DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in reply to Applicants response after Non-Final Rejection received on June 16, 2026. Claim(s) 21, 23-32, and 34-42 is/are currently pending in the instant application. This application is a Continuation of U.S. Patent Application 18/320,061 filed May 18, 2023, now U.S. Patent 12.086819, which is a Continuation of U.S. Patent Application 17/219,998, filed on April 1, 2021, now U.S. Patent 11,694,217, which is a Continuation of U.S. Patent Application 15/826,357 filed on November 29, 201, now U.S. Patent 10,970,725.
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 Examiner acknowledges the Applicants amendments to claims 21 and 30 in the response filed on June 16, 2026. Claims 22 and 33 are canceled at this time. New claims 41 and 42 are added herein.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Examiner acknowledges the Applicants filing of IDS references on June 16, 2026. The references have been considered at this time. A copy of the annotated IDS sheet is included in this correspondence.
Double Patenting
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 21-40 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 120 of U.S. Patent No. 11,694,217 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are claiming the same invention.
Claims 21 can be drawn to claims 1, 3, 4, and 17 and Claim 30 can be drawn to claims 1, 3, 17 and Col. 10, lines 30-37of U.S. Patent No. 11,694,217 B2; specifically An interactive equipment element system, comprising: a sensor comprising a camera, wherein the sensor is associated with an individual attraction and is configured to detect movement;
a plurality of interactive equipment elements associated with the individual attraction, wherein an individual interactive equipment element of the plurality of interactive equipment elements is configured to: sense, via the sensor, interactions with individual interactive equipment element based on the detected movement;
read, via an RFID reader, an identification of a guest device in proximity to the individual interactive equipment element during the interactions; and
generate a signal indicative of the interactions that associates the guest device with the interactions; and
a central controller configured to: receive the signal indicative of the interactions from the individual interactive equipment element of the plurality of interactive equipment elements; and
generate instructions to change an interactive response of the individual interactive equipment element based on the signal.
Claim 3. The interactive equipment element system of claim 1, wherein the central controller is configured to determine one or more crowd metrics based on the signal from the sensor and to generate an activity command comprising one or more text commands or notifications transmitted to the guest device and providing information about an activity located away from an attraction area of the individual attraction.
Claim 4. The interactive equipment element system of claim 3, wherein the central controller is configured to monitor completion of one or more tasks indicated by the activity command and to send an instruction to the guest device to return to the attraction area when the one or more tasks indicated by the activity command are complete.
Claim 17. The crowd management system of claim 16, wherein the instructions transmitted to the guest-associated devices comprise one or more text commands or notifications providing information about an activity located away from the plurality of interactive equipment elements based on the one or more crowd metrics being above a threshold.
Claim 22 can be drawn to claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,694,217 B2.
Claim 23 can be drawn to claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,694,217 B2.
Claim 24 can be drawn to claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,694,217 B2.
Claim 25 can be drawn to claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,694,217 B2.
Claim 26 can be drawn to claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,694,217 B2.
Claim 27 can be drawn to col. 7, lines 38-43 of U.S. Patent No. 11,694,217 B2. [This bears the same determination as claim 26 where guests in a crowding is happening in an area or around an attraction above a threshold are mitigated by influencing guests to move towards low density or sparsely populated areas]
Claim 28 can be drawn to claims 3 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,694,217 B2.
Claim 29 can be drawn to claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,694,217 B2.
Claim 31 can be drawn to claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,694,217 B2.
Claim 32 can be drawn to claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,694,217 B2. [claim says to direct guest to another activity. Col. 5, lines 46-19 define that the activity can be “ride a different ride”.
Claim 33 can be drawn to claim 3 and of U.S. Patent No. 11,694,217 B2.
Claim 34 can be drawn to claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,694,217 B2.
Claim 35 can be drawn to claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,694,217 B2. [claim calls for determining one or more crowd metrics of the individual attraction. Col 7, lines 25-27 define that a crowd metric is “guest density”].
Claim 36 can be drawn to claims 16 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,694,217 B2.
Claim 37 can be drawn to claims 3 and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,694,217 B2.
