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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/17/2026 has been entered.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 5-8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koo KR101350267B1 (“Koo”) in view of Denne US 2005/0069839 (“Denne”).
As per claim 1, Koo discloses a vibration generation system for a simulator cockpit (vibration/variable system to cockpit 100/200)(Figs. 2-7; page 3, 4th paragraph-page 8, 6th paragraph; e.g., “variable doses of the active flight simulator according to the present invention, the seat applies a vibration to each vibration cockpit reproduction apparatus” (page 8, 5th par.)), the cockpit comprising a pilot seat (first cockpit seat 200A/220)(Figs. 2-4; page 3, 5th par.-8th par.), the vibration generation system being installed inside the cockpit (Figs. 2-4) and comprising a vibration generation module coupled to the pilot seat (page 4, 3rd par.-page 6, 4th par.), said pilot seat vibration generation module being composed of a separate platform forming part of the floor of the cockpit (plate 170 position upon platform 100 (e.g., the floor of the cockpit, Fig. 2))(Figs. 3-4, page 4, 6th par.-page 6, 1st par.), the platform (170) having a top face (Figs. 2 and 3) to which the pilot seat is fixed and on which feet of a pilot rest (seat 200A position upon pate 170)(Figs. 3-4), and the platform having a bottom face to which a motor drive system is coupled (drive system 150 coupled at the bottom of plate 170)(Fig. 4; page 5, 7th par.-page 6, 1st par.), said motor drive system being coupled to a control module configured to independently actuate with a signal allowing to make the amplitude and the frequency of the vibratory movements of the platform vary in real time on an axis (controller 400 and computer 500 in communication with the motor means (i.e., drive device 150) to simulate vibration thereof)(Figs. 4 and 7; page 3, 6th par.; page 4, 2nd par.; page 6, 4th-7th pars.;).
Koo is not specific regarding said motor drive system comprising only three independent actuators allowing the platform to be made to vibrate on three orthogonal axes and said motor drive system being coupled to the control module configured to independently actuate each of the three actuators with the signal 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.
However, in a similar field of vibration systems for a flight simulator, Denne discloses a three independent actuators (20-22) connected with a controller (control unit 34) configure to make vibration in three axes of seat 19 upon platform 24 (Figs. 1-3; [0005]-[0021], and [0030]-[0040]; note for example [0006], [0014] as well as [0031]- [0040], in conjunction to at least Fig. 1, as the vibration of the actuators are along three axes, while the actuator are provided signals from controller 34 for such manipulation). 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 Koo’s motor drive system comprising only three independent actuators allowing the platform to be made to vibrate on three orthogonal axes and said motor drive system being coupled to the control module configured to independently actuate each of the three actuators with the signal 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 for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated by Denne’s suggestions that such arrangement provide enhance simulator to pilot to train for flight conditions (e.g., [0015] ”A particular advantage of the arrangement of this invention, besides adding surge and sway capability to the motion simulator, is that it can be used to provide strong and accurate simulation of a vibrational environment. In general this has not been possible or practical in the past. Vibrational motion is possible largely due to the use of electromagnetic actuators as these have a wide bandwidth of mechanical response to the stimulating signals”).
As per claim 5, Koo discloses wherein the cockpit further comprises a copilot seat (second cockpit seat 200B/220)(Figs. 2-4; page 3, 5th par.-8th par.), and the pilot seat vibration generation module comprises a copilot vibration generation module coupled to said copilot seat (Figs. 2-4), the copilot vibration generation module being composed of a copilot platform (plate 170 position upon platform 100 (e.g., the floor of the cockpit, Fig. 2)(Figs. 3-4, page 4, 6th par.-page 6, 1st par.) having a top face to which the copilot seat is fixed (Figs. 2-3) and a bottom face to which a copilot motor drive system is coupled (drive system 150 coupled at the bottom of plate 170)(Fig. 4; page 5, 7th par.-page 6, 1st par.), said copilot motor drive system comprising actuate means 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 and vary, in real time, the amplitude and the frequency of the vibratory movements of the copilot platform on an axis of the copilot motor drive system (controller 400 and computer 500 in communication with the motor means (i.e., drive device 150) to simulate vibration thereof)(Figs. 4 and 7; page 3, 6th par.; page 4, 2nd par.; page 6, 4th-7th pars.;).
