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 Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: “of claim of claim 1” that is a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required.
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 23 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.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the at least one ridge.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in claim 23. Claim 23 is interpreted: “23. The recreational slide system of claim 22, . . . .”
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.
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.
Claims 1–2, 4–7, 12, and 22–29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frankowski et al. (US 12403407 B2) in view of Hunter (US 7713134 B2).
As to claim 1, Frankowski teaches a recreational slide system (“rotating feature (201)”) comprising:
a support structure (“open pedestal (204)”);
a slide (“rotating feature (202)”) operatively supported by the support structure and being rotatable relative to the support structure and about a rotational axis (“central axis (202)”) of the slide,
the slide comprising
a slide body (“rotating feature (202)”) that extends between an entrance opening and an opposite exit opening, and
the slide body defining a slide surface (shown in in Fig. 2A and 2C) that is wet lubricated over which a rider (“a rider riding without a vehicle may enjoy the inventions described herein, notwithstanding the use of the term “vehicle” in the description” at column 3, line 7–10) is configured to travel as the slide is rotated.
(Fig. 2A, 2B, and 2C). Frankowski also teaches a drive operatively coupled to the slide and configured to rotate the slide about the rotational axis.
In one exemplary embodiment the rotating features (102, 103 and 104) illustrated in FIGS. 1A and 1B may be indirectly driven. For example, the rotating feature includes one or more v-grooves for a belt drive system, or one or more gears for a chain drive or geared system, or the rotating feature may rest on one or more drive wheels that support and spin the tunnel on collars (205 or 206 shown in FIG. 2C), or similar technology. In one embodiment, the rotating features (102, 103 and 104) may be directly driven with a straight shaft. In one embodiment, the rotating features (102, 103 and 104) may be directly driven with a straight shaft and flexible coupling or similar technology.
(column 4, line 10–21).
Frankowski does not teach a slide surface that is non-wet lubricated.
PNG
media_image1.png
529
558
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2C of Frankowski.
Hunter teaches a water slide and that one of ordinary skill knows that it can be slid on by a rider or by a rider on a vehicle, and that one of ordinary skill knows that the water slide can be configured or used as a dry slide, or vice versa.
It will be understood by those skilled in the art that the fully enclosed reducing radius slide feature 101 can be adapted not only for use by a rider 200, but also for use by an innertube or raft like vehicle 210, or multi-passenger passenger wet/dry ride vehicles 220, such as multi-person innertubes, wet/dry ride vehicles, and/or various wheel-suspended vehicles and the like.
. . .
The various preferred embodiments illustrated and described above are configured for optimal use as a wet water ride using one or more single and/or multi-passenger ride vehicles. However, those skilled in the art will readily appreciate that a flume ride and/or other similar ride could alternatively be configured and used with or without a ride vehicle and as either a dry slide and/or a water slide.
(column 10, line 48–54; column 11, line 5–11).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Frankowski by configuring as taught by Hunter, the wet slide surface into a slide surface that is non-wet lubricated. Motivation for this modification would have been to provide a slide operable in either situation.
As to claim 2, Frankowski further discloses a support frame (“open pedestal (204)” in Fig. 2C, that includes the legs of 204 that act as a support frame for the structure).
As to claim 4, Frankowski as modified to reject claim 1, already teaches that the rotational axis of the slide is coaxial with a central longitudinal axis of the slide, as shown in Fig. 2C by reference character “202.” One of ordinary skill would have understood that Fig. 2C shows that the support structure (“open pedestal (204)”) constrains the slide (“rotating feature (202)”) to rotate about the central longitudinal axis of the slide.
As to claim 5, Frankowski further teaches a slide body that includes an inner diameter that is constant: “As shown in FIG. 2A, the cross-sectional diameter of the interior of the rotating feature (201) is constant throughout.” (column 4, line 29–30).
As to claim 6, the embodiment of Frankowski to reject claim 1 above, does not expressly teach a slide body whose inner diameter is not constant.
However, another embodiment of Frankowski teaches an embodiment that is a slide body (“rotating feature (301)“) that includes an inner diameter that is greater than a diameter of the entrance opening and a diameter of the exit opening to form an entrance shoulder and an exit shoulder:
Varying the cross-sectional diameter of the inner ride surface (303) allows the designer to change the gradient of the ride surface (303) without changing the gradient of the central axis (302) of the rotating feature. For example, by reducing the cross-sectional diameter from a large cross-sectional diameter at the extreme ends, for example, entering at the end with collar 304 in FIG. 3A, to a smaller cross-sectional diameter in the interior (305), the ride surface gradient will reduce or invert and ride vehicles will slow down. And by increasing the cross-sectional diameter again from a small cross-sectional diameter in the interior (305) to a large cross-sectional diameter at the far end (the end with collar 306), the ride surface gradient will increase and the ride vehicles will speed up.
