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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 11 December 2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. Foreign patent documents 8 and 23 do not have a legible copy.
The information disclosure statement filed 11 December 2024 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because NPL references 2-4 which are located in the parent application US 16/692,920 are printed webpages rather than screenshots. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10 February 2026 was filed before the mailing date of the first Office Action on the merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 1-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,787,447 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims fully encompass the subject matter of the instant application claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 would be allowable if the double patenting rejection set forth in this Office action is overcome.
Claims 10-20 allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
As discussed in the Notice of Allowance for the parent application US 16/692,920, the Prior Art fails to teach the combination of limitations recited in Claim 1. While Fritsche (US 20100078291 A1) teaches a loading path blocking system comprising: a loading platform (114) (Fig. 1); a ride vehicle (104) coupled to a transport, wherein the transport is configured to propel the ride vehicle along a loading path of the loading platform (the direction V1, as seen in Fig. 1).
Fritsche fails to teach a panel assembly coupled to the loading platform and comprising a plurality of panels, wherein each panel of the plurality of panels is coupled to a respective actuator configured to selectively transition the panels between first positions and second positions, wherein each panel of the plurality of panels is configured to block access to a portion of the loading path in the first position, wherein each panel of the plurality of panels is configured to expose the portion of the loading path in the second position to permit the ride vehicle to occupy a guest-accessible position on or adjacent to the loading platform, and wherein, in the guest-accessible position, the ride vehicle extends across a radial dimension of the loading path to block access to the portion of the loading path.
Lomberty (US 20100058949 A1) teaches a panel assembly (10) (Fig. 1) coupled to the loading platform (2) and comprising a plurality of panels (as seen in Fig. 1), wherein each panel of the plurality of panels is coupled to a respective actuator (40) (Fig. 3) configured to selectively transition the panels between first positions and second positions (para. [0028], lines 1-3), wherein each panel of the plurality of panels is configured to block access to a portion of the loading path in the first position (para. [0040], lines 1-4).
However, Lomberty does not teach wherein each panel of the plurality of panels is configured to expose the portion of the loading path in the second position to permit the ride vehicle to occupy a guest-accessible position on or adjacent to the loading platform. Further, Lomberty teaches away from the claimed limitation reciting that the platforms are to be extended when the vehicle is in the loading path to allow for boarding safely, rather than the claimed limitation reciting the panels retracting when the ride vehicle is in the loading path.
The combination of Fritsche (US 20100078291 A1) and Lomberty (US 20100058949 A1) fails to teach wherein each panel of the plurality of panels is configured to expose the portion of the loading path in the second position to permit the ride vehicle to occupy a guest-accessible position on or adjacent to the loading platform as the modifications necessary would require an improper amount of hindsight, i.e., the modifications needed would require a complete redesign of Fritsche.
Thus, Claim 1 is non-obvious in view of the prior art of record. Claims 2-9 are also allowed because of their dependency upon Claim 1. However, Claims 1-9 are still subject to the double patenting rejection above.
Claim 10 is also non-obvious in view of the prior art of record due to containing similar allowable claim limitations as claim 1. Claims 11-20 are also allowed due to their dependency upon claim 10.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES WILLIAM JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-7063. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 11am-7pm.
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, Samuel Morano can be reached at (571) 272-6684. 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.
/JAMES WILLIAM JONES/ Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights