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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination (RCE) 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 September 10, 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in response to the RCE filed September 10, 2025 and the amendment filed on August 8, 2025. Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, and 16-28 are pending, of which claims 1, 2, 9, 12, 16-18, 20, 21, and 24-26 have been amended, new claim 28 added, and claims 4, 7, 10, 11, and 13-15 have been canceled.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character not mentioned in the description: reference character 714 shown in Fig. 23 is not mentioned in the specification.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 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), 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) 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) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes the one or more limitations using means including “environment simulation means,” “visual projection or display means,” and “audio means,” which are therefore interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
This application also includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. In this instance claim 20 uses a generic place holders of: “controller” with recited function of computing positions, accelerations and/or forces required to be provided at each actuator for generating a demanded motion profile, and “device” with recited function of to provide motion feedback without any corresponding structure, and claims 21 and 22 use a generic place holder “generator” with recited function of secondary motion without any corresponding structure.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. With regard to the secondary motion generator specification provides corresponding structure as struts 618, 619, 620, 621, 622, and 623. The structure corresponding to the measurement device is an encoder. With regard to the motion controller the specification states it executes a computer program but does not give any description of the computer program and what is executing the program other than a black box in Fig. 23.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, and 16-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With regard to claim 1, the claim recites “in which the rotatable platform may also be translated above the surface by the operation of at least said first actuator of the plurality of actuators.” The first actuator is recited as operating “to exert a force between a peripheral guide carriage and the rotatable platform to rotate the rotatable circular platform.” The disclosure includes two types of actuators. One type of linear actuator (e.g., 101) moves a linear guide carriage (e.g., 102) along the linear guides (e.g., 103). The movement along the guides translates the platform above the surface. A second type of linear actuator is in the peripheral guide carriage (e.g., 104). The specification states “The peripheral guide carriage also supports a curved circular linear coil 24. A correspondingly shaped circular linear motor magnet way 26 is arranged around the periphery of the rotatable platform12. In use under the control of a control system (for example as described above in relation to Figure 23) the linear motor including coil 24 and magnet way 26 imparts a tangential force on the rotatable platform12 in a chosen direction of rotation.” However, there is no description of a single actuator (i.e., the first actuator of claim 1) that both rotates the platform and translates the platform. Therefore, claim 1 lacks written description for the first actuator.
In addition, the specification describes several different embodiments of how to rotate the platform. Embodiment 1 directed to curved linear motors are shown in Figures 1-13. Embodiment 2 shown in Figs. 14-16, describe “the curved linear motors of the Figure 1-13 embodiment are replaced by an omega belt drives which engage a peripheral toothed belt arranged around a rotatable platform.” Embodiment 3 with bottom rails of a circular track mounted on rollers of linear motor carriages that engage with a circular magnetic way disposed between the rails are shown in Figs. 17 and 18. From the description and drawings, these embodiments 1-3 appear to be mutually exclusive, where each embodiment is separately capable of rotation the platform. However, there are no drawing or description showing how these embodiments would be usable or work together. Embodiment 3 is claimed in claim 1. Embodiments 1 and 2 are claimed in claims 8, 9, 12, that depend from 1. Therefore, claims 8, 9, and 12 lack written description as there is no description of a combination of embodiments 1 and 2 with embodiment 3 and how these embodiments would be configured and operate together.
With regard to claim 20, the motion controller is a means-plus-function limitation that is presumed to be computer-implemented as it implements a computer program. However, the specification does not provide any disclosure of what structure corresponds to the motion controller and/or the algorithm implemented by the controller in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention. No hardware or other structure is provided. Fig. 23 provides a black box 704 as corresponding to the motion controller without any corresponding description of the structure implementing the controller. In addition, the controller is said to implement a computer program and/or algorithm; however, no detail of the steps or processes that make up the program/algorithm are provided, for example, what a motion profile is and/or how it is generated. The specification must explicitly disclose the structure and algorithm for performing the claimed function, and simply reciting the claimed function in the specification will not be a sufficient disclosure for an algorithm which, by definition, must contain a sequence of steps. Blackboard, Inc. v. Desire2Learn, Inc., 574 F.3d 1371, 1383-85, 91 USPQ2d 1481, 1491-93 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1366-67, 88 USPQ2d 1751, 1756-57 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Ex parte Rodriguez, 92 USPQ2d 1395, 1405-06 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 2009). As a result, claim 20 contains subject matter which lacks adequate written description, and for at least these reasons, claim 20 is found to fail the written description requirement.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, and 16-28 depend from a rejected base claim, and therefore also lack adequate written description are rejected for at least the reasons provided for the base claim.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, and 16-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites first actuator of the plurality of actuators may be operated to exert a force between a peripheral guide carriage and the rotatable platform to rotate the rotatable. Claim 1 also recites “the rotatable platform may also be translated above the surface by the operation of at least said first actuator.” However, it is unclear how the first actuator can rotate and translate the platform.
Claims 8, 9, and 12 are indefinite. As explained above with regard to written description rejection, the embodiments described in claims 8, 9 and 12 appear to be independent of the embodiment claimed in claim 1, from which they depend. Therefore, it is unclear how the peripheral guide carriages with linear magnetic ways (recited in claims 8 and 9), and the actuator of a belt drive (recited in claim 12) would operate in conjunction with the guide carriages and circular magnet way arranged at the base of the rotatable platform between the two circular rails, as they would inhibit, interfere, require additional components and/or require significant modification from the embodiments described in the specification.
In addition, claim 8 recites “one of the peripheral guide carriages and the rotatable platform includes at least one linear motor coil which interacts with a corresponding linear motor magnet way on the other of the peripheral guide carriages and the rotatable platform to rotate the rotatable platform.” The use of “one of” and “the other of” makes the claim unclear and/or confusing. It is believed the claim intends for a coil on the carriage to interact with a way on the platform; or, the coil on the platform to interact with a way on the carriages. It is suggested a clarifying amendment with similar language be made to improve clarity of the claimed embodiment.
In addition, regarding claims 8 and 9, it is unclear if the linear magnetic way on the platform is the same as or different from the circular way on the platform recited in claim 1.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, and 16-28 depend from a rejected base claim, and therefore also are also rejected for at least the reasons provided for the base claim.
The claim limitation “a motion controller” of claim 20 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The description provides no description of the structure (e.g., a computer, a processor, a CPU, etc.) and software or algorithm for implementing the function in any detail. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 16-19, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over German Publication No. DE 19951919 C2 by Wilkens (“Wilkens”) in view of US Publication No. 2011/0043053 by Shikayama et al. (“Shikayama”).
In re claims 1 and 26, Wilkens discloses a motion generator and method of providing the same for moving a payload in three degrees of freedom above the surface [Fig. 1, Abstract, ¶7], the motion generator comprising a rotatable platform arranged for rotation on a circular guide above the surface [Fig. 1 shows platform #10 on circular guide #12, ¶10], at least three linear guides extending ray-wise above the surface from a center, each linear guide having a linear guide carriage moveable thereon [Fig. 1 shows linear guides #111, #112, #113 extending from common point #13 with moveable carriages #16 place on each guide], a peripheral guide carriage mounted for rotation on each linear guide carriage about the periphery of the rotatable platform via a circular track including a rail at the base of the rotatable platform [Fig. 1 shows carriages #18 on guide #12 with rotate about periphery of platform #10], and a plurality of actuators [Fig. 1 shows actuators #22], whereby at least one first actuator of the plurality of actuators may be operated to exert a force between a peripheral guide carriage and the circular rotatable platform to rotate the rotatable platform and in which the rotatable platform may also be translated above the surface by the operation of said first actuator of the plurality of actuators or at [Fig. 1 shows platform translated above surface in different positions (A-D) ¶24, among others, describes actuators for carriages by activated to rotate the platform in addition to the transitional movement provided by the guides 111-113 ].
Wilkens discloses one of the peripheral guide carriages and the rotatable platform includes at least one linear motor which interacts with a corresponding one the other of the peripheral guide carriages and the rotatable platform to rotate the platform on a single rail. In one embodiment, the actuator is an electric motor that operates gears; in another, the actuator is a belt drive, each of the actuators mounted on linear guides help rotate and/or translate the platform. The actuators are operated to move the carriages on a curved rail of a circular track. However, Wilkens does not explicitly teach the circular track includes two circular rails and that the actuator includes operation with a circular magnet way arranged between the two circular rails.
Shikayama teaches linear and curvilinear motors for a circular track. Shikayama teaches a base with a circular track [Fig. 1] including two circular guide rails [two rails 25b] mounted on the base [#120]. A circular magnet way 111b is arranged between the two circular rails 25b allowing movement of slider 20 via a magnetic field to generate a thrust force [¶¶48-52]. Shikayama includes embodiments with multiple sliders arranged on the circular guide track which may work in conjunction with each other [¶¶84, 87].
Wilkens teaches various actuators to rotate the platform including electrical gear motors and belt using a single rail to generate the drive forces to rotate the platform. Shikayama teaches two guide rails and an electromagnetic actuator with magnetic way disposed between the rails to generating a drive force. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Wilkens to substitute one propulsion type combination (single rail with actuator having gear/tooth or belt) with another propulsion type combination (two rails with electromagnetic actuator and way), as taught by Shikayama, for the predictable result of generating a driving force, for example, to rotate a motion platform in a controlled manner.
In re claim 2, Wilkens discloses the rotatable platform may be simultaneously rotated and translated [¶24].
In re claim 3, Wilkens discloses at least three linear guides are mounted on the surface [Fig. 4, system is mounted on foundation #14, ¶21].
In re claim 5, Wilkens discloses the linear guide carriages can be driven to move on the linear guides by the plurality of actuators [¶24].
In re claim 6, Wilkens discloses at least one actuator of the plurality of actuators comprises a linear motor; or each of the plurality of actuators comprise a linear motor [¶¶23-25 describe the actuators of the linear guides include motors].
In re claims 8 and 9, Wilkens discloses one of the peripheral guide carriages and the rotatable platform includes at least one linear motor which interacts with a corresponding one the other of the peripheral guide carriages and the rotatable platform to rotate the platform. In one embodiment, it is an electric motor that operates gears. In another, it is a belt drive. The linear motors are operated to move the carriages on a curved way or rail. However, Wilkens does not explicitly teach that the motor includes at least one linear motor coil which interacts with a corresponding linear motor magnet way (claim 8) and linear motor magnet way is curved in a horizontal plane, or the, or each, linear motor coil is curved in a horizontal plane. (claim 9).
Shikayama teaches linear and curvilinear motors for a circular track. Shikayama teaches a base with a circular track [Fig. 1] including two circular guide rails [two rails 25b] mounted on the base [#120]. A circular magnet way 111b is arranged between the two circular rails 25b. The sliders 20 include coils 11 interact with a magnetic field of the magnetic way 111 to generate a thrust force [¶¶48-52]. Fig. 3B shows the magnet way is curved in the horizontal plane. Shikayama also includes embodiments with multiple sliders arranged on the circular guide track which may work in conjunction with each other [¶¶84, 87].
Wilkens teaches various actuators to rotate the platform including electrical gear motors and belt using a single rail to generate the drive forces to rotate the platform. Shikayama teaches two guide rails and an electromagnetic actuator with magnetic way disposed between the rails to generating a drive force. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Wilkens to substitute one propulsion type combination (single rail with actuator having gear/tooth or belt) with another propulsion type combination (two rails with electromagnetic actuator have a coils and curved way in the horizontal plane), as taught by Shikayama, for the predictable result of generating a driving force, for example, to rotate a motion platform in a controlled manner.
In re claim 12, Wilkens discloses at least one actuator comprises a belt drive, and one or more of: the said at least one actuator of the plurality of actuators is operable to rotate the rotatable platform and is the belt-drive is an omega belt drive [¶¶25-27 describe belt drives 27 that may be used to rotate the platform 10].
In re claim 16, Wilkens discloses movement of two adjacent linear guide carriages along their respective linear guides towards the center moves the rotatable platform above the surface away from the center [Fig. 1, for example movement to position A].
In re claim 17, Wilkens discloses movement of two adjacent linear guide carriages along their respective linear guides away from the center moves the rotatable platform above the surface towards the center [Fig. 1, for example movement from position A back to the position of the bolded outline of the platform 10 (or the original position)].
In re claim 18, Wilkens discloses the rotatable platform can rotate by up to, or more than, 360 degrees [¶23 describes an electric geared motor 21 is fastened on the carrier 19, on the output shaft of which a toothed pinion 22 sits in a rotationally fixed manner. The toothed pinion 22 meshes with an arcuate toothed bar 23 which is concentric with the vertical axis 13 of the platform 10 and which is arranged on the circumference of the circular platform 10, as the motor is operated the platform rotates, therefore continuous operation of the motor would rotate the platform 10 up to and past 360 degrees (as there is nothing prohibition such movement in this embodiment)].
In re claim 19, Wilkens discloses the payload is one of a vehicle chassis, vehicle cockpit, or a model thereof [¶7].
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilkens in view of Shikayama in further in view of US Publication No. 2014/0302462 by Vatcher et al. (“Vatcher”).
In re claim 20, Wilkens discloses controlling the gear motors to move the platform but does not explicitly teach a control system arranged to control operation of the motion generator. Shikayama teaches precise control of the slider via encoders measuring the position of the slider on the guides. However, neither Wilkens nor Shikayama explicitly teach the control system.
However, Vatcher teaches a control system arranged to control operation of the motion generator wherein the control system comprises: a motion controller for computing positions, accelerations and/or forces required to be provided at each actuator for generating a demanded motion profile, servo drives connected to the motion controller, the servo drives configured to provide precisely controlled electrical currents to drive the plurality of actuators, and at least one motion measurement device in at least one of the plurality of actuators to provide motion feedback to the motion controller. [Fig. 1, 19a,19b, ¶¶14, 17, 72, 122, among other, describe a motion control system for a motion generator. In particular, a controller and high-quality servo drives are used to generate and control complex motion profiles for control of the motion platform including computing the accelerations and forces].
Wilkens and Vatcher are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of motion platforms. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Wilkens to include a control system to provide control signals, as taught by Vatcher, for the predictable result of rotating a motion platform in a precise and controlled manner.
Claims 21-23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilkens in view of Shikayama and further in view of US Publication No. 2015/0030999 Lee et al. (“Lee”).
In re claim 21, Wilkens discloses a first motion generator (as described above with regard to claim1) as a primary motion generator/motion system. However, Wilkens lacks a secondary motion generator on the rotatable platform of the first motion generator.
Lee teaches a motion simulator [Fig. 3] including a secondary motion generator [Fig. 3 #s 40, 50, and 60 ¶¶48-50] on the rotatable platform of a first motion generator [Fig. 3 #20, 21 ¶¶38-41].
Wilkens and Lee are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle/driving simulation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Wilkens to include a secondary motion generator, as taught by Lee, to provide a better vehicle simulation, for example, by providing additional degrees of freedom for movement of the cabin, see, e.g., ¶¶5-7.
In re claim 22, Wilkens lacks, but Lee teaches the secondary motion generator is a 3, 4, 5 or 6 degrees of freedom motion generator [¶¶7 describes 5 degrees of freedom].
Wilkens and Lee are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle/driving simulation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Wilkens to include a secondary motion generator with 5 degrees of freedom, as taught by Lee, to provide a better vehicle simulation, for example, by providing additional degrees of freedom for movement of the cabin for a more realistic experience, see, e.g., ¶¶5-7.
In re claims 23 and 25, Wilkens discloses a vehicle driving simulator comprising a motion generator (as described above with regard to claim 1). While Wilkens discloses use of the motion generator for vehicle simulation and that displays have been used with previous systems, Wilkens does explicitly teach at least one environment simulation means selected from visual projection or display means, and audio means (claim 23) and the projection and or display means is mounted about the rotatable platform (Claim 25).
However, Lee teaches a vehicle driving simulator comprising a motion generator and at least one environment simulation means selected from visual projection or display means, and audio means [Fig. 3 shows monitor 2] in which the projection and or display means is mounted about the rotatable platform, [Fig. 3 shown monitor 2 mounted on platform 20 via at least member 32].
Wilkens and Lee are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle/driving simulation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Wilkens to include a display mounted on the platform, as taught by Lee, to provide a better user experience, for example, by displaying scene that corresponds to the simulated vehicle movement.
Claims 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilkens in view of Shikayama and further in view of JP Publication No. JP 2008145601 by Yonekawa (“Yonekawa”).
In re claim 23, Wilkens discloses a vehicle driving simulator comprising a motion generator (as described above with regard to claim 1). While Wilkens discloses use of the motion generator for vehicle simulation and that displays have been used with previous systems, Wilkens does explicitly teach at least one environment simulation means selected from visual projection or display means, and audio means.
However, Yonekawa teaches a vehicle driving simulator comprising a motion generator and at least one environment simulation means selected from visual projection or display means, and audio means [Fig. 2 shows screen 15 with projectors 13].
Wilkens and Yonekawa are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle/driving simulation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Wilkens to include a display, as taught by Yonekawa, to provide a better user experience, for example, by displaying scene that corresponds to the simulated vehicle movement.
In re claim 24, Wilkens lacks, but Yonekawa teaches a vehicle driving simulator in which the projection or display means extends completely around the rotatable platform [Fig. 2 shows screen 14 completely surrounds rotatable platform 11 supporting a simulated vehicle 12].
Wilkens and Yonekawa are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle/driving simulation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Wilkens to include a display that extends completely around the rotatable platform, as taught by Yonekawa, to provide a better user experience, for example, by providing a more immersive scene that corresponds to the simulated vehicle movement.
Claims 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilkens in view of Shikayama and further in view of JP Publication No. JP 2006102288 by Hiroshi et al. (“Hiroshi”).
In re claims 27 and 28, Wilkens teaches at least three linear guides with corresponding actuators extending ray-wise at angles above the surface from the center; however, Wilkens doesn’t explicitly teach four linear guides being respectively comprised in four actuator assemblies which respectively include one or more actuators of the plurality of actuators, the one or more actuators having linear motors.
In the same field of motion generators, Hiroshi teaches a motion simulator with four linear guides and four actuator assemblies for rotating a circular platform to simulate motion of a vehicle [Fig. 8 shows four linear guides 5a with sliding actuators 5b rotating disk 5d for motion simulation].
Wilkens and Hiroshi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle/driving simulation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Wilkens to include four linear guides/actuators, as taught by Hiroshi, to provide a better user experience, for example, by providing a more stable platform.
In addition, it also would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add an additional linear guides with corresponding actuators as this merely is duplication/addition of the same parts that function in the same manner; therefore, the choice of an explicit number of guides are part of routine mechanical design in any particular application (e.g., providing for more stability vs cost of extra parts); moreover, Applicant has not disclosed that provision of the extra linear guide solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. In addition, courts have held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See, e.g., In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed August 8, 2025, have been fully considered.
The previous objection to the drawings is overcome in view of the amendment to the specification; however, the amendment created a new objection. Therefore, the objection is maintained for the reasons provided above.
The rejection of the claims under 112(a) is maintained and modified in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims, remarks presented, and a review of the application and claims.
With regard to claim 1 and the previous rejection of lack of written description because of the lack of sufficient details of the components of the motors and how they interact with a circular magnet 615 to rotate the platform, the Examiner has reconsidered and withdrawn the previous rejection of claim 1, in view of the description found in the first paragraph of page 7 of Applicant’s specification. However, new rejections have been made as outlined above.
With regard to claim 20 and lack of description of the motion controller, this rejection is maintained. Applicant argues “In reference to the claimed "motion controller" of claim 20, it is clear from the description of the functions performed by the motion controller, both in the originally-filed specification and as claimed, that these functions could be performed by any general-purpose computer, processor or the like. Paragraph [0057] of the specification, for example, states: ‘The control system 701 comprises a motion controller 704 which executes a computer program, preferably in a deterministic or real time manner, and which takes motion demand inputs 705 from a demand generator such as a simulation environment 703 or a set point generator 706. The motion controller computes the positions, accelerations and/or forces 707 required to be produced at each actuator 709 to in order to generate the demanded motion profile 705.’ It is noted that the motion controller 704 is described as executing a computer program. At the very least, the motion controller 704 being a computer, processor or the like (i.e., systems capable of running a computer program) is inherent.”
However, even if the motion controller is implemented by structure that is inherent, such as a computer or processor, in cases involving a special purpose computer-implemented means-plus-function limitation, the Federal Circuit has consistently required that the structure be more than simply a general-purpose computer or microprocessor and that the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed function. See, e.g., Noah Systems Inc. v. Intuit Inc., 675 F.3d 1302, 1312, 102 USPQ2d 1410, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to disclosure of an algorithm, Applicant argues “the Federal Circuit has held that simply disclosing such a general purpose computing device (e.g., a "motion controller") is sufficient to meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). See Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig. v. Am. Airlines, Inc. (In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig.), 639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011).” However, the court in Katz only found written description support for the basic functions of general-purpose computers, such as ‘receiving’ data, ‘storing’ data, and ‘processing’ data. The court found functions beyond these recite a special purpose computer of which the algorithm need be provided. Here Applicant’s claim recites computing positions, accelerations and/or forces required to be provided at each actuator for generating a demanded motion profile; therefore, recites function more than that found in a general-purpose computer.
Merely restating a function associated with a means-plus-function limitation is insufficient to provide the corresponding structure for definiteness. See, e.g., Noah, 675 F.3d at 1317, 102 USPQ2d at 1419; Blackboard, 574 F.3d at 1384, 91 USPQ2d at 1491; Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1334, 86 USPQ2d at 1239. It follows therefore that such a mere restatement of function in the specification without more description of the means that accomplish the function would also fail to provide adequate written description under section 112(a). In addition, when a claim containing a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation is found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for failure to disclose sufficient corresponding structure (e.g., the computer and the algorithm) in the specification that performs the entire claimed function, it will also lack written description under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
With regard to the rejection under 112(b), Applicant argues “As discussed above with regard to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), Applicant has provided evidence that the term ‘motion controller’ would be well-understood and commonly used by persons having ordinary skill in the art, with a firm understanding that such must be a computer, processor or the like. As further discussed above, the term ‘motion controller is used numerous times in the originally-filed specification, particularly with regard to its functions. It is clear that the originally-filed specification makes the functions of the ‘motion controller’ clear, and that the level of skill of those of ordinary skill in the art make it clear that the term ‘motion controller’ is definite, particularly under the standards of Orthokinetics and MPEP § 2173.02.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
For a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation, in addition to “the computer” the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). See Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. Verisign. Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1367, 88 USPQ2d 1751, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 2008). See also In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d 1293, 1297, 99 USPQ2d 1936, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[W]hen the disclosed structure is a computer programmed to carry out an algorithm, ‘the disclosed structure is not the general purpose computer, but rather that special purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm.’") (quoting WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1349, 51 USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
In cases involving a special purpose computer-implemented means-plus-function limitation, the Federal Circuit has consistently required that the structure be more than simply a general-purpose computer or microprocessor and that the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed function. See, e.g., Noah Systems Inc. v. Intuit Inc., 675 F.3d 1302, 1312, 102 USPQ2d 1410, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239.
For a computer-implemented means-plus-function claim limitation invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) the Federal Circuit has stated that "a microprocessor can serve as structure for a computer-implemented function only where the claimed function is ‘coextensive’ with a microprocessor itself." EON Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785 F.3d 616, 622, 114 USPQ2d 1711, 1714 (Fed. Cir. 2015), citing In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1316, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1747 (Fed. Cir. 2011). "‘It is only in the rare circumstances where any general-purpose computer without any special programming can perform the function that an algorithm need not be disclosed.’" EON Corp., 785 F.3d at 621, 114 USPQ2 at 1714, quoting Ergo Licensing, LLC v. CareFusion 303, Inc., 673 F.3d 1361, 1365, 102 USPQ2d 1122, 1125 (Fed. Cir. 2012). "‘[S]pecial programming’ includes any functionality that is not ‘coextensive’ with a microprocessor or general purpose computer." EON Corp., 785 F.3d at 623, 114 USPQ2d at 1715 (citations omitted). "Examples of such coextensive functions are ‘receiving’ data, ‘storing’ data, and ‘processing’ data—the only three functions on which the Katz court vacated the district court’s decision and remanded for the district court to determine whether disclosure of a microprocessor was sufficient." 785 F.3d at 622, 114 USPQ2d at 1714. Thus, "[a] microprocessor or general purpose computer lends sufficient structure only to basic functions of a microprocessor. All other computer-implemented functions require disclosure of an algorithm." Id., 114 USPQ2d at 1714
To claim a means for performing a specific computer-implemented function and then to disclose only a general-purpose computer as the structure designed to perform that function amounts to pure functional claiming. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d 1328 at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239. In this instance, the structure corresponding to a 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation for a computer-implemented function must include the algorithm needed to transform the general-purpose computer or microprocessor disclosed in the specification. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239; Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Group, Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1340, 86 USPQ2d 1609, 1623 (Fed. Cir. 2008); WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1349, 51 USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Rain Computing, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics America Co., 989 F.3d 1002, 1007-8, 2021 USPQ2d 284 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
The corresponding structure is not simply a general-purpose computer by itself but the special purpose computer as programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239. Thus, the specification must sufficiently disclose an algorithm to transform a general-purpose microprocessor to the special purpose computer. See Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1338, 86 USPQ2d at 1241. ("Aristocrat was not required to produce a listing of source code or a highly detailed description of the algorithm to be used to achieve the claimed functions in order to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. It was required, however, to at least disclose the algorithm that transforms the general-purpose microprocessor to a ‘special purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm.’" (quoting WMS Gaming, 184 F.3d at 1349, 51 USPQ2d at 1391.)). An algorithm is defined, for example, as "a finite sequence of steps for solving a logical or mathematical problem or performing a task." Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Microsoft Press, 5th edition, 2002. Applicant may express the algorithm in any understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, in prose, in a flow chart, or "in any other manner that provides sufficient structure." Finisar, 523 F.3d at 1340, 86 USPQ2d at 1623; see also Intel Corp. v. VIA Techs., Inc., 319 F.3d 1357, 1366, 65 USPQ2d 1934, 1941 (Fed. Cir. 2003); In re Dossel, 115 F.3d 942, 946-47, 42 USPQ2d 1881, 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Typhoon Touch Inc. v. Dell Inc., 659 F.3d 1376, 1385, 100 USPQ2d 1690, 1697 (Fed. Cir. 2011); In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d at 1306, 99 USPQ2d at 1945. Accordingly, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is appropriate if the specification discloses no corresponding algorithm associated with a computer or microprocessor. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1337-38, 86 USPQ2d at 1242.
Here the claim recites the function of computing positions, accelerations and/or forces required to be provided at each actuator for generating a demanded motion profile recites a function of a special purpose