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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/16/2024. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 3, 10, 12 and 18 are 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.
The above claims contain indefinite langue that render the claims indefinite as follows:
Claim 3 recites “can move at least in..” in line 3 and line 8. The term “can” is indefinite because it is not clear if it “will” or “will not” move.
Claim 10 recites “all directions” is indefinite because it’s not clear what “all” means.
Claim 12 recites “acts mechanically, magnetically, hydraulically and/or pneumatically”. This is indefinite because the coupling cannot be all if we consider “and”.
Claim 18 recites “spring/damper” is indefinite.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-6, 9-16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kilbert (US 2023/0302373) in view of Hashimoto JP-2018130469; partial translation is included herewith).
As to claim 1, Kilbert An amusement ride, comprising: a passenger receiver (chair 150); a first carrier (175; 165); a first movement device (Kilbert recites that the first support structure 165 maybe moveable structure Par. 25) configured to move the first carrier; a second carrier (base 110); a second movement device ( par. 28 explains that the base 110 is moving base) configured to move the second carrier; a first releasable coupling device (second compartment connector 160) configured to releasably couple the first carrier (3) to the passenger receiver (2); a second releasable coupling device (26) configured to releasably couple the second carrier ( see figure 1) to the passenger receiver (150).
Kilbert does not expressly teach a releasable connecting device (29) configured to connect the first carrier (3) and the second carrier (9) at least in a movement direction (38, 39) of one of the first carrier (3) or the second carrier (9) independently of a coupling via the first releasable coupling device (23) and the second releasable coupling device (26).
However, Hashimoto a vehicle for amusement ride that has multiple joints and seat. Hashimoto (figures 1-3) teaches releasable connection (30) connected to a part under the seat (not the same as Kilbert which is connected to the seat) to allow the movement in a direction (see how the spring is allowed to move in fig 2(C)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the teaching of Hashimoto to include the teaching of Hashimoto to have the connection under the rider’s seat to allow the specific movement. This will add to the flexibility of the movement pf the rider.
As to claim 2, Hashimoto was not specific on the movement of not more than 10 cm. However, the figures clearly show the restriction of the movement. Havin less than 10 cm is simply a way of “optimization” to allow the movement but also reduce the risk.
As to claims 4-6, Kilbert teaches The amusement ride according to claim 1, further comprising a relocation device (135 and 155) which is designed to carry out a relative movement of the passenger receiver with respect to the first carrier and the second carrier in a connected state of the releasable connecting device and within 6 degrees (fig. 1 and Par. 25).
As to claims 9-10, Kilbert teaches The Amusement ride according to claim 1, wherein the first movement device and/or the second movement device comprises a rail system (see fig. 3).
As to claim 11, Kilbert teaches The amusement ride according to claim 1, wherein the second carrier (9) is fixedly mounted and configured to rotate (see figs 1-3).
As to claim 12, it is clear that Kilbert teaches the coupling is mechanical.
As to claim 13, Kilbert in view of Hashimoto teaches the limitations of the method of claim 13 are substantially the same as the limitations of apparatus claim 1 and will be rejected similarly as the rejection of claim 1 above.
As to claims 14-15, releasing coupling to the chair while maintaining the connection of the first carrier and the second carrier is shown in figures 1, 3 of Kilbert and figs. 1-2 of Hashimoto.
As to claim 16, the claim is substantially similar to the independent claim 1 and is rejected substantially similar. Note that in addition to that, Hashimoto teaches the compensation device (the spring in figs 2 and 8).
As to claim 18, Hashimoto fig. 2 shows a spring/damper to enable relative movements (figs. 2 and 8).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
COLLIGNON PATRICK (EP 0997176) teaches Robotised virtual reality motion simulator.
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