Claim 38 can be drawn to claims 3 and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,694,217 B2. [claim calls for activity command to a guest device located away from an attraction area of the individual attraction. Col. 10, lines 41-47 defines the guest located within a first distance].
Claim 39 can be drawn to claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,694,217 B2.
Claim 40 can be drawn to claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,694,217 B2. [claim calls for guest associated device. Col. 4, lines 57-59 define a guest associated device may include guest mobile device (e.g. smartphone)].
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.
Claims 21, 23-32, 34-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 21, 23-32, 34-42 are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention (e.g. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). The claims include a system or “apparatus”, method or “process”, or product or “article of manufacture” and is a method and system of crowd control which is a process (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent method Claim 21 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent system Claim 30. Claim 21 recites the limitations of (abstract ideas highlighted in italics and additional elements highlighted in bold)
receiving signals from one or more sensors, the one or more sensors associated with an individual attraction;
estimating a number of guests in an area of the individual attraction based on the signals;
determining that an attraction crowd metric is above a threshold based on the estimated number of guests; and
transmitting a notification to one or more guest devices determined to be in the area of the individual attraction responsive to the attraction crowd metric being above the threshold, wherein the notification comprises an activity command associated with a different individual attraction, and
receiving, from a guest device of the one or more guest devices, a signal indicating that a task associated with the activity command is complete.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. Receiving signals associated with an attraction, estimating number of guests, determining a metric is above a threshold, and transmitting a notification instructing the crowd to a different location and receiving a response back recites managing personal behavior ro relationships. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The controller in Claim 30 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. Claim 30 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite one or more sensors and one or more guest devices (Claim 21) and/or a controller (claim 30). The computer hardware is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore claims 21 and 30 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See Applicant’s specification para. [0036] about implementation using general purpose or special purpose computing devices [the remote central controller 102 and the local controller 107 may be accessed by an operator interface 620, e.g., a computer-based workstation or a mobile device, and/or may include an input/output interface 616.] and MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus claims 21 and 30 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 23-29 and 31-32, 34-42 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 21 and 30 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. The dependent claims include steps or processes which are similar to that disclosed in MPEP 2106.05(d), (f), (g), and/or (h) which include activities and functions the courts have determined to be well-understood, routine, and conventional when claimed in a generic manner, or as insignificant extra solution activity, or as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception.
Claims 23, 36-38 relate to MPEP 2106.05(d)II. i. 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.
Claim 25 relates to directing or instruction guests similar to MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) vi. A method of assigning hair designs to balance head shape with a final step of using a tool (scissors) to cut the hair, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1017.
Claims 26-29, 34, and 35 are similar to MPEP 2106.05 (d)II. ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199.
Claim 39 is directed to MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) v. Requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642.
Claim 41 is similar to MEPE 2106.05(d) II. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, 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);
Claim 42 is equivalent to MEPE 2106.05(d) II. ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.");
Therefore, the claims 23-29 and 31-32, and 34-42 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 21, 23-32, 34-42 are not patent-eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 21, 32-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwartz et al. U.S. Publication 2013/0332509 A1 (hereafter Schwartz) in view of Canora et al. U.S. Publication 2009/0216547 A1 (hereafter Canora).