Although FIGS. 3A and 3B illustrate an exemplary embodiment of the rotating feature (301) with a large cross-sectional diameter at the entrance (304) and exit (306) of the rotating feature and a small cross-sectional diameter in the middle (305) of the rotating feature, other embodiments with varying cross-sections are contemplated. In one embodiment, the entrance (304) and exit (305) of the rotating feature may have a comparatively small cross-sectional diameter compared to the middle (305) of the rotating feature. In one embodiment, the cross-sectional diameter of the rotating feature may get larger or smaller, either in a linear or non-linear manner, from the entrance (304) to the exit (306) (e.g., a conical feature or a horn-shaped feature).
(column 5, line 1–34; Fig 3A–3B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Frankowski, already modified to reject claim 1, by including as taught by Frankowski, in the slide body, an inner diameter that is greater than a diameter of the entrance opening and a diameter of the exit opening to form an entrance shoulder and an exit shoulder, to increase as taught by Frankowski, the variety in rider speed, and thereby increase the fun experienced by the rider. (column 5, line 1–34; Fig 3A–3B). Additionally, varying diameters is a change in shape and thus it is also obvious, absent “persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed” variation in diameters is “significant.” MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B).
As to claim 7, Frankowski further discloses first end cap (“collar sections (205, 206)”) that defines the entrance opening and a second end cap (“collar sections (205, 206)”) that defines the exit opening:
As shown in FIG. 2A, the cross-sectional diameter of the interior of the rotating feature (201) is constant throughout. The exterior diameter also exhibits a constant cross-sectional diameter, apart from the collar sections (205, 206) on each end. However, it is contemplated that the exterior diameter may also be adapted to have a non-uniform cross-section, while the interior cross-section remains uniform as shown. For example, the exterior diameter in this embodiment and other described herein may include design features (arrows, logos, theming, etc.) or utilitarian features (notches, grooves, gearing, etc.) that assist in the rotation.
FIG. 2C illustrates an exemplary embodiment of a rotating feature (201) with collar structures (205 and 206) towards the end of the rotating feature and an open pedestal (204) supporting the rotating feature (202). The collar structures (205, 206) are designed to constrain the rotating feature (201) laterally along the central axis (202) by opposing features (207, 208) on the pedestal (204). In one embodiment, the rotating feature (201) may be constrained co-axially around the central axis (203) by partially or entirely enclosing the collar structures (205 and 206) and positioning guide wheels above the mid-point (209) of the rotating feature.
(colum 4, line 29–51; Fig. 2A, 2C).
As to claim 12, Frankowski as modified to reject claim 1 above, already teaches the slide body but not that it includes a plurality of body sections.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Frankowski, already modified to reject claim 1, by making the slide body separable into body sections connected together in an end-to-end arrangement to define the slide surface because: making the slide body separable would have been “desirable” for ease of manufacture, and then transport of the slide body from the manufacturing site to the installation site; and connecting the body sections end-to-end merely would have reconstructed the slide body as it was before being made separable, and would have resulted in a slide surface having smooth transitions between body sections. MPEP 2144.04 (V)(C).
As to claim 22, Frankowski as modified to reject claim 1 above, teaches the slide surface, but not a ridge in the embodiment relied upon to reject claim 1.
However, Frankowski in a separate embodiment teaches a ridge (“three-dimensional features (505)”) that projects a height from the slide surface (“inner ride surface (503)”). (column 5, line 63–67; column 6, line 1–14, 27–34; Fig. 5A–5B). Frankowski teaches that “differing experiences” for the rider motivates a ridge or “mogul” on the slide surface. (column 9, line 34–56).
It would have been obvious to further modify Frankowski, already modified to reject claim 1 above, by employing as taught by Frankowski, a ridge (that projects a height from the slide surface, to provide “differing experiences” for the rider, compared to other portions of the slide that do not have a ridge, as taught by Frankowski.
As to claim 23, Frankowski further teaches that the ridge (“three-dimensional features (505)”) extends a length between the entrance opening and the opposite exit opening of the slide:
As depicted in FIGS. 5A and 5B, the three-dimensional features (505) are uniform in size and shape and are uniformly distributed along the circumference and along the length of the rotating feature (501). In other embodiments, the three-dimensional features (505) may be non-uniform, either in shape, size, or location, or with respect to all three aspects.
. . .
FIGS. 5A and 5B illustrate an exemplary embodiment (501) of the rotating feature with a cross-sectional diameter following a central axis. In one embodiment, the cross-sectional diameter may follow a spline, such as feature 403 depicted in FIGS. 4A and 4B. In one embodiment, the cross-sectional diameter may vary along the central axis or spline similar to FIGS. 3A and 3B.
(column 6, line 8–14, line 21–34; Fig. 5A–5B).
As to claim 24, the embodiment of Frankowski to reject claim 1 above, teaches the slide but not a divider.
However, another embodiment of Frankowski teaches that the slide includes at least one divider that defines a plurality of sliding lanes:
FIGS. 8A, through 8C illustrate an embodiment where riders within section 804 cannot see or interact with riders in neighboring lanes. In one embodiment, section 804 may have conjoined lanes with transparent or semitransparent dividing walls (812) similar to the experience described in connection with FIGS. 2-5 of international patent application publication number WO 2022/082293A1, titled “Amusement Attraction with Coupled Ride Paths,” which is incorporated herein by reference.
(column 8, line 50–58; Fig. 8A–8C).
It would have been obvious to further modify Frankowski, already modified to reject claim 1 above, by employing as taught by Frankowski, the slide that includes a divider that defines a plurality of sliding lanes, “to improve the throughput” (Frankowski column 8, line 25–30) of the slide.
As to claim 25, Frankowski teaches a method for imparting motion to a ride vehicle (“ride vehicle”) of a recreational slide system. (column 1, line 49–67, to, column 12, line 1–48). Frankowski teaches that the method provides, the recreational slide system that comprises:
a support structure (“open pedestal (204)”);
a slide (“rotating feature (202)”) operatively supported by the support structure and being rotatable relative to the support structure and about a rotational axis (“central axis (202)”) of the slide,
the slide comprising
a slide body (“rotating feature (202)”) that extends between an entrance opening and an opposite exit opening, and
the slide body defining a slide surface (shown in in Fig. 2A and 2C) that is wet lubricated over which a rider (“a rider riding without a vehicle may enjoy the inventions described herein, notwithstanding the use of the term “vehicle” in the description” at column 3, line 7–10) is configured to travel as the slide is rotated. (Fig. 2A, 2B, and 2C).
Frankowski also teaches that the slide comprises at least one drive operatively coupled to the slide and configured to rotate the slide about the rotational axis;
In one exemplary embodiment the rotating features (102, 103 and 104) illustrated in FIGS. 1A and 1B may be indirectly driven. For example, the rotating feature includes one or more v-grooves for a belt drive system, or one or more gears for a chain drive or geared system, or the rotating feature may rest on one or more drive wheels that support and spin the tunnel on collars (205 or 206 shown in FIG. 2C), or similar technology. In one embodiment, the rotating features (102, 103 and 104) may be directly driven with a straight shaft. In one embodiment, the rotating features (102, 103 and 104) may be directly driven with a straight shaft and flexible coupling or similar technology.
(column 4, line 10–21).
Frankowski also teaches that the method comprises operating the drive to rotate the slide in a first direction about the rotational axis of the slide; and receiving the ride vehicle onto the slide surface of the slide; wherein rotation of the slide in the first direction causes the ride vehicle to cyclically move in an upward direction towards a top of the slide and then in a downward direction towards a base of the slide along the slide surface on a first side of the slide:
As described herein, the invention includes rotating waterslide features that can be incorporated in-line with a water slide flume. Unlike prior inventions, the invention described herein induces and incorporates sideways or lateral motion of the rider (i.e., pushing the rider up a wall) to increase excitement and enjoyment by the riders. . . .
. . .
Throughout this description, it should be understood that the term “ride vehicle” refers to a ride vehicle (e.g., a raft) carrying a single rider or multiple riders as is commonly used in the industry. It is also contemplated that a rider riding without a vehicle may enjoy the inventions described herein, notwithstanding the use of the term “vehicle” in the description.
. . .
FIG. 6A illustrates a perspective view of an exemplary embodiment of the rotating feature (601) in a neutral position. FIG. 6B illustrates an end view of the rotating feature (601) with the feature and ride vehicle (606) in a neutral position. As illustrated in FIGS. 6C, 6D and 6E as the rotating feature rotates clockwise (FIG. 6C) the ride vehicle (606) begins to climb the riding surface wall (604) due to the friction between the ride vehicle (606) and riding surface (603). As the rotation direction changes to anticlockwise (FIG. 6D) the ride vehicle (606) may continue to climb the riding surface wall (604) before gravitational forces overcome the friction forces and stall the ride vehicle (606) on the wall (604) and the ride vehicle (606) changes direction. As the rotating feature (601) continues to rotate anti-clockwise, the ride vehicle begins to drop toward the neutral position and then begin climbing the second surface wall (605). The open feature (607) enhances the riders' perception of movement and change of direction of rotation.
