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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 08/18/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-8, 11-19, and 21-24 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 06/29/2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the cam railer and roller coupled to the arm must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 11 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baker in view of US 4920890 (“Barber”).
Regarding claim 11, Baker discloses a ride system (Figs. 1 & 2, 100 | Fig. 16, 1600) comprising: a track (Fig. 2, 234 | Fig. 16, 1610) extending to define a ride path (Figs. 1 & 2, 102 and 106); a chassis coupled to slide or roll along the track (Figs. 1 and 2, 110); an arm coupled to the chassis and movable between a first position and a second position (Figs. 1 & 2, 114 | Fig. 16, 1620); and a ride vehicle (Figs. 1 & 2, 120 and 124 | Fig. 16, 1627 and 1628) coupled to the arm and movable with the arm between the first position and the second position,
Baker does not disclose that the ride vehicle has one or more features to support the ride vehicle on a ride surface of the ride path. Barber, in the analogous art of amusement rides discloses a ride vehicle with adjacent wheels supported by a track (Fig. 2, 108; Col. 16, lines 1-23). Thus, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to add wheels that are supported by the ground, as taught by Barber, to the ride of Baker to better hold up the vehicle and reduce forces exerted on its arm/frame. In addition, the wheels touching/rolling against the ground would simulate a curtained driving experience for the rider and would be an obvious design choice.
Regarding claim 16, modified Baker further discloses the first position locates the ride vehicle at a first lateral position on the ride surface, and wherein the second position locates the ride vehicle at a second lateral position on the ride surface. When vehicles of Baker 120 and 124 are unequal (as in Fig. 2, with 120 in the lead), the cars are positioned closer to the central track 234. When the cars are equal (i.e. neck and neck), they are both extended farther away from the central track. Therefore, the arm is able to move the vehicles laterally.
Regarding claim 17, Baker discloses a ride system (Figs. 1 & 2, 100) that has a track (Fig. 2, 234) extending to define a ride path including a ride surface (Fig, 2, 102 and 106); a chassis coupled to the track (Figs. 1 and 2, 110); an arm coupled to the chassis, the arm extendable and pivotable relative to the chassis (Figs. 1 & 2, 114); and a ride vehicle (Figs. 1 & 2, 120 and 124) coupled to the arm and movable with the arm to adjust a position of the ride vehicle on the ride path.
Though the vehicles have wheels, Baker does not disclose wherein the ride vehicle comprises one or more features to support the ride vehicle on the ride surface. Barber, in the analogous art of amusement rides discloses a ride vehicle with adjacent wheels supported by a track (Fig. 2, 108; Col. 16, lines 1-23). Thus, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to add wheels that are supported by the ground, as taught by Barber, to the ride of Baker to better hold up the vehicle and reduce forces exerted on its arm/frame. In addition, the wheels touching/rolling against the ground would simulate a curtained driving experience for the rider and would be an obvious design choice.
Regarding claim 18, modified Baker further discloses the ride path comprises a first ride path on a first side of the track (Baker: Figs. 1 & 2, 102), and a second ride path (Baker: Figs. 1 & 2, 106) on a second side of the track.
Regarding claim 19, modified Baker further discloses the arm (Baker: Figs. 1 & 2, 114) is configured to adjust a lateral position of the ride vehicle on the first ride path and the second ride path. When vehicles 120 and 124 are unequal (as in Fig. 2, with 120 in the lead), the cars are positioned closer to the central track 234. When the cars are equal (i.e. neck and neck), they are both extended farther away from the central track. Therefore, the arm is able to move the vehicles laterally.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baker in view of Barber and in further view of US 20160140861 (hereinafter “Tischer”).
Regarding claim 12, modified Baker further discloses that the one or more features comprise a wheel (Barber: Fig. 2, 108). However, it does not disclose a suspension coupling the wheel to the ride vehicle, the suspension configured to allow the wheel to ride along the ride surface. The method of adding a suspension system to a ride vehicle’s wheels is well known in the art, however, and would be within the level of general skill for a person in the art. This is further evidenced by Tischer, discloses using a spring damper arrangement and wheel suspension helps to damp and/or cushion unevenness in the underlying surface (Para. 0035).
