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 .
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 16 recites the limitation " said oval portions" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 6-8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Joseph Davidson (US patent No. 1652975; hereinafter Davidson; provided by applicant in the IDS).
As to claim 1, Davidson teaches an amusement ride Column 1, lines 1-5) comprising: a track (14 and 16) having at least one oval portion (36); at least one vehicle (24) adapted to travel around said track (see figure 1) ; a movement mechanism adapted to cause each said at least one vehicle to travel around said track (figure 1; and col. 3, lines 35-53) each said vehicle further adapted to rotate around a vehicle axis of said vehicle at all locations about said track (col. 3, lines 22-34), wherein said movement mechanism and said track cause each said vehicle to experience an acceleration when said vehicle reaches a curved end of said oval portion and wherein said acceleration causes a top portion of said vehicle to rotate about said vehicle axis (col. 4, lines 6-12).
As to claim 2, Davidson teaches that the amusement ride as in claim 1, wherein said track includes straight portions and said vehicle is rotatable about said vehicle axis along said straight portions (fig. 1 where the oval shape track has straight and curve path).
As to claim 3, Davidson teaches that the amusement ride as in claim 1, wherein said movement mechanism includes a chain (16) that engages an arm (23 through levers 20 & 21) located in a bottom portion of a corresponding vehicle of said at least one vehicle and wherein a top portion of the vehicle is rotatable with respect to the bottom portion (see also col. 2, lines 39-43).
As to claim 6, Davidson teaches that the amusement ride as in claim 1, wherein each said vehicle is adapted to rotate 360 about said vehicle axis (figs 2-3).
As to claim 7, Davidson teaches the amusement ride as in claim 1, wherein each said vehicle comprises a gondola with a plurality of seats (39 with plurality of seats 40). Note that the Gondola according to applicant is 31 in fig. 3 which is round with multiple seats which is similar to the prior art).
As to claim 8, Davidson teaches the amusement ride as in claim 7, wherein each said gondola includes wheels (25 in fig. 4) and is adapted to travel around said track on said wheels.
As to claim 10, Davidson teaches the amusement ride as in claim 1, wherein each said vehicle comprises a two-part vehicle including a lower chassis part (24 in fig. fig. 2) coupled to said movement mechanism (wheels) and an upper carriage (39) portion that accommodates at least one rider, said upper carriage part rotatable with respect to said lower chassis part about said vehicle axis.
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) 4 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davidson.
As to claim 4, Davidson does not expressly teach that the chain includes a braking member for braking the vehicle at completion of a ride.
However, this is almost a must to have means to stop the vehicle even though Davidson didn’t mention it in his device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have means for stopping the ride so as to add more security and safety to the device.
As to claim 9, Davidson didn’t specifically teach having a single seat extending peripherally about center.
However, the location of the seat in the vehicle is pure design choice and has no specific reason and has no added benefit.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to design the seats in the ride in any way (center or other location) so as to optimize the number of the seats available and to create balance of the ride.
Claim(s) 11-20is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davidson in view of Gordon et al. (US patent No. 7,794,330; hereinafter referred to as Gordon).
As to claim 11, Davidson does not teach the upper carriage part rotatably coupled to the lower chassis via bearing.
Gordon (figure 10) teaches using bearing arrangement 406 to secure the vehicle to the (col. 6, lines 26-39).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use bearing (note that in Davidson, he uses Bolt 41 to connect the upper and lower of the vehicle which maybe suitable at the time of Davidson’s invention (1926)) so as to secure the vehicle.
As to claim 12, Davidson does not teach a spring to stabilize the vehicle.
Gordon teaches (figs. 9-10) teaches the use of spring (14h) to secure vehicle (col. 3, lines 40 to col. 4, line 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the use of spring to assure the secure of the ride while allowing the agility of the vehicle.
As to claim 13, Gordon teaches a internal guide rod (14j in fig. 4).
As to claim 14, Gordon teaches a slider member disposed between an inner spring (14j) and outer spring portion (14g).
As to claim 15, Gordon teaches the amusement ride as in claim 12, wherein said internal guide rod includes a slider portion that moves outwardly along said guide rod to compress an outer spring of said spring member which responds by providing a restitution restoring force (col. 3, lines 40 to col. 4, line 9).
As to claim 16, Davidson and Gordon do not expressly teach that the ride comprises a plurality of oval portions coupled to one another.
Gordon teaches chain to construct the cable. It is known that the chain is made of round chain links (circle or oval) connected to each other.
Therefore, it would have been obvious that the chain will be constructed from links connected to each other so as to be able to secure the cable.
As to claims 17-20, the limitations in all these claims are combination of claims 1, 6 and 11-16 as whole or in part and will be rejected for the same reasons as the indicated claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kilbert et al. (US 2009/0266266) teaches cable tow whip ride with inside curves.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMR A AWAD whose telephone number is (571)272-7764. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
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.
/AMR A AWAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2621
Prosecution Insights