Regarding claim 21, Schwartz discloses receiving signals from one or more sensors, the one or more sensors associated with an individual attraction, wherein the one or more sensors comprise one or more cameras (see at least Schwartz [0015] the attraction 116 includes a monitoring and/or data maintenance system 122 that may be utilized to monitor and/or provide information regarding operation of the associated attraction 116. These monitoring and/or data maintenance systems 122 may be referred to as attraction systems 122 and may include one or more of a computer, a control system, and monitoring features (e.g., sensors and cameras).);
estimating a number of guests in an area of the individual attraction based on the signals (see at least Schwartz [0023] In addition to communications regarding reservations, communications between the system 100 and a guest may include other types of information or data, such as information related to crowd flow through the amusement park. For example, the system 100 may utilize location data from the PIFs 110 and other sources to assemble crowd flow data. This data may then be employed by the system 100 to encourage guest distribution throughout the amusement park, thus reducing crowds.);
determining that an attraction crowd metric is above a threshold based on the estimated number of guests (see at least Schwartz [0060] the optimization algorithm may propose an itinerary that limits travel between attractions but accommodates a lack of availability of reservations at a particular time for a highly desired attraction. The algorithm may also direct guests throughout the park to avoid predicted overcrowding in particular areas based on established reservations and historic park data.); and
transmitting a notification to one or more guest devices determined to be in the area of the individual attraction responsive to the attraction crowd metric being above the threshold, wherein the notification comprises an activity command associated with a different individual attraction (see at least Schwartz [0023] For example, an electronic coupon, which may be limited to certain guests by identification information, for a nearby attraction may be issued by the system 100 via the PIFs 110 or a notice may be distributed indicating that short waits are available at certain attractions. The system 100 is capable of pushing information (e.g., coupons, advertisements, and wait times) out to guests via a web portal or the like. Specifically, for example, the system 100 may send out a text message to all park patrons that have a PIF 110 with particular identification information that will allow these park patrons to receive a discount at a shop or restaurant. Further, the system 100 may track usage of these discounts such that the system 100 is aware of time and location of use, which can be used for crowd control (e.g., submission of additional notifications based on location, item purchased, and so forth). Additionally, the system 100 may automatically adjust reservations based on location and availability.).
Schwartz fails to disclose receiving a signal indicating that the task associated with the activity is complete.
Canora discloses, in the same field of invention, an itinerary for a guest of a venue where the where the itinerary refers attractions the gust would like to visit, attractions visited in the past, and guest responses to those attractions (liked or disliked), and other information to keep the itinerary updated. The guest response to an attraction is a signal indicating a response to an itinerary item. therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the crowd management as disclosed by Schwartz for managing crowds in one or more locations with the attraction response as taught by Canora for sending recommendations to visitors and collecting their responses as combining known prior art elements yields predicable results. (KSR A)
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Schwartz and Canora discloses wherein the one or more sensors comprise a camera (see at least Schwartz [0015] the attraction 116 includes a monitoring and/or data maintenance system 122 that may be utilized to monitor and/or provide information regarding operation of the associated attraction 116. These monitoring and/or data maintenance systems 122 may be referred to as attraction systems 122 and may include one or more of a computer, a control system, and monitoring features (e.g., sensors and cameras).).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Schwartz and Canora discloses wherein the one or more sensors comprise a wireless reader, and wherein estimating the number of guests comprises: reading wireless signals from guest devices in the area of the attraction that are in range of the wireless reader; and using a number of the wireless signals to estimate the number of guests (see at least Schwartz [0016] guest pass can be associated with a PIF 110 that is assigned to a particular guest, and the PIF 110 can then be used to confirm rights of the guest via the system 100. Depending on this information, an amusement park employee or system can grant or deny a guest access to certain attractions 116 or rights to make reservations. In some embodiments, the PIFs 110 are capable of wireless detection and provide access to identification information associated with the PIFs 110.).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Schwartz and Canora discloses wherein the guest devices comprise one or more stylets (see at least Schwartz [0016] guest pass can be associated with a PIF 110 that is assigned to a particular guest, and the PIF 110 can then be used to confirm rights of the guest via the system 100. Depending on this information, an amusement park employee or system can grant or deny a guest access to certain attractions 116 or rights to make reservations. In some embodiments, the PIFs 110 are capable of wireless detection and provide access to identification information associated with the PIFs 110.).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Schwartz and Canora discloses wherein the activity command is associated with one or more interactive equipment elements at the different individual attraction (see at least Schwartz [0023] an electronic coupon, which may be limited to certain guests by identification information, for a nearby attraction may be issued by the system 100 via the PIFs 110 or a notice may be distributed indicating that short waits are available at certain attractions.).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Schwartz and Canora discloses wherein the different individual attraction has an attraction crowd metric below the threshold (see at least Schwartz [0060] The algorithm may also direct guests throughout the park to avoid predicted overcrowding in particular areas based on established reservations and historic park data. The algorithm may also take into consideration that a break would be required around a mealtime and propose reservations at a restaurant attraction or simply suggest nearby restaurants. The algorithm may also take certain practical matters into consideration. For example, the algorithm may adjust the itinerary to exclude certain high intensity attractions for a certain time period after meals. The algorithm may also attempt to maximize utilization of the park by proposing reservations or visits to attractions that are underutilized at certain times.).
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Schwartz and Canora discloses wherein the different individual attraction has an attraction crowd metric associated with low guest density (see at least Schwartz [0013] Present embodiments may also facilitate communication between the reservation system and guests to provide for dynamic updating of reservation times and to provide crowd control by encouraging guests to visit particular areas of the amusement park.).
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Schwartz and Canora discloses wherein the attraction crowd metric is related to guest density in the area of the individual attraction (see at least Schwartz [0023] an electronic coupon, which may be limited to certain guests by identification information, for a nearby attraction may be issued by the system 100 via the PIFs 110 or a notice may be distributed indicating that short waits are available at certain attractions. The system 100 is capable of pushing information (e.g., coupons, advertisements, and wait times) out to guests via a web portal or the like. Specifically, for example, the system 100 may send out a text message to all park patrons that have a PIF 110 with particular identification information that will allow these park patrons to receive a discount at a shop or restaurant. Further, the system 100 may track usage of these discounts such that the system 100 is aware of time and location of use, which can be used for crowd control (e.g., submission of additional notifications based on location, item purchased, and so forth). Additionally, the system 100 may automatically adjust reservations based on location and availability. For example, a reservation may be adjusted because a patron is located too far away from the attraction (e.g., as determined by a purchase time of an item) to reach the associated attraction in time for the reservation or a guest's place in line may be adjusted because the guest was delayed in a restaurant due to slow service.).
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Schwartz and Canora discloses wherein the attraction crowd metric is related an estimated wait time for the individual attraction (see at least Schwartz [0017] guest (or agent of the guest) may use present embodiments to obtain reservations to one or more attractions in order to avoid or limit wait time in attraction queues, such as a queue 126 for a particular ride 128.).
Regarding claim 41, further comprising transmitting, to the guest device, an instruction to return to the individual attraction responsive to receiving the signal indicating that the task is complete (see at least Schwartz [0028] he system 100 enables making a reservation for an individual or a group to access an attraction during a time range, modify the reservation, delay the reservation (e.g., delay the reservation at five minute intervals), transfer a reservation from one PIF 110 to another (e.g., from one group member to another), cancel a reservation, and provide reservation details and updates (e.g., in real-time). As indicated above, the system 100 includes numerous access or interface points that are capable of interfacing with a commerce management system (e.g., a module of the data server system 102 or a separate system in communication with or accessible through the data server system 102) for the amusement park. If the system can provide updates, then the system has capabilities to notify the guest when to return as their place in line is approaching or that their reservation for an activity is almost ready).
Claim(s) 30-32, 34-40, and 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwartz et al. U.S. Publication 2013/0332509 A1 (hereafter Schwartz) in view of Sullivan et al. U.S. Publication 2014/0278688 A1 (hereafter Sullivan).
Regarding claim 30, Schwartz discloses one or more sensors configured to monitor an individual attraction (see at least [0015] the attraction 116 includes a monitoring and/or data maintenance system 122 that may be utilized to monitor and/or provide information regarding operation of the associated attraction 116. These monitoring and/or data maintenance systems 122 may be referred to as attraction systems 122 and may include one or more of a computer, a control system, and monitoring features (e.g., sensors and cameras).); and
a controller configured to: receive data from the one or more sensors, wherein the data comprises information indicative of a number plurality of guests in an area of the individual attraction (see at least Abstract: A queue management system in accordance with present embodiments may include a data server system including a processor and memory. And [0023] In addition to communications regarding reservations, communications between the system 100 and a guest may include other types of information or data, such as information related to crowd flow through the amusement park. For example, the system 100 may utilize location data from the PIFs 110 and other sources to assemble crowd flow data. This data may then be employed by the system 100 to encourage guest distribution throughout the amusement park, thus reducing crowds.);
determine one or more attraction crowd metrics of the individual attraction based on the received data (see at least [0060] the optimization algorithm may propose an itinerary that limits travel between attractions but accommodates a lack of availability of reservations at a particular time for a highly desired attraction. The algorithm may also direct guests throughout the park to avoid predicted overcrowding in particular areas based on established reservations and historic park data.);
generate an activity command based on the one or more attraction crowd metrics (see at least Schwartz [0023] For example, an electronic coupon, which may be limited to certain guests by identification information, for a nearby attraction may be issued by the system 100 via the PIFs 110 or a notice may be distributed indicating that short waits are available at certain attractions. The system 100 is capable of pushing information (e.g., coupons, advertisements, and wait times) out to guests via a web portal or the like. Specifically, for example, the system 100 may send out a text message to all park patrons that have a PIF 110 with particular identification information that will allow these park patrons to receive a discount at a shop or restaurant. Further, the system 100 may track usage of these discounts such that the system 100 is aware of time and location of use, which can be used for crowd control (e.g., submission of additional notifications based on location, item purchased, and so forth). Additionally, the system 100 may automatically adjust reservations based on location and availability.);
determine respective arrival times of the plurality of guests within a predetermined distance of the individual attraction (see at least [0013] this predicted arrival time may be designated as the morning or the afternoon. In such embodiments, once the guest arrives, a specific time frame (e.g., 3:00 PM to 3:15 PM) may be assigned for the reservation depending on the guest's arrival time and the availability of reservation time slots for associated attractions. It should be noted that present embodiments may be utilized to make multiple reservations for one or more attractions. Present embodiments may also facilitate communication between the reservation system and guests to provide for dynamic updating of reservation times and to provide crowd control by encouraging guests to visit particular areas of the amusement park.); and
transmit the activity command to a selected guest device of a plurality of one or more guest devices (see at least Schwartz [0023] For example, an electronic coupon, which may be limited to certain guests by identification information, for a nearby attraction may be issued by the system 100 via the PIFs 110 or a notice may be distributed indicating that short waits are available at certain attractions. The system 100 is capable of pushing information (e.g., coupons, advertisements, and wait times) out to guests via a web portal or the like.)
Schwartz fails to disclose determinations made based on predetermined distances of guests and attractions.
Sullivan discloses, in the same field of invention, guest movement and behavior prediction where the park operators seek to minimize the time a guest spends waiting in line and where guests are incentivized to move to other less crowded areas of a park (see at least [0017] It is desirable for theme park operators to minimize the time park guests spend waiting in line. On a crowded day at a popular theme park attraction, it is not unheard of for guests to wait in line for over an hour for a two-minute ride. These excessive delays can negatively impact the guest experience and, in turn, the theme park revenue. Guests who have to wait in long lines often go on fewer rides, buy fewer products from concessions, and are less likely to return to the park in the future. While park operators provide incentives to alter the flow of guest traffic in the park, it is challenging to predict who to provide incentives to, what incentives to provide, and what regions of the park to target using the incentives.) including where transit times between locations are predicted for future locations (see at least [0027] the string p.sub.ixxxp.sub.j represents a guest taking 3 minutes between arriving at location p.sub.i and arriving at location p.sub.j. With the special symbol so used, the approximate trajectory matching algorithm given above can readily incorporate transit times between locations into the approximate trajectory matching, which makes for more accurate predictions of future locations.) therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the use the crowd management as disclose by Schwartz with the transit times between locations as taught by Sullivan for directing crowds to less populated portions of the park as use of known techniques to improve similar devices would yield predictable results (KSR D)
Regarding claim 31, the combination of Schwartz and Sullivan discloses wherein the individual attraction is an interactive equipment element (see at least Schwartz [0050] a determination may be made regarding associated delays or other issues with the reservations, as indicated by block 422. This may include periodically updating and continuously monitoring attraction information from monitoring systems (e.g., attraction systems 122) associated with the related attractions. If issues are identified that will cause changes in reservations, the guest may be notified via text message, voice message, email, or via a kiosk display of a new time window for the reservation, as represented by block 424. The notification may also include an indication of the nature of the delay or change. Further, any conflicting reservations may be automatically adjusted. For example, if the changed reservation time conflicts with an established reservation time, the established reservation time may be automatically changed or the guest may be prompted to define a desired result from a selection of available options. Kiosk is an interactive element which allows the guest to modify, adjust, or delay reservations for individual attractions).