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baker in view of Barber and in further view of Beutler.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, modified Baker discloses all the limitations of claim 11, but is silent regarding the ride having a coupling with at least one and three degrees of freedom connection between the ride vehicle and the arm. Beautler, in the same field of passenger transport and amusement rides (State of the Art, para. 0002), discloses a vehicle (Fig. 1, 3) connected to a boom (Fig. 1, 230) with a joint (Fig. 1, 4) that allows for at least three degrees of freedom to compensate for vehicle rocking and allow it to drift or swing out (Technical Solution, Para. 0017). Thus, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the ride vehicle and arm of Baker to move in multiple degrees of freedom to allow for a smoother ride and increased thrill with more range of motions.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baker in view of Barber and in further view of Vance.
Regarding claim 21, modified Baker discloses all the limitations of claim 17, but is silent regarding the ride vehicle is configured to follow a terrain of the ride path. However, Vance discloses an amusement ride system that has terrain in the form of obstructions that the ride vehicle follows a path over for increased thrill to the passenger (Fig. 14; Para. 0037). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have a ride vehicle follow the terrain on the path to increase thrill and create anticipation for the passenger.
Claims 1-8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baker in view of Barber, and in further view of US 20110312428 (hereinafter “Nemeth”).
Regarding claim 1, Baker discloses a ride system (Figs. 1 & 2, 100 | Fig. 16, 1600) that has a ride vehicle (Figs. 1 & 2, 120 and 124 | Fig. 16, 1627 and 1628) configured to move along a ride path (Figs. 1 & 2, 102 and 106) adjacent a track (Fig. 2, 234 | Fig. 16, 1610), and an arm coupled to the ride vehicle (Figs. 1 & 2, 114 | Fig. 16, 1620), the arm configured to articulate to adjust a position of the ride vehicle relative to the ride path, wherein the ride vehicle is movable separately from the arm (Para. 0029 | Para. 0056).
Though the vehicle of Baker has wheels, it does not disclose that the ride vehicle comprising one or more features to support the ride vehicle on a ride surface of the ride path; Baker does not disclose that the ride vehicle has one or more features to support the ride vehicle on a ride surface of the ride path. Barber, in the analogous art of amusement rides discloses a ride vehicle with adjacent wheels supported by a track (Fig. 2, 108; Col. 16, lines 1-23). Thus, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to add wheels that are supported by the ground, as taught by Barber, to the ride of Baker to better hold up the vehicle and reduce forces exerted on its arm/frame. In addition, the wheels touching/rolling against the ground would simulate a curtained driving experience for the rider and would be an obvious design choice.
Baker also does not disclose wherein the arm is movable between a first arm position that locates the ride vehicle on the ride surface and a second arm position that moves the ride vehicle away from the ride surface. However, Nemeth discloses amusement park ride with a telescoping and raising arm that allows the vehicle to move away from the ride surface, allowing for an additional degree of freedom of movement and/or increased interactivity and control (Fig. 2, 220 – arm and Fig. 3, 223 – vertical change; Para. 0002). Thus, it would be obvious to provide the ride of Baker with a pivot arm as taught by Nemeth to allow for more degrees of freedom and increased guest entertainment/interaction. The examiner notes that the tertiary reference Nemeth is being combined with Baker in view of Barber that both teach a ride “surface”. Nemeth is directed towards an amusement ride that is elevated and is moving along flight regions or through the air. As Nemeth is directed towards a movable amusement ride, this reference is analogous to Baker and Barber to create a nexus as it is known for amusement rides to move along ride surfaces, water surfaces or through the air. The modification to incorporate the arm to be movable as taught by Nemeth would be obvious to move the amusement device on any known ride surface, such as a track, water or air.
Regarding claim 2, modified Baker further discloses the arm is extendable to move the ride vehicle towards and away from the track to adjust a lateral position of the ride vehicle on the ride path (Nemeth: Fig, 2, 220 – arm and Fig. 3, 226 – lateral direction. Reasons for combination are as stated supra in claim 1).
Regarding claim 3, modified Baker further discloses the arm is configured to rotate about an axis to move the ride vehicle relative to the track to adjust a vertical position of the ride vehicle on the ride path (Nemeth: Fig. 2, 220 – arm and Fig. 3, 223 – vertical change; Reasons for combination are as stated supra in claim 1).
Regarding claim 4, modified Baker further discloses a chassis coupled to the track (Baker: Figs. 1 and 2, 110), wherein the arm (Baker: Figs. 1 and 2, 114) is coupled to the chassis and articulates to adjust the position of the ride vehicle as the chassis moves along the track (Baker: Para. 0027).
Regarding claim 5, modified Baker further discloses the arm (Baker: Figs. 1 and 2, 114) is pivotably coupled to the chassis (Baker: Para. 0027, Figs. 1 and 2, 110; also, Nemeth: Fig. 1, 110).
Regarding claim 6, modified Baker further discloses an actuator on the chassis to adjust an articulation of the arm (Baker: Para.0027; also, Nemeth: Fig. 1, 110).
Regarding claim 7, modified Baker further discloses the arm is movable between a first position (Nemeth: Fig. 4, position of at 416d) and a second position (Nemeth: Fig. 4, position of at 416a) to locate the ride vehicle at different positions along the ride path. Reasons for combination are as stated supra in claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, modified Baker further discloses the arm is movable to locate the vehicle at a third position between the first position and the second position (Nemeth: Fig. 4, position at 412c). Reasons for combination are as stated supra in claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, modified Baker also does not disclose wherein the arm is movable between a first arm position that locates the ride vehicle on the ride surface and a second arm position that moves the ride vehicle away from the ride surface. However, Nemeth discloses amusement park ride with a telescoping and raising arm that allows the vehicle to move away from the ride surface, allowing for an additional degree of freedom of movement and/or increased interactivity and control (Fig. 2, 220 – arm and Fig. 3, 223 – vertical change; Para. 0002). Thus, it would be obvious to provide the ride of Baker with a pivot arm as taught by Nemeth to allow for more degrees of freedom and increased guest entertainment/interaction.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baker in view of Barber and Nemeth, and in further view of US 20180304161 (hereinafter “Soriani”).
Regarding claim 22, modified Baker discloses all the limitations of claim 5, but does not disclose a linkage assembly configured to maintain an orientation of the ride vehicle as the arm pivots relative to the chassis, wherein the linkage assembly comprises a four bar linkage having four links connected in a loop by four joints. However, the use of four bar linkage is commonly used in the amusement art for load-bearing applications. This is evidenced by Soriani, who discloses an amusement device with an arm having four-bar linkage (Fig. 4). Thus, this configuration is known and would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the arm of modified Baker with a four-bar linkage as taught by Soriani.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baker in view of Barber and Nemeth, and in further view of US 20160220910 (hereinafter “Zamperla”).
Regarding claim 23, modified Baker discloses all the limitations of claim 1, but does not disclose a balance spring configured to provide a force that counteracts a weight of the arm and the ride vehicle. Zamperla discloses an amusement ride with a preloaded spring that acts against the arm to guarantee a sufficient and rapid reposition of the ride when changing positions (Para. 0079). Thus, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to add a preloaded spring, as taught by Zamperla, to modified Baker to assist in rapid repositioning of the arm when changing positions.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baker in view of Barber and Nemeth, and in further view of US 4513960 (hereinafter “Barber 1985”).
Regarding claim 24, modified Baker discloses all the limitations of claim 1, but does not disclose a cam rail and a roller coupled to the arm, the roller configured to engage the cam rail, wherein the cam rail includes an elevation change configured to move the arm between the first arm position and the second arm position. Barber 1985 discloses an amusement ride with a roller (Fig. 2, 70) and a rail (Fig. 2, 60) that pivots a carrier arm (Fig. 2, C) upwards and downwards (Col. 3, lines 28-46). Thus, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill to substitute the actuator of modified Baker with the rail and roller method of Barber 1985, as it is a similar and known means of mechanically lifting and lowering an arm.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 11, 13, 14, 16 and 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Baker, in addition to teachings by Barber and Nemeth, discloses an amusement ride with limitations dictated by the amended claims.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim 21 has been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 21, Applicant argues that Vance does not show a passenger vehicle supported on a ride surface of a ride path, nor is it “configured to follow terrain a terrain of the ride path”. Vance specifically discloses that the vehicle “may safely ascend over the obstruction (160) and subsequently descend”, thus following the terrain of the path (shown in Fig. 14), thus rendering this action of a ride vehicle following the 3-dimensional shape of terrain obvious to a POSITA. Lastly, with regards to the added limitation of “supported on a ride surface”, this argument is considered moot under new grounds of rejection as established supra.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
