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 Application
Claims 1-13 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on merits. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 10/20/2025 has been acknowledged by the Office.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 5 and 12-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In regards to Claim 5, the Examiner suggests updating the dependency to Claim 4 for the purpose of consistent antecedent basis for the ‘second connecting means’.
In regards to Claim 12, the Examiner suggests the following amendment(s):
‘an amusement ride (1) according to claim 1,’
‘an occupant’
In regards to Claim 13, which states ‘setting down’ the following amendment is suggested to be consistent with the language stated in Claim 12, “after lowering and depositing”
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(s) 1-13 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 term “can” in claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 8-11 introduces indefiniteness into the overall scope of protection sought by the claim. The Examiner is unsure if the limitation following after 'can' is required or optional as the term "can” could be interpreted to express possibility. As such, the Examiner suggests amending the claim to clarify or further remove the term from Claim 5. The examiner further suggests amending the claim to “… [[can / can be]] is configured to / is configured to be support a user…”.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the at least one vehicle" in claim 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim does not include proper antecedent basis for this element and is being treated as a new element, for that reason the Examiner suggests including proper primary antecedent basis in Claim 5 or another dependent claim thereof.
The term “preferably” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “preferably” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. When tied to a functional limitation like a "form-locking manner," it creates uncertainty over whether the form-locking structure is strictly required for infringement or merely a suggested, non-binding design choice. The Examiner suggests removing this term of ‘preferably’ prior tot ‘form-locking manner’ to have the limitation less of a vague optionality and more of a determined feature of the amusement ride.
Claim 9 recites the dependency of "claim 1". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 9 depends from claim 1, but recites the limitations "holding bracket" and "occupant restraint" without providing a prior antecedent basis in claim 1. Claim 1 does not recite a "holding bracket" or an "occupant restraint," making the references in claim 9 vague and confusing as to their structural relationship in the claim set. To overcome this rejection, claim 9 must be amended to depend from claim 6 (which properly introduces these elements), or alternatively, the limitations "holding bracket" and "occupant restraint" must be recited in an independent form with full structural context.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
‘first connecting means’ in claim 4
‘second connecting means’ in claim 5
‘a drive by means’ in claim 11
‘a means of occupant’ in claim 13
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9, 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Henderson et al., hereinafter 'Henderson' (US 20200405556 A1).
In regards to Claim 1, Henderson teaches: An amusement ride (Fig. 1 and Abstract), in particular a roller coaster (Para 0019-0021), having
- at least one receiving area for at least one occupant (30 - Fig. 8),
- and an entry and/or exit region (60 - Fig. 5 and Fig. 8, shown to the left of receiving area in Fig. 8, noting Para 0050),
- wherein a transfer unit (20 - Fig. 8) is arranged in the entry and/or exit region (Fig. 8), and
- wherein the transfer unit can lift the at least one occupant (46 - Fig. 5) on a seat support (68 - Fig. 5) from the entry and/or exit region onto the at least one receiving area (showing transfer in Fig. 8).
In regards to Claim 2, Henderson teaches: The amusement ride according to claim 1, characterized in that the transfer unit can perform a lifting and lowering movement (Para 0026, Fig. 2) and a translation (Para 0028, Fig. 2).
In regards to Claim 3, Henderson teaches: The amusement ride according to claim 1, characterized in that the seat support is flexible, in particular in that the seat support comprises a seat mat (87 - Fig. 4, Para 0036), a support cloth, a seat shell or a beanbag.
In regards to Claim 4, Henderson teaches: The amusement ride according to claim 1, characterized in that first connecting means (100 - Fig. 8) are provided for forming a releasable connection between the transfer unit and the seat support (Fig. 8, Para 0042-0043).
In regards to Claim 5, Henderson teaches: The amusement ride according to claim 1, characterized in that second connecting means (106 - Fig. 7, Para 0042) are provided for fastening the seat support to the at least one vehicle (Fig. 7).
In regards to Claim 6, Henderson teaches: The amusement ride according to claim 1, characterized in that the transfer unit comprises at least one holding bracket (100 - Fig. 8, Para 0042-0043) to which the seat support can be attached (Fig. 8).
In regards to Claim 7, Henderson teaches: The amusement ride according to claim 6, characterized in that the holding bracket is U-shaped or C-shaped (see Fig. 7 showing element 100 as U-shaped or C-shaped).
In regards to Claim 9, Henderson teaches: The amusement ride according to claim 1, characterized in that the holding bracket embraces a clear region in which the occupant restraint can be moved between an open (Fig. 7) and a closed position (Fig. 6).
In regards to Claim 11, Henderson teaches: The amusement ride according to claim 1, characterized in that the transfer unit has a drive by means of which the lifting and lowering can take place at least with drive support (72 - Fig. 3, Para 0032).
In regards to Claim 12, Henderson teaches: A method of operating an amusement ride (Abstract), in particular an amusement ride (Para 0004) claim 1, having the following method steps:
- connecting a seat support (68 - Fig. 3) to a transfer unit (20 - Fig. 2),
- lifting and subsequent transporting of an occupant (Para 0021) arranged on the seat support (Fig. 2) from an entry and exit region (60, Fig. 5 and 8) via a receiving area (30 - 2) and lowering and depositing of the seat support on the receiving area or lifting of a occupant arranged on a seat support from a receiving area and subsequent transporting to an entry and exit region and lowering and depositing of the seat support (Examiner notes the 'OR' statement, such that the reverse motion shown from Fig. 8 to 6, 5, 4 and 3 show the reverse motion of lifting an occupant in reverse from the seat to receiving area to an entry/exit region and then lowering and depositing the seat support),
- releasing the connection between the seat support and the transfer unit (Fig. 4).
In regards to Claim 13, Henderson teaches: The method according to claim 12 characterized in that after lowering and setting down, a connection is established between the seat support (100 - Fig. 8, Para 0042-0045) and the transfer unit or a means of occupant transport (Para 0042), in particular a wheelchair (Para 0027).
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henderson' (US 20200405556 A1) in view of Zamperla (WO 2021111395 A1).
In regards to Claim 8, Henderson teaches: The amusement ride to claim 1, but Henderson does not explicitly teach, characterized in that the at least one receiving area comprises a occupant restraint which can hold the at least one occupant in the receiving area, preferably in a form-locking manner.
Zamperla teaches: characterized in that the at least one receiving area comprises a occupant restraint which can hold the at least one occupant in the receiving area, preferably in a form-locking manner (61 - Fig. 1, "it is further secured by a belt 61 which, in use, connects the bar 60 to the seat 1, and in particular to the seat portion 2.").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Henderson’s amusement ride to include an occupant restraint for the receiving area, as taught by Zamperla, in order to securely retain an occupant within the receiving area during loading, unloading, and ride operation. Incorporating the occupant restraint of Zamperla would have predictably improved passenger safety by preventing unintended occupant movement while maintaining the rider in the desired position, which is a well-known design consideration in amusement ride systems. Such a modification merely applies a known restraint mechanism to Henderson’s receiving area to achieve its expected function without changing the principle of operation of the primary reference.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henderson' (US 20200405556 A1) in view of Sheldon (US 5884563 A).
In regards to Claim 10, Henderson teaches: The amusement ride according to claim 1, but Henderson does not explicitly teach, characterized in that the transfer unit comprises a lifting device which can be positioned above the entry and/or exit region and the at least one receiving area.
Sheldon teaches: characterized in that the transfer unit comprises a lifting device (60 - Fig. 5) which can be positioned above the entry and/or exit region and the at least one receiving area (60 is shown to be positioned adjacent thereto, and above, both the entry and/or exit region and the at least one receiving area).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the transfer unit of Henderson to comprise a lifting device positioned above the entry and/or exit region and the receiving area, as taught by Sheldon, in order to facilitate the lifting and transfer of passengers into and out of the amusement ride in a safe and efficient manner. Utilizing an overhead lifting device would have predictably improved accessibility for riders, particularly those with limited mobility, while simplifying the transfer process and reducing manual handling. The combination merely substitutes one known passenger transfer arrangement for another to obtain its expected and well-understood benefits.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Santore (US-20200368085-A1) teaches: A transfer device configured to support a passenger for transfer from a mobile chair to a ride seat of a ride vehicle includes a frame coupled to a seating portion, where the seating portion is configured to support the passenger. The transfer device includes at least one wheel coupled to the frame. The transfer device also includes a mounting bracket coupled to the frame and configured to reversibly engage with the ride vehicle. In an engaged configuration, the transfer device is coupled to the ride vehicle such that a seating pan of the seating portion is aligned with the ride seat of the ride vehicle. The transfer device, when engaged, is configured to travel with the ride vehicle while the ride vehicle travels along a track.
Volz (US 6149528 A) teaches: An amusement ride vehicle includes a seat for accommodating a rider in a wheelchair. A door attached to the seat pivots outwardly. The seat bottom folds down and a seat back pivotably attached to the seat bottom retracts, to create space for maneuvering a wheelchair and reveals storage panels for wheelchair tiedowns. A fixed companion seat is provided alongside the space created for the wheelchair. To accommodate non-physically disabled riders, the seat bottom is moved to an up position and the seat back moved out, to align with the seat bottom and back of the fixed companion seat. The door, when in the closed position, engages a seat lock that supports the folding seat on both sides.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADISON MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)272-8473. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 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, Justin Mikowski can be reached at (571)-272-8525. 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.
MADISON MATTHEWS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3673
/MADISON MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673
07/24/2026
Prosecution Insights