Regarding claim 32, the combination of Schwartz and Sullivan discloses wherein the individual attraction is a ride (see at least Schwartz [0017] a guest (or agent of the guest) may use present embodiments to obtain reservations to one or more attractions in order to avoid or limit wait time in attraction queues, such as a queue 126 for a particular ride 128.).
Regarding claim 34, the combination of Schwartz and Sullivan discloses wherein the attraction crowd metric is related an estimated wait time for the individual attraction (see at least Schwartz [0017] guest (or agent of the guest) may use present embodiments to obtain reservations to one or more attractions in order to avoid or limit wait time in attraction queues, such as a queue 126 for a particular ride 128.).
Regarding claim 35, the combination of Schwartz and Sullivan discloses wherein the attraction crowd metric is related to guest density in the area of the individual attraction (see at least Schwartz [0023] an electronic coupon, which may be limited to certain guests by identification information, for a nearby attraction may be issued by the system 100 via the PIFs 110 or a notice may be distributed indicating that short waits are available at certain attractions. The system 100 is capable of pushing information (e.g., coupons, advertisements, and wait times) out to guests via a web portal or the like. Specifically, for example, the system 100 may send out a text message to all park patrons that have a PIF 110 with particular identification information that will allow these park patrons to receive a discount at a shop or restaurant. Further, the system 100 may track usage of these discounts such that the system 100 is aware of time and location of use, which can be used for crowd control (e.g., submission of additional notifications based on location, item purchased, and so forth). Additionally, the system 100 may automatically adjust reservations based on location and availability. For example, a reservation may be adjusted because a patron is located too far away from the attraction (e.g., as determined by a purchase time of an item) to reach the associated attraction in time for the reservation or a guest's place in line may be adjusted because the guest was delayed in a restaurant due to slow service.).
Regarding claim 36, the combination of Schwartz and Sullivan discloses wherein the guest density is determined to be above a threshold and wherein the controller is configured to: determine a location of the one or more guest devices in the area of the individual attraction (see at least Schwartz [0022] the PIFs 110 may include global positioning systems (GPS), radio frequency identification (RFID) tags, or other detectable features that can be used to determine locations of the PIFs 110. Specifically, for example, if a PIF 110 is scanned as part of a purchase detected by a data reader 108, or detected by a device monitor 124 positioned in the amusement park, such information may be employed to determine a general location of the guest with which the system 100 has associated the PIF 110.); and
transmit the activity command based on the determined location, wherein the activity command comprises a notification to move to an area of a different attraction (see at least Schwartz [0023] communications between the system 100 and a guest may include other types of information or data, such as information related to crowd flow through the amusement park. For example, the system 100 may utilize location data from the PIFs 110 and other sources to assemble crowd flow data. This data may then be employed by the system 100 to encourage guest distribution throughout the amusement park, thus reducing crowds. For example, an electronic coupon, which may be limited to certain guests by identification information, for a nearby attraction may be issued by the system 100 via the PIFs 110 or a notice may be distributed indicating that short waits are available at certain attractions.).
Regarding claim 37, the combination of Schwartz and Sullivan discloses wherein the guest density is determined to be below a threshold and wherein the controller is configured to: determine a location of the one or more guest devices not in the area of the individual attraction (see at least Schwartz [0022] the PIFs 110 may include global positioning systems (GPS), radio frequency identification (RFID) tags, or other detectable features that can be used to determine locations of the PIFs 110. Specifically, for example, if a PIF 110 is scanned as part of a purchase detected by a data reader 108, or detected by a device monitor 124 positioned in the amusement park, such information may be employed to determine a general location of the guest with which the system 100 has associated the PIF 110.); and
transmit the activity command based on the determined location, wherein the activity command comprises a notification to move to the area of the individual attraction (see at least [0023] a reservation may be adjusted because a patron is located too far away from the attraction (e.g., as determined by a purchase time of an item) to reach the associated attraction in time for the reservation or a guest's place in line may be adjusted because the guest was delayed in a restaurant due to slow service.).