In one embodiment, the rotating feature (601) in FIG. 6A may replace rotating feature 102 in FIG. 1A. In that instance, the ride vehicle (606) would preferably enter the rotating feature (601) with moderate to high speed and an entry angle close to 90 degrees from the central axis of the rotating feature (601) and immediately climb the first ride surface wall (604). The clockwise (FIG. 6C) and anticlockwise (FIG. 6E) rotation of the rotating feature (601) may be used to maintain or dampen the oscillation of the ride vehicle (606) on the ride surface walls (604, 605).
(column 1, line 49–54; column 3, line 4–10; column 6, line 43–67; column 7, line 1–3).
Frankowski does not teach a non-wet lubricated slide surface.
Hunter teaches a water slide and that one of ordinary skill knows that it can be slid on by a rider or by a rider on a vehicle, and Hunter also teaches that one of ordinary skill knows that the water slide can be configured or used as a dry slide, and vice versa.
It will be understood by those skilled in the art that the fully enclosed reducing radius slide feature 101 can be adapted not only for use by a rider 200, but also for use by an innertube or raft like vehicle 210, or multi-passenger passenger wet/dry ride vehicles 220, such as multi-person innertubes, wet/dry ride vehicles, and/or various wheel-suspended vehicles and the like.
. . .
The various preferred embodiments illustrated and described above are configured for optimal use as a wet water ride using one or more single and/or multi-passenger ride vehicles. However, those skilled in the art will readily appreciate that a flume ride and/or other similar ride could alternatively be configured and used with or without a ride vehicle and as either a dry slide and/or a water slide.
(column 10, line 48–54; column 11, line 5–11).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Frankowski by configuring as taught by Hunter, the wet slide surface (of Frankowski) into a slide surface that is non-wet lubricated. Motivation for this modification would have been to provide a slide operable in either situation.
As to claim 26, the embodiment of Frankowski modified to reject claim 25 above, does not expressly teach varying the speed of rotation of the slide.
However, another embodiment of Frankowski teaches that
[t]he rotating features (102, 103 and 104) may constantly rotate at a set speed or may have varying rotation speed to create varying experiences. In an exemplary embodiment the varying rotation speed of the rotating feature may be controlled electronically using variable frequency drives (VFDs) or similar technology used to control the drive speed of the motor or similar technology.” This inherently varies move of the ride vehicle along the slide surface.
(column 3, line 61–67).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Frankowski, already modified to reject claim 25, by operating as taught by Frankowski, the drive to vary a speed of rotation of the slide to vary movement of the ride vehicle along the slide surface, to create “varying experiences” for the rider as taught by Frankowski.
As to claim 27, Frankowski as modified to reject claim 25 above, further teaches operating the drive to rotate the slide in a second direction that is opposite the first direction, wherein rotation of the slide in the second direction causes the ride vehicle to cyclically move in the upward direction and then in the downward direction along the slide surface on a second side of the slide body:
As the rotation direction changes to anticlockwise (FIG. 6D) the ride vehicle (606) may continue to climb the riding surface wall (604) before gravitational forces overcome the friction forces and stall the ride vehicle (606) on the wall (604) and the ride vehicle (606) changes direction. As the rotating feature (601) continues to rotate anti-clockwise, the ride vehicle begins to drop toward the neutral position and then begin climbing the second surface wall (605). The open feature (607) enhances the riders' perception of movement and change of direction of rotation.
(column 6, line 51–60).
As to claim 28, Frankowski further teaches leveling the support structure so that the rotational axis of the slide is substantially parallel to a surface on which the support structure is supported such that rotation of the slide is not configured to bias the ride vehicle toward the entrance opening or the exit opening of the slide:
the angle of inclination (grade) of the rotating features (102, 103 and 104) may be determined based on the target tangential velocity of the ride vehicles, a steeper grade may be used to speed up the ride vehicle and a shallower grade may be used to slow down the ride vehicle.
(column 3, line 39–43).
As to claim 29, Frankowski teaches the slide but not a ridge in the embodiment relied upon to reject claim 25 above.
However, another embodiment of Frankowski teaches a ridge (“three-dimensional features (505)”) that projects a height from the slide surface (“inner ride surface (503)”). (column 5, line 63–67; column 6, line 1–14, 27–34; Fig. 5A–5B). Frankowski teaches that “differing experiences” for the rider motivates a ridge or “mogul” on the slide surface. (column 9, line 34–56). Frankowski also teaches that rotating the slide causes the ride vehicle to move in an upward direction towards the top of the slide, and that a person of ordinary skill understands that a “component, feature, step or part” (taught by Frankowski) may be used in an embodiment of the slide taught by Frankowski, despite Frankowski not expressly teaching that the “component, feature, step or part” is included in the embodiment:
FIG. 6A illustrates a perspective view of an exemplary embodiment of the rotating feature (601) in a neutral position. FIG. 6B illustrates an end view of the rotating feature (601) with the feature and ride vehicle (606) in a neutral position. As illustrated in FIGS. 6C, 6D and 6E as the rotating feature rotates clockwise (FIG. 6C) the ride vehicle (606) begins to climb the riding surface wall (604) due to the friction between the ride vehicle (606) and riding surface (603). As the rotation direction changes to anticlockwise (FIG. 6D) the ride vehicle (606) may continue to climb the riding surface wall (604) before gravitational forces overcome the friction forces and stall the ride vehicle (606) on the wall (604) and the ride vehicle (606) changes direction. As the rotating feature (601) continues to rotate anti-clockwise, the ride vehicle begins to drop toward the neutral position and then begin climbing the second surface wall (605). The open feature (607) enhances the riders' perception of movement and change of direction of rotation.
. . .
Although embodiments of this invention have been fully described with reference to the accompanying drawings, it is to be noted that various changes and modifications will become apparent to those skilled in the art. Such changes and modifications are to be understood as being included within the scope of embodiments of this invention as defined by the appended claims. Specifically, exemplary components are described herein. Any combination of these components may be used in any combination. For example, any component, feature, step or part may be integrated, separated, sub-divided, removed, duplicated, added, or used in any combination and remain within the scope of the present disclosure. Embodiments are exemplary only, and provide an illustrative combination of features, but are not limited thereto.
(column 6, line 43–60; column 11, line 33–47).
It would have been obvious to further modify Frankowski, already modified to reject claim 25, by employing as taught by Frankowski, a ridge that projects a height from the slide surface, to provide “differing experiences” for the rider, compared to other portions of the slide that do not have a ridge, as taught by Frankowski.
Frankowski already modified by the preceding paragraph, teaches the ridge, and the ridge inherently engages the ride vehicle with the ridge as the slide rotates to move the ride vehicle in an upward direction towards the top of the slide.
Claims 3, 8–10, 13, and 15–21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frankowski in view of Hunter, and further in view of Inman et al. (GB 191328036 A).
As to claim 3, Frankowski as modified to reject claim 1 above, teaches the drive but not what structure supports the drive.
Inman teaches a “car” that travels on a “track.” (page 1, line 8–9; Fig. 1–2). The “track” spirals along the inner surface of a cylindrical “open skeleton framework resting on pairs of rollers, the rollers being rotated so [as] to drive the track by friction.” (page 1, line 10–12; Fig. 1–2). The drive (“rollers,” also known as “bearing wheels f,” are connected to “an engine or motor” via a “belt j”) rotates the cylindrical “open skeleton framework.” (page 1, line 10–12, 30–32; Fig. 2–3). The drive (“bearing wheels f”) is supported by a support structure (“frame g”). (page 1, line 36–37; Fig. 2–3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to further modify Frankowski, already modified to reject claim 1, by supporting the drive with the support structure as taught by Inman, to efficiently and stably rotate the slide.
As to claim 8, Frankowski as modified to reject claim 1 above, teaches the slide but not that it includes a track.
Inman teaches a “car” that travels on a “track.” (page 1, line 8–9; Fig. 1–2). The “track” spirals along the inner surface of a cylindrical “open skeleton framework resting on pairs of rollers, the rollers being rotated so [as] to drive the track by friction.” (page 1, line 10–12; Fig. 1–2). A track (“grooved bands d”) extends circumferentially about a periphery of the “cylinder” (i.e., the cylindrical “open skeleton framework”) and the drive (“rollers,” also known as “bearing wheels f,” are connected to “an engine or motor” via a “belt j”) rotates the cylindrical “open skeleton framework” by engaging the track. (page 1, line 10–12, 28–32; Fig. 2–3).
It would have been obvious to further modify Frankowski, already modified to reject claim 1 above, by employing as taught by Inman, a track that extends circumferentially about a periphery of the slide body, wherein the drive operatively engages the track to rotate the slide, to prevent the slide from shifting (relative to the drive) until it loses contact with the drive.
As to claim 9, Frankowski as modified to reject claim 8 above, already teaches the support structure and drive but not expressly a driven element, nor does it teach an idle element.
Inman teaches that the support structure includes a driven element (“bearing wheels f”) driven by the drive (“an engine or motor”) and an idle element (“adjustable bearings for the wheels f”), and wherein the track (“grooved bands d”) is configured to receive the driven element and the idle element. (page 1, line 28–32, 36–39; Fig. 2–3).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to further modify Frankowski, already modified to reject claim 8, by employing as taught by Inman, the support structure comprising a driven element driven by the drive and an idle element, and wherein the track is configured to receive the driven element and the idle element, to stabilize the slide as it rotates, and to further reduce the likelihood that the slide shifts (relative to the drive) until it loses contact with the drive.
As to claim 10, Frankowski as modified to reject claim 9 above, already teaches the track but not that is located at a joint between a pair of body sections.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Frankowski, already modified to reject claim 9, by making the slide body separable into a pair of body sections because making the slide separable would have been “desirable” for ease of manufacture, and then transport of the slide from the manufacturing site to the installation site. MPEP 2144.04 (V)(C).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Frankowski, already modified by the preceding paragraph, by locating the track at a joint between the pair of body sections because it “would not have modified operation” of the recreational slide system, and it would have been an “obvious matter of design choice.” MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(C). Motivation for locating the track at a joint would have been to add material (i.e., the track) at the joint that is a weak point of the slide. The instant application provides no statement of a secondary consideration that would have rendered nonobvious the location of the track at a joint.
As to claim 13, Frankowski as modified to reject claim 12 above, teaches the slide body and drive but not that the slide system includes a track.
Inman teaches a “car” that travels on a “track.” (page 1, line 8–9; Fig. 1–2). The “track” spirals along the inner surface of a cylindrical “open skeleton framework resting on pairs of rollers, the rollers being rotated so [as] to drive the track by friction.” (page 1, line 10–12; Fig. 1–2). A track (“grooved bands d”) extends circumferentially about a periphery of the “cylinder” (i.e., the cylindrical “open skeleton framework”) and the drive (“rollers,” also known as “bearing wheels f,” are connected to “an engine or motor” via a “belt j”) rotates the cylindrical “open skeleton framework” by engaging the track. (page 1, line 10–12, 28–32; Fig. 2–3).
It would have been obvious to further modify Frankowski, already modified to reject claim 12, by employing as taught by Inman, a track that extends circumferentially about a periphery of the slide body, wherein the drive operatively engages the track to rotate the slide, to prevent the slide from shifting (relative to the drive) until it loses contact with the drive.
It would have been obvious to further modify Frankowski, already modified by the preceding paragraph, by locating the track at a joint between a first body section and a second body section of the plurality of body sections because it “would not have modified operation” of the recreational slide system, and it would have been an “obvious matter of design choice.” MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(C). Motivation for locating the track at the joint would have been to add material (i.e., the track) at the joint that is a weak point of the slide. The instant application provides no statement of a secondary consideration that would have rendered nonobvious the location of the track at a joint.
As to claim 15, Frankowski as modified to reject claim 13 above, already teaches the support structure and drive but not expressly a driven element, nor does it teach an idle element.
Inman teaches that the support structure includes a driven element (“bearing wheels f”) driven by the drive (“an engine or motor”) and an idle element (“adjustable bearings for the wheels f”), and wherein the track (“grooved bands d”) is configured to receive the driven element and the idle element. (page 1, line 28–32, 36–39; Fig. 2–3).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to further modify Frankowski, already modified to reject claim 13, by employing as taught by Inman, the support structure comprising a driven element driven by the drive and an idle element, wherein the track is configured to receive the driven element and the idle element, to stabilize the slide as it rotates, and to further reduce the likelihood that the slide shifts (relative to the drive) until it loses contact with the drive.
As to claim 16, Frankowski as modified to reject claim 15 above, already teaches the driven element and the idle element but does not expressly teach that they are wheels.
Inman teaches that the driven element (“bearing wheels f”) and the idle element (“adjustable bearings for the wheels f”) are wheels. (page 1, line 28–32, 36–39; Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to further modify Frankowski, already modified to reject claim 15, by employing as taught by Inman, the driven element and idle element to be wheels, to smoothly rotate the slide.
As to claim 17, Frankowski as modified to reject claim 1 above, teaches the support structure but not that that it includes a drive support cradle and an idle support cradle, and that the drive support cradle includes the drive.
Inman teaches that the support structure includes a drive support cradle (“bearing wheels f and shafting e are fixed to a frame g”) and an idle support cradle (“adjustable bearings for the wheels f . . . are fixed to the frame l”), and Inman also teaches that the drive (“an engine or motor”) drives the “bearing wheels f.” (page 1, line 36–39; Fig. 1–3).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Frankowski, already modified to reject claim 1, by employing as taught by Inman, a drive support cradle and idle cradle, to provide a support for idle and drive mechanism.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Frankowski, already modified by the preceding paragraph by integrating the drive into the drive support cradle, and integrating the drive support cradle with the idle support cradle, because making integral would have been a “matter of obvious engineering choice” and the instant specification lacks an explanation of why this limitation was an “insight that was contrary to the understandings and expectations of the art.” MPEP 2144.04 (V)(B). Motivation to integrate these structures into the support structure would have been to create a more stable support structure.
As to claim 18, Frankowski as modified to reject claim 17 above, already teaches the drive support cradle but not expressly that a driven element is engaged by the drive, and that the drive cradle includes an idle element.
Inman teaches that the drive support cradle includes a driven element (“bearing wheels f”) driven by the drive (“an engine or motor”), and also “frame l” that supports an idle element (“adjustable bearings for the wheels f”), and wherein the driven element and idle element engage with the “revolving cylinder,” also known as “open skeleton framework.” (page 1, line 10–39; Fig. 1–3).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to further modify Frankowski, already modified to reject claim 17, by employing as taught by Inman, a driven element in the drive support cradle, and an idle element in a separate support structure, both of which engage the slide body of Frankowski, for the drive to stably rotate the slide body.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to further modify Frankowski, already modified by the preceding paragraph, by employing an idle element in the drive support cradle because such a modification would have been a duplication and rearrangement of parts, and because the instant disclosure lacks a showing that this configuration produces a “new and unexpected result.” MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(B)–(VI)(C). Motivation for such a modification would have been to more stably rotate the slide body.
As to claim 19, Frankowski as modified to reject claim 18 above, teaches the idle support cradle but not its position relative to the drive support cradle, nor does it teach the number of idle elements included in the idle support cradle.
Inman teaches multiple idle elements (“adjustable bearings for the wheels f”), and that they are on the opposite side from the driven elements (“bearing wheels f”) that engage the slide body (“[o]n the opposite side of the cylinder”) and in combination with Fig. 1–2, Inman teaches that at least some idle support cradles are spaced from the drive support cradle along a longitudinal length of the slide. (page 1, line 29–32, 36–39; Fig. 1–2).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to further modify Frankowski, already modified to reject claim 17, by spacing the idle support cradle as taught by Inman, from the drive support cradle along a longitudinal length of the slide, to yet more stably rotate the slide body.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to further modify Frankowski, already modified by the preceding paragraph, by including in the idle support cradle a pair of idle elements that engage the slide body because such a modification would have been a duplication of parts, and because the instant disclosure lacks a showing that this produces a “new and unexpected result.” MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(B). Motivation for such a modification would have been to yet more stably rotate the slide body.
As to claim 20, Frankowski as modified to reject claim 19 above, teaches the slide body, driven element, idle element, and drive support cradle, but not a first and second track.
Inman teaches a “car” that travels on a “track.” (page 1, line 8–9; Fig. 1–2). The “track” spirals along the inner surface of a cylindrical “open skeleton framework resting on pairs of rollers, the rollers being rotated so [as] to drive the track by friction.” (page 1, line 10–12; Fig. 1–2). Tracks (“grooved bands d”) extend circumferentially about a periphery of the “cylinder” (i.e., the cylindrical “open skeleton framework”) and the drive (“rollers,” also known as “bearing wheels f,” are connected to “an engine or motor” via a “belt j”) rotate the cylindrical “open skeleton framework” by engaging the tracks. (page 1, line 10–12, 28–32; Fig. 2–3). Inman teaches that idle elements (“adjustable bearings for the wheels f”), on the opposite side from the driven elements (“bearing wheels f”), engage the tracks. (page 1, line 29–32, 36–39; Fig. 1–2). Moreover, Inman teaches that the driven elements are supported by drive support cradles (“frame g”), and that the idle elements are supported by the idle support cradles (“frame l”). (page 1, line 36–39; Fig. 1–2).
It would have been obvious to further modify Frankowski, already modified to reject claim 19 above, by employing as taught by Inman, a first track and a second track each extending circumferentially about a periphery of the slide body, wherein the first track and the second track each receive one of the driven elements of the drive support cradles and one of the idle elements of the idle support cradles, to prevent the slide from shifting (relative to the drive) until it loses contact with the drive, or to yet more stably rotate the slide body.
It would have been obvious to further modify Frankowski, already modified by the preceding paragraph, by configuring a first track to receive the driven element and the idle element of the drive support cradle, and configuring a second track to receive the pair of idle elements of the idle support cradle, because such a configuration would have been a duplication and rearrangement of parts, and because the instant disclosure lacks a showing that this configuration produces a “new and unexpected result.” MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(B)–(VI)(C). Motivation for such a modification would have been to increase the resistance to the slide shifting (relative to the driven element) until it loses contact with the driven element, or to yet more stably rotate the slide body.
As to claim 21, Frankowski as modified to reject claim 20 above, already teaches the first and second tracks but not that they are located at a joint between multiple body sections.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Frankowski, already modified to reject claim 21, by making the slide body separable into body sections because making the slide body separable would have been “desirable” for ease of manufacture, and then transport of the slide body from the manufacturing site to the installation site. MPEP 2144.04 (V)(C).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Frankowski, already modified by the preceding paragraph, by positioning the first track at a first joint between body sections (that form the slide body), and by positioning the second track at a second joint between body sections (that form the slide body) because it “would not have modified operation” of the recreational slide system, and it would have been an “obvious matter of design choice.” MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(C). Motivation for locating the tracks at joints would have been to add material (i.e., the tracks) at the joints that are weak points of the recreational slide system. The instant application provides no statement of a secondary consideration that would have rendered nonobvious positioning tracks at joints.
Claims 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frankowski in view of Hunter and Inman, and further in view of Rieber (US 7815513 B2).
As to claim 11, Frankowski as modified to reject claim 10 above, teaches the pair of body sections and the joint, but does not teach a flange to join the pair of body sections.
Rieber teaches a flange (“pair 47 of adjacent flanges 44”) to join two body sections (“sections 36”) of a slide (“enclosed slide of the invention . . . 20”). (column 2, line 56–67; column 3, line 1–19).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Frankowski, already modified to reject claim 10, by employing the joint as taught by Rieber, comprising a flange of a first body section of the pair of body sections, engaged with a flange of a second body section of the pair of body sections, to securely join the first and second body sections to each other.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Frankowski, already modified by the preceding paragraph, by connecting the track to the flanges of the first and second body sections track at a joint between the pair of body sections because it “would not have modified operation” of the recreational slide system, and it would have been an “obvious matter of design choice.” MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(C). Motivation for connecting the track to the flanges would have been to lift the track away from adjacent portions of body sections, thereby facilitating track servicing. The instant application provides no statement of a secondary consideration that would have rendered nonobvious connecting the track to the flanges.
As to claim 14, Frankowski as modified to reject claim 13 above, teaches the first and second body sections and the joint, but does not teach that the joint comprises a flange of the first body section to join to a flange of the second body section.
Rieber teaches a flange (“pair 47 of adjacent flanges 44”) to join together a first and second body section (“sections 36”) of a slide (“enclosed slide of the invention . . . 20”). (column 2, line 56–67; column 3, line 1–19).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Frankowski, already modified to reject claim 13, by employing the joint, as taught by Rieber, comprising a flange of a first body section, engaged with a flange of a second body section, to securely join the first and second body sections to each other.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Frankowski, already modified by the preceding paragraph, by connecting the track to the flanges of the first and second body sections at a joint between the pair of body sections because it “would not have modified operation” of the recreational slide system, and it would have been an “obvious matter of design choice.” MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(C). Motivation for connecting the track to the flanges would have been to lift the track away from adjacent portions of body sections, thereby facilitating track servicing. The instant application provides no statement of a secondary consideration that would have rendered nonobvious connecting the track to the flanges.
Conclusion
Prior art that is not relied upon but considered relevant to the instant disclosure:
Jensen (US 20230390652 A1)
[0013] Although described herein as removing water from the ride surface, exemplary embodiments may include water along an entirety of a ride surface. Exemplary embodiments may also include reduced water along all or part of the ride surface. In this case, water misters may be used to provide a slippery surface for the ride vehicle to travel upon. Exemplary embodiments may include a ride surface that is wet or dry.
[0014] Exemplary embodiments may include coatings or surfaces on the ride surface and/or vehicle that may enhance the ride experience. The coatings and/or surfaces may be configured to reduce or increase friction between the ride surface and the ride vehicle. The reduction or addition of friction between the ride surface and the vehicle may be used to change a speed of the rider, change a direction, change the orientation, impart a new motion to the ride vehicle or combinations thereof.
(paragraph 13–14).
Stuart (WO 9845006 A1) teaches a ridge of a cylindrical slide in Fig. 1–2.
Nelson et al. (US 10350502 B2) teaches a ridge of a non-cylindrical slide in Fig. 2–4.
Whiteley (US 2170935 A) teaches a rotating cylindrical amusement device that includes a drive and support system in Fig. 1.
Fischer (US 9440155 B2) teaches a rotating cylindrical slide
The sliding trail may be made up of a dry or wet sliding tube(s), sliding rail(s) for guiding carts or wagons or a sliding tube provided with rail(s) arranged inside the tube for guiding carts or wagons.
. . .
According to a first embodiment illustrated by FIG. 1, the slide of the invention comprises a sliding trail (2) made up of a tube having a substantially circular shaped section forming a three-dimensional curve occupying a volume around the rotation axis (4). The shape of the section of the tube may also be elliptic, oval, or other convex rounded shape without sharp angles.
(column 3, line 10–13, 59–65).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ENRICO MIOTTO whose telephone number is (571) 272-2650. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:30 - 5:30 p.m.
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, NICHOLAS WEISS can be reached at (571) 270-1775. 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.
/ENRICO MIOTTO/Examiner, Art Unit 3711
/NICHOLAS J. WEISS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights