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 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 and 5-8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HYO KR101165573B1 (“HYO”) in view of Qi-Zhi et al CN 101695908B (“Qi-Zhi”)
As per claim 1, HYO discloses a vibration system for a simulator cockpit (vibration system for an aircraft simulator)(Figs. 2-8, page 3, 12th par.-6, 7th par. of a machine translation), the cockpit (Fig. 2) comprising a pilot seat (chair 12)(Fig. 2; page 3, 13th and 14th pars.), the vibration system being installed inside the cockpit (the vibration system, vibration system 50 to include at least a vibration plate 100 and a servo actuator 200 assembly)(Fig. 2; page 3, 13th par.-page 4, 2nd par.) and comprising a vibration module coupled to the pilot seat (note Figs. 3-8 in conjunction to page 4, 8th -page 6, 7th par. to include, a vibration plate 100, a servo actuator 200 assembly having, a servo motor 220, a shaft 221 and etc. of seat vibration reproduction apparatus 50), said pilot seat vibration module (vibration module/apparatus 50) being composed of a separate platform (frame 11) forming part of the floor of the cockpit (as mark hereinafter in conjunction to Fig. 2, the frame 11 including the vibration system 50 ,while also forming a part of platform 10),
PNG
media_image1.png
716
829
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(also page 4, 2nd par. “vibration plate 100 of the seat vibration reproduction device 50 is installed in such a seat mounting frame 11, the diaphragm vibrating the servo actuator 200 to apply vibration to 100 (100 and installed on the lower portion of), is installed in the controller 300 is a suitable position (for example, the outer surface of the motion platform”.; the platform having a top face to which the pilot seat is fixed and on which feet of a pilot rest (seat 12 above frame 11)(Fig. 2), and the platform having a bottom face to which a motor drive system is coupled (beneath frame 11 position the servo actuator 200 assembly)(Figs. 2-4; page 4, 2nd par.), said motor drive system comprising actuators allowing the platform to be made to vibrate (the servo actuator 200 assembly includes actuators such as, a shaken block 223, a shaft 222, a servo motor 210 and etc.)(Figs. 7 and 8 in conjunction to page 5, 6th par-page 6, 6th par. regarding the servo actuator 200 assembly in conjunction to at least Figs. 2-4 and page 3, 12th -page 4, 2nd par.), said motor drive system (i.e., servo actuator 200 assembly) being coupled to a control module (to controller 300) configured to actuate actuators with a signal allowing the actuators to make the amplitude and the frequency of the vibratory movements of the platform vary in real time (controller 300 is electronically coupled with servo actuator 200, via a computer host 40, to provide signals thereto the vibration module/assembly, through the servo actuator assembly, to cause a vibration to simulate “a real time flight”, i.e., make the amplitude and the frequency of the vibratory movements of the platform vary in real time)(note Figs. 2 and 3 in conjunction to page 4, 2nd -5th par. as well as page 5, 7th par.-page 6, 4th par. as the communication of the controller 300 with the servo actuator 200 assembly to the vibration plate 100 to cause the desired vibration during a flight simulation).
HYO is not specific regarding said drive system comprising only three independent actuators allowing the platform to be made to vibrate on three orthogonal axes.
However, Qi-Zhi discloses the concept of utilizing a driven system comprising only three independent actuator allowing the platform to be made to vibrate on three orthogonal axes, with a seat position upon a platform (seat 1 position upon platform 2 that including a driven system for vibration in three axes)(Fig. 2 and [0014]), for enhance vibration of the seat upon the platform ([0003]-[0007]).
Therefore, 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 to form HYO’s drive system comprising only three independent actuators allowing the platform to be made to vibrate on three orthogonal axes as taught by Qi-Zhi to provide enhance damping in three orthogonal axes (Qi-Zhi’s [0003]-[0007]).
The modified HYO- Qi-Zhi would allowing the actuators to make the amplitude and the frequency of the vibratory movements of the platform vary in real time on an axis of each actuated actuator.
As per claim 5, HYO discloses wherein the cockpit further comprises a copilot seat (Fig. 2 and page 4, 4th par. one chair designed as a pilot seat and the other one as s co-pilot seat ), and the pilot seat vibration module comprises a copilot vibration module coupled to said copilot seat (the co-pilot seat includes the same vibration assembly as described above with respect to the pilot seat is)(Fig. 2 and page 4, 5th par.), the copilot vibration module being composed of a copilot platform having a top face to which the copilot seat is fixed and a bottom face to which a copilot motor drive system is coupled (as the co-pilot seat structure is identical to the pilot seat, note Figs. 2-4 as well as at least page 3, 12th par-page 4 as mentioned above with respect to claim 1), said copilot motor drive system comprising actuators with a signal allowing the copilot platform to be made to vibrate, said copilot motor drive system being coupled to said control module configured to actuate each actuator and vary, in real time, (again note at least Figs. 7 and 8 in conjunction to page 5, 6th par-page 6, 6th par. regarding the servo actuator 200 assembly in conjunction to at least Figs. 2-4 and page 3, 12th -page 4, 2nd par. as the operation of the servo actuator mechanism causing vibration of platform/plate 100; note Figs. 2 and 3 in conjunction to page 4, 2nd -5th par. as well as page 5, 7th par.-page 6, 4th par. as the communication of the controller 300 with the servo actuator 200 assembly to the vibration plate 100).
HYO is not specific regarding said copilot motor drive system comprising three independent actuators with the signal allowing the copilot platform to be made to vibrate on three orthogonal axes, said copilot motor drive system being coupled to said control module configured to independently actuate each actuator and vary, in real time, the amplitude and the frequency of the vibratory movements of the copilot platform on an axis of each actuated actuator of the copilot motor drive system.
However, Qi-Zhi discloses the concept of utilizing a driven system comprising only three independent actuator allowing the platform to be made to vibrate on three orthogonal axes, with a seat position upon a platform (seat 1 position upon platform 2 that including a driven system for vibration in three axes)(Fig. 2 and [0014]), for enhance vibration of the seat upon the platform ([0003]-[0007]).
Therefore, 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 to form HYO’s co-pilot drive system to include three independent actuator to provide vibration in three orthogonal axes as taught by Qi-Zhi for enhance vibration, as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Within the modified HYO, the pilot seat and the co-pilot seat are separated from each other and each seat includes a separate motor drive system to vibration module (as taught by HYO), and each vibration module would have three independent actuators to make vibration in three orthogonal axes (as taught by Qi-Zhi).
As per claim 6, with respect to wherein the control module is configured to control the vibration module of the pilot seat and copilot seat to reduce a disturbance generated by vibrations on surrounding systems, note HYO’;s Fig. 2 in conjunction to page 4, 2nd par-5th par as well as page 5, 7th par.-page 6-2nd par., regarding the operation of the system as the controller provide signal to the servo actuator assembly 200 to cause vibration in either pilot seat and/or co-pilot seat. Also, note Qi-Zhi’s Figs. 2 and 3 and [0014] and [0015].
As per claim 7, with respect to wherein the motor drive system or electrical, note HYO’s Figs. 2-8 in conjunction to at least page 5, 6th par.-page 6,6th par. as the system is electric system, to at least include a servo motor 210.
As per claim 8, with respect to wherein the platform is made from a rigid material, the examiner takes the position that the platform as shown in at least Figs. 2-4 within HYO and/or platform shown in at least Figs. 1 and 2, is/are made from a rigid material.
As per claim 10, HYO discloses An aircraft simulator comprising at least one cockpit vibration system as claimed in claim 1, in at least Fig. 2 and page 3, 11th par.
Claim(s) 2 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HYO and Qi-Zhi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bohlender US 2011/0236861 (“Bohlender”).
As per claim 2, HYO is not specific regarding also comprising an instrument vibration module for an instrument panel coupled to an instrument panel of the cockpit, the instrument panel vibration module being able to be actuated to make the instrument panel vibrate, autonomously and independently of the pilot seat vibration module.
However, Bohlender’s discloses a vibration module for an instrument panel coupled to the instrument panel of the cockpit, the instrument panel vibration module being able to be actuated to make the instrument panel vibrate, autonomously and independently of the pilot seat vibration module (such as vibration module to include servo motors 33-34 to independently causing vibration to panel 30 of a flight simulator)(Fig. 6 and [0043], regarding the instrument panel and its vibration module; in conjunction to Figs. 1 and 2 ([0036]-[0039], regarding the controller of the flight simulate to regulate individual, separate vibration mode).
Therefore, 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 to form HYO’s vibration module for an instrument panel coupled to the instrument panel of the cockpit, the instrument panel vibration module being able to be actuated to make the instrument panel vibrate, autonomously and independently of the pilot seat vibration module as taught by Bohlender for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated by the teachings of Bohlender that such individual, separate vibration is enhance the operator flight learning and teachings (Bohlender’ [0012], [0023] and [0024]).
In addition, HYO in page 3, 15th par. state “motion platform (10) of the aircraft simulator. In addition to the aforementioned chair but not the city (20) drawing stick, landing gear, screens, installed a variety of devices, such as the instrument panel and in particular the joystick and the landing gear on and fixing the flange of the sheet to the mounting frame installed below the chair is connected to the device 20, 11 on top of the motion platform (10).” Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been very much motivated to include such vibration means within the instrument to closely replicate a real time flight’s conditions.
As per claim 9, HYO is not specific regarding a helicopter simulator comprising at least one seat vibration system as claimed in claim 1.
However, the use of a helicopter simulator is well known in the art as taught by Bohlender (Fig. 1 and [0034]).
Therefore, 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 to form HYO’s aircraft simulator as a helicopter simulator taught by Bohlender for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated in use of known technique to improve similar device in the same way by forming an aircraft simulator, that is suitable for imitating a specific flight condition, such as a helicopter flight condition, thus provide enhance flight practice for a specific flight conditions.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HYO and Qi-Zhi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dehmel US 2,687,580 (“Dehmel”).
As per claim 3, HYO is not specific regarding also comprising a pedestal vibration module for a pedestal coupled to a pedestal of the cockpit, the pedestal vibration module being able to be actuated to make the pedestal vibrate, autonomously and independently of the pilot seat vibration module.