Regarding claim 38, the combination of Schwartz and Sullivan discloses wherein the guest density is determined to be below a threshold and wherein the controller is configured to: determine a location of an individual guest device of the one or more guest devices relative to the individual attraction (see at least Schwartz [0022] the PIFs 110 may include global positioning systems (GPS), radio frequency identification (RFID) tags, or other detectable features that can be used to determine locations of the PIFs 110. Specifically, for example, if a PIF 110 is scanned as part of a purchase detected by a data reader 108, or detected by a device monitor 124 positioned in the amusement park, such information may be employed to determine a general location of the guest with which the system 100 has associated the PIF 110.); and
transmit the activity command to the individual guest device based on the determined location, wherein the activity command comprises a notification to move to the area of the individual attraction when the individual guest device is within a distance of the individual attraction (see at least Schwartz [0023] The system 100 is capable of pushing information (e.g., coupons, advertisements, and wait times) out to guests via a web portal or the like. Specifically, for example, the system 100 may send out a text message to all park patrons that have a PIF 110 with particular identification information that will allow these park patrons to receive a discount at a shop or restaurant. Further, the system 100 may track usage of these discounts such that the system 100 is aware of time and location of use, which can be used for crowd control (e.g., submission of additional notifications based on location, item purchased, and so forth). Additionally, the system 100 may automatically adjust reservations based on location and availability.).
Regarding claim 39, the combination of Schwartz and Sullivan discloses wherein the activity command is associated with a task or reward (see at least Schwartz [0030] Priority may be given to guests that pay extra, very important persons, or guests that perform special tasks.).
Regarding claim 40, the combination of Schwartz and Sullivan discloses wherein the one or more guest devices comprise a mobile device (see at least Schwartz [0010] Present embodiments may facilitate communication with guests via portable communication devices, such as cellular tele Schwartz discloses phones, pagers, and other wireless devices. Such devices may be referred to as mobile devices.).
Regarding claim 42, wherein the selected guest device is selected based on the arrival time being later than an arrival time associated with a different guest device within the predetermined distance of the individual attraction, wherein the different guest device does not receive the activity command (see at least Schwartz [0009-0010] a system with an electronic data server and respective applications capable of communicating and monitoring metrics or characteristics related to reservations for attractions in an amusement park, and controlling queue flow characteristics. The system may include a verification system, a tracking system, a redemption system, mobile devices, and backend computers and devices. The system may be configured to receive one or more reservation requests at a time and assign a general or specific time frame for the reservation based on information provided by a user and/or based on other data (e.g., data regarding operation of a related attraction or data related to detected locations of guests holding reservations). Further, present embodiments are configured to access or modify one or more existing reservations and/or adjust queue characteristics (e.g., access ratios) based on changes in the reservation requests, changes in guest scheduling, guest location, data regarding an attraction or attractions related to a reservation, entitlement levels (e.g., based on tiered payment options for various levels of access) and so forth. With regard to entitlement levels, tiered approaches to pricing for various features or components may be available, including micropayments for certain services or tasks.
enable guests to utilize mobile or wireless technology to wait in a virtual queue for a particular attraction or attractions while experiencing other attractions or relaxing in other areas in or away from the amusement park. Indeed, present embodiments include a system configured to communicate with one or more attractions related to a reservation request or an existing reservation to dynamically adjust and optimize guest waiting experiences in real-time, and communicate updates to guests (e.g., via mobile or wireless technology).).
Response to Arguments
The Applicants remarks begin on page 6 of the response on June 16, 2026. The Applicant begins with a summary of the claims and the interview from April 27, 2026.
Regarding the rejection under Obviousness type double patenting, the Applicant requests review and reconsideration of the rejection (Remarks page 6).
The rejection has been reviewed in view of the claim amendments and remains in this Office Action.
The arguments proceed to the rejection under 35 U.S.C § 101 (Remarks pages 7-9) and the Applicants take the position that the claims recite an ordered combination of steps which are not practically performed in the human mind or through human organization alone. Applicants state that steps involving determining arrival times of a plurality of guests withing a predetermine distance and transmitting commands to specific guest devices is not something practically organized by human activity and requires automated processing of wireless signal to multiple guests in real time. The Applicant contends that the claims are not recite an abstract idea under any enumerated groupings
The Examiner disagrees with the Applicant. The claims were not rejected under mental processes. Additionally, the steps outlined in the claims are managing human behavior where crowds are incentives or recommended to disperse to other less crowded areas since people will have a more enjoyable time not waiting in line. The argument that the technological specifics of a system sending messages to guest devices is not persuasive as it’s simply claiming functions which the courts have determined to be well known, routing, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d) II. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network);. The Examiner points to Organizing human activity and the subgroup managing personal behavior or relationships which is exactly the grouping of abstract idea where these claims sit.
At Prong 2 Applicant argues that under Step 1 the claims are integrated into practical application. Specifically citing claim 21 reciting the receiving step where the activity command is complete. And claim 30 where the controller determines arrival times based on distance and transmits commands to selected guest devices (remarks page 10).
The Examiner disagrees. The claims are not integrated into a practical application as the claims are simply using the technological field of computers, handheld devices, and wireless networks to transmit and receive information to provide direction to park guests. The use of the specific technology is not integrating the abstract idea into a practical application rather simply using the technology as part of the judicial exception.
Applicant further cites Example 46 where claim 1 is found ineligible as a collecting data, analyzing, and display a result (the process or Electric Power Group v. Alstom S.A.). Applicant cites claim 2 where the system sends a control signal and the USPTO found this to go beyond the abstract idea. Applicants argues this applies to the instant claims for the receiving a signal indicate a task is complete. Citing Example 46 the argument is that the claims task feedback means the system receives signals from physical guest devices indicating real world task completion (claims 21) and real world corrective action (claim 30).
Applicant further argues claim 30’s determination of arrival times to Example 46 claim 3 where the system routes the animals such that different animals are sorted in differ areas. Applicant points to the system operating a gate in routing the animal as the corrective action (remarks page 11). Applicant claims the limitations in new claim 42 involve spatial filtering of guests which is a specific technical improvement.
The Examiner strongly disagrees with the arguments. Related to Examiner 46 the Examiner does not find the claims to be similar to the eligible examples. Specifically, as highlighted by the Applicant, claim 1 was ineligible as it was simply collecting, analyzing, and displaying data. This is exactly the process that the current claims are using. The guest is seeing a recommendation or incentive to move elsewhere on a screen. This is not more than providing suggestion or direction to the guest. This is not the same as the cited Examiner for several reasons. Providing instructions, incentives, or recommendations to a guest is not equivalent to dispensing the correct amount of vitamins and minerals, nor is it the same as controlling a gate for the animals to move in one or two direction. The claims are more equivalent to the claim 1 ineligible steps which is not more than providing direction, recommendation, or suggestion to someone overseeing the animals.
Also, the system is not itself controlling an abject in physical space. The controller in the example is either, actuating the gate with a control signal or actuating one or more dispensers to provide vitamins and minerals into an animals feed. By comparison the claims are sending directions, instructions, suggestions, recommendation, or incentives to a device to be displayed. This is not manipulating the physical environment. At best it’s manipulating a human being.
Additionally, since it’s not more than a suggestion, recommendation, or inventive, being provided to a human there is the case in which they do not follow the suggestion and stay put where they are.
Arguments move on to the rejection under 35 U.S.C § 102 (remarks page 12) where the Applicant cites that the prior art reference of Schwartz does not disclose the amended limitations of at least claims 21 and 30.
The Examiner agrees that the reference does not teach the newly amended limitations. The rejection has been revised and is now a rejection under 35 U.S.C § 103.
In summary, the claims do no overcome the rejections under obviousness type double patenting and 35 U.S.C § 101. The rejection under 35 U.S.C § 102 has become a 35 U.S.C § 103 in light of the amendments. No claims are allowed at this time.
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 DYLAN C WHITE whose telephone number is (571)272-1406. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00 EST.
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 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.
/DYLAN C WHITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625 August 6, 2026
Prosecution Insights