Disney Develops New "Reclining Seat Rollercoaster Car"

[lazyboy97o]

I think the key difference between Disney's new system and something like the Vekoma Flying Dutchman, the B&M Flying Roller Coaster or even the S&S Fourth Dimension coaster is that in all of these systems the entire seat moves. The Disney systems seems to illustrate only the back of the seat reclining.

 

[Hedwig's Keeper]

That's not entirely true. It depends on what steps that "someone else" took to protect their technology. Prior art is only prior art if there's something tangible in place to discover (like another patent) during the prior art research. Just because another company may have made attempts to develop something similar (or even identical) does not mean that a new inventor was put on notice of that other person's invention. Often times, it's virtually impossible for the new inventor to have known. And from some of the comments above, the earlier attempt to put a similar invention into practice apparently failed. Of course, in a first-to-invent jurisdiction (which will change very soon), that "someone else" could challenge a new patent and make a claim to have been the first inventor. But the burden is on the first inventor to raise the dispute. If they don't care, or don't think that it's worthwhile, then there's no point in them pursuing it.

Thanks for the reply Timekeeper. I completely understand what you are saying. Yes, the America Invents Act will change the U.S. policy of "first-to-invent" to "first-inventor-to-file" in just a couple weeks. But unfortunately this patent application still falls under the old law. But that's not really important in this case anyway because the "Flying Dutchman" (aka "Nighthawk") was opened in a major theme park more than a decade ago and has been in operation with several varying themes (including the current being "Star Trek", making it the only "Star Trek" themed roller coaster ever), and that surely makes it very strong prior art. Take a look at this picture of park guests being loaded and reclined in their chairs on this "Star Trek" roller coaster and compare it to the Disney patent underneath it.

PRIOR ART
http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=JgEeJ-OTMYU
Backwards Roller Coaster

by stefono • 1,624,890 views
The Nighthawk, formerly known as the Borg Assimilator at Carowinds

DISNEY PATENT APPLICATION
http://www.google.com/patents/US20130025492?dq=articulable roller coaster&hl=en&sa=X&ei=HNwvUeuID8TL2QXQo4DoDg&sqi=2&pjf=1&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA

 

[Hedwig's Keeper]

Well, the picture isn't loading but here is the video of "Nighthawk" showing a very similar process to the Disney patent application for riders being loaded in upright seats and then reclined back.

 

[Timekeeper]

Thanks for the reply Timekeeper. I completely understand what you are saying. Yes, the America Invents Act will change the U.S. policy of "first-to-invent" to "first-inventor-to-file" in just a couple weeks. But unfortunately this patent application still falls under the old law. But that's not really important in this case anyway because the "Flying Dutchman" (aka "Nighthawk") was opened in a major theme park more than a decade ago and has been in operation with several varying themes (including the current being "Star Trek", making it the only "Star Trek" themed roller coaster ever), and that surely makes it very strong prior art. Take a look at this picture of park guests being loaded and reclined in their chairs on this "Star Trek" roller coaster and compare it to the Disney patent underneath it.

I do agree with much of your comment.

One of my fears is simply that a lot of laypeople will look at the original subject of this thread, see an illustration, and assume that it somehow infringes on prior art that appears to illustrate the same "thing." As you are probably aware, patentable subject matter is understood to be "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof." Generally speaking, one cannot patent the "end result" of something, but rather, the "process" to achieve that result. I can patent a machine that freezes water, but not the resulting ice cube. A layperson may see a reclining chair (the end result) and assume that it infringes on another reclining chair, simply because it's a chair that reclines. But it's obviously not that simple. If that were the case, the reclining chairs in my living room and in my car would be prior art that would (or should) bar the success of Disney's patent application. The general audience needs to understand that there's more - a lot more - to it than that.

In the many years that I've been visiting this board, I don't recall any members claiming to have been admitted to the pat bar.

And who knows, maybe Disney's is a "new and useful improvement thereof."

 

[Hedwig's Keeper]

I do agree with much of your comment.

One of my fears is simply that a lot of laypeople will look at the original subject of this thread, see an illustration, and assume that it somehow infringes on prior art that appears to illustrate the same "thing." As you are probably aware, patentable subject matter is understood to be "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof." Generally speaking, one cannot patent the "end result" of something, but rather, the "process" to achieve that result. I can patent a machine that freezes water, but not the resulting ice cube. A layperson may see a reclining chair (the end result) and assume that it infringes on another reclining chair, simply because it's a chair that reclines. But it's obviously not that simple. If that were the case, the reclining chairs in my living room and in my car would be prior art that would (or should) bar the success of Disney's patent application. The general audience needs to understand that there's more - a lot more - to it than that.

In the many years that I've been visiting this board, I don't recall any members claiming to have been admitted to the pat bar.

And who knows, maybe Disney's is a "new and useful improvement thereof."

Yes, I agree, there is a lot to patent law and practice. And the far majority of prior art doesn't prevent an application from getting a patent, especially when the application does a good job of differentiating its invention from similar technologies by making strong arguments like improved process, less parts, less costs, new effects/products, etc. Yes you are exactly right, if I can find a "better" method of making an ice cube over say your machine A by using my machine B then I should logically get a patent. Maybe I use less energy/cube or I have less tubing resulting in improved costs for manufacturing and maintenance. But it would be my burden to make that argument in my application and with any resulting office actions and/or contacts with my examiner (and of course in those nasty litigation cases). So I guess what got me annoyed about the Disney patent was just that lack of prior art discussion but hey maybe they really don't need it and they will sail right through the USPTO. But that's more related to me ability to get quickly irked about Disney possibly not putting forth their best effort for quality.

Great discussion Timekeeper! What is your background? Are you a patent attorney? If you are, do you work with amusement ride technologies companies?

 

[Absimilliard]

Well, the picture isn't loading but here is the video of "Nighthawk" showing a very similar process to the Disney patent application for riders being loaded in upright seats and then reclined back.

Actually, that is the lift system that was retrofitted by another ride company when the ride moved to Carowinds. The original lift system was more like this:



Beginning show the lowering part, 2:55 show when the train come back.

 

[rioriz]

I think the key difference between Disney's new system and something like the Vekoma Flying Dutchman, the B&M Flying Roller Coaster or even the S&S Fourth Dimension coaster is that in all of these systems the entire seat moves. The Disney systems seems to illustrate only the back of the seat reclining.

I think this needs to be quoted again so people can stop thinking the design is similar to other flying costers when it clearly isn't...

 

[Hedwig's Keeper]

Actually, that is the lift system that was retrofitted by another ride company when the ride moved to Carowinds. The original lift system was more like this:



Beginning show the lowering part, 2:55 show when the train come back.

Thanks for the info Absimilliard...

It's loading now on my other computer. Yeah this looks great, it's the same technology. So these types of roller coaster seats are actually pretty well known and used. I guess the big differences are Disney's seats are facing forward and they don't go down all the way?