With respect to also comprising a pedestal vibration module for a pedestal coupled to the pedestal of the cockpit, the pedestal module being able to be actuated to make the pedestal, note Dehmel’s Fig. 1 as well as 2:24-46 and 3:20-70, regarding rudder pedals 4 electronically coupled with potentiometers 17 and 18, to be controlled by flight computer (Fig. 2).
Therefore, 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 to form HYO’s comprising a pedestal vibration module for a pedestal coupled to the pedestal of the cockpit, the pedestal module being able to be actuated to make the pedestal as taught by Dehmel for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated by Dehmel’s suggestion to include such features (e.g., of a pedestal) of aircraft simulator, to enhance the use of a simulator to simulate a real time flight condition (Dehmel‘s1:42+).
Although Dehmel is not specific regarding “the pedestal vibration module being able to be actuated to make the pedestal vibrate, autonomously and independently of the pilot seat vibration module”, such modification would have been obvious as nothing more than an obvious engineering choice, to “separate” the pedestal vibration means from the cockpit vibration means. To that end it is noted that it has been held that it has been held that where the only difference between a prior art product and a claimed product is the construction of the claimed product, the Federal Circuit have held “that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice” In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). The examiner takes the position that including the pedestal vibration either integral with or separated from the vibration system would have performed equally well to closely simulate a real time flight conditions.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HYO, Qi-Zhi and Bohlender as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Dehmel.
As per claim 4, the modified HYO is not specific regarding also comprising a pedestal vibration module coupled to a pedestal of the cockpit, the pedestal vibration module being able to be actuated to make the pedestal vibrate, autonomously and independently of the instrument panel vibration module.
With respect to also comprising a pedestal vibration module coupled to the pedestal of the cockpit, the pedestal vibration module being able to be actuated to make the pedestal vibrate, note Dehmel’s Fig. 1 as well as 2:24-46 and 3:20-70, regarding rudder pedals 4 electronically coupled with potentiometers 17 and 18, to be controlled by flight computer (Fig. 2).
Therefore, 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 to form HYO’s comprising a pedestal vibration module for a pedestal coupled to the pedestal of the cockpit, the pedestal module being able to be actuated to make the pedestal as taught by Dehmel for similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 3.
Although Bohlender -Dehmel is not specific regarding “the pedestal vibration module being able to be actuated to make the pedestal vibrate, autonomously and independently of the instrument panel vibration module”, such modification would have been obvious for similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 3.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are partially not persuasive and are partially moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argued that HYO is not specific regarding the seat platform is separate platform forming part of the floor of the cockpit and that HYO is not specific regarding vibration module for the pilot seat separate from the vibration platform module.
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, as marked above with respect to claim 1, and as stated by HYO in page 4, 2nd par. “vibration plate 100 of the seat vibration reproduction device 50 is installed in such a seat mounting frame 11,” the frame 11 is separated from the cockpit floor 10, but is forming part of the floor (the bottom portion of the frame 11 is part of the of floor 10). Also, the frame/ platform 11 of HYO is part of the floor 10 comparable to applicant’s platform which is part of the cockpit’s floor when the platform is connected, attached, to the floor.
Applicant argued that the entire vibration device is due to the motion reproduction device 30. However, although the motion reproduction device 30 provide vibration to the platform, HYO device is such that each seat, additionally includes a seat vibration reproduction device 50. For example, in the abstract “The chair is loaded on a vibration board(100). The seat vibration reproduction device comprises a servo-actuator(200) and a controller(300). The servo-actuator moves the front end of the vibration board upward and downward. The controller interprets a command of a host computer(40) and controls the servo-actuator in order to act according to a mode of vibration.” Also, page 4, 2nd par. “vibration plate 100 of the seat vibration reproduction device 50 is installed in such a seat mounting frame 11, the diaphragm vibrating the servo actuator 200 to apply vibration to 100 (100 and installed on the lower portion of), is installed in the controller 300 is a suitable position (for example, the outer surface of the motion platform). In this and like secure the chair 12 on the upper surface of the vibrating plate 100 after the installation of the components of seat vibration reproduction device 50, when operating the aircraft simulator, the controller 300 is instructed by the host computer 40 which operates the servo actuator 200 to vibrate according to the vibration pattern and the vibration plate 100 up and down. These vibrations are passed on the entire chair (12), the chair can feel the seated person (12) Make it look good vibrations that may occur in actual flight conditions” . Thus, although HYO discloses motion reproduction device 30, each seat is suitable with its own vibration reproduction device 50.
With respect to the drive system includes only three independent actuators to make the amplitude and the frequency of the vibratory movements of the platform vary in real time on an axis of each actuated actuator, such new limitations are taught by the reference to Qi-Zhi and thus applicant’s arguments, in that regard, are moot.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIR ARIE KLAYMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7131. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 7:00 AM-4:30 PM.
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, Eugene Kim can be reached at 571-272-4463. 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.
/A.A.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3711 8/29/2025 /EUGENE L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711