Koo 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, Denne discloses a three independent actuators (20-22) connected with a controller (control unit 34) configure to make vibration in three axes of seat 19 upon platform 24 (Figs. 1-3; [0005]-[0021], and [0030]-[0040]; note for example [0006], [0014] as well as [0031]- [0040], in conjunction to at least Fig. 1, as the vibration of the actuators along three axes, while the actuator are provided signals from controller 34 for such manipulation). 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 Koo’s said copilot motor drive system comprising three independent actuators with a 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 for similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
As per claim 6, with respect to wherein the control module is configured to control the vibration generation module of the pilot seat and copilot seat to reduce a disturbance generated by vibrations on surrounding systems, note Koo Figs. 2-4 and 7 in conjunction to page 3, 5th-7th pars.; page 4, 3rd par.-page 6, 7th par. as computer 500/controller 400 in communication with drive systems (120, 140 and 160) to actuate the platform-to-pilot seat (200A/220) and copilot seat (200B/220) to generate vibration thereof.
As per claim 7, with respect to wherein the motor drive system is hydraulic or electrical, within Koo the drive system/device are powered by electrical means such power/ Amplifier 410 (Fig. 2; page 6, 3rd-5th pars.).
As per claim 8, with respect to wherein the platform is made from a rigid material, the examiner construed plate 170 configure to hold and support seats 200A/220 and 220B/220, drive systems (e.g., 120 and 140), and control board 300, shown in at least Figs. 2-4, as made from a rigid material.
As per claim 10, Koo discloses An aircraft simulator comprising at least one cockpit vibration generation system as claimed in claim 1, in Fig. 1, abstract, and page 6, 7th par.
Claim(s) 2 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koo and Denne as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bohlender US 2011/0236861 (“Bohlender”).
As per claim 2, Koo is nots specific regarding also comprising an instrument vibration generation module for an instrument panel coupled to an instrument panel of the cockpit, the instrument panel vibration generation module being able to be actuated to make the instrument panel vibrate, autonomously and independently of the pilot seat vibration generation 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 Koo’s also comprising an instrument vibration generation module for an instrument panel coupled to an instrument panel of the cockpit, the instrument panel vibration generation module being able to be actuated to make the instrument panel vibrate, autonomously and independently of the pilot seat vibration generation module 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]). Such vibration means would have been much desired within Koo, as Koo teaches the use of actuator to actuate force upon joystick 310 (i.e., an instrument panel), in Figs. 6-7 page 7, 2nd +pars.
As per claim 9, Koo 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 Koo’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 Koo and Denne as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dehmel US 2,687,580 (“Dehmel”).
As per claim 3, Koo is not specific regarding also comprising a pedestal vibration generation module for a pedestal coupled to a pedestal of the cockpit, the pedestal generation vibration module being able to be actuated to make the pedestal vibrate, autonomously and independently of the pilot seat vibration generation 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 Koo’s comprising a pedestal generation vibration module for a pedestal coupled to the pedestal of the cockpit, the pedestal generation module being able to be actuated to make the pedestal vibrate 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+). Such vibration means would have been much desired within Koo, as Koo teaches the use of actuator to actuate force upon pedals 320, in Figs. 6-7 page 7, 2nd +pars.
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. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that electronic communication between the computer 500/control unit 400 and the vibrating pedestal, within the modified Koo, would have been obvious to closely simulate a real time flight conditions via such computerize means.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koo, Denne and Bohlender as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Dehmel.
As per claim 4, Koo is not specific regarding also comprising a pedestal vibration generation module coupled to a pedestal of the cockpit, the pedestal vibration generation module being able to be actuated to make the pedestal vibrate, autonomously and independently of the instrument panel vibration generation 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 Koo’s also comprising a pedestal vibration generation module coupled to a pedestal of the cockpit, the pedestal vibration generation module being able to be actuated to make the pedestal vibrate, autonomously and independently of the instrument panel vibration generation module 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+). Such vibration means would have been much desired within Koo, as Koo teaches the use of actuator to actuate force upon pedals 320, in Figs. 6-7 page 7, 2nd +pars.
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. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that electronic communication between the computer 500/control unit 400 and the vibrating pedestal, within the modified Koo, would have been obvious to closely simulate a real time flight conditions via such computerize means.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10 have been considered but are 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.
Conclusion
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, Nicholas Weiss can be reached at 571-270-1775. 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 4/9/2026
/JOHN E SIMMS JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights