; a second structural member; a net configured to extend between the first structural member and the second structural member (Fig. 1, 44 – eight posts shown covered by 84), wherein the net includes at least a first portion and a second portion (Fig. 8, 137 and 138), and the first portion is configured to be coupled to the first structural member.
Though Publicover discloses an opening between the first portion of the net and the second portion of the net that can be secured (Para. 0054), a zipper interface is not disclosed in this embodiment. However, in another embodiment of Publicover, it is disclosed that the opening can be secured by a zipper (Para. 0116). Thus, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art of filing to secure the opening with a zipper interface, as it is a known fastening means and would reduce chances of objects falling through.
Regarding claim 14, modified Publicover further discloses the first structural member comprises a first length, the second structural member comprises a second length, and the first length is substantially equal to the second length. Support posts appear to be same length in Figs. 1 and 8, and can additionally be adjusted (Para. 0032).
Regarding claim 15, modified Publicover further discloses one or more rings configured to couple the first portion of the net with the first structural member (Fig. 7, 114; Fig. 6, 92; Para. 0043).
Regarding claim 16, modified Publicover further discloses the first structural member comprises a first pole and the second structural member comprises a second pole extending substantially parallel to the first pole (Fig. 1, 44 – all posts extend upright).
Regarding claim 21, Publicover discloses a netting system (Fig. 1, 100) for an entertainment venue, the netting system comprising: a structural member (Fig. 8, 84); a net comprising a first portion configured to be coupled to the structural member and a second portion separate from the first portion (Fig. 8, 137 and 138);
Though Publicover discloses an opening between the first portion of the net and the second portion of the net that can be secured (Para. 0054), a zipper interface is not disclosed in this embodiment. However, in another embodiment of Publicover, it is disclosed that the opening can be secured by a zipper (Para. 0116). Thus, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art of filing to secure the opening with a zipper interface, as it is a known fastening means and would reduce chance of objects falling through.
Regarding claim 23, modified Publicover further does not explicitly state the zipper interface (Para. 0116) has first teeth disposed on the first portion of the net; second teeth disposed on the second portion of the net; and a slider configured to couple the first teeth with the second teeth. However, these are basic characteristics inherent of a zipper (two rows of teeth that are coupled/uncoupled by moving a slider along them).
Regarding claim 24, modified Publicover further discloses a plurality of rings, clips, or clamps configured to couple the first portion of the net with the structural member (Fig. 7, 114; Fig. 6, 92; Para. 0043).
Claims 4-6, 12, 13 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publicover as applied to claims 1, 11, and 21 above, and further in view of 10 X 10 Replacement Gazebo Netting Mosquito Patio Mesh Screen with Zippers Review (hereinafter “ViiDeals”) (Dated May 31, 2023) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8RNzq1nj_A).
Regarding claim 4, modified Publicover discloses all the limitations of claim 1, but does not disclose an additional zipper interface extending between the second structural member and at least the portion of the net. ViiDeals, in the analogous art of netting systems, discloses a net with multiple zipper interfaces between the supports (4 zipper interfaces shown at timestamp 00:01, close up at 00:10). Thus. It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include additional zipper interfaces in the netting system to increase access to the inside of the net. Furthermore, the courts have held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In the instant case, the addition of another zipper interface produces the expected result of increasing openings/access points in the net. See MPEP 2144 – In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 5, modified Publicover further discloses that the net comprises an additional portion coupled to the second structural member and disposed between the portion of the net and the second structural member, wherein the additional zipper interface is configured to: couple the portion of the net with the additional portion of the net in a zipped configuration; and decouple the portion of the net from the additional portion of the net in an unzipped configuration. By having multiple zipper interfaces, as shown by ViiDeals, additional segmentations or portions of netting are created. The configuration as claimed would be obvious in view of Publicover modified by ViiDeals, and well within the realm of ordinary skill in the art. Additionally, it is noted that this claim is being interpreted as best understood by the examiner, due to clarity issues as cited in the 112(b) rejection above.
Regarding claim 6, modified Publicover discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and further discloses a third structural member (Fig. 1, 44 – eight posts shown) with an additional net (Fig. 1, 100; Para. 0041; netting extends between all posts). Publicover does not disclose an additional zipper interface extending between the second structural member or the third structural member and at least an additional portion of the additional net. ViiDeals, in the analogous art of netting systems, discloses a net with multiple zipper interfaces between the supports (4 zipper interfaces in netting shown between 4 posts at timestamp 00:01, close up at 00:10). Thus. It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include additional zipper interfaces in the netting system to increase access to the inside of the net. Furthermore, the courts have held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In the instant case, the addition of another zipper interface produces the expected result of increasing openings/access points in the net. See MPEP 2144 – In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 12, modified Publicover discloses all the limitations of claim 11, but does not disclose an additional zipper interface configured to couple the second portion of the net with a third portion of the net in an additional zipped configuration, wherein the third portion of the net is configured to be coupled to the second structural member. ViiDeals, in the analogous art of netting systems, discloses a net with multiple zipper interfaces between the supports (4 zipper interfaces shown at timestamp 00:01, close up at 00:10). Thus. It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include additional zipper interfaces in the netting system to increase access to the inside of the net. Furthermore, the courts have held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In the instant case, the addition of another zipper interface produces the expected result of increasing openings/access points in the net. See MPEP 2144 – In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 13, modified Publicover discloses all the limitations of claim 11, and further discloses a third structural member (Fig. 1, 44 – eight posts shown) with an additional net (Fig. 1, 100; Para. 0041; netting extends between all posts). Publicover does not disclose an additional zipper interface extending between the second structural member or the third structural member and at least an additional portion of the additional net. ViiDeals, in the analogous art of netting systems, discloses a net with multiple zipper interfaces between the supports (4 zipper interfaces in netting shown between 4 posts at timestamp 00:01, close up at 00:10). Thus. It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include additional zipper interfaces in the netting system to increase access to the inside of the net. Furthermore, the courts have held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In the instant case, the addition of another zipper interface produces the expected result of increasing openings/access points in the net. See MPEP 2144 – In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 22, modified Publicover discloses all the limitations of claim 21, but does not disclose a third portion of the net, wherein the third portion is separate from the first portion and the second portion; and an additional zipper interface configured to couple the third portion of the net and the second portion of the net in an additional zipped configuration. ViiDeals, in the analogous art of netting systems, discloses a net with multiple zipper interfaces between the supports (4 zipper interfaces shown at timestamp 00:01, close up at 00:10). Thus. It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include additional zipper interfaces in the netting system to increase access to the inside of the net. Furthermore, the courts have held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In the instant case, the addition of another zipper interface produces the expected result of increasing openings/access points in the net. See MPEP 2144 – In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Further, with the addition of multiple zipper interfaces, additional segmentations or portions of netting are created.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publicover as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20070066410 (hereinafter “Henry”).
Regarding claim 8, modified Publicover discloses all the limitations of claim 1, but does not disclose a ride vehicle; and a ride path corresponding to the attraction platform, wherein the ride vehicle is configured to traverse the ride path. Henry, it the analogous art of amusement and entertainment attractions, discloses a ride vehicle (Fig. 1, tube/object under participant 106) that travels along a path system (Fig. 1, 116) that has flexible nets to inhibit participants from prematurely exiting the path system (Fig. 2, 116a) (Para. 0082). Thus, it would be obvious and known in the art to apply netting systems, such as seen in Publicover, to ride systems of Henry to prevent participant harm/exiting of the ride path.
Regarding claim 9 modified Publicover further discloses wherein a segment of the ride path extends in a first direction, and at least the first structural member or the second structural member extends from the segment of the ride path in a second direction transverse to the first direction. The ride path system of Henry travels horizontally (Henry: Figs. 1 and 2, 116), whereas the support posts of Publicover extend vertically (Publicover: Fig. 1, 44), thus being perpendicular and having a spatially transverse relationship.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publicover as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 10297123 (hereinafter “Levesque”).
Regrading claim 10, modified Publicover discloses all the limitations of claim 1, but does not disclose an actuator system configured to transition the zipper interface from a zipped configuration to an unzipped configuration in response to receiving a control signal. Levesque, in the same endeavor of fastening, discloses an actuated zipper (Abstract) that is controlled through an input device Col. 2, lines 51-55) to assist persons with limited mobility (Col. 1, lines 30-35). Thus, it would be obvious to made the zipper of modified Publicover actuator-controlled to automate opening of the net for easier access.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMANTHA M BERRY whose telephone number is (571)272-0925. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-5.
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.
/S.M.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 3711 /EUGENE L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights